MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR
MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 1, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center
Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 18, 2004 were approved
as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Russ Dale presented to the City of Ashland a comprehensive map of Ashland.
Proclamations of June 14, 2004 as Flag Day in the City of Ashland and June
17, 2004 as Methamphetamine Awareness Day were read aloud.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. |
|
Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. |
2. |
|
Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Diane Williams, and re-appointments
of David Bernard and Marilyn Hanna to the Hospital Board for terms to expire
June 30, 2008. |
3. |
|
Liquor License Application from Quinn Courtright dba Alex's Plaza
Restaurant & Bar at 35 North Main Street. |
4. |
|
Ambulance License Renewal. |
Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. |
|
Continuation of Appeal of Planning Action No. 2004-02, a request for
Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq.
ft. mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the
Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Applicant: Lloyd Haines. |
Mayor DeBoer explained the public hearing process and re-opened the public
hearing at 7:13 p.m.
EX PARTE CONTACT
Mayor DeBoer received emails from Randall Hopkins and Betty Jo Reynolds,
and a memo from Councilor Jackson. Councilor Hartzell conducted a site visit.
Councilor Morrison received the same emails mentioned by the Mayor, as well
as an email from Assistant Attorney Mike Franell.
Due to time constraints, Council agreed to open the public hearing to consider
the adoption of the 2004-2005 Budget before continuing with the public hearing
for Planning Action 2004-02.
2. Public Hearing to consider adoption of 2004-2005
Budget.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained the process for adopting the budget
and summarized the information provided to the Council.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:18 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:18 p.m.
Continued Public Hearing of PA 2004-02:
OPPOSED TO APPLICANT [continued from Council meeting of May
18, 2004]
Randall Hopkins/735 S Mountain Avenue/Mr. Hopkins commented on the
differences between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain
and the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. According to FEMA, the floodplain is
located at 1872, but the Ashland Floodplain lists it at 1875.5. Mr. Hopkins
added that the FEMA Floodplain had been noted for its inaccuracies, while
the Ashland Floodplain Corridor is based on actual events. Mr. Hopkins stated
the map that the City provides is a rough depiction of where the floodplain
lies and includes a disclaimer against using the data in the way the Applicant
did. Mr. Hopkins stated it is difficult to determine which level is best,
but believes the Applicant has chosen to design the project based on the
FEMA Floodplain. Mr. Hopkins commented that the OTAK studies were based on
a plan that had since been modified, and also noted the discrepancy between
the version of the code listed on the City's website and what is used by
the Planning Department. Mr. Hopkins cited his exhibit #48, which he believes
best depicts the site survey data. Mr. Hopkins noted one corner of the building
lies at 1868, and explained why he does not believe this should be permitted.
Mr. Hopkins added he does not believe this application can be salvaged by
the imposition of conditions.
Council questioned if the level of a 100-year flood could really be predicted.
Mr. Hopkins commented that he would err on the side of caution and would
stay away from this area. In terms of where the flood water will flow, Mr.
Hopkins questioned what would happen if debris were to clog up the expected
overflow route forcing water elsewhere, or if the pillars would collect debris
and force water in greater volumes to the north.
Mr. Hopkins noted the importance of the process, and questioned how things
might have changed if handled differently from the beginning. He noted the
Certificate of Truth was finally signed by the Applicant on May 25, but was
signed with an asterisk by his name. At the bottom of the certificate it
stated "This certification I have made relates to all of the documents that
were originally filed in this matter as amended, modified, and corrected
by subsequent filings". Mr. Hopkins stated that even today the information
is not correct, and cited page A-30 (Tree Protection Plan) of the council
packet. Mr. Hopkins clarified the Tree Protection Plan shows a protective
fencing surrounding the trees, but the entire fence lies within the flood
way and is not permitted under the code.
Mr. Hopkins stated that no person is well served by this process, and if
the Council were to deny this application it would send a powerful message
and assure that every subsequent application began with true and accurate
information.
Mr. Hopkins noted the linoleum level of the plan is above the floodplain
level, however beneath the linoleum is a two-foot slab, pillars, and an
additional storage room, which all lie inside the floodplain.
IN OPPOSITION OF APPLICANT
Diane McDermott/208 Patterson/Shared the discussion that took place
during Planning Commission meeting regarding the removal of the Alder tree,
and the allowed variance which could save the tree. Ms. McDermott questioned
if all the decisions had been made based on correct information, and noted
that each commission gives weight to the previous commission's decision.
She also questioned if the plans would continue to change should the Council
approve the application.
Oriana Spratt/212 Patterson St/Requested acknowledgement that she
opposes the application.
Marilynn Young/345 Harrison St/Stated the original project had been
incorrectly approved through insufficient and incorrect information. Ms.
Young voiced concern regarding removal of the tree canopy and potential flood
risks, and questioned if there were further inaccuracies that have not yet
been uncovered. Ms. Young commented on how she felt strongly about not destroying
the Alder tree, regardless of its value to the proposed art display. Ms.
Young stated that although this project may be good for Ashland in the future,
she does not believe it is needed at this time.
Rivers Brown/1067 Ashland St/Voiced concern over the displacement
of the under 30 crowd, and stated this project will eliminate a place that
the college residents use. Mr. Brown stated that any change to this space
would only add to the new demographic of this community. He commented that
the Alder Tree is known as the Tree of Resurrection and voiced opposition
to its removal.
Jocelyn Hillman/109 Pine/Requested acknowledgement that she opposes
the application.
STAFF RESPONSE
Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained the process of an
application, and acknowledged that Staff failed to notice that the Certificate
of Truth was unsigned. McLaughlin noted the application follows a checklist
for completeness, not necessarily correctness. McLaughlin commented on the
120-day rule, and stated it is not unusual to send out notice for review
before an application is deemed complete.
McLaughlin clarified the asterisk on the Certificate of Truth was not seen
by Staff as a disclaimer of misinformation, but was more for clarification
purposes. Staff noted there is always some level of change to each application,
most of which arise from concerns raised during the review process. McLaughlin
stated he has not seen an attempt on the part of the Applicant to intentionally
falsify information.
McLaughlin spoke on the difference between the FEMA Floodplain and the Ashland
Floodplain Corridor. He explained the Ashland Floodplain Corridor is more
like a zoning line on the map. It is angular and does not follow the contours
of the land. Generally speaking, the Ashland Floodplain Corridor is wider
than the FEMA Floodplain. McLaughlin clarified that lands within the Ashland
Floodplain Corridor do not have a regulatory setback, rather it is an
identification of lands that are then subject to the floodplain standards.
The corner of the building mentioned by Mr. Hopkins is within the 1872 line,
and Staff determined this project is subject to Ashland's Corridor Floodplain
Standards. In response to Mr. Hopkins claim, McLaughlin clarified the fences
in the floodplain are temporary to protect the trees during construction
and are therefore allowable. McLaughlin stated the elevation figures for
the floodplains came from a 1978 aerial photo, which was later found to hold
inaccuracies. Because of this, Staff required that the Applicant supplement
this information with the Flood Analysis by Otak, and encouraged the Applicant
to construct at the higher elevation.
McLaughlin explained that the Site Review, Tree Protection, and Site Design
Use Standard Ordinances all list the different plans that are required. Staff
then goes through these lists to determine if the application is complete.
Mr. Franell clarified that Council could not deny the application because
they are not satisfied with Staff procedure, but need to base their decision
on whether the application meets the criteria of the code. It was also clarified
that this is a de novo hearing and therefore new evidence that might supplement
possible deficiencies is allowed.
McLaughlin stated that in his opinion, the Ashland Floodplain Corridor with
the FEMA 'bump' is the most accurate. McLaughlin clarified the City does
allow for structures to encroach into the Floodplain Corridor, as long as
it is high enough and/or flood proofed. McLaughlin explained that the new
deck and support structure will be pulled back farther away from the creek
than the existing structure. In addition, the new structure will be designed
to withstand a flood, while the current deck is not flood-proofed. McLaughlin
clarified the 2nd and 3rd floors extend 6 feet over the 1st floor, and are
structurally supported by the first story.
Council discussed whether this project violated the Riparian Area standard.
Staff stated there is really no natural riparian area where the deck is proposed
to go. In addition, there are conflicting parts of the code that need to
be considered. Staff believes the Applicant is allowed to build in this area,
and compared to the existing situation, the creekside improvements would
be far better than they are today.
Council discussed what would happen if they were unable to complete their
discussion tonight. Mr. Franell clarified the Public Hearing would need to
be extended to the next council meeting, and noted the 120-day rule currently
expires on June 18th, 2004. The City can ask the Applicant to grant an extension,
but they cannot require them to do so.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Craig Stone/Representing the Applicant/Stated there are good answers
to all of the concerns raised tonight. Mr. Stone agreed that there have been
some misunderstandings, but assured the Council that the plans before them
are now correct. Mr. Stone stated that the Applicant is prepared to grant
a reasonable waiver, and also offered to respond in writing to the concerns
raised.
Mr. Stone cited his written rebuttal dated May 26th, which covered the floodplain
issues, tree preservation, and large-scale development requirements. He spoke
regarding the confusion of the two floodplains, stating there are two different
lines and two sets of elevations that do not match up. Mr. Stone explained
Ashland's regulations allow for the building to be 2 feet below the floodplain,
but the Applicant has proposed to construct this building 1½ feet above
Ashland's permissible level, and 5 feet above the FEMA level.
Mr. Lloyd Haines/Applicant/Apologized for the inaccuracies and the
omissions to the application but stated they have been now been corrected.
Mr. Haines commented on the complexity of this project and noted that some
of the City regulations are in conflict with one another. Mr. Haines stated
the City Staff has shown no favoritism towards him, and noted Staff's significant
demands for additional data and surveys. Mr. Haines stated there is overwhelming
evidence from competent engineers that the building is safe and that the
trees will not be killed.
Council discussed extending the Public Hearing to the June 15th Council Meeting.
Mr. Haines agreed to a 35-day extension. Mayor DeBoer clarified they will
be continuing the Public Hearing to June 15th, 2004, which will consist of
questions of the Applicant and Council discussion.
Mr. Franell clarified the Applicant is permitted to respond in writing, as
long as no new information is introduced. If any additional information is
provided, than the opponent could request additional time to respond. Mr.
Franell added if the Applicant could have their response to Staff by June
8th, then they could accept written comments from the opponents up to June
15th.
PUBLIC FORUM
Eric Navickas/711 Faith Street/Spoke regarding the City's position
on fire issues. Mr. Navickas read an article, which touched on the concerns
of the City of Ashland regarding the Forest Service long-term objectives
and the interim plan for the Ashland Watershed. Mr. Navickas explained that
historically the City of Ashland has supported under-burning as a means for
fuels reduction as opposed to timber removal.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. |
|
Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2003-118 Approving a Physical
Constraints Review Permit for the Purpose of Constructing a Single Family
Dwelling on Land Zoned R-1-7.5, Classified as Hillside Lands and Within a
Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon. Applicant: Sidney
and Karen DeBoer. |
Due to direct conflict of interest, Mayor DeBoer excused himself from council
chair.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained the Findings before
the Council had been prepared by the Applicant's agent and reviewed by City
Staff. Staff felt the Findings appropriately reflect the decision of the
City Council and recommended adoption.
Council expressed concern with some of the language in the Findings, and
questioned if the interpretations could set precedent in future cases. Council
also expressed their discomfort with the number of affirmations in the Findings
that Council did not discuss.
McLaughlin clarified the Findings purpose is to assert that the application
has met the numerous standards. The Findings should be as defensible as possible
in supporting the Council's decision to approve this project. McLaughlin
explained that when the Council ultimately approve the project, they found
that it met all applicable criteria regardless of whether they expressly
discussed each criterion. McLaughlin clarified if Staff had prepared the
Findings instead of the Applicant, they would have written them in the same
manner.
Councilor Jackson/Morrison m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
McLaughlin clarified that the Applicant had granted a time extension for
the adoption of the Findings, assuming that the adoption is in support.
Council discussed the possible implications of re-writing the Findings to
their satisfaction. Comment was made that only policy decisions and gross
errors should be removed from the Findings. Council discussed the possibility
of holding a special meeting to discuss this issue. Comment was made that
it is the Council's responsibility to ensure these Findings do not produce
unexpected consequences. Council discussed working through the entire Findings
document, and it was suggested to have the City Attorney review the Findings
for policy concerns.
Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to refer this to the City Attorney for
review and allow Council to submit comments for particular review.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Morrison clarified he is not suggesting a special
meeting to discuss these Findings, and would like to see this come back to
the Council at their next scheduled meeting. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion
passed.
2. Quarterly Financial Report - Jan - March,
2004.
Tabled to future Council Meeting due to time constraints.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Summary of Council Goals for FY 2004-2005 and
Timeline.
Tabled to future Council Meeting due to time constraints.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Creating a
Prohibition
Against Public Nudity."
Rivers Brown/1067 Ashland Street/Stated these incidents are extremely
rare and the community is not voicing complaints. Mr. Brown explained that
there are indecent ways to expose oneself, but walking down the street nude
is not one of them. Mr. Brown believes there should be more input from the
public before enacting a law, especially when there doesn't seem to be a
real need for it
Trevor Gamble/37 Alida St #6/Mayor DeBoer read Mr. Gamble's statement
in opposition to the ordinance and submitted it into the record.
Police Chief Michael Bianca stated this ordinance is in reaction to the 16
incidents that occurred last summer in the downtown area; and explained the
Police Department has received many complaints regarding this issue. Mr.
Bianca clarified the purpose of this ordinance is not to criminalize nudity,
but to give police officers some legal standing to stop the individual and
tell them to cover up. Failure to cover up could result in a citation, but
would not send the individual to jail. However several citations could move
this into a criminal realm. Mr. Bianca stated this is not a huge problem,
but it is an issue that should be addressed.
Mayor DeBoer stated he has received a significant number of complaints from
people who were offended by nude people running through town with various
body parts painted.
Councilor Laws motion to approve Ordinance. Failed due to lack of
second.
Issue will be continued at the next Council Meeting.
2. |
|
First reading by title only of "An Ordinance of the City of Ashland,
Jackson County, Oregon, Authorizing the Issuance of Bonds to Finance the
Ashland Fiber Network." |
Councilor Laws/Hartzell m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda
for second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson clarified this ordinance
does not authorize any additional taxes or changes to the tax rates that
were not already adopted as part of the budget. Roll Call Vote: Hearn,
Jackson, Morrison, Laws, Amarotico and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg clarified he will be bringing a resolution
providing the authority to do the sale at the July 20th Council Meeting.
Council noted the AFN Bond Levy carries with it the potential for a vote
of the people.
Councilor Laws/Morrison m/s to give thanks to Finance Director Lee Tuneberg
on the clarity of the resolutions provided to the Council. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
3. |
|
First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for period
July 1, 2004 to and including June 30, 2005, such taxes in the sum of $8,483,000
upon all the Real and Personal Property subject to Assessment and Levy within
the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon." |
Councilor Laws/Hartzell m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and
place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Jackson, Laws,
Hartzell, Morrison and Hearn, YES. Motion passed.
4. |
|
Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting the Annual Budget
and Making Appropriations." |
Councilor Laws/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2004-18. Roll Call
Vote: Hartzell, Morrison, Laws, Amarotico, Hearn and Jackson, YES. Motion
passed.
5. |
|
Reading by title only of "A Resolution declaring City's election to
receive State Revenues." |
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2004-17. Roll Call
Vote: Jackson, Laws, Hearn, Morrison, Hartzell and Amarotico, YES. Motion
passed.
6. |
|
Reading by title only of "A Resolution Certifying City provides sufficient
municipal services to qualify for State Subventions." |
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2004-19. Roll Call
Vote: Hearn, Morrison, Jackson, Hartzell, Amarotico and Laws, YES. Motion
passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor DeBoer noted 1) City Attorney interviews start at 8:00 a.m. on Friday
June 4th in the Siskiyou Room, 2) Council needs to submit their recommendations
for the Charter Review Committee to him by Monday evening, and 3) tomorrow
is the first day to file for electing City positions.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
End of Document - Back to Top