MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 2, 2003
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street

CALL MEETING 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, Morrison and Hearn were present; Councilor Jackson arrived at 7:30 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 19, 2003 were approved with clarification on page 2 in reference to AFN quarterly report, that there is just one meeting that will be on the 18th of September. In addition, on page 4 under Ordinance/Resolutions public testimony by Eric Navickas, it was suggested that the minutes show that he expressed concern over the potential for larger lots. It was noted that Councilor Hartzell had requested a little more detail on issues when minutes are prepared.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor read statement regarding "Students Returning to School," taking particular care when driving and showing support of students in all their activities.

Mayor's Proclamation of September 2003 as "National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month" and Mayor's Proclamation of September 11, 2003 as "Always Remember September 11 Day" were read aloud.

Presentation of Bicycle & Trail Route Map.
Interim Parks Director Steve Gies explained that this is a long overdue project and has been a group cooperation effort. He introduced Robert McLellan of the Ashland Woodland Trails Association.

McLellan presented Ashland's first trail and bikepath map. He explained who the Ashland Woodland Trails Association (AWTA) is, how they were formed and what they have accomplished. AWTA is a private non-profit group, focused on raising money through grants and donations to buy open space and easements to build trails and to create a connecting trail system. Their vision is a comprehensive system of trails and open space encircling Ashland, connecting neighborhoods and the town down "emerald necklace."

He explained the reason AWTA formed as group: 1) Preservation of small open spaces that are disappearing due to the popularity of our area, growth and development, 2) Need for funding sources to acquire open space and building trails, and 3) Realized opportunity of leaving something of lasting value for the community.

He shared the accomplishments as 1) Forming board and realizing non-profit status, 2) Building partnerships with Ashland Parks and Recreation, National Parks Service, City of Ashland, Southern Oregon Land Conservancy, 3) Built list of 200 community volunteers and 100 paid members, and 4) Have raised over $100,000 in grant money toward trails and easements for the community.

McCullom passed around to the council for their viewing the first trail map. He noted that this would provide the residents with a valued resource. Fellow member Michael Donovan stated that these maps will be first distributed through the Chamber of Commerce and Ashland Parks & Recreation and then through the natural outlets. There will be a nominal charge of $1.00 for these maps.

Gies explained that all indicated trails on map are legal developed routes. Hearn voiced his appreciation of this group and their success at securing grants. He also noted that this is a "hands on" group and no matter of age or physical condition all can participate in building these trails.

Donovan noted the upcoming project that will be on September 20 which is to work on connecting the trail from the Dog Park to North Mountain Park.

CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Approval of Ms. Zoe Barclay's Request for Connection to City Sewer Services at 660 Washington Street.
3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Public Works Director, Paula Brown as the Alternate for the Metropolitan Planning Organizational Policy Committee.
4. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to Youth Activities Levy to serve for duration of the levy, expiring 2008: Lynn 'Coz' Costantino (citizen member); Lyn Godsey (citizen member); Bill Cobb (citizen member); Rich Rosenthal (Parks Commission member); Heidi Parker (School Board member); Jim Nagel (Athletic Director); Dale Rooklyn (Non-High School Principal or Administrator).

Councilor Hartzell requested that Consent Agenda items #3 and #4 be removed for discussion.

Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1 and #2. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Mayor gave brief background regarding the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which our city has just become a member. He serves as the liaison for this group and in his absence he has requested that Public Works Director Paula Brown serve as an alternate due to her awareness and knowledge of the issues. He felt that it would be unfair to ask a councilor to serve for one meeting as there is a lot of education that is required in order to follow the issues.

Hartzell asked that the council receive better reporting on a regular basis on what is going on, especially because policy decisions are being made. The meeting was noted as meeting on the fourth Tuesday at Smullen Center. She requested that staff place this date on the calendar.

Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #3. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Hartzell encouraged the council to stand behind our commitment to put young people on committees and commissions, especially one that deals so directly with youth acitivities. She voiced her disappointment that Matt Marr who had applied for the committee didn't make the cut for voting members. She felt that this committee is about voting for certain recommendations to move forward about money. She suggested that the council consider two changes to this resolution, 1) add another formal position and 2) term limits.

Mayor stated that the committee had assured him that Matt Marr would be treated as a voting member and agrees with adding an additional member to this committee.

Councilor Jackson arrived at 7:30 p.m.

City Attorney Paul Nolte stated that to make this official a resolution would need to be adopted to this effect and could be brought back to the next council meeting. Marr could serve in an unofficial capacity until the resolution was adopted.

Hartzell voiced the awkwardness of this as she did not feel we should legislate on the basis of personalities.

Laws voiced his concern that youth members are likely to only be able to serve a year at a time and is not sure there is a need to appoint someone in a voting capacity.

Hartzell claified that she is looking for the perspective of having a young person under the age of 30 on this committee. Mayor noted that there would be a student liaision on this committee and that all of these committees operate through consensus.

Jackson commented on the duration of the levy and how appointments are made based upon this time period. She doesn't see any reason to change the resolution as this committee already has seven members. Laws noted his satisfaction with the current committee set-up.

Councilor Laws/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda #4. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES; Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on an ordinance Establishing Limits on Maximum House Sizes in Ashland's Historic Districts.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin noted corrections to Council Communication recommendation #1: The adjustment factor for single family residences should be changed from .42 to .38 (not .30).

He stated that they had researched many cities looking for an approach on setting maximum house sizes and chose an approach using an adjustment factor based on lot sizes related to a floor area ratio. 5,000-sq. ft. is used as the basis for lots and .42 FAR is being proposed. This means that up to 42% of the lot area can be used for the house. He explained that as lots get bigger, an adjustment factor is used.

McLaughlin explained that with single-family, the square footage allowed is related to the primary dwelling. Detached structures don't count in the overall footage calculation. This follows the historic pattern of the neighborhood. It breaks up the mass and allows owners the opportunity to expand, although in a different form.

City Planner Mark Knox relayed the regulations for a multi-family house. He explained that .2 factor is used every time you add a unit, which works out to be about 200 ft every time you add a unit. This should hopefully maintain the urban densities that have been set for those properties.

It was noted that the Historic Commission had reviewed this and that the following was recommended:
1) FAR factor be changed from .42 to .38
2) Option for a conditional use permit that would allow up to 25% beyond the allowable maximum permitted floor area for both existing structures and proposed new structures
3) Setting an absolute maximum of 3,249 sq. ft regardless of the lot size, with a possible conditional use permit
4) A higher floor area ratio adjustment factor for multi-family homes.

McLaughlin stated that the Planning Commission met one week later and agreed with the Historic Commissions recommendations of 1 and 2. They also recommended an absolute maximum house size, but based on 20,000 sq. ft lot, instead of 15,000 sq. ft. which would add a little more flexibility. The Planning Commission did not agree with adjusting the ratios for the multi-family homes, and are recommending keeping the requirements as is.

Staff recommendation is for the Council to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Knox stated that after the Public Hearing, changes or recommendations the Council requests would be added to the ordinance and brought back for it's first reading at the next council meeting.

Hearn asked if the 25% conditional use permit was a one-time deal, or if it could be successfully requested. Knox clarified that it was a one-time shot. However, if someone wanted to add additions incrementally over the years, they could do that, but they would never be allowed to exceed the 25% maximum.

Councilor Hearn noted the recommended changes in the DeBoer letter on page 76 of the packet, and which of these had been met.

1) "Do not count garage space if it is attached in some minor way as we have on our new plan on Vista."

Hearn stated that on supporting documentation it read that if breezeways were enclosed it would not count as attached space to the garage as long as the garage or other building was at least 6 feet away. Which meant that this item had been met.

McLaughlin clarified for the council the following:

2) "Not counting Attic or 1/2 story space." That attic space does count if it is more than 7 feet, stating it still adds to the mass of the building and should be included.
3) "Staying with the 35 foot height." This has been adjust to 30 feet in the historic district
4) "Remove the ground floor limitation of 75%." This has been removed.
5) "Do not count a basement garage as space." Basements have been excluded.
6) "Adjusting the FAR to .45." Stated this had gone the other way than DeBoer wanted, as they are recommending .38.
7) "Changing the adjustment factor chart..." This would allow substantially larger houses. The rate DeBoer suggested is different from what staff recommends.

McLaughlin presented footprints of examples in the Railroad District and Skidmore Academy area, which indicated the average impact, based on the .42 and .38 FAR.

Jackson asked why the Planning Commission did not follow the 35% recommendation for multi-family housing that the Historic Commission suggested. Knox explained that the Planning Commission felt there was already too much density in some of the areas and did not want to compound the issue. He also stated that both groups felt that 25% was a reasonable amount.

Hartzell asked for clarification on a statement taken from the Planning Commission minutes that read, "you might see fewer units than allowed under the density because the developer might want to get what he/she considers more marketable units." McLaughlin clarified this meant the developer may choose to build fewer larger units on a lot and reduce density in order to get better market or rental use.

PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:03 p.m.
Philip Lang/758 B Street/ He noted that he had submitted a formal statement to the council as well as a response to the DeBoer letter. He stated he is opposed to this ordinance because there is no point in passing another ordinance that is going to be ignored, violated, or appealed at the point of enforcement. He noted several examples of violations of previously passed ordinances including the OSF Theatre and the new Planning and Engineering Building.

Andy Dungan/260 Meadow Drive/Stated that he felt regulation is important and describes it as a social contract. He felt that we have a responsibility to be architects of our own community. He also felt that there is a moral/ethical responsibility to represent all of the citizens in the community.

George Kramer/386 N Laurel/Voiced his support for the draft ordinance which was recommended by the Planning Commission. He voiced is appreciation of those that had consistently voted for reasonable limits on the size of primary dwellings in the Historic Districts. He stated that the term "maximum house size" is calculated to mislead and to raise the specter of massive limitation. He noted that the current house being constructed under current city ordinances is seven times larger than the average house in Ashland's Historic Court.

He stated that on the smallest legal lot, this ordinance would allow construction or expansion of a primary structure at the .38 ratio recommended by the Historic and Planning Commission of 1,900sq ft. With the 25sq footage available through the CUP process, you would have a primary dwelling of 2,375sq.ft which is larger than the average new home built in the United States in 2001.

He stated that this ordinance is about mass and scale and must be regulated in these Historic Districts. He felt strongly about honoring our past, what was and is, and not what might be. He suggested that these larger size homes be built in other parts of Ashland. He suggested supporting the ordinance with the revisions of the Planning Commission, consider reviewing the plan for increase of the absolute maximums to 20,000 and return to the 15,000sq. foot calculation originally suggested by the Historic Commission.

He urged the council to support the ordinance and combining the first and second reading of the ordinance, as there are three pending proposals to build structures that will not meet its standards in Ashland.

Bryan Holley/324 Liberty/Voiced his support of the proposed ordinance and felt that that this is a "values debate" and it is not fair to call it a "class warfare." He noted that Historic District surveys were done by staff and that all the lots were looked at. A complete database has been completed and is available. He stated that a clear majority of comments submitted have been in favor of the proposed ordinance. He felt that the .38 figure should stay at .38, as there is plenty of elasticity in the proposed ordinance. He spoke regarding the 35% and R2 and R3 zones. He explained that the Historic Commission basically wanted to leave this at 25%, but for the vocal opposition of one or two lone Historic Commissioners. He supported staying with a consistent number.

He doesn't understand adding density to Historic Districts and that we should use the 85% of our community that will not be covered by this ordinance and to draw the line at the 15% that would be effected in the Historic Districts.

David Wilkerson/1120 Barrington Circle/Spoke regarding two aspects of the ordinance that troubles him. One is the way in which the legislative process is being used to enact the ordinance and the other is the actual form of the ordinance as a tool for effective planning. He stated that this ordinance as has every appearance of being a "rush job" that is being pushed through due to pending projects that challenge the sensibilities of a vocal minority. It is his opinion that citizens should take responsibility for knowing what the law actually does and does not allow, rather than responding with righteous indignation when they are caught by someone doing something that is perfectly legal. He felt that good legislation should last, take the long view and not be a "knee jerk" reaction to what is perceived as an immediate crisis. Legislation should be solid and stable and not fluctuate like the price of gas.

He stated that because two Commissions have endorsed this ordinance does not mean that it is a possible solution for the people of Ashland. He spoke regarding the discussion of lot consolidation ordinance that would be easier to administer and would address the real problem of damage to the Historic District, which is demolition of smaller quality homes to assemble larger lots. A lot consolidation ordinance would not penalize homeowners with additional restrictions and would allow for diversity in house size.

He requested that the time be extended for public hearing and debate on this matter and consider a lot consolidation ordinance as a more appropriate and equitable solution to this issue.

Tom Giordano/2635 Takelma Way/Shared his experience as a developer/architect and his past involvement in various Commissions and Committees, and his Land Use experience. He stated that he is a supporter of the house size reduction but has a problem with the reduction on family/multi family housing in this area. He supports preserving Historic Districts and acknowledging the past. However, in contemporary times there is a need to look at creating an elitist area of Ashland where only single and couples could live in the downtown area and completely destroy the opportunity for any family housing. He felt that the proposed ordinance would eliminate any type of family housing.

He felt that there is an importance to providing family housing in our community. He feels that this type of ordinance is going in the wrong direction and it is contrary to policy. He felt that it is important to allow housing that is within walking distance to our downtown. He is concerned with the inventory of available R2 and R3 zoned property and questioned if there had been any study done if this inventory is lost where it would be replaced.

He suggested to the council that they acknowledge that this is really is a single-family zone and to rezone the land. To transfer this density to other places in the city where the infrastructure already exists. Or, amend the current ordinance to keep, for single family house, the .38, but if multiple residential have it go up to .44 for two units .46 for three units and .48 for four units and also to keep in the 35% for multiple housing. And, under the list of factors to consider for a CUP under the 35%, have streetscape, capability, historic integrity, and a new fourth, the creation of affordable and moderate priced housing.

Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 S/Voiced his concern with "opening a can of worms." He felt that there would be unintended consequences through the passage of this ordinance and used examples of Walmart and OSF. He would like to see a delay in decision making until more is known. He questioned definitions of basements, attics and how these would be counted. He noted that affordable housing has diminished and supports singling out our multi family housing. He felt that for a vibrant urban downtown, we need to encourage living near the downtown corridor, where you can walk to and from the downtown. He suggested rather than prohibition, a luxury tax.

Eric Navickas/711 Faith/He stated his disappointed with the general position of the Planning Commissioners. He stated that all Planning Commissioners openly criticized land use regulation in general and defense of private property rights. He felt that their attitude was "it's my land and I can do anything I want on it." He stated that land use law is something that needs to be protected in order to protect the environment. He supports the proposed ordinance and reduced FAR's as the sites get larger. However, feels that the 25% addition is an incredible allowance and opens the door for very large-scale development. He felt that is a loophole and would make this ordinance mean very little. He supports passing the ordinance, but taking out the 25% allowance.

Patti Morey/435 ½ Scenic Drive/She felt that people should be able to have any size home that they want and it is nobody's business. She feels that the problem is with out of town property owners. She felt that these property owners have a social responsibility to this community and that they owe the community something. She feels that the tone of objections is based on economic injustice and people who live in the community should be able to have any size house that they want.

Brent Thompson/582 Allison/He agrees that the ordinance should pertain to single family dwelling zones and not to use these same type provisions in R2 and R3 zones. We should encourage the density that we claim we want in order to not spread out. He favors taking 4,000sq feet and blanket it across the city and make it our maximum home size. He voiced his confusion with the standard yard requirements and questioned difference in setback for the various zones. He felt that we should maintain the provision for lot coverage and multi family zoning. He questioned dropping 5 feet in height requirement in Historic District and gave several examples of home heights. He requested the council, if this provision is left in for R2 and R3 zones, that they consider front yard setbacks being 15 feet and 8 feet if there is a porch and that the height limit be put back up to 35 feet.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:50 p.m.

McLaughlin explained that most of the Historic District is built out and there is a degree of re-development opportunities and is not huge in the city inventory of multi-family lands. Hartzell stated that there is some transition, especially in homes that are not being restored and that there is opportunity to convert single family into multi family.

McLaughlin explained that the reason the height was lowered was part of looking at the mass and scale and limiting the overall size of buildings. He stated that almost all structures in the Historic District are well under 30 feet. He explained that it is measured by average height and not measured to the peak. He stated that 35 feet is very large and when looking at changing the overall size and scale in terms of square footage, that height should be changed as well. Staff proposed this with the original package.

McLaughlin explained that there is a definition of basement in the municipal code. If the exposed area of the floor is greater than 6 feet in average around the entire perimeter, it is a first floor and if it is less than 6 feet exposed is it a basement.

McLaughlin explained, in regards to lot consolidation, that staff used the approach of the adjustment factor, as lots increased in size that the effected lot area was reduced. He stated that there are a lot of issues when considering lot consolidation and unintended consequences depending on the size of the development. He stated the recommendation that addresses lot consolidation was from both Commissions to set at absolute maximum.

Hartzell noted the "escape valve" of the 25% and McLaughlin explained that criteria for a CUP on this would be based on the standard criteria, which would involve architectural compatibility and issues of neighborhoods. Would also need to address site design and use standards for the Historic District. He clarified that there are standards of the conditional use permit (CUP) that would need to be looked at and specifically to these issues in relation to these houses and would be a different type of permit rather than a standard use permit. He stated that how this "escape valve" evolves would be up to the decision makers on how rigorous to hold to this. Staff position would be that the standard limit is what is established to begin with. If it could be shown that by adding additional square footage that does not expand into the streetscape appearance or what is visible, and it works for the lot, maybe it would work for the CUP, but would be discretionary on the part of the Planning Commission. He stated that to begin with, all new applications would be scheduled for public hearing for review, in order to test this and set groundwork to determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

McLaughlin explained that if the existing house is more than the maximum allowable and more than 25% beyond the maximum allowable an addition would not be allowed. A variance could be applied for, but questioned what the "unusual circumstance" would be.

City Planner Mark Knox confirmed that when considering new houses that have not been built as yet, is an issue of mass and scale regardless of the age or style.

McLaughlin stated that the purpose of this ordinance was not to constrict everyone, but to set outer boundaries based on well above average and to stop extremely large things from happening and keep compatibility. Staff felt that the 35 feet height requirement would keep up with this.

Knox explained that of the three Historic Districts, the Railroad District has 100% multi family, the Siskiyou District is 75% and the Skidmore District is 50%. Jackson voiced concern, that with tradeoffs, we want multi family housing and questioned whether this concentrated close to town for a reason or whether it is spread out both north and south in town. She felt that having a variety of housing types available downtown where it is desirable and noted that our  Housing Action Plan is making us think more succinctly about this issue as we try to refine these rules. She is uncertain which way to go in regards to the Planning Commission recommendation of staying with 25% would allow enough room to not discourage multi family units, or consideration of being more generous. Knox explained that this was topic at both meetings where it was hard to define who supported this. He stated that either a .35 or .25 would follow the same discretionary process for a CUP. A .35 is not a bad thing, would still have the same justification and would get more with an increase. This would still play out the same way and allow flexibility if you prove that the mass and scale is going to be reduced through creative design.

Laws stated that one reason there is so much multi housing is due to prior zoning. He also explained that in the past, the Historic Districts were deteriorating and were becoming multi-family neighborhoods. He voiced concern that currently the trend has been reversed and is not the most desirable parts that people want to live in. He is in favor of an ordinance that would prohibit single family dwellings in multi family zones, but not sure we should apply it to this area where there already is many single-family dwellings on the properties. Because of the value and desirability of these properties, from economic point of view, multi-family does not pay. If multi-family is prohibited it would make a tremendous amount of the district out of compliance with city code and would be too drastic. Need to live with the fact that it is going to be single family.

Laws supports the Planning Commission recommendations and is concerned to hear that there are people who are trying to get in applications before this ordinance goes into effect. He supports passing the ordinance at first and second reading, along with an emergency clause. He felt that there is a justification for an emergency clause.

Hearn voiced his support of the Planning Commission recommendation, but not in favor of an emergency clause for the ordinance. He stated that unless the purpose was to close a loophole on an existing ordinance it would not be appropriate, as this is the creation of a new ordinance. He questioned whether this would be appropriate for an emergency clause, which is based on a "health and safety" issue.

City Attorney Nolte explained that the emergency clause is based on "health and safety" but that a reviewing court would be very reluctant to overturn an emergency clause regardless of the reason and gives great discretion to legislative body in determining what is an emergency.

Morrison stated that what is being considered is something to solve a current problem that is growing. He doesn't feel that this has been rushed into as this has been looked at for several years. He felt that this is a moderate proposal and would like to accept the recommendations of Historic Commission #1, #2 and #3 as opposed to the Planning Commission. He would like to keep an eye on the goal that our Historic Districts within the city are extremely valuable. He keeps in mind that history happens, you don't create it and if you lose it you can't recreate it. He supports moving forward on this and would be happy with recommendation of Planning Commission but favors the Historic Commission recommendation. He is not in favor of #4 recommendation of the Historic Commission.

Mayor commented on his concern of doing a first and second reading at one meeting and noted that there may be individuals who have significant fees and architectural fees that may be forfeited. He would rather err on one or two houses by not doing an emergency clause as opposed to putting something forward that did not exist in the first place.

He commented on the possibility of purchasing and combining lots and then moving to a bigger house. He felt that our current demolition ordinance would not "hold water" in a court of law. He stated that an easy ordinance to understand would be to not allow lot consolidation and could deal with lot setbacks and line adjustments a lot more clear than the proposed ordinance.

He noted the fiscal impact of the proposed would resolve in substantial increase in staff time to review building permits in the Historic District, including researching existing house sizes for remodel and additions and more intense review of new house plans for compliance with a maximum size requirement. Increased review time may result in the need for additional staff for the reviews or longer time periods for permit issues.

He noted that permit issues are set by state law and that we would be looking at more staff and increased confusion in an application for a building permit. McLaughlin confirmed that a CUP would require additional fees and hearing time. He stated that there is a need to be considerate of our city budget.

He understands that in an R2 and R3 zone, single family residence is allowed to be built and a CUP is required. He felt that lack of multi-family dwellings makes livability a problem for local working people. McLaughlin clarified that dormers are still included in the ordinance, and are part of the ceiling plan. He explained that unfinished upstairs that had potential ceiling heights over 7 feet would be counted.

Mayor voiced concern with an attached garage built into the house is counted as square footage, which is contrary to what is normally counted. In this case, if a garage is being built as part of the house, they could change their plans and detach the garage and force a design concept. He sees no reason to change the height requirement from 30 feet to 35 feet. He supports the idea of increasing multi-family, which allows density.

Hartzell commented that the problem is the need for development of affordable housing and that we are not getting apartments. We are getting enough condos and needs to be made clear when encouraging development of multi-family units.

McLaughlin explained that the FAR rate was based on our existing Historic Districts where house sizes were looked and trying not to have an ordinance that prohibited the majority of people of doing additions. That would allow a wide mix of housing that already exists, to all exist and set a high upper limit. FAR numbers are based on our existing pattern of development in the Historic District.

He explained that the maximum size is 3,200sq feet under the Historic Commission recommendation and 3,500sq feet, or 25% beyond the 3,200sq feet for the Planning Commission recommendation.

Hartzell disclosed that she lives in a Historic District and that this is an interest personally to her.

Hartzell questioned what the implications would be if this were applied only to single family housing to multi family housing. McLaughlin explained that the potential loophole would be a development of a duplex, which could be a huge house with a small accessory unity.

Jackson voiced her support of the Historic Commission recommendation #1, #2, #3 and supports .38.

Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s for staff to prepare an ordinance based on the first three recommendations of the Historic Commission as changes to the proposed ordinance. DISCUSSION: McLaughlin questioned whether to include first and second reading of ordinance at one meeting.

Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s for staff to bring back proposed ordinance at next meeting for first and second reading. DICUSSION: City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that council can do a first and second reading at the same meeting, but it has to be unanimous. The emergency clause is separate. Motion withdrawn.

Councilor Laws/Hearn m/s amend the original motion to accept the Planning Commission recommendation in regards to the 20,000sq foot lot instead of it being the maximum at 15,000sq foot lot. Voice Vote: Amarotico, Hartzell, Morrison and Jackson, NO; Laws and Hearn, YES. Motion denied 4-2.

DISCUSSION on original motion: It was clarified that it was first brought to the council in late 2001 where directive was given to staff to wait until 2002. McLaughlin explained that this is not related to the National Register Districts but to a section of town that has been designated as historic. It was clarified that only an attached garage would get the exclusion, which may change the design of the building, and the height is remaining at 30 feet instead of 35 feet.

Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s for staff to bring back proposed ordinance at one meeting for first and second reading. DISCUSSION: Hartzell clarified that this did not include an emergency clause but that should happen separately. Hearn stated that he could not vote in favor of this as he does not believe that this is an "emergency" and effects "health and safety." In regards to trying to catch people who are rushing to complete the process, he feels that it is okay for people to rush to do things if it is legal. Nolte clarified that if first and second reading are done at one meeting it would still mean that the ordinance would not take effect for 30 days. He clarified that a non-unanimous vote would result in an additional two weeks but that an emergency clause would make it immediately effective at the second reading.

Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison, YES; Hearn NO. Motion passed 5-1.

Councilor Amarotico/Jackson m/s to extend meeting past 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

PUBLIC FORUM.
Tracy Bungay/334 Bridge Street/Spoke regarding future Forest Service hikes for the proposed Mt. Ashland Ski expansion. Also spoke as a spokesperson for a group of citizens who have been meeting to discuss concerns regarding the Ashland Police Department and how the community relates to the Ashland Police Department. She noted that Councilors Hartzell and Hearn have attended their meetings. One of the groups main concerns has been arrest policy. They are interested in working on issues involving the homeless and the youth and how their relationship with the police is working. Would also like to work on issues regarding Civil Liberties and how the police handle demonstrations. The group is requesting that a study session be scheduled which they feel would help generate dialog, brainstorm issues, identify concerns, create a public forum and allow the community to begin to welcome a new Police Chief.

Councilor Hartzell/Laws m/s to place on agenda for discussion under new and miscellaneous business. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)

NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Update and Process for Approving Night Paving Work on Siskiyou Boulevard from 3rd Street to Walker Avenue.
Public Works Director Paula Brown brought to the attention of the council the possiblity of night work for paving. She explained that night work may or may not be possible due to weather conditions. If night work is done, a public hearing will be scheduled, most likely on September 16, 2003. She noted that she would not be present on Septemer 16th but that Carl Johnson and Jim Olson would be in attendance to handle the public hearing and questions.

Hartzell voiced her opposition to night work and that she feels that the residences have put up with a lot already. If the predominant reason is to either speed up the deadline on this project or to reduce any inconvenience for cars, she weighs in the direction of our residences.

Brown explained that it is a convenience to all of the motorist on the road and detours are being considered if paving is done in the day. She stated that this is a short window but would gain a lot of opporunity. She noted that all of the hard stuff for the project should be completed by the middle of October.

Hartzell requested that it be made clear what the different scenarios would look like at the public hearing.

ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution amending Resolution No. 2002-22 entitled 'A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2002-2003' by amending the Pay Schedule for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder."

City Administrator Gino Grimalide explained that this resolution and the following resolution amends prior resolutions due to the discovering of an error in calculation beginning in 2002-22.

Laws stated that he feels there is an error in interpretating the City Charter and that when considering Department Heads and Supervisory Personnel should include the Parks Director as a department head.

Grimaldi explained that the calculation of salary adjustment is always done in comparison to last year, current year and should have been included. City Recorder/Treasurer Barbara Christensen clarified that the Parks Deparment was not included in the calculation.

City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that it had always been interpreted that the Parks Director is not a Department Head within the Charter provision. Laws did not agree with this interpretation and cannot accept this interpretation as being reasonable. He stated that the council was never made aware that it wasn't included and that it was staff that made this interpretation, no insult intended.

Laws/Hartzell m/s that the interpretation of the council is to follow what the Charter says which would include the Parks Director as a Department Head and be included in the calculation of Elected Officials. DISCUSSION: Morrison would rather adopt the resolutions that are before the council and then direct staff to look at the Charter carefully, taking into consideration Laws concern, and then bring an amended resolution if it is determined there is a need to recalculate. Council continued to discuss the interpretation of the Charter and the inclusion of the Parks Department's Department Head and Supervisory Personnel. Laws felt that it would be a mistake to adopt the resolutions at this time with the possiblity of amending the resolutions again later. He stated that as this is going to be retroactive anyway, it would be prudent to wait and determine the interpretation. Morrison agreed that it would be best to wait and let staff have the opportunity to review the Charter.

Nolte stated that he is comfortable with this and that there may be some legislature history from the 1970's that may be helpful in making this interpretation.

Councilor Laws/Morrison m/s to table the motion until staff has the opportunity to review the Charter provisions and to bring back for council approval. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution amending Resolution No. 2003-24 entitled 'A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2003-2004' by amending the Pay Schedule for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder."
Item was tabled.

3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting a Set of Goals and Policies for 'NOW x 2', the Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Process."

Larry Medinger/115 Fork Street/Commented that the Housing Commission had not had the opportunity to comment or be involved in Nowx2. The Commission felt unanimously that they should be somewhat involved in something as important as this and where the activity has many implications regarding affordable housing, such as zoning, etc. Understood that the Planning Commssion was against bringing anything in and that the Housing Commission was in disagreement with this.

Madeline Hill/828 Boulder Creek Lane/Commented on the lack of advocates for affordable housing at last council study session and that the few advocates she had spoken to had not been aware of this resolution. That this was an opportunity long into the future to open the door and that this was nothing more than opening the door. She commented that there were two parcels that both the owners wanted to do some signficant affordable housing and that they felt this had not been taken into account at the council study session. She felt that there were goals that had nothing to do with what properties were being added in. She didn't understand the process and noted that there are two willing property owners who are willing to do something.

Mayor explained that this has nothing to do with particular pieces of land but is a policy statement. Jackson stated that these are the goals and policy statements that the Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee has agreed upon and wants the jurisdicitions to look at. The issue of whether Ashland is going to endorse any growth areas needs to come soon, but will come separately.

Community Development John McLaughlin explained that this is scheduled to come before the council on September 16, 2003. He stated that this will be on the agenda for the Housing Commission on Sepember 10, 2003.

Hartzell agreed that there has been a general oversight around this discussion regarding urban growth boundaries in relation to affordable housing. She would like staff to investigate when the absolute latest would be for the council to come back with a decision about our UGB area, as she would not be attendance at the September 16th council meeting.

Laws did not feel that the scheduling of the meeting has anything to do with the resolution.

Councilor Laws/Hearn m/s to approve Resolution #2003-32. DISCUSSION: It was confirmed that this information had come before the council during a study session. Hartzell commmented that she is extremeley disappointed in the language of goal 2 and would not vote in favor. She understands the challenges that the committee has had in trying to merge the different values that are represented in the communities across the valley. But, to have a goal to conserve resources in open space lands for their important economic, cultural and livibilty benefits without mentioning their environmental benefits and sustainability needs further consideration.

Jackson noted that the word "sustainability" has been commented on in the discussion but that this is a product of at least a years worth of debate. She stated that the effort of the Regional Solving Project is to aim to conserve agricultural land regardless if it is zoned EFU or not. The Resource committee evaluates all the requests that cities have made and have been red flagging that they don't want to see changed. What is being built between the various committees is the procedures. She explained that the Policy Committee will be reviewing the recommendations of the individual jurisdictions for their future growth areas in the next step. There is a need to have enough data for the Planning staff or DLCD to make definitive decisions one way or another. She shares the need to see the word sustainability and to see alternative economic models recognized, but that there is a need to recognize that this is the first time that all the jurisdictions have been sitting at the same table. She does not feel the council is in a position to be making modifications

Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Laws, Morrison, Jackson and Amarotico, YES; Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1

OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor noted that there is a study session on Wednesday, September 22 at noon for the council, with limited public input, regarding the Ski Ashland Proposal. September 30, 2003 is a special meeting dedicated to public input on the Ski Ashland Expansion. There is also a study session schedule tomorrow regarding Housing Program priorities and unspent CDBG fund re-allocation.

Jackson commented again regarding the Nowx2 discussion and that not only the Housing Commission but the School District is given a chance to discuss the reasons for the proposed future growth areas and to look at the proposals that are on the table.

1. Discussion regarding scheduling of study session to discuss police policy issues.
Hartzell commented any study session that the council has is open to the public. Did agree that there is some advantage to having a study session when a Police Chief in place, but to wait would put the timeline out to possibly February. She felt that the problems could be addressed and that it is a "top down" vs "bottom up" approach to wait to have discussion until someone is placed in charge. She noted that some of these issues have been grappled with since March 2003. She supports a study session in the near future for these topics.

Morrison voiced his desire to be included in any future meetings of this group.

Morrison commented on the dangerous of traffic cones that have been moved recently in the Siskiyou Boulevard area. Warned that citizens need to be warned and to be careful driving this area. Hartzell noted that we had received a letter regarding the safety of the south sidewalk on Siskiyou and that staff is looking into this.

ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

___________________________________    _________________________________

Barbara Christensen, City Recorder                    Alan DeBoer, Mayor

End of Document - Back to Top