Ashland City Council
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL
October 17, 2006
Council President Glen Stewart called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Ward 1: Robert L. Valentine Present
Ward 2: Robert M. Valentine Present
Ward 3: Ruth Detrow
Present
Ward 4: Paul Wertz
Absent
At-large: Glen Stewart
Present
Note: Throughout the minutes, Robert L. Valentine and Robert M.
Valentine are designated as to their ward representation, W1 and W2.
Moved by Detrow and seconded by Valentine W1 to excuse Paul Wertz.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stewart asked that the visiting Scout Troop #214
lead the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance, which they did.
PRESENTATION OF MINUTES
September 28, 2006 Special session
October 3, 2006 Regular session
Moved by Valentine W1 and seconded by Valentine W2 to accept the
minutes as received.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
THE AUDIENCE
(a) Boy Scout Troop #214:
Stewart welcomed the Scout Troop #214 to the meeting
and took time to explain some of the workings of City Council and the
City. City officials introduced themselves, and Stewart told the
group they were welcome to ask questions during the meeting.
Several times during the meeting, Stewart made a special effort to give
the troop background on items being attended to.
(b) Change in agenda:
With Council’s approval, Stewart changed the
order of business on the agenda for this evening, moving the Old
Business and sidewalk discussion and entertaining those items previous
to the legislation. He explained that the discussion outlined in
Old Business may alleviate some concerns that many attendees here this
evening have.
*Editorial note: The format, however, will
remain as usual in the minutes.
LEGISLATION
Ord. 83-06
Item (a) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO ADVERTISE
FOR BIDS AND ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF CERTAIN
STRUCTURES AND TO CAUSE THE COST THEREOF TO BE CHARGED AGAINST THE
PROPERTIES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Moved by Detrow and seconded by Valentine W2 to invoke Section 113.01
of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance has
satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further reading
be dispensed with at this time.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
Comments:
Valentine W1 had some clarification issues as to
this ordinance for demolition of fourteen properties on Fourth and
Union Streets: is there a time period; is it placed on the tax
duplicate; how does this work? Mayor Strine said there was no
time limit that he knew of. As soon as it is done and the costs
are known, then it will be placed on the tax duplicate.
Wolfe explained that it would be paid from the tax
duplicate over a period of time. Finance Director Anna Tomasek
said ten years is as far as it can go.
Valentine W2 asked if there would be any fire
training on these, and Mayor Strine said there would be. Right
now they are in the process of doing all the planning; the Fire
Department will burn the ones that they can, but there are some that
they don’t want to because of safety issues. Burning for
fire training depends on weather conditions also.
Mike Meyer asked if this ordinance applied only to
the fourteen houses on Fourth Street, or could it apply to other
properties in the future, and Wolfe explained that this is property
specific.
Moved by Stewart and seconded by Valentine W1 that the Ordinance be
passed on the first reading.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Moved by Detrow and seconded by Stewart that the rules requiring the
reading on three separate days be suspended and that the Ordinance be
passed on the second and third readings.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Moved by Valentine W1 and seconded by Valentine W2 that the Ordinance
be passed.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
Item (b) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1191 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OHIO, PERTAINING TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Moved by Valentine W2 and seconded by Valentine W1 to invoke Section
113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance
has satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further
reading be dispensed with at this time.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
Comments:
Mayor Strine requested that this ordinance be tabled
this evening due to some typographical errors that need to be
corrected. Wolfe added that it is just some small clerical errors
so it is not precisely correct as far as what is being deleted and what
is being done.
The Mayor emphasized that he thinks they should
discuss it tonight but just table the ordinance. This discussion
was a long list of points made and opinions voiced as to several items
and changes: Board membership, clarification of wording, control
issues and the demolition clause.
A. Clarification of wording:
· “Ashland area”: Change the
wording “Ashland area” to “Ashland City/County”
to delineate and clarify.
· The words “architect” and
“preservation related professional”: the idea was to
give flexibility in finding board members if those specific
professionals could not be found in the area or if they were unwilling
to serve on the board. The definitions of those individuals were
expanded to include persons who have knowledge and expertise in
construction, engineering, architecture, preservation fields, history
etc., or other persons who have general knowledge in the related
fields.
B. Board membership:
· There was contention as to the wording in
the appointment and make up of the board membership: (five
members) “no more than two of which may reside in an area
designated as an historic district”. The basic argument
centered on whether or not to allow three board members from the
historical district(s), thus giving the possibility of a majority
control of the board to those people who live there. It was
pointed out that those who live there are most affected by decisions of
the board.
· The other side of the argument was that the
board is a City entity and not a Center Street board. It is
already known that other areas of the City may apply and become
designated as historic preservation areas. That potential means
that a Center Street majority board would control other parts of the
City also.
· Another way of presenting that was in not
making a majority mandatory, but allowing it, should that happen.
The sticking point was restricting the make up of the board to only two
members from the districts(s).
· Another argument put forth was that 3/5ths
of that board could be made up of people who have no interest
specifically in Center Street or any historical district(s); it is
limiting, and what is the point in making that limitation.
· Saying that all who live on Center Street or
in an historical district(s) will all agree and be a majority all the
time is not true; there are already differences of opinion among Center
Street residents as to guidelines, etc. Representation however is
very important to those who are affected. Qualifications are
necessary also.
· It was pointed out that the original
ordinance that was passed designated “two from the historic
district”, not “a maximum of two”.
· Basic argument became: not saying it has to
be three; just don’t limit it to two members from the district to
be on the board.
· Another viewpoint: there should be something
that assures the City as a whole a membership on the board. The
City created this board at a request; Council created this board with
all the powers written in the document. The City needs and has a
responsibility to retain on the board assured membership of individuals
outside the district(s). A minimum of two of the five members
need to be from outside the district(s).
C. Term limits:
· The original document stated four year
terms, but with initial appointments at staggered years: one for one
year, one for two years, one for three years, and two for four year
terms. This was taken out but not changed or replaced.
· The initial terms at varied years is passed
by this time, but the board needs a stated time for terms.
· The request was made to leave the initial
term appointments in for history purposes, but regular term limits
should be designated: four years per term.
D. Demolition clause:
· Two new just appointed board members
requested that the demolition portion be delayed until they have a
chance to study it further and research other ordinances to see how
they are written. They are not comfortable with this part the way
it is.
· Two months was the requested delay.
· The ordinance will not be passed for at
least two months nor will it be filed with the state before that time:
it should go to the state in its final draft, the way it is supposed to
be.
· The preservation board will be responsible
for coming back to Council to review the final changes in the document,
and if they are ready, then request that the ordinance be placed again
on the agenda.
E. Back to wording of board membership section:
· Wording was suggested that “no more
than two” members be from the historical district(s) be changed
to “at least two” from the district(s).
· Importance also was placed on wording to be
sure that the community as a whole has representation on the board, not
leaving it open ended for all five members to be from the
district. That would be a distinct possibility with the wording
“at least two” with no checks or balances on that.
· Agreement seems close with inclusion of
wording “at least two and no more than three” from historic
district(s); assures at least two from community as a whole.
· This wording will be put in while everyone
has plenty of time to think about it; then if someone decides they
don’t like it, everyone will have to go from there.
Moved by Detrow and seconded by Valentine W2 to table the ordinance.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
WARD REPORTS
Ward 1: Robert L. Valentine
(a) Katherine Avenue parking problem:
Valentine W1 noted another call asking if there had
been any progress about the yellow lines at the drive entrances on
Katherine Avenue (student vehicles blocking sight when residents try to
enter the street). He emphasized he needed to get back to the
residents with some answer.
Street Director Jerry Mack said he did go out and
look at that, and there is adequate room to get in and out of the
drive. Now he will go back to the Traffic Committee with a
finding of what they saw to decide what needs to be done.
Valentine described where the parking was and where
the yellow lines prohibited parking, which differed from Mack’s
evaluation. Mack repeated that it would go back to the committee;
the situation is still in process, and Valentine can at least tell the
residents that.
At-large: Glen Stewart
(a) Downtown parking situation:
Stewart asked Mayor Strine about any work on
downtown parking from the Traffic Committee. Mayor Strine
responded that the Traffic Committee has met regarding parking in City
lots in the downtown area. Having taken comments of Council into
consideration, it is his intention to remove all parking restrictions
as to time in all the City lots in the downtown area on a trial basis
through January 2007. This will be monitored in order to
determine any trends and patterns in parking area preferences and any
problems that may result there from.
Detrow stated in parking lots, not on the streets,
and Mayor Strine affirmed that. He said this is to see where
people want to park.
Stewart noted that all street parking will remain as
marked and will be enforced, with the response from the Mayor, as it
always is. Wolfe added that the Mayor is suggesting that the lots
all be opened to long-term parking to then see how the lots are used.
Mack indicated the Street Department would cover the
signs on this temporary basis rather than doing all the work necessary
to taking down all the signs right away. The signs can be covered
starting the next day.
Stewart commented that the parking on Second and
South Streets will be left as marked, so that doesn’t alleviate
any of the complaints for business people wanting to park, but the
Mayor told him hopefully they will find out they can park in the lots
all day. Wolfe added that a three month trial should show what
kind of issues still exist, and then go from there. Going through
the holiday season should show some patterns.
OLD BUSINESS
(a) Sidewalk Program discussion:
1. Installation time frame:
Stewart explained that many of the appeals tonight
are based on the original time frame of 30 days. At the last
meeting, there were several that appealed this time frame and were
afforded the opportunity to not complete the sidewalk as described
until May 15th of next year. This Council will consider all of
those who received a certified letter requesting that something be done
with their sidewalk.
Stewart explained that none of the people will have
to comply with the 30 days but will have to comply with the completion
of the direction in the certified letter by the fifteenth of May next
year. There were several appeals based on this time frame.
Detrow noted that Roger Primm wrote to her with the
information that he had several houses as well as the addition of the
funeral home, and he has asked for an extension until mid June of
2007. He may be able to make it if the City makes the extension,
and she just wanted to note that. Valentine W1 added that there
was a concern about the 30 days, and he sees this as an equable
solution to the problem by making them all the date of May 15th.
Stewart added that the sidewalks can be started
anytime and those changes made anytime they choose, but if they are
appealing, they still have 30 days from today. Those who are
appealing for a reason relative to time, Council will support going out
for a completion time of May 15th next spring.
Moved by Detrow and seconded by Valentine W1 that Council extend the
deadline to May 15, 2007, for this first section in the Sidewalk Repair
Program.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
(b) Sidewalk appeals considered:
So, Stewart continued, those who are here tonight based on a time frame
appeal may leave, or may stay if that alleviates concern.
Amvets Post 96 (Union Street) trustee Paul Holden asked if forms had to
be returned to the Engineer’s Department, and Cooper stated it is
necessary in order to keep records straight. Holden asked about a
change in the markings made to his sidewalk; he was told he’d get
another letter shortly, but Cooper responded he’d have to check
with Assistant Engineer Kurt Brzyscz.
Stewart asked if anyone else wanted to speak
relative to the time frame appeal.
1. Kevin Smith, owner of 202 West Washington Street:
· Is a school teacher and wants to do his own
work after school is out.
· Asked for an extension into June.
· A huge tree is on the corner of his lot;
wants to remove tree so that it does not destroy the new concrete.
· Has a tree issue as well as time frame issue.
Stewart asked if the tree is affecting the sidewalk now, and Smith told
him no; it’s a brick sidewalk. The roots are swelling but
not breaking concrete.
Stewart is not inclined to go beyond the May 15th time frame; he
suggested Smith might be able to remove roots and then install
sidewalk.
2. Tom Lavinder, Business Manager of Ashland City Schools:
· Certainly the May 15th deadline gives the
schools more flexibility.
· Is specifically looking at the project
around the Middle School, and they want to take on that project while
school is not in session, specifically for the safety of students.
· By going to the 15th, it will give the
potential to schedule that during spring break; if that is not
possible, they will have a similar situation.
· Goal is to get it done during spring break
time, and will make every attempt to do so.
Law Director Rick Wolfe suggested that an extension beyond May 15th at
this point is perhaps premature. However, if someone can show
early in the spring that they will be unable to meet that deadline,
then it would be timely for them to come in and request an additional
extension beyond that time. Council is giving a blanket extension
for the entire area, and he suggests that perhaps everybody try to
operate within this extension. If then, they can show for good
cause they haven’t been able to meet that extension, they could
ask for additional time in the springtime. It is premature to go
beyond that at this time.
Council agreed with Wolfe.
3. Gary Johnson, Johnson’s Body Shop, Fourth and Union Streets:
· Three properties are his; other issues
involved.
· Downspout drains are blocked by street
asphalt; must do something about that before pouring concrete.
· Also has a problem with cutting up the
asphalt across his parking lot to put sidewalk in when there is nothing
wrong with the asphalt.
Wolfe had another suggestion which was brought up by Mr.
Johnson’s comments: there may be certain reasons where the
City might agree that additional time might be necessary. So if
there are some situations that the Engineering Department should look
at, they can do so and then come back and make a recommendation to
Council. There is plenty of time through the winter to receive
that recommendation and act on it.
Valid points have been made and additional time may be necessary for
specific reasons. Wolfe suggested noting these specific requests
and then asking Engineering to make recommendations on them; some of
the issues are concerns to the City as well as to the property owners.
Valentine W1 added that it makes sense for the Engineering Department
to check into situations with extenuating circumstances.
Stewart reiterated Wolfe’s’ ideas about other
circumstances, emphasizing the fact they should be valid reasons.
Wolfe added that Council is trying to be reasonable and flexible with
these situations. Stewart told Johnson the
Engineering Department would contact him to come out and look at his
situation.
As to the asphalt across the entrance to his parking lot on Fourth and
Union Streets, it does not meet code and must have concrete sidewalk
put in.
4. Lou Shepard, 147 Maple Street:
· Has had two people look at putting sidewalk
through her asphalt driveway; both said the whole driveway would have
to be done.
· Her son is in a wheelchair; this is the only
access out of her home with her son.
· Also a tree and roots may be a problem.
Stewart explained he looked at her sidewalk after Shepard called him;
his thought was that the sidewalk could be put in with an elevation
commensurate with the asphalt that is there in the driveway. He
told her that they would not give her a deviation; that she will be
included in the May 15th deadline. The Engineering Department
will take a look at it, make a recommendation and give that
recommendation to Council for consideration.
5. Jim Taylor, representing the First Church of the Brethren, 122 East
Third Street:
· Time frame and financial hardship;
Taylor asked if the church decides to let the City do the work, how
would the payments be arranged, as they are a tax-exempt
organization. Mayor Strine responded that has not been totally
determined yet, as it depends on the total number of people who want to
finance it through the City. It is hoped it won’t be a
large number so that the City will not have to issue debt to do
it. He told Taylor that the City would keep the record and allow
the church to make payments over a ten-year period. This charge
is not a tax but an assessment for the sidewalk, and though assessments
are done through the auditor’s office and taxes, the City is
hopeful that this situation could be done differently.
A decision will be made publicly and the church should be aware to
watch for that decision. They will be informed.
6. Emmanuel United Methodist Church:
No one attended to represent the church, but their
desire is for the City to do the work. They also want to make
payments on the assessment.
7. Carlton Emmons, representing four property owners: 202 to 214 Miller
Street and 385 Cleveland Avenue:
· Time frame, winter impossible to do the work.
· 5’ width sidewalk requirement; Miller
Street has only 30’ right-of-way, so sidewalks are used as
highway, too.
· Curbs are recommended in this area; cannot
be done at rates quoted; will cost more; cost sharing by City?
· No specs added in information sent
concerning constructing curb and gutter; the owners want to do the
installation properly.
· Also request 4’ sidewalks instead of
the regulation 5’ due to narrow area and street.
Stewart stated that the Engineering Department is working to update a
very old ordinance that addresses cost sharing by the City for
installation of combination of sidewalk and curb. Mayor Strine
added that ordinance was never intended to cover the full cost but only
to help the property owners and possibly get more curbs improved that
way. The Mayor will be asking Council to increase that amount.
Stewart asked Cooper the costs: $50 per lineal foot for curb and
gutter; 5’ sidewalk costs about $25 to $30 per lineal foot.
Council will have recommendations presented to them concerning cost
sharing measures for curbs and gutters. Once that has been done,
Cooper can provide directions and specs for curb and cutter
installation. As to a 4’ sidewalk, that recommendation will
also come from Cooper.
Wolfe explained that there would be unique situations where
circumstances prevent meeting the standards somehow; however, on a
case-by-case basis, the Engineering Department will allow variances as
necessary.
8. Jim Patterson (Adrian Bauer), 237 Union Street:
· Time issue.
· Asphalt parking lot; feels it is safe; asks
if there is a need to put a concrete sidewalk where the asphalt is
perfectly legitimate.
Stewart stated that asphalt is functional, and this has challenged them
on several occasions. Wolfe pointed out that the City has
standards that have been set, and to change them the ordinance would
have to be changed. Still, issues are coming up that Council
needs to look at further just to be sure that things are as they want
them. The Engineering Department will have to suggest some areas
that may need adjustment.
Valentine W2 recommended following the standards; if they say concrete,
then this sidewalk should be concrete.
Stewart told Mr. Patterson that his appeal is declined.
Jack Zercher brought up the fact that the
City-installed sidewalk on Hillcrest Drive is not a 5’ sidewalk,
and Cooper told him there will be some sidewalks on narrow streets that
will have to be 4’. Engineering can make recommendations to
Council where field conditions require narrower sidewalks.
Zercher asked who paid for those Hillcrest Drive
sidewalks, and Cooper told him that was an Issue 2 grant that included
the street resurfacing and the sidewalks.
9. Connie Moss, 215 East Main Street (Ethel Peterson, owner, is
recently deceased):
· Owner is deceased and property is in estate
process.
· Never a sidewalk there at all.
· Asked if it can be asphalt as it is parking
and delivery area; adjacent to Gary Johnson’s building, which
also is asphalt and a parking area.
Cooper told Stewart that a sidewalk must be installed, and Stewart told
Moss that they have till next May for the work to be done.
10. Jack Zercher:
· Time frame and doing his own work.
· Zercher told Stewart that the May time frame
is fine.
11. Tim Merkel, 328 Walnut Street:
Merkel had noted a request for time extension.
He was at the meeting but left just minutes before his name came up,
due to a previous program involving his children.
12. Huntington Bank, Eastern Avenue:
Requested appeal but unconfirmed as to attendance;
no one attended.
13. Mike Meyer, Arthur Street:
Meyer told Council he had talked to Cooper about this situation that
involves the bridge reconstruction with the house just next to
it. The owner would like to do all the work involved as the
construction of the bridge is finished.
Cooper responded that the May 15th deadline should solve this situation.
(c) Deadline for appeals:
Stewart explained that the deadline previously set
for appeals has passed, and he asked if anyone had a need for extending
the time to appeal. He added that over the past month
approximately 20 appeals have been filed and considered.
Detrow suggested extending the time for appeals
until the next Council meeting, giving people just a little more
time. Wolfe felt since that was Election Day, going to the second
meeting in November might be better.
Moved by Detrow and seconded by Valentine W1 that the absolute deadline
for appeals be November 21st.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
(d) Fund for money received from sale of industrial park land:
Valentine W1 asked about his idea of putting money
from the sale of industrial park land into a special fund from which
the City could draw to use on corridors. What is the procedure?
Mayor Strine suggested a work session to discuss
ideas on this. A work session is scheduled for November 14th at
7:00 p.m. in the Mayor’s Conference Room.
NEW BUSINESS: None
MAYOR’S COMMENTS:
None
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Stewart requested a motion to move into executive
session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters pertaining to
salary, wages and negotiations. No action will be taken nor
announcements made following the executive session.
Moved by Valentine W1 and seconded by Valentine W2 to move to executive
session for the purpose of personnel matters pertaining to salary,
wages and negotiations.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
Council moved to executive session at 8:56 p.m. and
returned to regular session at 9:55 p.m.
Moved by Detrow and seconded by Stewart to return to regular session.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Valentine W1 and seconded by Valentine W2 to adjourn.
Ayes: Detrow, Stewart, Valentine W1, Valentine W2
Motion carried.
Council adjourned the regular
session at 9.55 p.m.
Submitted by
Elaine
C. Hootman
Clerk of
Council