Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, June 20, 2000

June 20, 2000
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street

Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., in the Civic Center Council Chambers.

Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present.

Mayor Shaw noted that on page 6 of the May 19, continued meeting minutes the sixth sentence should read, "She found it interesting to find out today that Ashland is not the sole source of water in Bear Creek during severe drought conditions."

Shaw also noted that on page 2 of the June 6, minutes, the second paragraph’s first line should read, "Mayor Shaw noted that she had lived on Oak Street for 17 years and that it is not a welcoming sight without cost to have a police car sitting on their street on a daily basis with a radar gun." On page 3 of the June 6, minutes, Shaw asked that the first sentence in the fifth paragraph be changed as follows, "Shaw commented that on information provided by Aspen an outside source who which indicated that parking garages are very expensive to maintain."

The minutes of the continued council meeting of May 19, and regular meting of June 6, were approved as amended. The minutes of the special council meeting of June 5, were approved as presented.


1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Confirmation of Mayor's reappointment of Jean Keevil, M.D., and appointments of David Bernard and Marilyn Hanna to the Hospital Board for terms to expire June 30, 2004.
3. Liquor License Application from Eric Brown dba Amuse Restaurant, Inc.
4. Liquor License Application from Jim Crosby dba Oregon Store, Ashland.

Councilor Reid asked that the minutes of the Study Session for June 7, 2000, be pulled from Item #1 for discussion.

Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

Reid asked for clarification on the Strawberry Lane design status discussed on page 3 of the June 7, Study Session minutes. McLaughlin noted that the cost estimates for the design have been completed, but that the full design is not complete.

Discussed the relative priority of Strawberry Lane versus Tolman Creek Road. Reid noted that she believed that Strawberry Lane Tolman was given priority previously, and stated that she wanted to clarify the meeting date at which this priority was set where the priorities were changed to Strawberry Lane and separate herself from that decision.

Shaw asked that this matter be discussed further under Unfinished Business, and stated that the priority could not have been set during a study session. Reid stated that this was causing some confusion about the priority of this issue.

Councilor Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to approve the minutes of the study session of June 7, 2000 as presented. Discussion: Reid indicated that she did not feel that the minutes accurately reflected the consensus expressed on this priority at the study session. Scoles suggested that while there may be some confusion over a decision, the minutes are an accurate reflection of what occurred in the meeting. Shaw clarified that while council expressed their opinion of priorities, no consensus was reached.
Voice vote: Laws, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon, and Fine, AYE. Reid, NO. Motion passed 5-1.

1. Public Hearing and Decision on the Action Plan for the One Year Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2000-2001.

Associate Planner Maria Harris explained that the plan presented tonight is required by the United State Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to show that the City of Ashland’s allocation for 2000-2001 is being spent in accordance with the City’s Consolidated Plan, which was updated and adopted in May.

Harris noted that the City will receive $221,000 in the next year, and stated that the Action Plan merely shows how those funds will be spent consistent with the priorities set in the Consolidated Plan.

Harris briefly noted how the funds had been allocated in the City’s budget, and explained what public noticing had occurred. She also stated that no public comment has been received to date. Noted that there is a legal requirement that a public hearing be conducted, and stated that staff recommends approval and adoption of the Action Plan.


Councilors Wheeldon/Reid m/s to approve the Action Plan. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

2. Public Hearing regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter 18.32 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Side Yard Setback Requirements.

Director of Community Development John McLaughlin noted that the current code requires that commercial structures adjacent to a residential zone require a ten-foot per story side and rear yard setback. He explained that in his tenure with the City, there have not been any instances of new commercial buildings being built side-by-side with residential properties, and noted that the requirement for a ten-foot per story side yard setback created a problem with the design of the library. McLaughlin emphasized that this setback was more than would be required for apartments or a bed-and-breakfast, and noted that a setback of greater than ten feet would have a significant impact on the design. As such, as part of the library application they are proposing this amendment to the side yard setbacks in the land use ordinance.

McLaughlin discussed instances where commercial and residential uses are near one another, and noted that generally these either occur in commercial zones or are at least separated by a street or alley. He stated that anytime the reason for a section of the ordinance cannot be honestly justified, an amendment should be considered. He stated that the same consideration would be given to a private citizen's proposal. He also explained that the ordinance allows for a greater setback (twenty feet) if the hearing authority (the Council or the Planning Commission) feels that the impact of the building requires it. He noted that both the staff and the Planning Commission feel this amendment to be appropriate and recommend that the council adopt the ordinance.

Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles pointed out that this amended side yard setback would only apply for a building that is more than 35 feet in height. McLaughlin clarified that the proposed amendment would not hinder the neighboring building from adding a second story to allow for mixed use, but clarified that the proposed amendment was independent of the city’s solar ordinance.


Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to move the ordinance to second reading. Roll call vote: Fine, Wheeldon, Laws, Reid, Hauck and Hanson, YES. Motion passed.


Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave./
Presented slides and a map to indicate erosion areas in the Ski Ashland Expansion project area. He noted natural slide areas and a stream where a trail and lift line are proposed. Voiced his request that the council take a stand in opposition to the proposed expansion of the Ski Ashland.

Tamara Henderson/132 Mountain Ave. S., #3/Director of Communications for Associated Students of Southern Oregon University/She noted housing concerns for students, and explained that student government is beginning a new program called "Student Vote 2000."

Shaw explained that voter turnout for the SOU precinct is the lowest in the State of Oregon and noted that if the effort creates additional registered voters who do not vote, it has a negative effect on elections under the double majority rule.

1. Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) Lease Agreement.
Scoles explained that staff has met with OSF to discuss the proposed modifications to the lease and noted the following changes in the lease agreement included with the council packet:

1) The term is for 75 years rather than three 25-year terms; 2) OSF has added a sentence in paragraph 3 confirming OSF’s right to set policies for the use of the leased property (except for the parking structure); 3) Title to the parking structure, and the responsibility for upkeep and management, remain with the city; 4) Paragraph 13 has been revised by removing OSF’s right of first refusal for development of the airspace above the parking facility as the city will own that airspace, however OSF will be given due consideration in the development of that space; 5)The costs for strengthening the third level of the building to handle construction in the airspace will be reimbursed; 6)The interest rate for outstanding debt was reduced.

Scoles noted that staff recommends approval of the proposed agreement with the following stipulations: 1) Approval of the lease does not necessarily commit the council to approve any land use application, and 2) Approval of the lease shall not be effective until all land use approvals have been granted.

Scoles clarified for Reid that nothing in the lease precludes, nor does it require, providing restrooms in the proposed facility. Scoles emphasized that the lease does not address design issues.

Scoles also confirmed for Reid that adding the third level does not raise the height of the top floor, which remains at Hargadine Street level.

Councilor Hanson/Laws m/s to move approval of the lease agreement with the stipulations recommended by staff. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to place a discussion of Westwood/Strawberry Lane and Tolman Creek Road LID priorities on the agenda. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

2. Tolman Creek Road LID Discussion

Reid requested that the council identify that when the Westwood/Strawberry LID was given priority over Tolman Creek Road. Scoles explained that priorities were set in the adoption of the Capitol Improvement Plan.

Councilors Laws/Fine m/s to accept the proposals made by staff in the budget and capital improvement plan in regard to the priority of the projects mentioned. Discussion: Reid noted that she would provide her reasons for opposing this motion in writing to clarify her position for the public. Voice vote: Laws, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon, and Fine, YES. Reid, NO. Motion passed 5-1.


1. Council meeting Look Ahead.
Scoles noted that there is no council meeting scheduled for July 4, due to the holiday, and that there will also be no study session scheduled for July 5. Shaw also noted that she will be absent in August.

Laws commended Freeman for introducing the Look Ahead during his tenure, and asked that it be continued as the council finds it very useful.

Reid requested that the items from the second page could be moved ahead and dealt with by the council. Scoles noted that department heads discuss them on a weekly basis and move them up for council discussion frequently. Reid asked that the sustainable housing discussion be brought forth, and Hauck noted that his understanding was that a living wage ordinance would be coming back to the council in August.

Laws noted that the council has tried to move more quickly, than is possible for staff, and suggested that council discuss individual items of concern with staff to identify any areas of concerns and then bring the request forward for discussion before the full council.

2. Fourth Quarter 1999/00 Construction and Major Project Activity Summary (#4).

Public Works Director Paula Brown presented a synopsis of the Fiscal Year 2000 completed projects, current projects and Fiscal Year 2001 future projects.

Brown noted the following completed projects from Fiscal Year 2000: TRANSPORTATION: Oak Street traffic calming and the Oak/Hersey intersection; WATER: Fork Street distribution line, Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) wetlands demonstration project, Ashland Creek pump station, Ashland Municipal Airport sanitary sewer and Ashland Creek flood restoration at the WWTP.

Brown noted that Union Street storm drains were done in-house last fall in preparation for construction of the street overlay. Other street projects completed include Scenic Drive sinkhole repair and Roca/Paradise Creek improvements, which are nearly complete. Brown also stated that the hiring process is underway for an engineer to do work on the Central Ashland Bikeway. Brown explained that the Siskiyou Boulevard redesign would be discussed at tomorrow’s study session, and cited local improvement districts currently underway as Palmer Road/Penny Drive and the Central Avenue Extension.

Brown discussed current water projects, noting that the Talent-Ashland-Phoenix (TAP) water intertie has completed design and put out a request for qualifications, with construction likely to begin in September. She explained that the Crowson Reservoir roof should be completed late this fall, depending upon water demands. She also provided an update on the WWTP upgrade process, noting that updated information on the staff’s proposal for pumping biosolids off-site will be provided to the council and an application will be made to the county.

Brown noted administration and city facilities’ projects are underway, with the Ashland Public Library Expansion and Hillah Temple Remodel in the design stages, and the B Street Yard well underway as a temporary Fire Department location. She also noted miscellaneous work done at the Elks parking lot, and stated that Fire Station #1 is in the design stage as well. Brown noted that the Elks parking lot was an in-house design done in cooperation with the Elks Club.

Brown further stated that the work on Calle Guanajuato would begin immediately following the Fourth of July.

Brown noted that the bus shelter project will be put out for bid in the next month, and noted that the attempt will be made to put Tolman Creek Road LID design work into next year’s schedule. Brown stated that airport taxiway work was AIP grant-dependent and has not begun, and noted that hangar work has not begun yet.

Brown noted that the Water Treatment Plant filter improvements and transmission lines will be designed next year and constructed the following year. She explained that the water rights purchase, previously discussed for the fiscal year 2002, would be brought back to the council during this calendar year to consider moving the purchase to fiscal year 2001. It was also noted that WWTP improvements will be complete by May of 2002, but Brown explained that the new treatment process was on-line now but needs to be integrated with biosolids treatment and membrane filtration by May 1, 2002. Brown clarified that the new plant is on-line, and water being returned to the creek is a significant improvement over previous years.

Brown discussed the Bear Creek Interceptor, the main trunk line feeding the WWTP, and noted that phase 1 (Oak Street) has been put off to tie in with work to be done on the off-site facilities. She stated further that phase 2 (the Nevada Street to Carol Street section) will move ahead, and then they will proceed with phase 3 to proceed in fiscal 2002.

Reid questioned what had been done on sidewalks at Helman School. Brown clarified that this is part of the 2001 budget, and will be brought forward at a later meeting. She also clarified that the Penny/Palmer LID funds were being used for Nevada Street sidewalks from Oak Street to Helman. She stated that half of this work is done already, but there is additional tree work to be done. She concluded that the Helman Street sidewalks are in next year’s budget.

Wheeldon questioned the status of the wetland property and the future of the parcel. Brown clarified that this is Parks Department land, and will need to be returned to its original state if the wetlands are not to be used. Brown stated that she would need to look at the cost of keeping the wetlands demonstration site alive and noted that some storm water sources are being considered.

Brown clarified for Hanson that when a sewer line is replaced, it is done in sections with the section being worked on bypassed by pumping around it.

3. Discussion of Planning and Engineering Development Fee Study and Recommendations.

Director of Community Development John McLaughlin explained that this year’s budget included the assumption of a substantial fee increase. He noted that the last fee study was done in 1993, and the fees have been in effect since 1994.

McLaughlin introduced Clay Moorhead, of CDA Consulting Group, and noted that Moorhead has prepared a development fee study since the last time this issue was discussed. McLaughlin noted that tonight’s presentation is simply Moorhead presenting his report, and suggested that Council could direct staff to bring back a resolution adopting the new fees for Planning and Engineering at a later meeting.

Moorhead presented a revenue and expenditure comparison and used Figure 1, which shows the budget for Community Development over the past several years alongside the revenue that is collected by the department for services provided. He noted that the sewer, water, and street SDC fee instituted in 1996 accounts for the increase in fiscal year 1996-1997.

It was noted that the general fund has subsidized planning fees, and currently subsidizes roughly 75% of the budget for Community Development. Figure 2 explained that 75% of the services provided by the department are attributable to development and that there is the opportunity to recover costs if the council chooses to do so.

Reid questioned whether the surveys completed by councilors had been included, and it was explained that the survey results were summarized on page 47.

Figure 3 showed expenditures and revenues for the Public Works/Engineering Department. Moorehead explained that 42% of engineering services are attributable to development and may be collected through a development-related fee.

Moorhead stated that based on their study, the existing fee structure is not adequate to recover the cost of services provided. He emphasized that he is not here to tell the council that they have to do anything, and noted that three alternatives were considered: 1) do nothing to the fees and continue to subsidize these departments heavily; 2) look at a partial subsidy; and 3) look at 100% fee recovery from development. He noted that for the purposes of this document, they have moved toward full recovery to give the council an idea of the bottom line of what is recoverable through development. He explained that the council may have reasons for wishing to consider some level of a subsidy, but they wanted to give the council a basis from which to consider their options.

Moorhead also clarified that the suggestions from the council surveys were incorporated into this proposal. He further explained that the survey identified some disagreement among the council as to whether taxpayers or developers should fund broader, long-range services such as the downtown plan, hillside development ordinance, transportation system plan, and some state-funded mandates. He noted that the analysis included consideration of the long-range costs, and concluded that at least 75% of those costs should be taxpayers supported. However, development was also identified as a participant in growth and long-range planning, and they recommend that 25% of the long-range costs be developer supported. He suggested that the consultants felt this was consistent with the survey results.

Moorhead explained the recommendation for Planning Division cost recovery presented in Figure 19, with developers to pay 100% of current planning costs and 25% of the long range planning. He explained that the recommendation would equate to developers paying 75% of the total budget of the department, and that proceeding from that assumption they attempted to look at different ways to recover the expenditures.

Different methods were noted as used in looking at Public Works and Engineering and that Engineering personnel track their time specifically which provided data to determine the share for development. Based on these numbers, it was determined that 42% of expenditures were attributable to development, as illustrated in Figure 22.

Different ways to collect fees were discussed and it was noted that it is actually difficult to administer fees by charging for actual staff time. He explained that there are significant drawbacks to this approach, including the fact that an applicant cannot be given an idea of the actual costs they are facing. He also noted that opponents to a project could continually raise issues to increase the cost to a developer. Challenges in circuit court were pointed out regarding accurately charging an hourly charge. He concluded that the consultants would not recommend using this approach

Another option is 100% cost recovery through permit use, and Moorehead explained that this would effectively average the permit costs, and charge each permit an equal percentage of the costs. However, this method did not address the fact that certain applications are more involved and take more staff time than others. Moorhead also suggested that this might make fees too prohibitive, which might negatively impact desirable development. He used Portland as an example, where they charge $16,000 for any amendment to the comprehensive plan, and stated that this is an average arrived at by dividing the number of applications into departmental costs.

CDA Consulting Group recommends that there be a combination of fee increases for departmental services in combination with a community development fee as this represents an overall increase in land use application fees, and provided a proposed fee schedule. He noted that the fee increases are not substantial.

Fine suggested that he would prefer to have fees based on project value. Moorhead noted that is considered in their recommendation, but what they have presented is a combination of a flat fee and a community development fee to be charged based on the building’s value.

McLaughlin explained that the proposed community development fee (CDF) is a ¾ of one percent fee collected at the time of building permit issuance based on the overall project value. McLaughlin further noted that at the time the building permit is issued, there is a better idea of what is being done, and at what cost, to make the fee collected more accurate.

Moorhead noted that an overhaul of Engineering fees is also recommended. Engineering operates the Geographic Information System (GIS), and with the increasing demand for GIS services there is an opportunity for greater cost recovery. His recommendation is to increase the hourly rate for GIS services from $25 to $60 per hour. He also recommended instituting an engineering fee based on the cost of public improvements, as is done in the City of Newberg, to recover some development costs. Under the consultants’ recommendation, a developer would be required to submit an engineer’s estimate of costs and then charge a 5% fee for plan review and inspections. Moorhead emphasized that this fee was not sufficient to recover the entire cost of development, but stated that it could support the cost of an inspector and a portion of the cost for development review.

Reid recognized that there are legal challenges, and she suggested that what is being considered needs to be defensible in court. McLaughlin assured Reid that there is not a question in his mind that these increases are fully defensible.

Moorhead noted that a 42-45% increase was needed to recover the 75% of costs desired. Moorhead noted that a replacement page had been prepared for the chart on page 59, and noted that a ¾ of 1% CDF would translate to full recovery of the desired amount. Moorhead noted that the same approach is used for the engineering to arrive at a 6/10 of one-percent engineering development fee (EDF).

It was noted that both the Planning and Engineering divisions will be relocating to a new location, and that the proposal shows the addition of a city hall fee to cover the cost of the building remodel. Moorehead explained that both the City of Gresham and the City of Newberg have instituted this type of fee. He stated that this would retire the debt more quickly that the current schedule by collecting ¼ of one percent, and the fee could be dropped when the project is complete.

Fine questioned this fee as effectively charging twice because facilities’ fees are already considered through the central services fee. McLaughlin explained that this would be offset by the new revenue. Fine also questioned people paying this fee only until the project is paid off, rather than spreading the cost over the useful life of the structure. He suggested that there should be a citywide policy if a fee is going to be instituted to cover the cost of building, and it could be spread over a greater time frame and charged to all users of city services.

Laws remembered that it was stated up front that the costs for the Hillah remodel would be recovered by fee increases for the departments to be located there, in the form of central services fee increases to pay back debt on the building. Laws expressed his opposition to having this as a separate fee, and suggested that it would be far wiser to charge through central services by increasing the development fees to bring in revenue to offset the expense. He suggested that a "city hall" does not represent good public relations.

Shaw stated that central services fees were intended more to cover the cost of services from the administrator, attorney, and finance director. Shaw stated that she agreed with Fine that it seems inequitable to "front-load" the cost recovery.

Scoles clarified that currently, the debt for development of the Hillah Temple is coming out of central services. He explained that the consultants’ intent here is to show the council that there is another way to deal with the expense associated with the building by providing an example that has been used in some other cities. Scoles suggested that the council could justify this in a number of ways, but noted that the departments to be located at Hillah are primarily "development services."

Council discussion regarding charging for improvements or acquisitions. Fine suggested that there is a need to look at the fees charged to individual departments under central services to verify that they are accurately reflecting the cost for its services.

Moorhead confirmed for Wheeldon that valuation was used as a basis to provide good numbers to create a fee structure, and noted that this fee is progressive.

Scoles requested that council give staff direction, so that staff can develop a fee resolution to be brought back to a later meeting for public comment. McLaughlin suggested that there is a need to address fee increases to the building and development community, once staff has an idea of the council’s directive on this matter.

Laws in favor of following the recommendations of the report, with the exception that he would prefer that staff develop some alternatives to the city hall fee. Reid agreed with taking this proposal before the building community, and requested that handouts be provided at the building department front counter.

Council discussed the need to encourage homes that are affordable. McLaughlin suggested that for units qualifying as affordable, these fees could be deferred in the same manner as SDC fees. McLaughlin also explained that this fee structure also encourages smaller houses by charging a flat fee per square foot to determine valuation.

Fine requested that council be given notice and opportunity to attend the meetings with the development community.

Council generally agreed with the direction of 75% cost recovery for Community Development and 42% for Engineering to be charged to development. Laws noted that he liked the idea of increasing the fees and having a community development fee. Council suggested that they would prefer recovering the city hall fee in some other way.

Wheeldon questioned where other cities are in their processes, in terms of looking at their fees. Moorhead stated his belief that most cities are beginning to look at cost recovery for development. He stated that this idea would catch on in most of the developing communities in Oregon in the next three to five years. Moorhead noted that he had chosen not to recommend prohibitively high fees.

4. Discussion regarding aggregate rezoning application.

McLaughlin explained that Jackson County went through a periodic review work task to identify aggregate sites in the County as part of reviewing their comprehensive plan and updating their land use ordinance as required by state law. He further explained that part of the aggregate task was remanded back by LCDC with four stipulations.

McLaughlin noted that when this was before the Board of Commissioners some years ago, the city did not participate. He suggested that this decision not to participate was based on the distance from the community. He stated his belief was that the public record has closed and no further comment was to be considered by the Commissioners prior to a decision in early July.

Shaw stated that this item is outside of the council’s purview, and while she is not a supporter of quarries, she saw no problem with taking public testimony tonight and having staff look into the status of the record and whether the County might consider comment from the city. McLaughlin noted that since the city did not participate in the original decision, the city now has no standing to participate or comment on the remand.

Laws stated his belief that the reasons for not participating still stand, and suggested that this matter does not affect Ashland as a city government.

Fine stated that he feels that there will be traffic impact at the Oak Knoll subdivision, and he does see a direct effect.

Reid agreed, and noted that this will impact pedestrian and cyclist use of the road within the city limits. Shaw noted the dangerous intersection at the entrance to Oak Knoll.

Joseph Scott Powell/21752 Dead Indian Memorial Road/He noted how he is affected currently by the traffic and how the proposed re-zoning will only increase truck traffic, especially near Oak Knoll. He requested that council try to get involved in the process in order to stop the application.

Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/He noted that County Commissioners Holt and Kupillas led the large truck rally through the downtown in opposition to Soda Mountain monument status. He suggested that this rally proved that large vehicles do not belong in small communities, and emphasized that these commissioners do not seem to have a problem with attacking Ashland with large, obnoxious, noisy vehicles.

Joe Charter/221 North Oakdale Avenue, Medford/He agreed with McLaughlin’s summary, but noted that there was another proposal for an aggregate pit at Grizzly Peak around the same time of this proposal. He recounted the Jenkins proposal story, which the city did oppose because Grizzly Peak was identified as an area of mutual concern. He noted that there were others who had wanted to speak on traffic impact concerns, but stated that they had left when the meeting ran longer than expected.

He suggested that government-to-government communication might be considered by the County Commissioners, despite the closure of the record.

Shaw noted the air quality problems associated with granite quarrying, and questioned why this issue has not been raised previously. Charter responded that there has been no detailed plan of operations, and that there have not been any environmental impact studies. He explained for Shaw that the quarried rock’s intended market has also not been considered, but stated that it has been determined that it would not be economical to truck from this quarry to Medford or White City. Charter suggested that this rock would have to be used in Ashland, either for roads or as the base rock for building sites.

McLaughlin clarified that the commission was given the periodic review task for mapping this as a resource, and it is not an application for a quarry. He explained that this is a requirement of goal 5, as aggregate resources are identified as a valuable resource. McLaughlin further noted that aggregate resources are listed in the same goal with historic resources and riparian resources to provide for the needs of the area.

McLaughlin explained that the background information being discussed is not part of this matter, as it is not a formal application to build a quarry. McLaughlin further clarified that the county needed to identify another aggregate resource area, within the county, as part of required periodic review, and the re-zoning would make a formal application for a quarry possible. It is merely a matter of determining that there is an adequate supply of this resource, and does not have to be at this location.

Charter confirmed that a resolution from the council expressing concerns over the deleterious effects of such a re-zoning on the health and welfare of the citizens of Ashland.

Laws suggested that more information is needed, as there needs to be some consideration given to the possibility that this site is appropriate to provide rock for work done in Ashland. He emphasized that there is a need to look at the total impact for the valley and that there is a need to not act out of ignorance.

Shaw noted that it may be appropriate to bring forward concerns regarding additional existing quarries in the vicinity and that she would be willing to draft a letter raising concerns with adding one more quarry on an already dangerous stretch of road. Shaw suggested that it would be helpful if the council would sign onto this letter, and noted that tonight’s meeting could be continued to tomorrow to give staff time to prepare a letter for council review and action tomorrow.

Charter pointed out that the conditional use permit (CUP) process would allow for aggregate use of this property with the current zoning, and would allow considerably more citizen input. Council expressed general consensus that they were comfortable with recommending that the zone not be changed so that the council could comment later under the CUP process.

Shaw noted that she had been offended by the County Commissioners leading a parade through Ashland on the Soda Mountain issue, and she questioned whether they have the community's best interests in mind.

1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.32 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Side Yard Setback Requirements."

Dealt with above, under public hearings.

2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the period of July 1, 2000 to and include June 30, 2001, such taxes in the sum of $6,735,000.00 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon."

Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to adopt Ordinance #2856. Roll call vote: Wheeldon, Reid, Hanson, Hauck, Fine, and Laws, YES. Motion passed.

3. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Revising Competitive Bidding Requirements in Chapter 2.50 of the Ashland Municipal Code Entitled "Local Public Contract Review Board."

Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to adopt Ordinance #2857. Roll call vote: Fine, Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed.

4. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Sections 15.04.210, 15.04.212, 15.04.214, 15.04.216, 15.04.218 and 18.72.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Simplify the Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures."

Councilors Fine/Hanson m/s to adopt Ordinance #2858. Roll call vote: Laws, Fine, Reid, Wheeldon, Hauck, and Hanson, YES. Motion passed.

5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on May 16, 2000," and Mayoral Proclamation.

Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to adopt Resolution #2000-017. Roll call vote: Hanson, Hauck, Fine, Laws, Reid, and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed.

Councilors Fine/Wheeldon m/s to accept the Mayoral Proclamation. Roll call vote: Hanson, Hauck, Fine, Laws, Reid, and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed.


Wheeldon noted receiving a letter from Linda Thomas on the issue of aircraft noise issues. She stated that she will be looking into the matter further to see if there is a way to reduce fly-overs through education. Fine suggested looking at FAA requirements, and suggested that compliance with the FAA regulations would eliminate any problem.

9:40 p.m. Councilors Fine/Hauck m/s to adjourn the meeting until noon tomorrow (Wednesday, June 21.) Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

Online City Services

Pay your bill & more 
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2024 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top