Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, August 17, 2010



August 17, 2010

Council Chambers

1175 E. Main Street



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



Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.



Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Planning Commission, Public Arts Commission, Housing Commission, Conservation Commission and Tree Commission.


The last item on the agenda regarding supporting the Ocean Policy Advisory Council’s (OPAC) recommendations was pulled per OPAC’s request.


Mayor Stromberg announced the passing of City volunteer Olaf Paul.  Police Chief Terry Holderness described Mr. Paul’s dedication to the Police Department as a volunteer and expressed his appreciation.  Mayor Stromberg held a moment of silence in his honor.



The Regular Meeting minutes of August 3, 2010 were approved as presented.





1.   Will Council approve the minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?

2.   Does Council wish to approve annual renewals on liquor licenses as requested by Oregon State Liquor Commission?

3.   Will Council approve the donation of a surplus ambulance to the Warner Valley First Responders in Plush, Oregon?

4.   Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Kerry Kencairn to the Historic Commission with a term ending April 30, 2013?

5.   Does Council approve the recommendation of the Public Art Commission to implement another round of Reflections of Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project?


Senator Jason Atkinson spoke regarding the donation of the ambulance and offered his appreciation to the City of Ashland.


Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.





Peter Nemzek/307 Starflower Lane/Provided slides of the fire that occurred August 13, 2010 adjacent to his property that depicted heavy growth of non-native blackberry bushes and an overgrown riparian stream that created extreme fire danger.   He requested the City clean up the area to prevent future fires. 


Ahna Lich/307 Starflower Lane/Explained the fire made her feel frightened and not safe in her home and wanted action taken to prevent future fires.  She expressed frustration with the legal process and stated the fire was preventable.  Addressing the overgrowth was an emergency and she wanted immediate action taken to avoid a repeat. 


Russ Dixon/975 Bellview Avenue/Introduced himself as the owner of Reclaim Incorporated that specialized in blackberry removal.  He was also an assessor for the Oregon State Department of Forestry for Ladder Fuel Reduction and noted other credentials. At Mr. Nemzek’s request, he surveyed the property adjacent to Mr. Nemzek and expressed concern there was potential for a major fire hazard.  He was not sure what the City could do but urged Council to remove the overgrowth and offered his assistance.


Fire Chief John Karns explained several of the properties in question were in the weed abatement process. Fire Marshal Margueritte Hickman confirmed the privately owned properties would complete the Weed Abatement process August 18, 2010 and were just starting the Blackberry Abatement process.  The Fire Department was starting both abatement processes for property owned by Redco Development Corporation.  


Fire Marshal Hickman provided history on the Abatement programs, the Fire Department’s recent involvement, the process and the large amount of staff time involved.  The Fire Department plans to streamline the process and address billing property owners whose failure to comply increases costs for the City. 


City Attorney Richard Appicello explained there were provisions in the code for summary abatement issues to expedite dangerous situations.



1.   Will Council accept one of the two proposals received for the beneficial use of the Imperatrice Ranch property and authorize staff to negotiate a contract with Standing Stone Brewing Co.?  

Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson presented the history and options considered for the use of the Imperatrice property that resulted in a Request for Proposal (RFP).  He explained the parameters of the RFP, scoring criteria and the review team that participated in scoring the proposals.  The Public Benefit average for the Standing Stone Brewing Company was 9.3 and Natural Light was 13.7.  The Standing Stone Brewing Company proposal was just under $11,000.


Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy S/Submitted an article into the record from the August 10, 2010 New York Times about Portugal converting to clean energy.  There were many possibilities for the Imperatrice property including renewable energy, wind and solar, agricultural possibilities and bicycle trails.  He wanted a process where the City was not in charge but involved in a series of meetings similar to the process used for planning North Mountain Park.  It was too early to award a contract at this time.  He suggested a public process to place ponds in a specific area on the property that would cool wastewater that Council could facilitate using local experts. 


Paul Kay/1234 Strawberry Lane/Read both proposals and strongly encouraged proceeding with a lease to the Standing Stone Brewing Company.  The public benefits would accrue in greater quantity and sooner.  He recommended a minimum 3-year lease with mileposts and mutual obligations to extend or shorten the term if needed.  He also spoke in favor of Natural Light’s advanced water catchment and diffusion proposal and the advantage of keeping them engaged.   


Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to accept the proposal submitted by the Standing Stone Brewing Company and authorize staff to prepare a lease agreement.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Chapman thought both proposals were not mutually exclusive in the long term.  Trails would still be considered.  When the lease expired, the Standing Stone Brewing Company could move their process with little investment. He stressed the need to look at the property for generating energy and water requirements.


Councilor Navickas was skeptical of the proposal process and supported a broader review that included public participation on use of the property and developing the land.  He explained why the two-year lease was not realistic and expressed concern using public property for private benefit without adequate compensation to the City.  It created a sense of undercutting to other property owners and mead producers.  Councilor Jackson shared similar concerns leasing farmland for private business and noted the public process that brought the proposal to this point.  This was a reasonable first step and she supported the motion.  Councilor Lemhouse was in favor of the motion, understood the risk of undercutting and added this was another situation where doing nothing was not beneficial. 


Councilor Silbiger thought it was a good plan for the Standing Stone Brewing Company but was not convinced it was good for the City.  The expectation from the applicant was the lease would last longer than two years.  The City purchased the land 10 years prior for $1million with dedicated funds and if the land ultimately was not used for that purpose, funds should be returned.  The negotiation should center on the fair market value (FMV) for the land.  If an applicant agreed to pay the FMV, a reasonable rent and there were clear intentions the lease would last two years and required cleaning up the property when the lease terminated, there was a possibility.  He had expected proposals that would pay for the use of the property.


Councilor Voisin explained the City originally purchased the property for effluent and wastewater management. The Standing Stone Brewing Company did not include any realistic way to incorporate this into their plan.  She expressed concern their proposal indicated possible difficulty having a suitable water source.  She also thought the City should deal with the FMV of the land.


Mayor Stromberg stated the public benefit was establishing a sustainable agricultural operation near Ashland.  He looked at FMV differently noting the Standing Stone Brewing Company proposed to pay up $11,000 to the City and had identified certain expenses the City needed to meet.  Currently a grazing operation on the property paid approximately $12,000 a year and that was an indication of FMV.  He thought the City should get a percentage of the profit if the plan was successful.  He added the City controlled the effluent and the applicants needed to ensure they could accommodate whatever solution the City proposed. 


Staff clarified a permanent structure on a two-year lease would be a lost investment to the applicant when the agreement ended and the Standing Stone Brewing Company would use portable equipment.  Staff went on to clarify the RFP did not specify use.


Councilor Navickas added the two-year lease narrowed the spectrum of different proposals that might have come forward had the lease been longer. 


Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to amend the motion to eliminate any use from having permanent structures on the property within their proposal.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman explained the Standing Stone Brewing Company had not proposed using permanent structures and fully understood the lease was short-term.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Chapman, Jackson and Lemhouse, NO; Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a NO vote. Motion failed 4-3.


Continued discussion on main motion: Councilor Chapman noted four years prior, he had wanted to have this discussion and the Standing Stone Brewing Company brought forth a proposal that will start the process.  There were many options for the land. 


Council and staff discussed assessing the property’s reasonable market rate and including that information in the lease negotiations.


Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to direct staff to assess Fair Market Value for leasing the property prior to final negotiations for the RFP.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Jackson wanted to ensure the City would incur a return similar to private property owners who leased their land to private businesses.  The information might not be appropriate for a two-year lease but Council should have it regardless.  Councilor Chapman assumed staff would perform due diligence and find the property’s worth and added the land would most likely not lease for much.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Voisin, Navickas, Jackson, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.


Continued discussion on amended motion: Councilor Navickas would support the motion in the interest of supporting sustainable agriculture close to the City and reiterated this was public land and the broader interest of the public should have higher priority. 


Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilor Chapman, Voisin, Navickas, Jackson, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.



1.   Does Council wish to refund a portion of the Community Development and Engineering Services Fees associated with the Housing Authority of Jackson County affordable housing project on Clay Street?

Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the $14,748 refund related to an original annexation of the Clay Street property for a 107-unit development.  Part of the annexation criteria planning actions require a percentage of the development be affordable so 17 of the 107 units were affordable.  The project never happened and in December 2008, the City and Housing Authority of Jackson County (HAJC) entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to jointly purchase the property and pursue a planning action approval to amend the prior plan and divide the property into an area owned by the City and an area owned by HAJC.  HAJC at that time received approval for a 60-unit affordable housing development and staff took the position those 60 units met the requirements of the annexation ordinance in full with the 17 required affordable units as part of it.  Resolution 2006-13 provided a waiver of Systems Development Charges (SDCs) on all 60 units but only a waiver of Community Development and Engineering fees for voluntarily provided affordable units.  The 17 units required to be affordable were obligated to pay the Community Development and Engineering fees totaling $33,518.  HAJC was requesting a $14,748 refund and the City should take proportional allocation of seven units.  The Housing Commission reviewed the HAJC request for a refund and recommended Council provide a full refund of $33,518.85. 


The remaining 1.5 acres of City owned land could accommodate approximately 15 units with seven affordable housing units at 60% the Area Median Income (AMI).  SDC’s fund the units with a 60-year affordability requirement that are forgiven if they remain affordable for 30 years.  Staff was confident they would remain affordable for the full 30-year period.


Jason Elzy/2251 Table Rock Road, Medford/Introduced himself as part of the Housing Authority of Jackson County (HAJC) represented the owner of Snowberry Brook LLC and stated the Housing Commission’s recommendation to waive the full fee would greatly benefit the project.  The Community Development Corporation (CDC) and Engineering fees created a financial burden for the project. The original estimate of the building permits and SDC fees was $55,000.  Current fees assessed to the project were $107,000 creating a gap in the budget of over $50,000.  At minimum HAJC was requesting $14,748 as a fair and equitable split of the CDC and Engineering fees based on the density of the Snowberry Brook project.   


At the time of the site plan application, the Housing Authority was not aware of the ordinance that required affordable housing or that HAJC would be paying additional CDC and Engineering fees.  HAJC relied on estimates City staff provided and that estimate did not indicate HAJC paying CDC and Engineering fees for 17 units.


John Statler/1120 Niantic, Medford/Explained he was Chair of the Housing Authority of Jackson County Board of Commissioners and was proud to serve as a Commissioner and proud of the staff.  HAJC was a model across the Northwest region of how Housing Authority’s should operate.  He asked Council to support the Housing Authority of Jackson County and the great work they do. 


Councilor Navickas m/s to approve the Housing Authority refund request and proportionally allocate the original required 17 low-income affordable housing units between the Housing Authority and the City. Motion died due to lack of a second.


Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to deny the Housing Authority refund request and assess all Community Development and Engineering fees for the required 17 units. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman thought it was clear from the beginning that if needed the City could sell the land at market rate in order to recover funds spent.  It did not make sense to retain an encumbrance on the land if 60 affordable housing units were being built.  Councilor Navickas thought Council should continue in the interest of providing affordable housing even if it meant encumbering the property.  It was fair and reasonable to split the affordable housing costs with HAJC.


Councilor Silbiger noted the City so far had waived $467,000 in fees, contributed $160,000 in land costs and allocated $510,000 for CDBG funds for a total of $1,137,336.  He explained how the $11million from the State provided a monthly subsidy of $800 per unit.  The loss of property taxes increased that subsidy to approximately $1,000 per unit, each month.  Council had never discussed encumbering the property in any way and this was not an appropriate time to put a condition like that on a piece of property.  Staff time alone exceeded the amount HAJC was asking and he thought the City had done more than its fair share for the project.


Councilor Voisin noted affordable housing was a Council goal and a community need.  To her, the $600,000 was a bargain. The project will bring $12million into the community to build these structures, provide jobs, families and shopping revenue.  HAJC had done its work, were told the fee were $55,000 and the bill was $107,000.  She thought Council needed to be fair, would not support the motion and suggested Council consider Option 4 to waive all fees.


Councilor Jackson was present when the City appointed the property and noted the long negotiations among staff, HAJC and Council.  She was not under the impression the City was going to put affordable units on the remaining 1.25 acres and thought the rules were being interpreted differently.  Councilor Navickas stated the City was possibly violating the law, annexing property themselves, not encumbering it with the requirements placed on all developers and thought it was inappropriate.   It placed a burden on HAJC who had done so much for the community.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES; Councilor Voisin and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4-2.


2.   Shall Council formally approve the Ashland Fiber Network Strategic Business Plan?

Information Technology (IT) Director Rob Lloyd and AFN Operations Manager Michael Ainsworth provided a presentation on the AFN Strategic Business Plan that included:

·         AFN 2010 – Who We Are

·         AFN 2010 – Where We Are At

·         AFN 2010 – Key Plan Elements

·         AFN 2012 – Key Plan Elements

·         AFN Graphic of existing services and how they will be sourced


Mr. Lloyd explained how eventually Internet Protocol television (IPTV) would transmit to AFN be retransmitted via the internet and local network rather than individual downloading that reduced bandwidth.  The market was not quite there yet but was where AFN needed to go.


·         AFN 2012 – Council Feedback

·         AFN 2012 – Stakeholder Feedback

·         AFN 2012 – Post-Draft Changes

·         AFN 2012 – Other Considerations

·         AFN 2012 – Final Considerations


Alan Oppenheimer/110 S Laurel Street/Expressed his appreciation for the proposed plan.  Internet access would be treated similar to a utility with customers having the opportunity to acquire access when activating water and electricity.  Once they signed up for basic access, customers could purchase a cable modem, and have immediate access to the local internet or build on basic access with one of the ISP partners.  This level of service was doable within a year.  The service could expand to include energy management, computer phones, and smart home and apply to everyone in Ashland.  The vision was there and he was looking forward to helping staff achieve it.


Mark Decker/621 Oak Knoll Drive/Explained he was an AFN customer with a background in telecommunications and product marketing.  He was excited about the proposed plan and thought it could reinvigorate AFN, help overcome its bad image and fulfill some of the original vision.  AFN was stuck in the rut of trying to run like Charter or EarthLink and it was a losing game because that was a commodity business and AFN was citizen owned.  He liked that the plan focused on delivering value directly to the citizenry for a product they owned. The low cost option would not affect existing revenue because it was low speed internet.   It might take some customers from Charter and Qwest but mostly gave people the option to support local community and save money.  AFN should provide more services directly to the public.  He recognized the biggest problem for AFN was the image problem with people focusing on the debt that he thought was the consequence of past mistakes.  If the community had the chance to support AFN, it would increase the market share and be successful.  He supported the plan and thought concerned ISP’s were smart and resilient enough to determine the new ground rules and continue being successful. 


Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to accept the AFN Business Plan as the strategic guidelines for the future.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger supported the plan and deferred to Mr. Lloyd and his team to make the best possible decisions.  The debt exists and the City will have to pay for it whether AFN does well or closes.  The operating margin of 20% gross profit for the debt was good and indicated this was not a failing business.  The plan takes steps to improve bandwidth and feasible levels for customers to move up in speed.  It was important the relationship with the ISP’s was two way with both sides working together on marketing and sharing information.   Councilor Lemhouse preferred the City divest itself of AFN along with the debt and ultimately hoped a private company would purchase AFN, relieve the City of the debt and have AFN compete in the market place.  However, the debt was a real burden and the City needed to make the best of the situation. He did not think it could function as a utility since customers could easily purchase another service and shared concerns about the City owning something that competed in the marketplace.  He had faith in staff and the plan and felt strongly they would come up with the best direction.  Councilor Voisin would support the motion but had concerns on what staff would use to measure success.  Mr. Lloyd noted where measurements and “Plan B” were in the plan. Councilor Navickas thought the City should step in as an ISP and direct competition if there were no revenue increases on a quarterly basis.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Navickas, Chapman, Voisin, Jackson and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.


3.   Does Council wish to provide a requested Letter of Commitment in support of a Community Challenge Planning Grant application being prepared by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) entitled, "Institutionalizing Livability, Sustainability, and Affordability in Southern Oregon through Comprehensive Planning" in association with the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan?           

Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) was preparing a grant for money available through the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and was requesting letters of support from the Cities in the region.  The grant was for approximately $2million and would build on the Regional Problem Solving Plan (RPS) on areas Ashland deemed important.  The grant would focus on ways to accommodate a greater percentage of future growth in the valley and major transportation corridor.  Staff was supportive of grant.  The grant project asked Associate Planner Derek Severson to incorporate some of the visions Ashland had for a nodal project and alternate transportation solutions the City had done in the Transportation System Plan (TSP).  The TSP alone would be Ashland’s contribution towards the grant project.  


Mayor Stromberg added the week before, he, Mr. Severson, Mr. Molnar and Public Works Director Mike Faught appeared before the Jackson County Planning Commissioners to present Resolution 2010-21 RPS Issue Resolution Recommendations and thought the process had been positive.  The RVCOG grant would complement what the existing RPS Plan lacked in the transportation and housing areas and strengthen those parts. 


Councilor Navickas would not support the letter but would have had the RPS Plan addressed annexing more land within city limits in the initial plan.  Now it appeared to be an effort to “green wash” a bad plan and make it palatable to those who had opposed it through out the process.


Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve and sign the Letter of Commitment in support of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments’ Community Challenge Grant application.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse stated it was a good thing to do and that Council should sign the letter.  Councilor Chapman agreed with Councilor Navickas and thought this was another way for RPS to get more money. Councilor Jackson supported the letter and suggested the grant was being confused with the land use action the County took to adopt the regional plan.   The grant proposal would provide funding to study how existing cities throughout the valley could implement transportation.  Councilor Voisin noted Ashland had no urban reserves and the City would benefit only minimally.  Mayor Stromberg explained RVCOG was adding the component Council voted unanimously they should add.  Councilor Voisin suggested Council wait until they had received a response from the County Planning Commissioner regarding Resolution 2010-21.  City Administrator Martha Bennett explained RVCOG needed a commitment by August 20, 2010.

Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Chapman, Navickas and Voisin NO; Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote.  Motion passed 4-3.



1.   Will Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Creating Chapter 11.34 Relating to Storage of Personal and Recreational Vehicles and Amending AMC 11.24.020" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.


Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to approve Ordinance #3032.

DISCUSSION:  Councilor Navickas had numerous citizens approach him regarding large trucks idling in front of their places while making deliveries and wanted to bring it forward at some point.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Chapman, Navickas, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.


2.   Will Council approve First Reading of ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to Adoption of the Oregon Fire Code and Amending AMC Chapter 15.28"?

Fire Marshal Margueritte Hickman explained the Fire Code was on a three-year cycle and while it already applied to the State of Oregon, would allow the City to adopt amendments.  Two changes included an organizational change in AMC 15.28.070 titled Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code. The second would create a rule in AMC 15.28.060 that allowed the Fire Department to apply seasonal type restrictions.


City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.


Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve First Reading of ordinance and set Second Reading for the next Council meeting. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Chapman, Jackson, Silbiger, Voisin and Navickas, YES.  Motion passed.


3.   Will the City Council approve the second reading of the ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments, and the findings of fact to accompany the amendments?


Abstentions, Conflicts, Exparte Contact

Councilor Silbiger declared a conflict of interest and requested Council to recuse him from the discussion.


Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to recuse Councilor Silbiger. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.


Councilor Silbiger left the meeting at 9:55 p.m.


The remaining Council and Mayor had no other conflicts of interest or Exparte contacts to declare.


City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title and changes aloud.


Councilor Lemhouse/Navickas m/s approval and adoption of Ordinance #3030 amending City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a new Croman Mill District designation to Chapter II, to add Croman Mill plan designation on the adopted Land Use map legend and adopt the Croman Mill site redevelopment plan and economic opportunities analysis as support documents to the Comprehensive Plan as amended.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES; Councilor Chapman and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 3-2.


City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title and changes aloud.


Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve Ordinance #3034 amending Ashland Land Use and creating Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill as amended. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES; Councilor Chapman and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 3-2


City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud. 


Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the staff recommendation that would ensure the required right-of- way on the Central Boulevard matched the actual street width when built was in response to Council’s suggestion to remove on-street parking but retain the width.  The additional width could not be used for building or site development and was in addition to the 2-10 foot building setback requirement. The actual street width included a 3-lane cross section with a turn lane in the middle, two travel lanes, sidewalks and a separated bike lane.  Moving the bike lane to the street would require two additional feet to accommodate a 6-foot bike lane.


Mr. Appicello read the ordinance changes aloud.


Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s approval and adoption of Ordinance #3031 amending AMC 18.72.080 creating  new Site Design and Use Standards for Croman Mill District as amended.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin asked for clarification on what would prevent a developer from building up to the sidewalk without the right-of-way.  Ms. Harris explained the required 2-10 foot building setback would prevent developers from building that close to the sidewalk. Councilor Jackson further explained the reason Council was narrowing the right-of-way at staff’s suggestion was Council’s earlier decision to remove on-street parking.  Councilor Navickas added one option for retaining the right-of-way might be light rail in the future otherwise there would be a 16-foot sidewalk that would work for commercial frontage but not for this type of development.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Voisin and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-2.


City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title and changes aloud.


Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s approval and adoption of Ordinance #3036 amending chapters in AMC and Land Use for consistency with new chapter 18.53 Croman Mill as amended.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas suggested using Floor Area Ratios for future development discussions.  

Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Jackson and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Chapman and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 3-2.


City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title and changes aloud and noted changes to the maps were made in accordance to Council direction. 


Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s approval and adoption of Ordinance #3033 amending Ashland Comprehensive Plan to change Land Use map designation for newly created Croman Mill Plan and amending City of Ashland zoning and Land Use control maps.

Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Voisin and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-2.


City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.


Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s approval and adoption of Ordinance #3035 amending AMC Chapter 15 to create LEED certified building priority.

DISCUSSION:  Councilor Jackson noted the ordinance applied citywide for building permit-processing priority and was not specific to Croman Mill.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Jackson, Voisin and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Chapman NO. Motion passed 4-1.


Councilor Lemhouse/Navickas m/s to approve the second reading with proposed amendments as noted after each ordinance and to approve the Findings of Fact that accompany ordinances.


Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES; Voisin and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-2.



1.   Will Council consider placing on a future agenda a resolution supporting OPAC's recommendations on ocean-marine reserves?

Item pulled for future agenda.


Council and staff discussed adding idling trucks to a future agenda. 



Meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m.


Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor


Online City Services

Pay Your Utility Bill
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2023 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top