Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, May 17, 2011



May 17, 2011

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 Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.



Mayor Stromberg removed 1.  Will Council approve an agreement with Standing Stone Brewing Co., for the lease of 265 acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property? from UNFINISHED BUSINESS on the agenda per the request of City staff and the Standing Stone Brewing Company and delayed the item to a future meeting.



The minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 3, 2011 and Continued Meeting of May 4, 2011 were approved as presented.



The Mayor's proclamations of May 15 – 21, 2011 as National Police Week, May 15, 2011 as Peace Officer’s Memorial Day and May 23-29, 2011 as National Historic Preservation Week were read aloud.


Southern Oregon University Associate Professor of Geography Patricia Acklin and students gave a presentation on the Wildfire zone and other recommendations that included:

·         Personnel and Methodology

·         Existing Wildfire Hazard Zone

·         Adjustments to the Wildfire Hazard Zone Working Maps:  Buffering Tool, Slope and Observation

·         Conclusions

·         Wildfire Recommendations: Planning

·         Wildfire Recommendations: Regulation

·         Wildfire Recommendations:  Education & Outreach

·         Ultimate Goal:  Not Using Our Wildfire Evacuation Routes



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

2.   Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor’s appointments of Ron Bolstad, Kelly Gustafson, James Hardt, Kathleen Kane, Eric Olson, Ron Parker and Peter Norvell to the Firewise Commission with terms to expire April 30, 2014?

3.   Will Council authorize the solicitation of formal bids and proposals for three public works projects?

4.   Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, accept a proposal and award a contract for architectural services to Straus 7 Seibert Architects in an amount not to exceed $94,020 for architectural services related to remodeling the Grove to serve as a police station?

5.   Does Council wish to confirm the appointment of the City Attorney?

6.   Will Council approve the attached proposals for submittal to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee?

7.   Does Council wish to endorse a letter from the Conservation Commission to the Department of Environmental Quality supporting minimal financial impact in the permitting process of Grey Water Systems?

8.   Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing for one additional officer to engage in community policing activities?


Councilor Silbiger requested item #6, Councilor Voisin requested items #4 and #8, and Councilor Lemhouse requested item #5 be pulled for discussion.


Councilor Slattery/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1, 2, 3, and #7. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.


Mayor Stromberg moved Consent Agenda items #4, #6, and #8 before UNFINISHED BUSINESS on the agenda for further discussion.


Councilor Lemhouse expressed his support on the appointment of David Lohman as City Attorney. 


Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.



1.   Will Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to terminate a portion of a public pedestrian access easement located at Lot 9 of the Oaks of Ashland Planned Community?

Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson explained the Oaks of Ashland was designed around a strand of mature oak trees protected by access and pedestrian easements.  Lot 9 had a 24-inch diameter tree with access easements created prior to the actual design improvement.  It was also constrained by several utility easements.  The owner was requesting the City to vacate a specific easement that would allow flexibility in the placement of their house.  Routing the sidewalk around the tree would surround it on three sides, interfere with the drip line of the tree and was detrimental to its health.


Public Hearing Open: 7:34 p.m.

Public Hearing Closed: 7:34 p.m.


Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to terminate a portion of a public pedestrian access easement located at Lot 9 of the Oaks of Ashland Planned Community.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin, Chapman and Silbiger, YES.  Motion passed. 


2.   Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations for an inter-fund loan within the 2010-2011 Budget?

Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the resolution would adjust the following three items in the budget. 1) Loan from the Equipment Fund to the Water Fund to provide coverage on costs attributed to capital expenses over the last two years and would serve as an operational loan to avoid accessing restricted reserves, 2) $10,000 Firewise Community Fuels Reduction Grant, and 3) $70,000 from Bonneville Power Administration towards the Electric Conservation effort to help citizens weatherize or reduce their power consumption in homes and businesses.


Mr. Tuneberg clarified the capital needs included covering smaller capital projects and the adjustment would restore money to the fund if needed.  If the City were unable to sell enough water over the next two years, staff would recommend an increase.  Currently they were waiting on the completion of the Master Plan and fee structure review in 2012. 


Public Hearing Open: 7:40 p.m.

Public Hearing Closed: 7:40 p.m.


Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s to approve Resolution #2011-14. Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Silbiger, Lemhouse, Morris, Voisin, Chapman and Slattery, YES. Motion passed.


3.   Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning Commission the decision to approve a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (PA#2003-020) for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision? 

Mayor Stromberg opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. regarding the appeal on Planning Action #2010-01622 and read aloud the statement and procedure for Public Land Use Hearings.



Councilor Lemhouse had nothing to declare.  Councilor Morris disclosed he was on the Planning Commission during the Strawberry Meadows Plan approval and the McLellan’s 5-lot subdivision plan.  He eventually worked on the McLellan house for a year and had conducted a site visit earlier in the day.  Councilor Slattery and Councilor Silbiger had nothing to declare.  Councilor Chapman had no conflict of interest but lived near the property, hiked there frequently and recently did a site visit.  Councilor Voisin declared no Ex parte or conflict of interest.  Mayor Stromberg had no conflicts of interest and nothing to declare.  Councilor Morris stated he could make an unbiased decision.



Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation that included:

·         Strawberry Meadows Subdivision – Final Plan Notice from PA 2003-020

·         Strawberry Meadows Subdivision Aerial

·         Subdivision Slopes – Slopes in excess of 35% are considered unbuildable under City code.

·         Coverage in the Subdivision:  The Subdivision record includes submittals from the original applicant’s agent that the allowed lot coverage was to be limited to a maximum of 20 percent and that the building envelopes shown delineated an area where a home could be built not the size of a specific building footprint and emphasized that new homes would not exceed the 20 percent lot coverage restriction.  (Reference page 211 of the record.)


Mr. Severson clarified this statement was in the record under Terms of Lot Coverage when the application was appealed and specifically made the statement the original subdivision outlined plan level had a 20% coverage applied on a lot-by-lot basis rather than the subdivision as a whole.  Even though the ultimate decision looked at modification it was clear in the original subdivision application the Planning Commission determined this statement addressed lot coverage on a lot-by-lot basis.


·         Modifications Requested

o   Relocation of site’s access to come in from Hitt Road above the existing driveway, allowing better response to site topography.

o   Modification of approved building envelope.

o   Allocation of lot coverage from the open space (excluding existing drive, allowing 4,356 s.f. of coverage and additional 1,122 s.f. of permeable coverage for a total coverage of approx. 56.7 percent).

·         Layouts:  Relocation of Access, Modification of Envelope and Allocation of Coverage

·         Decision

o   Relocation of site’s access to come in from Hitt Road above the existing driveway, allowing better response to site topography – APPROVED.

o   Modification of approved building envelope – APPROVED.

o   Allocation of lot coverage from the open space (excluding existing drive, allowing 4,356 s.f of coverage and additional 1,122 s.f. of permeable coverage for a total coverage of approx 56.7 percent).  APPROVED (& APPEALED).

·         Performance Standards Options Chapter Section 18.88.010 Purpose and Intent:  The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes.  The decision should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood.

·         Lot Coverages (District Standard is 20%)

·         Basis for PC Decision

o   57% coverage requested; 47% coverage approved; the difference is 1,122 s.f.

o   Underlying RR-.5 zone has a minimum lot size of ½ acre and a maximum lot coverage of 20%.

o   20% of a ½-acre lot is 4,356 square feet.

o   Shared driveway should not count against this coverage as it is outside the applicants’ control.

o   Allowing 4,356 s.f. + the 1,433 s.f. driveway was found to be consistent with the district and to minimize impacts to the neighborhood & environment as called for in the P.S.O.

o   This is 1,122 s.f. less than the full request.  The additional 1,122 was found to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the P.S.O.

·         On the Record Appeals

o   Appellants must identify, in writing, specific areas where they think the Planning Commission erred.  This can be an error in interpretation of a fact, an interpretation of a rule or regulation, or in procedure.  The City Council will review only those specific issues raised as “errors.”

o   The Council will decide:  1) whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the Planning Commission and 2) if the Planning Commission committed an error.

·         Points of the Current Appeal

1.      The Planning Commission essentially applied the Performance Standards Options twice, once in connection with approving the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (50% open space); and a second time when analyzing the maximum lot coverage issues in connection with applicants’ application.

2.      The Planning Commission acknowledge not counting the area covered by a lot’s driveway access as a component of lot coverage for neighboring lots under AMC 18.108.030, but arbitrarily declined to apply the same interpretation to applicants application.

3.      The Planning Commission misconstrued the lot coverage statements made by the original developers’ planner in response to some neighbors’ objections.

4.      The Planning Commission misconstrued the definition of ‘open space’ found in AMC 18.88.020, confusing it with lot coverage requirements.

·         Additional Point – Not a “Clear & Distinct Identification:”  The Planning Commission misconstrued and misapplied the criteria in AMC 18.88.030 in a variety of ways in connection with consideration of applicants’ lot coverage request, as detailed on following Exhibits “B” and “C”.  This is not sufficiently “clear and distinct identification” of the grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity as required in the code, and as such additional issues from the exhibits referenced have not been included as identified grounds for appeal.  Consideration of the appeal should be limited to the four items, which have been clearly and distinctly identified in the appeal requested, as listed above.


Mr. Severson confirmed the page 211 reference to lot coverage was part of a clarification letter from Mr. Giordano June 15, 2009.  It was in the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) record for Strawberry Meadows and part of the subdivision approval.  Additionally these restrictions were not included in the contracts or covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs) but were an original condition of approval.



Appellant/Applicant - Chris Hearn/515 East Main Street/Represented the applicant appellants Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse.  He provided history on the subject and a presentation that included:

·         Maximum Lot Coverage Interpretation – Primary Purposes of Appeal:

o   To avoid unintended consequences.

o   To rectify injustice of changing internal Planning interpretations.

·         Side-by-side Comparison of Alternatives

·         Possible Design – using Open Space Credits, Gate move, and Envelope change

·         AMC 18.16. “R-R” – Rural Residential Zoning District, AMC 18.16.010. Purpose:  “The purpose of the RR district is to stabilize and protect the rural residential characteristics of areas which, because of topography, level of services, or other natural or development factors are best served by a large lot designation.”

·         AMC 18.16.040. “RR” Rural Residential General Regulations

A.     Minimum lot area:  Minimum lot areas in the RR zone may be one-half (1/2), one (1), and two and one-half (2 ½) acres, depending on the topographic nature, service availability and surrounding land uses, and other relevant characteristics of the area. (Note:  No provision for .28-acre lots like Applicants.)

B.     Maximum lot coverage:

1.      One-half (1/2) acre lots (RR-5.5): twenty (20%) percent maximum.

2.      One (1) acre lots (RR-1):  twelve (12%) percent maximum.

3.      Two and one-half (2 1/2) acre lots (RR-2.5):  seven (7%) percent maximum.”  (No provision for .28-acre lots)

·         Applicants’ Request of Council – Increase Allowed Maximum Lot Coverage for 163 Hitt Road

1.      Increase maximum lot coverage by 1,122 sq. ft. (from 4,356 sq. ft. – as approved by Planning Commission – to 5,478 sq. ft.)

2.      The shared driveway (as approved by Planning Commission) is an additional 1,433 sq. ft.

3.      Note:  original Staff proposal offered use of permeable materials not counted toward maximum coverage allocation, but Staff report later recanted this concession.

·         Our Lot Coverage “Problem” – Rural Residential 0.5 acres Performance standards option subdivision

1.      Applicants’ lot #6 is a ¼ acre lot in a ½ acre zone.

2.      Lot coverage, without the performance standards option is 20% x 12,073 sq. ft. = 2,415 sq. ft.

3.      With the performance option, the lot was designed to have 5,478 sq. ft. of lot coverage plus a shared driveway.

·         Lot Map

·         Photos of 163 Hitt Road

·         Brown Parcel

o   Approximate footprints.

o   Serious lot coverage problems.

o   Stalled Development.

o   Resulting Problems:  loss of construction jobs, distrust of the City, damage to City’s reputation.

o   No extra open space in future Ashland subdivisions, ever.

·         Lot Coverage - Original subdivision approval: 

o   Building envelope footprint 4,738 sq. ft., Garage apron 470 sq. ft., Guest parking spot 270 sq. ft.

o   Total usable lot coverage: 5,478 sq. ft. PLUS unused shared driveway: 1,433 sq. ft.

·         Lot Coverage - Our Request (based on developer’s stated intent):

o   Lot coverage 5,478 sq. ft. total (41.6%) plus 1,433 sq. ft. for unused shared driveway.

o   Total: 6,911 sq. ft. (57%).

·         Applicants don’t want to build a massive house



Margaret Brown Olson/385 Strawberry Lane/Explained  she was one of the original landowners who agreed to having 1 acre density and restricting the area to 19 houses.  At the time, she did not understand the building envelope included sidewalks and patios.  She apologized for that and regretted the oversight.


Sandra Kuykendall/1436 Mill Pond Road/Introduced herself as the Real Estate agent Ms. Olson hired to market the subdivision.  At the time, she was unaware the building envelope for Lot 6 would change.  City staff assured her the lot was not affected by the hillside envelope.   She hoped Council would realize the owner bought the lot under the assumption they could build a 3,700-4,000 square foot house and allow them to build.


Paul Hwoschinsky/443 Strawberry Lane/Explained he was one of the three sub-dividers and described the history of the land.  They agreed to 1 acre knowing the envelopes would vary as a function of each lot and with the intention land owners could borrow from the open space to make it possible to build homes.  Over the eight years of challenges, these parameters were never challenged or discussed.  However, he suspected over time the parameters changed and disagreed with applying those changes to the 1997 agreement.  He encouraged Council to review the request and act within the intention of the original subdivision.  


Mark Knox/485 W Nevada Street/Agreed with the original layout because the code only required 5% open space and 50% open space was provided.  It did not make sense to carve up open space in order to create a larger envelope.  Part of the square footage was footings for the house.  In addition, the house was not as large as it sounded.  He suggested a trade-off where Council gave the applicant the extra 1,122 square feet on the condition they were subject to hillside standards that required low profile houses with natural colors and volume control.



Mr. Hearn addressed coverage allocations in Strawberry Meadows and 500 Strawberry Subdivisions and that previous City staff reallocated several neighborhoods informally via a memo and did not require a hearings process. 



Mr. Severson responded to Mr. Hwoschinsky’s testimony that no lot coverage challenges over the past eight years was likely due to explicit statements in the file that based lot coverage on 20% and building envelopes were not a reflection of the approved coverage.  He went on to address Mr. Knox’ statements the property was not subject to the Hillside Ordinance.  The City Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data indicated the property had a slope in excess of 25%, was located in the Hillside Overlay and subject to the Hillside Ordinance unless the applicant could provide survey information stating otherwise.  The applicant had not provided that information when asked during the Planning Commission process. 


He then clarified Mr. Hearn’s statement regarding reallocations through memos.  The memo in question pertained to Planning Action No. 2003-020.  This letter was not only attached to the Planning Action but also noted in the record.  The last ten years of appeals had changed the Planning process due to its growing litigious and contentious nature and now required a public process.  Some of the issues raised in Mr. Hearn’s letter referenced Exhibits B and C of the fifth appeal point that were not clearly or distinctly identified in the appeal request.  Additionally the lot was created through the Performance Standard Subdivision and specifically allowed flexibility in terms of lot size, width, and depth.  Because of that process, the lot can be smaller than the minimum size of the district but was not non-conforming.


Mr. Severson explained typically on a Performance Standard Subdivision, CCRs were required to ensure open space was maintained collectively by the owners.  CCRs are a civil document and not enforced by the City.  Mr. Giordano had requested that language to restrict lots perpetually be added to the CCRs.  Additionally, Mr. Hwoschinsky’s testimony indicated new standards were applied to a 1997 agreement that staff was unaware existed. The applicants submitted a planning outline in 1998 and final plan approval occurred in 2003.


Community Development Director Bill Molnar confirmed the vast amount of subdivisions once approved calculate lot coverage on a lot-by-lot basis.  In this situation the only allocation of open space that occurred was the connect portion along Birdsong in the flatter areas.


Interim City Attorney Doug McGeary noted the fifth point stated the Planning Commission misconstrued and misapplied the criteria in AMC 18.88.030 in a variety of ways in connection with consideration of applicants, lot coverage requests as detailed in the following Exhibits B and C and explained the wording “…in a variety of ways…” was too vague to make a determination.  Mr. Severson added there were 64 pages of Exhibits and staff was unable to send public notice to neighbors and describe the issues, they needed distinct explanations.


Public Hearing Closed:  9:06 p.m.



Staff explained there was a 120-day rule in effect that would require a final decision by June 16, 2011 and Findings adopted by June 30, 2011.


Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to affirm Planning Commission decision and reject the appeal. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman could not find a substantial error but thought there was enough evidence to support the Planning Commission decision.  Councilor Silbiger explained the main point went back to page 211 that specifically addressed lot coverage in detail being 20% and was very clear.  He saw no error with the Planning Commission’s decision or in points 1, 2, 3, and 4.  Councilor Lemhouse did not agree with the Planning Commission’s decision on the 1,122 square feet and thought it would be better interpreted as not part of the home design.  Councilor Morris noted applicants indicate building placement when a lot is created and a small lot generally creates a smaller building and footprint.  It was evident the transfer of the land was never documented in the subdivision agreement.  He would support the motion.  Councilor Voisin could find no error on the Planning Commission’s decision but thought Council should make a one-time exception for this situation.  Councilor Slattery sympathized with the applicant but could not find where the Planning Commission erred and would support the motion.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Slattery, Morris and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin and Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 4-2.


Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s that item #5 was not specific enough to be included in the appeal. Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Chapman, Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.





4.   Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, accept a proposal and award a contract for architectural services to Straus 7 Seibert Architects in an amount not to exceed $94,020 for architectural services related to remodeling the Grove to serve as a police station?

Councilor Voisin wanted to ensure there was citizen input and involvement in the final decision to redesign The Grove.  She had concerns on the amount of money the redesign required when the City needed to fill Police Officer and Fire Fighter positions.  In addition, she was not sure that the public was fully aware The Grove would be redesigned as the Police Department.  Council listed several public meetings where citizens had the opportunity to provide feedback and noted there would be additional meetings in the future to gather public input as well.

Councilor Slattery/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #4.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman understood the need for architectural costs but was hesitant to pay $100,000.  Councilor Slattery wanted to see the options and noted retrofitting the current Police Department cost considerably more than redesigning The Grove.  Voice Vote:  Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger, Morris and Voisin, YES. Motion passed.


6.   Will Council approve the attached proposals for submittal to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee?

Councilor Silbiger did not think free legal camping areas, limited sidewalk usage and downtown portable toilets were in the City’s best interest and wanted to remove them from the list of eight proposals for the Homelessness Steering Committee to review.


Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to remove free legal camping areas, limits on sidewalk usage and portable toilets from the eight proposals and send the remaining five proposals to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger explained the free camping areas as proposed was not an acceptable solution and seemed more like an invitation instead.  Limited sidewalk usage was almost as controversial as the exclusionary zone that Council wisely did not forward. Additionally, portable toilets were unsightly and an unacceptable solution for the town. 


Councilor Slattery thought the Homelessness Steering Committee should receive all proposals and input.  The community could actually propose these solutions and it was the Committee’s purpose to review them. Councilor Voisin questioned why free legal camping was not acceptable.  Councilor Silbiger responded free camping areas historically did not work and he doubted the City wanted a camping area near the downtown or within city limits.  People who were transient by choice originally proposed the camping area and a campground would not help the homeless that needed and wanted assistance.


Councilor Lemhouse was interested in dealing with issues that were manageable and did not envision free camping within city limits nor did he think the majority of citizens wanted free camping within city limits.  That also extended to sidewalk usage limits.  There was no reason to have the Committee spend time on them.  He did not support portable toilets but was open to a policy using the public toilets already established.  Councilor Voisin thought portable toilets would be set in discreet places and the Steering Committee should have the opportunity to consider this option.  Councilor Chapman commented removing the items would save the Committee time on proposals Council will most likely decline.  Councilor Silbiger clarified he did not want those items getting an indirect approval by having Council forward them to the Committee for review.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Slattery, Lemhouse and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.


8.   Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing for one additional officer to engage in community policing activities?

Councilor Voisin questioned applying for a grant to add one Police Officer when the Citizen’s Budget Committee decided not to fund a Police Officer or Fire Fighter position.  Money for this position would ultimately come from the General Fund and she did not support the grant.


Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #8.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse explained adequately funding and staffing a Police Department was a necessity and struggled to understand why Council would authorize additional grant spending for economic development or spend in other areas and not fund public safety.  The proposal was reasonable and having an officer downtown was prudent and needed.  Councilor Chapman added the first three years out of the four were paid and he would support the motion. Councilor Slattery commented the Citizen’s Budget Committee asked staff to come back the following year regarding funding Police and Fire Department positions.  Public safety was important and this was a way to leverage taxpayer dollars to get there.   City Administrator Martha Bennett confirmed if the City were awarded the grant, money would be saved in the General Fund over the next three years to pay for the fourth year.


Councilor Voisin noted Ashland had a low crime rate and the main problem was not in the downtown area but sexual assault in the Middle School and High School and she doubted an additional officer would make a difference in the schools.  Councilor Lemhouse responded that it was not just crime, due to state budget cuts and the mental health system failing, Police Departments were now dealing with social services for the mentally ill that caused an increase in services calls.  Delaying would put the City farther behind in managing crime and these additional issues.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Silbiger, Chapman, Morris and Slattery, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.



1.   Will Council approve an agreement with Standing Stone Brewing Co., for the lease of 265 acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property?

Item delayed to future meeting.



1.   Will Council approve a lease agreement with Colwell Chiropractic for use of the City owned lot at 430 N. Main Street for parking purposes?

Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson explained the City purchased the lot to compensate lost parking for the Colwell Chiropractic Clinic and the Hersey Office Condominiums that will lose property with the potential realignment of the intersection at Hersey and Wimer.  Staff anticipated the streets would shift 20 feet to align the centerlines to function correctly and entailed acquiring property from both businesses.  The Colwell Chiropractic Clinic asked for a two-year lease to use the property for overflow parking for clients and employees.  The lease would relieve the Public Works Department of some extensive maintenance responsibilities and help police the area.  The cost of the lease matched the time staff expended developing the lease.  The main benefit for the City was having someone maintain and keep the property clear. 


Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s to approve the lease of the property at 430 North Main.

Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Chapman, Silbiger, Voisin, Slattery, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.


2.   Will Council authorize staff to develop a new Special Events Permit ordinance and approve recommended interim special event fees?

Public Works Director Mike Faught provided history on issuing permits, explained City sponsored permits were free, and non-sponsored special events were charged overtime costs.  He listed and described event types and the need to formalize the process.  Staff would work with the actual special event planners to determine the ordinance and fees.  However, due to the current Master Plans Mr. Faught did not have sufficient staff to assign the task until December 2011 with a completion date in the following 8-12 months. Until then, staff was recommending interim special event permit fees that ranged from $130 - $1,400 depending on event type. Changes to the permit application included current language under Signage changing to adhere to the Sign Code.


Council and staff discussed the definition of City sponsored and private events and how the community benefited from private sponsored events through attendees utilizing local restaurants and retail.  Departments factored overtime into their budgets for major City sponsored events like the 4th of July, Halloween, and the Festival of Lights parades annually.  Council suggested investigating charging participants a fee to race.


Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve staff recommendation to authorize the staff to develop a new Special Events Permit Ordinance and set a future Public Hearing to consider interim special event fees.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger, Morris and Voisin, YES.  Motion passed.





Meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m.


Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor

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