Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, November 07, 2000

November 7, 2000, 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street

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

Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon and Fine were present; Councilor Hanson was absent.

The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 17, 2000, and Continued Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2000, were approved as presented.

1. Mayor read Proclamation of Recycling Awareness Week.

1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Adoption of findings supporting the decision of the City Council in the approval of the new Oregon Shakespeare Theater application.
3. Consideration of a motion to initiate land use ordinance changes regarding the City's appeal procedures (AMC 18.108), clarification of large scale development standards (AMC 18.72), and implementation of a "public facilities" zoning classification.

Councilors Hauck/Fine requested that items #2 and #3 be pulled and placed under New and Miscellaneous Business. Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #1. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.


Dan Golden/886 Oak St/
Spoke regarding the current City Ordinance governing curfew hours for individuals under the age of 18. He noted a June 1996 study showing that most curfews are not enforced, and that the impact is moderate. He requested the council to join with the Ashland High School ACLU in supporting a reform of the youth's curfew laws.

Police Chief Scott Fleuter explained that there is a difference between state laws and city ordinances. Ashland's city ordinance has more restrictive hours than the state law. (Ashland: 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.; State: midnight to 4:00 a.m.)

Fine suggested, and the council agreed, that staff draft a report identifying current state law, and to bring forward an amendment to the current ordinance for council consideration at the next council meeting. Fleuter commented that curfews are imposed for the welfare of the youth and that a different ordinance addresses park curfew.

Colin Swales/461 Allison/
Spoke regarding the proposed library initiative. He feels that there was no rush to get the library built and that the bond measure, passed by the county, will be spread over various sites in the county over the next four years. He thought there are continued issues regarding both design and parking, and requested that the proposal be revisited. He compared the cost of the library expansion with other communities, and suggested it could be redesigned for a lot less. Finally, Swales suggested the Community Works building could be utilized, cutting costs from the current library expansion budget.

Eric Navickas/711 Faith/
Spoke regarding the proposed design for the Carnegie Library and presented diagrams for illustration. He voiced his concern for the demolition of the back portion of the library, the destruction of trees, the lack of parking, and the plan to no longer use the historic front entrance.

Jim Lewis/640 A Street/
Spoke regarding his involvement in the library project and agreed that the library plans should be re-evaluated.

Brent Thompson/582 Allison/
Spoke regarding the Valdez Principles and how they relate to the accomplishment of city projects and goals. Under the Valdez Principles, a city should utilize building sites by reaching height limits, not by expanding low-lying structures onto adjacent parcels.

Tamara Henderson/132 So Mountain #3/
Representative of Southern Oregon University. Gave a brief update of the "Get Out the Vote" effort, which was very positive. At last count, 1,280 students have become registered voters.


1. Council Meeting Look Ahead.
Information only.
2. Adoption of findings supporting the decision of the City Council in the approval of the new Oregon Shakespeare Theater application.

Philip Lang/758 B Street/Provided the council with a statement regarding adoption of the findings, which cautioned the council on proceeding with the proposed lease and project, and absenting a final determination of a possible LUBA appeal, may create legal and financial problems for the city. The original letter is on file with the City Recorder's Office.

Fine stated that although he joined with the council in voting in favor of the planning action, he does not feel that the Findings adequately reflect the sense of the council. He understood that the Findings were written by the applicant's professional representative, and were edited by the city's Planning and Legal departments. Traditionally, the city's adoption of the Findings allows the applicant success with LUBA, and he does not think a project of this significance is appropriate to follow in this tradition. Fine commented that he did not find the building to be aesthetically pleasing and it is only minimally architecturally compatible with neighboring structures. In addition, the city's interpretation of the word "contiguous" does not meet with the dictionary's definition. He felt that this project is a group of contiguous buildings, and therefore exceeds the 45,000 sq. ft requirements. Fine stated that the Findings claim, that the project meets with the council's approval standards, but that they do not adequately reflect the quandary that the council felt. For these reasons, Fine requested that the Findings be referred back to staff for further editing.

Hauck and Laws voiced their disagreement with Fine's thoughts and Wheeldon felt that the staff would need specific direction within the Findings in order to make any changes.

Fine made a motion to refer the Findings back to staff for further editing to reflect the council's concern that, although the project met with minimal standards there was still concern with the architectural compatibility of neighboring structures, and whether this is a contiguous group or pair of buildings. Motion died due to lack of second.

Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to approve adoption of Findings. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck and Wheeldon, YES; Fine, NO. Motion passed 4-1.

3. Consideration of a motion to initiate land use ordinance changes regarding the City's appeal procedures (AMC 18.108), clarification of large scale development standards (AMC 18.72), and implementation of a "public facilities" zoning classification.

Colin Swales/461 Allison/Voiced his concerns regarding the appeal to the council, which appears to have a two-tier system: one for citizens and another for the council. He felt that the presentation of appeals for de novo hearing would be changed to disallow the testimony of new individuals and/or new evidence, which would limit citizen appeals. He explained that this new document does not make it easier for citizens to file appeals, but makes it more difficult and excludes the council from the same recommendations. He felt that the rules should not be bent in order to allow projects, and then be changed after the fact.

Nolte clarified that the motion is to send this issue back to the Planning Commission for further review.

Eric Navickas/711 Faith/
Gave example by using the City of Eugene, of poor planning and development. He felt that by weakening City ordinances to limit square footage, we would risk turning Ashland into a city similar to Eugene.

Brent Thompson/582 Allison/
Offered his support for sending the ordinances back to the Planning Commission for consideration and discussion.

Philip Lang/758 B Street/
Spoke about the process of democracy and how citizens are heard. He agreed with Mr. Swales' testimony.

Debbie Miller/160 Normal/
Stated that it is important for the council to hear all points of view, and urged the council to adopt, for the Planning Commission, a broader set of criteria or continue using the range of evidence, and preferably both.

Laws stated that the amendment to the ordinance is to clarify the placement of buildings in regard to the 45,000 sq. ft rules. Reid noted that the historic downtown district is based on a series of common-wall or adjacent buildings, and that it was human error that the downtown district was not exempted from the ordinance. Reid felt that the changes to the ordinance were for clarification and that the ordinance is fair in regards to de novo hearing. Hauck supported Laws and Reid's comments, adding that he is not in favor of sending the de novo hearing issue back to the Planning Commission.

Shaw stated her concerns and agreed with Reid and Hauck, but for different reasons. She explained that when citizens come to the council meetings, they are driven by emotions, and that they need to be allowed the opportunity to speak within the limits of the situation.

Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to refer the discussion of large-scale development standards (AMC 18.72) and implementation of a "public facilities" zoning to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the council. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon, and Fine, YES. Motion passed.

Consideration of a motion to initiate land use ordinance changes regarding the City's appeal procedures (AMC 18.108) will be moved to a future study session for discussion.

1. First reading of "An Ordinance Amending Section 10.30.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Simplify the Annual Consideration of Outdoor Burning Regulations by the City Council."

Councilors Fine/Hauck m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading of the ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon and Fine, YES. Motion passed.

2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing Signatures, including Facsimile Signatures, for Banking Services on Behalf of the City of Ashland."

Lee Tuneberg was introduced to the council as the new finance director for the City.
Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to approve Resolution # 2000-28. Roll Call Vote: Fine, Wheeldon, Reid, Hauck and Laws, YES. Motion passed.

3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Repealing the Existing Water, Wastewater, and Parks System Development Charges Schedules and Adopting New Water, Wastewater, and Parks System Development Charges Schedules, Pursuant to Section 4.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code."

Councilors Fine/Hauck m/s to approve Resolution # 2000-29. Roll Call Vote: Hauck, Fine, Laws, Wheeldon and Reid, YES. Motion passed.


Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Submitted by Barbara Christensen, City Recorder/Treasurer

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