MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 18, 2000
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street

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

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular meeting of January 4, 2000 were approved as presented.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None)

CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.

The following corrections were made to the Study Session of January 25, 2000: page 2, paragraph eight, delete from third sentences “there” and delete an unfinished sentence at the end of paragraph “Brown stated.”

The following corrections were made to the Joint Study Session of January 6, 2000: page 1, 1st paragraph, last sentence should read “. . . the future as far as possible.”; page 3 of 3, 6th paragraph, should read “. . . explained Food & Beverage Tax and funding allocation of 1/3 of 1/3 to OSF . . . ”

2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Nancy Richardson to the Housing Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2001.

Councilors Reid/Fine m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing regarding vacation of a portion of Bush Street.

Public Works Director Paula Brown presented map of area which indicated the portion of the alley off Bush Street proposed to be vacated. Brown stated that this had come before the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission supported the request which included that there be a five-foot pedestrian easement. She explained that a 14' public utility easement has been added to the proposed ordinance, primarily for telephone. Brown explained that the alley was originally vacated in 1982 to accommodate the construction of Wesley Hall by the First United Methodist Church.

Brown clarified that in the future, if the easement that runs through the church parking lot is needed, pedestrians could use the parking lot. Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained that there is a placeholder at this time and that the church may come back at a future date for a planning action that could allow opening up of the fence and getting a pedestrian easement to connect to Laurel Street. McLaughlin explained that we are more aware of the importance of mid-block connections than we were in the 1980's. McLaughlin explained that the remainder of the alleyway, where the gate exists, is property of the church.

Shaw voiced concern with the uninviting nature of the proposed alleyway and that there is no signage for the alleyway that would encourage bicycle-pedestrian access.

Public Hearing OPEN: 7:15 p.m.

Maxwell Foster Jr./63 Bush Street/Pointed out that there was an error in the proposed ordinance which indicated two different utility easements. He explained that the 14' utility easement is the official and agreed upon easement.

Brown explained that Mr. Foster had not received a corrected copy of the proposed ordinance, and the version that the council had received in their council packet was correct.

Public Hearing CLOSED: 7:17 p.m.

First reading in full of "An Ordinance Vacating An Unnamed Alley off Bush Street and Reserving a Pedestrian Access and Public Utility Easement."

Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading of ordinance.

Councilors Fine/Reid m/s to amend motion to correct SECTION 2 of ordinance under (1), to remove the words “are recorded.” Councilors Wheeldon/Fine m/s to approve first reading with amendment and place on agenda for second reading of ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Hauck, Laws, Wheeldon, Reid and Fine, YES. Motion passed.

PUBLIC FORUM
Bonnie Moody/511 E Hersey/She stated that there had been almost no public discussion of the proposal to erect 23 60'-90' light structures at North Mountain Park. She feels that this would effectively transform this park into a sports complex with 170 flood lights that could be seen from many city neighborhoods. She felt that the glare from the lights and fixtures would be prominent enough to neutralize views of the moon and stars at night and the mountains by day. Feels that installation of the lights is a violation of the city's comprehensive plan and that it also violates the spirit of the Food & Beverage Tax.

James Earley/1067 E Main/Astronomy teacher from Hidden Valley spoke in support of saving night light and spoke against light pollution. Shared definition of light trespassing and how it has affected this area.

Duane Whitcomb/1179 Village Square Drive/He read the current definition of structure as is set in city ordinance and compared this definition to the company that will potentially receive the contract for lights at North Mountain Park. He stated that the fields have been wired for 23 poles that are set to be 60'-90' tall and are multi-sectional. He feels that the proposed lights are beyond the definition of utility pole and that the poles are a structure not a conduit. He requested that council consider the Comprehensive Plan when making their decision.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Draft Public Information and Communication Plan.
Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderschied presented plan and recommended approval. He explained that this plan is a work plan for his department and that the plan would also give them the ability to ask the Budget Committee for funding. He stated that if the Citizen Involvement Plan had been used initially on the issue of lights at North Mountain Park, this could have been resolved long ago. But, he doesn't think that the proposed plan is going to avoid the current situation regarding North Mountain Park. He feels that some of the other things that staff is working on may help in the future, but that it is hard to go back and fix things that happened in the past.

Wanderschied clarified that this is not a process, but a plan that includes a number of things that staff hopes to accomplish in the next year through funding or staff allocation. He stated that this plan should improve communication both internally and externally within the city.

Councilors Wheeldon/Reid m/s to approve Plan. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

2. Draft Marketing Plan.

Councilors Wheeldon/Reid m/s to approve Marketing Plan. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

1. Council meeting Look Ahead.
City Administrator Mike Freeman noted the difficulty of scheduling the joint Council and Planning Commission meeting. He explained that the meeting will be held January 25, 2000 but due to scheduling conflicts for Town Hall, the City Administrator, Mayor Shaw and Councilor Hauck will not be in attendance.

2. Mayor's appointments of Council liaisons to various boards and commissions.
Mayor Shaw noted a change in appointment liaisons as Susan Reid for Bear Creek Greenway Committee and Don Laws for Trans Advisory Comm (TRADCO), added Building Demolition and Moving Board and David Fine as liaison.

3. Annual Review of City Burning Regulations.
Fire Chief Woodley explained that the ordinance that regulates city burning requires an annual report by the Fire Chief to the council regarding the previous years statistics. He explained that there will be a resolution in February that will need to be executed to set the dates for burning in the calender year 2000. He also provided to council an analysis of the burning activity within the city for the last 9 years. Woodley stated that they continue to recommend and encourage alternative ways to burning. He explained that there are certain hardship situations where burning is the only reasonable way to remove wildfire fuels.

Woodley clarified for council that it is difficult to look at numbers without taking into consideration the number of burning days that were allowed. He further clarified that 87 is the correct number in determining the total number of permits issued.

4. Update on the Implementation of Council's 1999 - 2000 Strategic Plan Priorities.
No action due to time constraints.

5. Second Quarter 1999/00 Construction and Major Project Activity Summary (#2).
No action due to time constraints.

6. Request for interpretations of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance by the Planning Commission and City Council as provided in Section 18.108.160 of the ALUO.

Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained that this is only the second time that the interpretation process has been used for the land use ordinance in the last 15 years. He explained that there are 10 items before the council for interpretation and he will present these along with the Planning Commission's decisions. He explained that there is no particular project to focus on, as in the lights for North Mountain Park or the driving range at Oak Knoll, but that it is the general ordinance that the council is being asked to interpret. He stated that the council is being asked to look at how this ordinance interpretation will affect how we interpret the ordinance in all classifications of land use and how it is applied in the future.

The following are the items referred for interpretation:
1. Is a public golf course a public recreational facility as that term is used in ALUO 18.20.020.E.

McLaughlin stated that it is staff's interpretation that this type of facility is a public recreational facility and the Planning Commission concurred with the staff interpretation.

2. Is a driving range in conjunction with a public golf course an outright permitted accessory use to a public recreational facility in ALUO 18.20.020.

McLaughlin explained that in single family zones there are permitted uses and their accessories are permitted outright. He stated that it was staff's interpretation that this was an accessory and Planning Commission agreed with this interpretation.

3. Are planning staff responses, to questions regarding the intent or meaning of the ALUO, proceedings which constitute a planning action as that term is defined in ALUO 18.08.595.

McLaughlin explained that a planning action is specifically defined as preceding pursuant to this ordinance in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are determined in any appeal or review of such proceedings pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. He explained that a planning action does not include ministerial actions or legislative amendments. McLaughlin explained that the ordinance is not perfectly clear in every situation and staff has had to make interpretations based on individual cases in which the interpretation does not constitute a planning action. He stated that the Planning Commission agreed with staff interpretation.

City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that this question was a question by LUBA of the city in saying that, when the Community Development Director gave his explanation of what he had done in this particular issue, he did not explain why giving such advise is not a planning action under the ordinance and thereby triggering some type of process for public hearing. Nolte stated that the interpretation is, that staff responses to inquiries do not require them to notify neighbors and create an opportunity for public hearing. He explained that every time staff answers a question, that it does not create a planning action and process that comes from a planning action.

4. Does the term "structure," as defined in ALUO 18.08.750, include poles or posts, standing by themselves or connected to each other by fencing, netting or utility wires or cable.

McLaughlin explained that it was staff's opinion that these are not structures and have not been regulated as structures in the past. He stated that the Planning Commission disagreed with staff interpretation and found that poles connected by netting or fencing do constitute a structure. McLaughlin explained that there was less clarity with the Planning Commission's decision about stand-alone poles or light poles and whether these constitute structures or not. He noted the difficulty in determining the standards for how to regulate placement of a pole because the ordinance has never considered these as structures and subject to review. He requested that council help to clarify and separate out poles connected by nets and fencing as opposed to stand-alone poles. He noted that poles for public utility for municipal purposes are exempt in the land use ordinance.

McLaughlin clarified that the city has never required building permits for poles. Reid noted that specs are required in construction of poles to ensure a non-hazardous situation. McLaughlin explained that there is no permit process required to ensure the proper installation of a pole.

5. Does the definition of height of buildings in ALUO 18.08.290 apply to the poles or posts described above.

Explained that poles do not have a roof and so this would not apply and Planning Commission agreed with Staff's interpretation.

McLaughlin explained that the definition of height of buildings is very specific in that it measures from a roof down the grade. He stated the staff interpretation is that poles do not have a roof and therefore this definition does not apply and the Planning Commission agreed with this interpretation.

6. Does the term driving range in ALUO 18.20.030.E apply to driving range which is an accessory use to a golf course.

McLaughlin explained that in this section of the ALUO it states that certain uses are conditional uses in single family zones and not included in the list of private clubs is such intensive private recreation uses, such as private race track, amusement park or driving range. He stated that staff's interpretation is that, use of driving range in the ordinance, is specific to a stand-alone commercial driving range which is not in conjunction with anything else that changes the impact or how it sits on the property. McLaughlin clarified that this section of the ALUO applies specifically to stand-alone driving ranges and the Planning Commission agreed with staff interpretation.

7. Is a vending machine of golf balls or other products, or is a vehicle with attachments, such as to mow lawns or retrieve golf balls, mechanical equipment within the meaning of ALUO 18.08.485.

McLaughlin explained that vending machines, lawn mowers, and similar equipment are not mechanical equipment as defined in the land use ordinance and Planning Commission agreed with staff interpretation.

8. How is square footage measured as used in ALUO 18.108.030.A..6 when a structure is unenclosed or has no roof or floor.

McLaughlin explained that a building is something that has a roof, is enclosed and has square footage. He stated that there are certain structures that are not buildings, all buildings are structures, but not all structures are buildings. He explained that there are certain structures that have no measurable square footage and with an unenclosed structure, there is no square footage that could be measured to trigger a planning action as used defined in the ALUO. He stated that the Planning Commission agreed with staff interpretation.

9. Is outdoor lighting a use as a defined in ALUO 18.08.810 and is it subject to a planning action or any permit or approval under the ALUO.

McLaughlin explained that a use is defined as the purpose for which land or structure is designated, arranged, or intended for which is occupied or maintained. He gave examples that a park is a use of land and a grocery store is a use of a site. He explained that lighting is not a use of the land, that it could allow for use to continue longer, but is still the same use of that property. The use of the land, as defined in the ordinance, remains the same. He explained that staff's interpretation was that it was not a use and the Planning Commission agreed with staff interpretation.

10. How is direct illumination to be interpreted in ALUO 18.72.140

McLaughlin explained that in the Site Design Use standards there are light and glare standards which state there should be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in any other residential lot or commercial employment, industrial or health care lot. He stated that the past interpretation by staff is to reduce the direct line of sight to the source of the light by using shielding. He explained that there are instances where this is not possible due to topography and line of sight, but it doesn't mean that the light is shining directly and illuminating the property, but that the source of light is visible. He used examples of the lights at the University and High School football fields. McLaughlin stated that it was staff's interpretation that if there is no direct illumination when the light source is shielded from view at the adjoining property, or if not shielded the light source is not directed toward the property and the Planning Commission agreed with staff interpretation.

Council requested discussion regarding the diameter of poles, what would constitute a pole and how this would relate to obstruction of view. Reid raised questions regarding control of stray lighting. Electric Department Director Pete Lovrovich explained for council that the poles constructed by the North Mountain Sub Station are used primarily for transmission. He explained that these are steel poles and built in accordance with strict structural rules. He stated that construction of these poles requires that they adhere to national electric safety code and national electric code for construction. Reid noted that she felt it important that others are required to follow the same safety requirements when putting up poles.

Nolte explained that the phrase "direct illumination" is taken from the standard in the code that says "there shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard and any other residential lot or other zones." He stated that it is his opinion the interpretation would not effect lighting at the airport.

McLaughlin explained the difference between a Planning Action and Building Permit. A Planning Action requires a review by the Planning staff or Planning Commission and then notice is sent to surrounding property owners. A Building Permit is done ministerially meaning that there is no notice to surrounding property owners.

Nolte stated that if the council concludes that a pole with a light standard attached to it is a structure, staff will also ask council if a light retro-fitted to the outside of a building becomes another structure that needs a permit.

PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:17 p.m.

Kim Yasutake/384 Clinton St./Noted that he moved here in August 1999. Urged council to allow public hearing on this issue as the lights proposed for North Mountain Park fall under the spirit of "structures" in the ordinance and will have an impact on the neighborhood and the park's ecology.

Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Dr./Planning Commissioner; Representing herself noted her minority vote against the staff interpretation. For item #2, feels that an accessory should be incidental or subordinate, and something 50= x 750= fails to qualify as incidental. Noted that the driving range could become the primary public use, meaning that it would not be subordinate either. For item #3, suggested that all Parks actions should be handled publicly (rather than administratively) to avoid these sorts of problems. For #4, stated that the poles and netting at the golf course should be considered a structure under the definition. Stated that under #5, this structure has an implied roof to hold golf balls. For #6, conditional uses in an R-1 zone do not include such intensive commercial uses as driving ranges, and in #8 it is impossible to think of this as not having square footage. Concluded that the attempt to avoid public hearings by the Parks Department represents taxation without representation as they run on public monies.

William Anderson/370 Patterson St./Submitted letter to the council. Noted that the company that manufactures the poles calls them "light structures." Reminded council that the proposal is to install 23 poles, and stated that these 170 floodlights would be visible from ten miles away even if they are directed downward. Stated that the light poles would also be very unattractive in the daytime. Felt that if council approves putting in these lights, that lights could also be constructed at the golf driving range under the same interpretation.

Wes Reynolds/1265 Munson Dr./Noted his disagreement with items #2, #4, #5 and #8-10. Noted that his daughter will be unable to view deep sky objects by telescope with the lights illuminated, and this is a resource which they now have which will be squandered if the lights are allowed. Pointed out that many objects more trivial than these poles, such as signs, take permits and are regulated by the city. Emphasized that developers would not be allowed to do this, and stated that the focus on use in the staff memo obscures the fact that the code, overall, is to regulate development. Emphasized that this is a residential area. Questioned how the city can regulate cell towers and not other poles that are just as big. Also noted that the city protects solar access, even for areas where the sun does not reach above the horizon in December, and feels that dark skies are a resource equally deserving of protection.

Ross Rampy/880 E. Pebble Beach Dr./Noted that his house is located on the Oak Knoll parking lot. Assured council that the Planning Commission took great care and time in discussing all of these items. Stated that a driving range is an accessory use for a golf course, but that the driving range is necessary for the success of a golf course. Questioned how ambiguous the ordinance is, noting the need to take into account the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. Stated that the city may have to rewrite the ordinance to make exceptions for North Mountain Park or the driving range at Oak Knoll. Noted that as the ordinance is written, he feels McLaughlin's staff memorandum is a correct interpretation in item #4.

Dick Streng/1255 Munson Dr./Spoke regarding his luck in the view he currently has B from his home he can see Grizzly Peak, the south Cascades and Bear Creek. Feels that aesthetic resources in the viewshed are protected by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Voiced his opposition to the poles to be placed in the North Mountain Park, and stated that the poles should be considered as structures. Stated that by the land use ordinance, they should be considered to be structures, and questioned whether the poles are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Read from the Comprehensive Plan policies where views are referred to as irreplaceable assets and development is required to complement the surrounding areas.

Teri Coppedge/2927 Barbara St./Member of the Parks Commission; explained that the commission holds open, advertised, public meetings monthly and stated that there have been numerous meetings on both North Mountain Park and the golf course. Noted advice of the golf advisory committee, and preparation of the master plan. Explained that the intent of the driving range was as an accessory to the golf course, to help people learn to play on the course. Stated that the Parks Commission does not have detailed plans for lighting at North Mountain Park and the information that has been provided is from catalogs, and has not been decided yet by the Parks Commission. Emphasized that the point of having lights would be to expand the time when people can play, and there is no plan to keep the playing fields open until 11:00 p.m. Encouraged individuals to discuss this at the appropriate time, and emphasized the need to do everything we can to make recreational facilities as available as possible.

Stephanie Houston/1137 Village Square Dr./Supports the view that lighting poles be considered structures, as they will impact the environment around the park (the creek, the nesting hawks) and asked that this issue be given serious consideration.

Cynthia Sever/540 Fordyce St./Feels that the lighting structures will be extremely offensive to residents, and suggested that sports can be played in the daytime. Suggested that there be more consideration for the neighbors, as these lights are obtrusive, invasive, and destructive to the beauty of the area.

Fred Wilson/717 Murphy Rd., Medford, OR 97504/Noted that he is the attorney representing a number of individuals who reside along the golf course, and requested that he be allowed fifteen minutes as he is speaking on behalf of more than one person.

Submitted an interpretation memorandum into the record on the 10 items in the staff memo. Provided a history of the driving range and the appeal. Conceded that there were public hearings held with the Parks Commission, but there was not an opportunity to address the issues of concern which are now before the council. Confirmed that he had submitted a lengthy memo to the Planning Commission that is part of the records.

Spoke on item #4, the definition of the structure from the municipal code. Stated that the definition is clear, and the Planning Commission had no problem determining the driving range to be a structure. Requested that the council concur with the Planning Commission interpretation of the driving range as a structure.

For items #2, whether a driving range in conjunction with a public golf course is an outright permitted accessory use to a public recreational facility, and #6, whether the term "driving range" applies to a driving range which is an accessory use to a golf course under R-1 zoning rules. Explained that the R-1 zoning allows golf courses as conditional uses, but forbids intense commercial uses and specifically includes driving ranges in this prohibition. Stated his belief that because this applies specifically to driving ranges, this driving range should be forbidden.

Questioned whether a driving range can be considered an incidental or subordinate use, as required if it to be considered an accessory use. Under the current interpretation, the only criteria is whether the driving range is in conjunction with a public course. When in conjunction with a public course, a driving range is acceptable and subject to no further review. Asked Council to find counter to this interpretation. Feels that decisions should be based on specific applications through a standard review process rather than relying on ordinance interpretations.

For interpretation #5, Wilson explained that the reason this was addressed by staff was that in the LUBA appeal, they had issue with the prohibition on structures over 35 feet in height in an R-1 zone. Explained that the ordinance his firm has raised before LUBA is not limited to building, and applies to all structures. Questioned why council was not asked to interpret the ordinance at issue with LUBA, and was instead given an ordinance that applied only to buildings.

For interpretation #8, noted that staff has asked the council to interpret Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.108.030.A(6) regarding the measurement of square footage of a building. Explained that the ordinance before the council is different than the ordinance at issue before LUBA and asked that council compare the two ordinances. Stated that the reason staff has requested this interpretation is that one of the issues before LUBA is whether the driving range must go through Site Plan Review pursuant to ALUO 18.72.040.B.3.

Concluded that however the driving range is looked at, it is exactly the sort of project that is meant to go through the public land use process site plan review as it will have a big effect on the neighboring property owners. Asked the council for rebuttal time if the decision is to be made tonight, given that the city is effectively the applicant in this case.

Ramie Streng/1255 Munson Dr./Duane Whitcomb spoke for Ms. Streng. Spoke regarding the lighting structures in regards to Commissioner Coppedge's comments. Stated that the communication and planning process has left residents with the feeling that they can have little impact on the outcome. Emphasized that effective public involvement requires clear, straightforward and honest communication. Explained that the Park Master Plan Map is described by staff as the only written representation of the master plan, and yet it makes no indication of any field lighting. None of the public comments or newspaper articles back to 1993 mention that lights were intended. Also noted that in one meeting, Park staff responded to a question by saying that lighting was not being considered. Plans for the lighting were revealed less than two weeks prior to the commission's scheduled vote. And by this time, the underground electric for the lights had already gone in and bids were being solicited for the project.

Mayor Shaw read statements into the record from the following: William and June Holmes, James Camp, Brian and Joanne Johns, and Penny Curtis.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:15 p.m.

Nolte addressed confusion by council in regards to what section of the ALUO was presented to LUBA. He explained that the ALUO sections brought up before LUBA are intertwined and that you cannot define one without looking at the other to see what the effect is. He explained that this is the reason interpretation is being brought forward so that the staff makes sure it is following what the council has done.

Councilor Reid clarified for the public that council is not being asked to make a decision on the driving range or lights at the North Mountain Park. She voiced concern that council is being asked to avoid a public process. She commented on the conflict of avoiding a public process and the recent development of communication tools with the community. Reid stated that she does not want to do something that will deny public processes.

Hauck stated that staff made their interpretation and the result is the action that council is contemplating. He stated that neither of the issues mentioned resulted in a planning action that would call for defined processes. He explained that there are a lot of things that are released by the staff that are done by the city and private citizens that do not call for planning actions. Hauck stated that in this case the council is specifically being asked the following, are the interpretations that have been used by the staff in the past how the council see the ordinances that are written to mean. He stated that the intent is not to avoid a public process, but that there are certain types of actions that do not require a public process.

Nolte explained that the job of the staff is to find what process should happen and in this case staff did not find a process. He stated that if council should define structures in the same way the Planning Commission did, it would trigger a finding that would trigger a site review process.

Fine commented on his confidence of the staff involved and that there has been no special treatment in the two projects that have been mentioned. He asked council to always be firm in insisting that this be so. He noted that the city holds itself to very strict standards.

Laws noted that there are side issues, which include night lighting and public processes, that the council will need to address in the future. He commented that these issues are not relevant to the matter before the council and that the council needs to limit their discussion on the question of interpreting the meaning of our ordinance provisions. Laws felt that the council needs to look at what the ordinance provision meant at the time they were written and interpreted by staff. He stated that they should not be looking at what we would like them to mean, not what they should mean in the future, nor what we would want to change or clarify them to mean, but what did they mean at the time of interpretation.

Shaw noted that when the North Mountain Park was first proposed and went back to the Parks Commission and the community group, this area was largely undeveloped. She explained that the area has changed now and a different component of our community, through a long and difficult public process, said what they wanted there. Shaw explained that the community came to an agreement of what was wanted at this park. She explained that there are no set decisions about lights and that this is not the issue before the council. She felt that staff may have foreseen a problem surrounding lights as a structure simply because it is similar to the problem associated with the driving range. She explained that it does an injustice to the council because it pushes the council to present to the public that this is a decision that has been made, when it is not.

Reid noted that it is more important to know what the result of the decision will be. She feels that if the result of the decision is to deny public process, then it is not the way she wants to go. Reid feels that the light poles are structures and should have a building permit process to ensure public safety.

Nolte clarified that LUBA did not request items #9 and #10 and that they had nothing to do with the LUBA decision. He explained that the requested interpretations were brought to council, under a provision in our ordinances which state, when there is a doubt as to the meaning it can be referred to the Planning Commission, which is then automatically referred to the council. He stated that not all of these are specific issues that were raised by LUBA, but that this would be a way to tie up loose ends to see if the council agrees with staff interpretation. Wheeldon clarified that council is only looking at the actions of the Planning Director and links in ordinances that allow him to make an interpretation. Nolte explained that LUBA did not remand this to the council, but that this is a remand for the city to explain how the Planning Director made his decisions or choices. Nolte clarified that the ordinance states that this is referred to the council, regardless of the action of the Planning Commission, to accept, modify, reject, etc.

The following are the items referred for interpretation:

1. Is a public golf course a public recreational facility as that term is used in ALUO 18.20.020.E.

Council found consensus on agreement with Planning Commission recommendation.

2. Is a driving range in conjunction with a public golf course an outright permitted accessory use to a public recreational facility in ALUO 18.20.020.

Fine does not feel that a driving range in conjunction with a public golf course, is an outright permitted accessory. He stated that to be an accessory use, under the terms of our ordinance, it has to be incidental. He used a definition from the dictionary that described an accessory as having a minor role in relation to a more important thing and not essential. He felt that there is no guarantee or reason to assume that this driving range will always play a minor role in relationship to the Oak Knoll Golf Course. He stated that when the ordinance is interpreted, it has to be interpreted so that it can be consistently applied to all cases. Fine noted that our ordinance states that in a residential zone, one may never ever have a free standing driving range. He felt that the reason may be, because it is anticipated in many cases that a driving range can be contrary to purposes of a residential zone. Because of these reasons, Fine stated that he would vote no on this interpretation.

Hauck disagreed with reasons stated by Fine because he felt that what was being discussed had to do with land use, which means a use of the property in question. He stated that in the case of the golf course, which is a designated use of the property, that the driving range is an accessory use because it is not the primary use of the land and is subordinate to the main use of the land. He explained that the ordinance speaks to and makes a differentiation between a public and private golf course. Hauck explained that a public golf course is an outright permitted use and he agrees with the interpretation of staff and the Planning Commission.

Shaw commented that the golf course has existed for quite a few years and she does not agree that the driving range would be the primary use. Wheeldon feels the driving range would be incidental to the golf course. Reid felt that the driving range is subordinate as an outright permitted use. Laws noted that the Parks Commission feels that the driving range is essential to the financial success of the golf course and that it is an essential part to the golf course and he agreed with the reasons presented by Fine.

Council agreed with interpretation by staff and Planning Commission with a majority vote of 3-2.

3. Are planning staff responses, to questions regarding the intent or meaning of the ALUO, proceedings, which constitute a planning action as that term is defined in ALUO 18.08.595.

Hauck clarified that what the council is being asked is that when someone comes and asks the staff a question, regarding interpretation of an ALUO, does this mean that it is a planning action that needs to be documented and then noticed before the advice from staff can be given. Hauck responded that this is not the case and he agrees with staff and Planning Commission interpretation.

Councilors Reid and Wheeldon responded that they also agree with staff and Planning Commission interpretation.

Nolte explained that the specific question from LUBA is that John McLaughlin did not explain in his letter why his response to the inquiry is not a planning action.

Council unanimous in their agreement with staff and Planning Commission interpretation.

4. Does the term structure, as defined in ALUO 18.08.750, include poles or posts, standing by themselves or connected to each other by fencing, netting or utility wires or cable.

Reid stated that if it is more than a certain height, and used the current six-foot fence requirement, that it needs to be included in this definition. Laws felt that you could interpret ordinances, which do not have height provisions, into having height provisions. He suggested and Nolte confirmed that an ordinance would need to be amended rather than interpreted at this time. Nolte explained that, if it is connected to something it is a structure, and it would not matter what its height is, as long as it is over 18 inches.

Fine stated that the words in the ordinance need to have fixed meanings and cannot just mean anything at any particular occasion. He believes that structure would not include something like a power line supported by occasional poles or that a structure would not include a freestanding pole as in a light pole in a parking lot. He read a dictionary definition that stated that a structure is a set of interconnecting parts of any complex or framework. Fine compared the example of an aviary, which has poles with netting both on the sides and on the top and designed to keep birds in, to the driving range which would be designed to keep golf balls in. He felt that this design would constitute a structure. He feels that an engineered array, which becomes a framework for a complex illumination system, becomes a structure.

Hauck voiced his difficulty in making an interpretation and noted the definition, which states any piece of work, artificially built-up or composed of parts joined together is a definite matter. He stated that if you followed the letter of the law a pole would be this. He conceded that it is important to go back to what the original intent of the ordinance was when it was written and what they were trying to accomplish at that time. He stated that he does not want to make an interpretation that goes so far as to make handling and administration of this ordinance ridiculous.

Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Reid felt that poles would be structures and agreed with the Planning Commission interpretation. She stated that the concern she has is with safety and wants assurance that these would be engineered and installed properly. She would like to create a process that would require a building permit to ensure these factors.

Wheeldon stated that you would not have to say that these are a structure in order to require a building permit. Nolte explained that if council determines it is a structure, and it is an interpretation that is defensible and could be upheld, it would trigger action by either a site review or building permit. Nolte stated that if council should consider this a structure then staff would need to request from council an exemption for certain structures from the land-use review. He explained that staff would need to analyze the code to see if there is a defensible way to say that, because we regulate fences in another provision, we do not necessarily trigger a site-review for every fence.

Laws stated that if we were to use a dictionary definition we would have to say that virtually anything is a structure. He felt that we are not here to interpret the dictionary definition, but to interpret what our ordinance means. He does not feel that when the ordinance was written that it was intended in this way. Laws felt that none of these are structures in the meaning of the ALUO.

Wheeldon commented that if we attach the use of the word infrastructure, it would create site-reviews. Reid felt that staff had bundled several issues together in a cumbersome way and she would prefer to err on the side of interpreting that these are structures and would require a permit.

Shaw agreed with Reid's concern on the need for additional public process within the Planning Commission regarding potential lighting or a driving range at the golf course. Shaw did not believe that there was any intention on the Planning Commission to not have additional public process, but that this has evolved through time.

Councilors Laws motioned that it is counsel interpretation that structure as defined in ALUO 18.08.750 does not include poles or posts, standing by themselves or connected to each other by fencing, netting, or utility wire or cable. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Hauck, Wheeldon, YES; Reid and Fine, NO. Motion passed 3-2.

5. Does the definition of height of buildings in ALUO 18.08.290 apply to the poles or posts described above.

Nolte explained that this raises the question of how do you measure the height of a structure. He explained that there is a definition of height of buildings and how to measure these buildings. The question is, is there a height restriction on structures without roofs? Fine used the definition in 18.08.290 and stated that the question is whether this applies to poles or posts.

Hauck voiced his agreement with the staff and Planning Commission interpretation and Fine concurred that the definition does not apply.

Council voiced consensus of agreement on interpretation by staff and Planning Commission.

A. Does the term driving range in ALUO 18.20.030.E apply to driving range, which is an accessory use to a golf course.

Wheeldon stated that the driving range is an accessory use to the golf course, of which Hauck and Reid agreed.

Nolte explained that the staff had interpreted the golf course in section E, as a private stand-alone recreational facility. He stated that staff did not mean that it was an accessory use to a private golf course. That you could have a driving range with a private golf course as an accessory use, but you could not have a driving range, as the provision is interpreted, as a driving range by itself.

Based on reasons stated previously, Fine felt that it does apply and the contrary answer would suggest that the city is getting a deal for city facilities that we would not allow private facilities. Nolte explained that the interpretation is that you can have a driving range as an accessory use to a private golf course, which would be the same deal. He further explained that you couldn't have a driving range without a golf course.

Councilors Fine/Laws m/s to answer the question to #6 as YES. Roll Call Vote: Laws and Fine, YES; Reid, Hauck and Wheeldon, NO. Motion denied 3-2.
B. Is a vending machine of golf balls or other products, or is a vehicle with attachments, such as to mow lawns or retrieve golf balls, mechanical equipment within the meaning of ALUO 18.08.485.

Councilors Wheeldon/Fine m/s to answer the question to #7 as NO. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

C. How is square footage measured as used in ALUO 18.108.030.A.6 when a structure is unenclosed or has no roof or floor.

Fine stated that the answer is to measure the square footage of surface area and Reid seconded this statement as a motion. Shaw clarified that the motion is to go the opposite of the Planning Commission interpretation. Roll Call Vote: Reid and Fine, YES; Laws, Hauck and Wheeldon, NO. Motion denied.

D. Is outdoor lighting a use as defined in ALUO 18.08.810 and is it subject to a planning action or any permit or approval under the ALUO as unenclosed or has no roof or floor.

Councilors Fine/Hauck m/s to answer question to #9 as NO. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon and Fine, YES. Motion passed.

6. How is direct illumination to be interpreted in ALUO 18.72.140

Fine voiced is concern with information that was provided and felt that direct illumination is a term apart of certain branches of engineering, and that there is not enough information to respond at this time.

Council consensus to put this item off until another time for further discussion.

7. Request for Council approval to begin preliminary design and coordination for the formation of a Local Improvement District for the improvement of Strawberry Lane, Westwood Street, Scenic Avenue, Alnut Street, and Nutley Street.

Councilors Fine/Reid m/s to approve request. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon and Fine, YES. Motion passed.

Approval of Boundary Line Adjustment at Garfield Park and Authorization to Sign a Land Partition.

No action due to time constraints.

9. Update on Management Study of the Ashland Fire Department.

No action due to time constraints.

10. Presentation of the Economic Development Committee report to the City Council.

No presentation due to time constraints.

ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Vacating An Unnamed Alley off Bush Street and Reserving a Pedestrian Access and Public Utility Easement."

Item dealt with under Public Hearings.

OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
None due to time constraints.

ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Submitted by Barbara Christensen, City Recorder