Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, September 15, 2015


September 15, 2015
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street

Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Marsh were present.  Councilor Rosenthal was absent.
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Airport, Forest Lands, Housing and Human Services, Public Arts, Transportation, and Wildfire Mitigation Commissions and on the Bee City USA subcommittee.
The Deer Summit would happen September 23, 2015 in Council Chambers from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and be fully televised.
Councilor Voisin/Seffinger m/s to move all the ordinances under agenda XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS to the October 6, 2015 Council meeting.  DISCUSSION:  
Councilor Seffinger moved to amend the motion to move agenda items on the Study Session on October 5, 2015 to October 19, 2015 and use the October 5, 2015 to address a strategic plan for dealing with downtown issues.  City Attorney Dave Lohman and Mayor Stromberg explained the amendment needed to be a separate motion.
Councilor Marsh noted the agenda for October 6, 2015 was full already and Council might not have the time to focus on the ordinances.  Councilor Lemhouse added that City Administrator Dave Kanner would not be in town October 6, 2015 and thought Council had discussed moving the Study Session to October 19, 2015 instead.  Councilor Morris could not attend the meetings on October 19 and 20 and wanted to be present for the discussion.
Councilor Seffinger withdrew her second. Motion died for lack of a second.
Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s to move items under agenda XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS to the November 3, 2015 Regular Business meeting agenda and have a Study Session on November 2, 2015 to deal with these issues and other issues brought forward by Councilor Seffinger regarding the downtown.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Marsh stated delaying the items to a future meeting was not disinterest in the topics.  Moving the items allowed Council more time to discuss the issues.  Councilor Seffinger agreed.  She wanted Council to consider additional ordinances and wanted it to be a strategic plan that was effective.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Marsh, Seffinger, Voisin, Lemhouse, and Morris, YES.  Motion passed.
The minutes of the Study Session of August 31, 2015, Executive Session of August 31, 2015, and the Business Meeting of September 1, 2015 were approved as presented.
1.   Annual presentation by the Airport Commission
Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury and Airport Commission Chair Bill Butler provided the annual presentation.  Chair Butler explained Ashland based aircraft had flown over 400 firefighting missions this season already and that air transportation would be a major part of recovery in the event of large disasters.
Economic Benefits included 19,000 itinerant operations, 6,000 nonresident aircraft arrivals, and 15,000 visitors. Currently 85 aircraft based at the airport paid approximately $100,000 to the City.  Hangars built by private individuals in a collaborative agreement had building rent waived for a set period to amortize the buildings.  Six of those hangars would revert to City ownership in 2018 and would generate another $28,000 per annum.  The Federal Aviation Trust fund paid for airport projects using 90% to 10% matching grant.  State money went to disaster preparedness, air service subsidies, and matching federal grants.
Airport based services were provided by Skinner Aviation, JLC Avionics, and Brim Aviation & ARS.  The Commission would draft a new airport master plan.  It will cost approximately $350,000 and require hiring an engineering firm.  A federal grant will pay for 90% and the remaining 10% may come from the state.
2.   Seismic preparedness presentation by Dr. Althea Rizzo
Fire Chief John Karns introduced Dr. Althea Rizzo, a geologic hazards program coordinator from the Oregon Office of Emergency Management.  Dr. Rizzo explained the Cascadia subduction zone ran from northern California to British Columbia.  There was a 37% chance of having a 7.6 to 8.4 earthquake in the Southern Oregon area.  The loss of power resulting from the quake would last for months to years.  Disrupted sewer and water systems would take a similar amount of time to operate.  Loss of fuel will be the biggest issue for repair and recovery.  It will take approximately 6 months to restore fuel to Southern Oregon post Cascadia.
State and local entities had a responsibility to prepare themselves and the citizenry for extended periods of being on their own.  Chile and Japan were good examples of countries that spent the past 50 years strengthening their infrastructure and preparing their population to withstand this type of earthquake.  Retrofitting and preparedness at this time would leave children a resiliency legacy since they will be the generation dealing with a Cascadia level event.
She urged the City to adopt policies that promoted a prepared citizenry and city.  The state passed a resolution that allowed local communities to develop local funding systems to retrofit their downtown and vulnerable infrastructure.  It was important to retrofit community wide.  There were funding opportunities through the Seismic Retrofit Grant program to retrofit schools, universities, and hospitals.  It was also important for homeowners to retrofit their houses.  The Oregon Department of Transportation had a seismic study on a 50-year phased program to create lifelines starting with I-5 then Highway 97 and Highway 84 in the event of a catastrophe.
Nancy Parker/456 Euclid Street/Read from documents submitted into the record regarding representative government and human nature. She described what broke down representative government and how it resulted in people getting the government they deserved.  Elected officials had lost the public’s pulse. 
Linda Peterson Adams/642 Oak Street/Addressed the Union Pacific Railroad clean up and read from a document submitted into the record regarding the railroad’s second quarter results.  She questioned why the cleanup plan had changed from the 2001 agreement.  She encouraged Council to convince the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Union Pacific to clean up the entire 20-acre site via rail.
Mayor Stromberg explained a meeting would take place with Union Pacific Railroad, their contractors, and DEQ to discuss the cleanup.  If the meeting resulted in Council taking action, public input would occur at a regular Council business meeting.
Joseph Kauth/482 Walker/Disagreed with the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project.  Old growth forest was fire resistant. AFR covered the slash piles with plastic bags and if a fire occurred, it would contaminate the water and air.  The slash piles created grounding that with high dew would attract lightning.  More than 1,000 lightning strikes had happened south of Mt. Ashland. 
1.   Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2.   Appointment of ad hoc Committee on the Ashland City Recorder position
3.   Appointment of Thomas Gunderson to the Housing and Human Services Commission
4.   Appointment of Stuart Green to the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
5.   Liquor license application for Neil Clooney dba Smithfields Pub & Pies
6.   Request to Jackson County for transfer of remnant parcels to the City of Ashland
7.   Award of contract to Good Company for a greenhouse gas inventory
Councilor Voisin pulled Consent agenda item #7 for further discussion.  Management Analyst Adam Hanks explained the standard procurement, intermediate procurement, and request for proposal (RFP) processes used to determine the contract award for the greenhouse gas inventory.
Councilor Voisin/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion approved.
1.   Continuation of the public hearing and first reading of ordinances titled, “An ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a Normal Neighborhood plan designation to Chapter II [Introduction and Definitions], add the Normal Neighborhood land categories to Chapter IV [Housing Element], change the Comprehensive Plan map designation for approximately 94 acres of land within the City of Ashland urban growth boundary from single family residential and suburban residential to the Normal Neighborhood plan designation, and adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework as a supporting document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan”
      “An ordinance amending the Street Dedication map, Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement map, and the Planned Bikeway Network map of the Ashland Transportation System plan for the Normal Neighborhood plan area and amending street design standards within the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18.4.6 to add a new shared street classification”
      “An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new Chapter 18.3.4 Normal Neighborhood District, amending Chapter to add a Normal Neighborhood zoning classification, and amending Chapter to add a Normal Neighborhood Special District.”
Mayor Stromberg explained the legislative public hearing process and order of proceedings. 
Staff Report Continued:
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the project area consisted of 94 acres and was currently under Jackson County rural residential zoning designation.  There were 35 properties ranging in size between 0.38 acres up to 9.96 acres, 21 single-family homes, and 4 religious institutions.  The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was established in 1982, acknowledged by the state, and accepted by Jackson County.  The UGB had enough land to accommodate housing and employment growth for a 20-year period.  It had not expanded since then and Ashland had a relatively small number of annexations over the past 25-30 years adding 75-acres to the city limits.  Urban Growth Boundaries were successful in Oregon as a means for communities to do long range planning to anticipate rural areas in the County becoming part of city limits.  The City adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1982 and set future residential zoning designations for the area. There was also basic transportation planning done in 1982 that anticipated Normal Avenue extending from the south and connecting with East Main Street.  
Mr. Molnar and Senior Planner Brandon Golden continued with a presentation on the Normal Neighborhood Plan (NNP) included:
Existing Conditions – Comprehensive Plan - Existing (1982) Plan
  • Single Family R-1-5
  • Suburban Residential R-1-3.5
  • Estimated 500 + unit potential under current plan
Why are we developing neighborhood plan?
  • Sets clear expectations for the area
  • Identification of the layout of streets, pathways, public facilities
  • Accommodation of a variety of housing types
  • Greater protection of natural areas and open spaces
The plan served as a guide for future change and was proactive instead of reactive to potential piecemeal development.  The City participated in the Greater Bear Creek Regional process whose objective was anticipating, accommodating, and directing growth over the next 50 years while retaining agriculture and resource lands.  It also promoted efficiency in land use.  Ashland agreed to meet a density target within the UGB of 6.6 units per acre.  The NNP was consistent with that requirement.  There was a possibility to reduce density in the Normal neighborhood area but that reduction needed to be identified elsewhere in the UGB or city limits.
County Zoning – Rural Residential
  • Single family homes
  • Agriculture
  • Conditional uses
  • Religious institutions
The Jackson County standard regarding wetlands protection was not as rigid as Ashland.  The County permitted tree removal and agriculture use in wetlands or immediately adjacent while the City required buffers and prior approval to remove trees.  A property owner not interested in annexation or developing their property could build a single home on a five-acre lot without annexing into the City.  If they wanted to annex into the City, they would go through an application process for annexation, define their development, show how they would protect wetlands, and go through a full review process with the Transportation and Planning Commissions and ultimately Council.  The Normal Neighborhood Plan set the foundation for annexation and set expectations of what the City anticipated a proposal would look like.
As proposed, the NNP annexation would be consistent with underlying zoning designation.  The zoning ordinance would establish specific rules for development within the Normal Neighborhood district.  All of that was binding at the point of annexation.  However, an applicant could ask for exceptions to specific standards and modify the plan.  Council would have to approve that modification.  A key requirement for annexation was the need to show there was less than a five-year supply of residential land within city limits for consideration to incorporate into the city.
The City assessed the supply of available land through a Buildable Lands Inventory on all properties within city limits.  Identifying vacant and partially vacant land helped staff determine the number of units within the UGB and the city limits.  It did not necessarily state the lots were available for development.  Presently, if someone received approval from Jackson County to develop land in the Normal area the City could not prevent development because Jackson County was the jurisdictional body.  An adopted plan would give the City better standing in the event of an appeal to the County.  Development occurring under the County now and wanting to annex into the City in the future would have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Annexation requirements included meeting the base density projected for each zone. 
Buildable Lands Inventory 2011 - The R-2 zone had the capacity for approximately 130 units and met the less than 5-year supply of land within city limits.
Development Proposal Review
  • Annexation is property owner initiated
    • No developments or annexations are currently proposed
  • Public hearing process to review proposed development
  • Transportation Commission Hearing
  • Planning Commission Hearing
  • City Council Hearing
Annexation Criteria
  • Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
  • Demonstrates there is less than a 5 year supply of comparable land within the city limits
  • Meets affordable housing requirements
  • Demonstrates there exists, or will be provided as part of a development, adequate city facilities for water, sewage, treatment, electricity to the site, and urban storm drainage.
Council had discretion in terms of annexation on whether it was a community benefit.  If there was a demonstrable difficulty meeting the needs of Ashland residents, Council could deny an application.  State law prohibited postponing development due to water shortage.  Staff assumed that law applied to annexation.  The City would have to impose a moratorium for development due to lack of water supply until an alternate source was available.
City Attorney Dave Lohman clarified if property had not annexed, the City had no responsibility to that area even if there was a plan.  If the property to be developed was already in city limits and there were water issues the City would impose a moratorium until it rectified the water shortage.
Who pays for infrastructure Improvements?
  • Developers are responsible to pay for:
  • All new internal streets and sidewalks
  • All utility extensions to serve the development
  • Offsite improvements necessary due to impact of developments
City uses System Development Charges (collected from developments citywide) to contribute toward major facility improvements that have a Citywide benefit. 
One of the tasks for the SDC Review Committee was developing a list of needed transportation, sewage, and water improvements.  They would identify what proportion the City might contribute if the facility benefited the entire community.  The City outlined projects annually in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).  The developer could advance finance improvements pertaining to a proposal not listed in the CIP, pay for the improvements, and as part of the issuance of the building permit, receive a credit. 
Land Use and Housing Density – Working Group Changes
A number of property owners were not interested in annexation.  The Church of Latter Day Saints had a 50-unit potential in the back of their Church and would most likely not annex nor would the agricultural properties that had a 40-unit potential.  Of the 21 homes on single lots, there were 150 potential units on lands currently owned by owners not interested in annexing leaving 300 potential units.
All City parks, flood plains, and wetlands had underlying zoning and protection from development.  The City did not allow development in 100-year flood plains or within 40-50 feet of a designated wetland depending on its significance.  There were also established riparian areas throughout the Water Resource Protection ordinance.  There was the opportunity to transfer density out of an open space area.  Property owners could cluster density outside of the prohibited area in an area free of physical constraints all on the same property or project area if it was multiple properties.
Under the existing plan, in order to modify a wetland, the City required a wetland delineation approved by Department of State Lands within 5 years of the proposed annexation.  If the applicant identified the wetland was not as big as originally shown, they could reduce the size of the open space area to correlate with the smaller wetland through either a minor or a major amendment.  This applied if the wetland had increased as well.  Staff would approve minor amendments administratively and Council would approve major amendments.  In the case of annexation, both major and minor amendments would go through a public hearing process and Council.  An allowance within the code stated areas within wetlands, riparian, or flood plains could build fewer units on the property and discount the protected natural resource areas from the base density calculation.
The Department of State Lands responded to complaints regarding activity in the wetlands, conducted site visits and determined no work was done that would have triggered a requirement for a permit through the Department of State Lands.  Jackson County jurisdiction allowed agricultural uses and tree removal within wetland areas. 
The City had 100-year flood plains for Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek that were not FEMA regulated.   The City restricted development in these open space areas.
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to extend the Public Hearing to 10:00 p.m.  Voice Vote.  ALL AYES.
The plan minimized road intrusions into wildlife corridors and open spaces.
NN-1-5 examples of housing types
NN-1-3.5 examples of housing types
NN-2 examples of housing types 13.5 units per acre and often look like single-family homes
Land Use Framework – Land Use and Housing Density – Working Group Changes
  • Neighborhood Module illustrations within the plan framework to provide general examples of characteristics that would help make a neighborhood module successful
Development in the Normal Neighborhood should be:
  1. Family friendly, exhibiting qualities that support children and families
  2. Energy efficient, exhibiting qualities that recognize conservation and new energy sources
  3. Water efficient, exhibiting qualities that recognize the benefits of long term conservation practices
  4. Inclusive of micro-agriculture and Developments supportive of micro-agriculture
Mr. Goldman clarified the NN-2 zone was multifamily and leaned towards townhouses and apartments within that area for a higher concentration of housing.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) did not allow HUD funded projects near areas of noise pollution.  The NN-2 designation was near the railroad tracks.  Affordable housing had to be scattered throughout the entire 94 acres.
A property owner or consortium of owners with NN-2, NN-1-3.5 and single family could request an exception as part of the annexation proposal and dedicate land for affordable housing or provide it throughout the development and request it located further away from the railroad tracks if they sought funding from HUD.
The 2002-2012 Open Space Plan developed by the Parks Commission and ultimately adopted by Council designated a large portion of Wetland #9 as potential for the Parks and Recreation Department to acquire.  If the property went up for sale, it gave the Parks Commission the opportunity to negotiate purchasing the land from the property owner.  The Ashland School District owned a portion of the land as well.
Open Space Framework – Work Group Changes - Map
Open Space Designation Identified conservation areas then wetland areas in 2007.   The NNP looked at water resources currently adopted, and included Wetland #9 and central wetland areas not previously identified.  The NNP made very few changes to the open space framework.
Open Space amendments - Minor and Major Amendment options
The Planning Commission and staff concurred with the recommendation that should Council approve a minor amendment process within the plan it contain the following additional criteria:
  • Equal or better protection for identified resources will be ensured through restoration, enhancement, and mitigation measures
  • The application demonstrates that connections between open spaces are created and maintained providing for an interlinked system of greenways
  • The application demonstrates that open spaces function to provide habitat for wildlife, promote environmental quality by absorbing, storing, and releasing storm water, and protect future development from flood hazards
  • The application demonstrates that scenic views considered important to the community are protected, and community character and quality of life are preserved by buffering areas of development from one another
Transportation System Amendments Maps
  • Street, Bike, and Pedestrian Networks
  • Street, Bike, and Pedestrian Networks – Working Group Changes added a new street would connect to the Middle School and aligned the streets more in a grid pattern
East Main Street Improvements – Proposed Typical Cross Section
Ordinance 1:  Comprehensive Plan Amendments
  • Land Use Designation (Normal Neighborhood) - NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (2.04.17)
  • This is a residential area that promotes a variety of housing types including single family, attached, and multifamily residential, with base housing densities ranging from 4.5 to 13.5 units per acre. This area implements the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework (2015) to accommodate future housing, neighborhood scaled business, create a system of greenways, protect and integrate existing stream corridors and natural wetlands, and enhance overall mobility by planning for a safe and connected network of streets and walking and bicycle routes.
  • Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Document - Added as a supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan
Ordinance 2:  Transportation System Amendments
  • Amends the Street Dedication Map, Planned Intersection and Roadway Map, and Planned Bikeway Network Map to incorporate newly proposed the Normal Plan Street Framework.
  • Amends the Street design Standards (Chapter 18.4.6) of the Land use ordinance to incorporate the new Shared Street Classification
Ordinance 3:  Land Use Ordinance - Ashland Municipal Code Amendments:
  • Adds a new Normal Neighborhood Special District chapter (18.3.4) for the 94-acre area, as well as revising various existing sections to reference the proposed Normal Neighborhood (NN) zoning classifications.
  • Neighborhood District Zoning Classification Map:  Includes an area-zoning map to be applied upon annexation of properties into the City. Presently all properties will retain existing County zoning.
Public Hearing Open: Remained Open from September 15, 2015  
Public Testimony:
Paula Skuratowicz/2124 Creek Drive/Did not think the East Main Street improvements would happen in time to be safe.  It was clear the first development would come from the Baptist Church.  She described strong community bonds in her neighborhood strengthened by the shared street.  The NNP would increase traffic and take away the atmosphere of neighborhood.  Questions about animals and fragile environment were never answered.  She supported the issued brought up by Bryce Anderson.
Gail Patton/822 Michelle Avenue/ Expressed concern on how public testimony was handled at the September 15, 2015 meeting.  She listed the issues affected by density in the Normal area.  She requested Council table the plan to reach agreement between planners and citizens.
Mayor Stromberg clarified that what he stated prior to public testimony at the September 15, 2015 meeting was the same information he had explained at this meeting.  If someone’s testimony duplicated what another speaker said he or she should state that.  They did not have to repeat everything.
Sue Grossman/880 Ashland Street/Recently became aware of the plan.  She was uncomfortable dealing with the multiple divisions of interest.  It seemed to have a tremendous impact on the city itself and that most of the city did not know about the plan.  It was everyone’s responsibility to get more information out about the plan.  
Betsy Bishop/280 Normal Avenue/Explained her adult children could not live in Ashland due to the cost.  Change was an accepted reality.  Now she heard Ashland Meadows opposed the plan when 24 years ago many opposed the Ashland Meadows Plan.  Less than half of her senior high school students thought they could realistically raise families in Ashland.  The schools were empty and Ashland was becoming a big retirement community of wealthy transplants.  The “Not in my backyard” sentiment did not ring true to Ashland.  Embrace change.
Tom Winmill/200 Normal Avenue/Addressed the issue raised earlier regarding the wetlands and explained they removed old tires, cars, and wood lying in Cemetery Creek.  He took umbrage to the people who thought they had done something to shrink the wetlands.  His daughter was able to walk to elementary school, middle school, and high school from Normal Avenue.  He agreed the Normal Avenue area was the most logical area for housing but opposed high density and supported affordable housing.  For the neighbors who did not want to participate in the project he hoped they would not feel the negative benefit too much.
Public Hearing and Public Record Closed: 9:55 p.m.
Deliberations and Decision
Councilor Voisin raised a point of order and requested discussion prior to making a motion.  Council majority wanted a motion first then discussion.  Mayor Stromberg overruled the point of order.
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to approve the First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a Normal Neighborhood Plan designation to Chapter 11 (Introduction and Definitions), Add the Normal Neighborhood Land  Categories to Chapter IV (Housing Element), Change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for Approximately 94 Acres of Land within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary from  Single Family Residential and Suburban Residential to the Normal Neighborhood Plan Designation, and Adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework as a Support Document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan.”  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Marsh explained if the City did not adopt a development plan for the Normal neighborhood, development would occur using Jackson County standards. She described what that would entail and how it would create a major missed opportunity for the community.   The smaller homes in the plan under R1-3.5 zoning held the potential for workforce or first home housing.  Approximately 25% of all units built met affordability standards.  Cluster housing could also provide a sense of community and connection.  This was an infill project.
Councilor Morris agreed the area was the perfect family neighborhood, close to parks, schools, and shopping.  It could be one of the better neighborhoods in Ashland.  It was 94 acres with 450 houses and probably one of the lower density areas in Ashland.  It was neither the best nor the worst plan and after three years, it was something Council needed to address and approve.  Councilor Seffinger explained it had the possibility of a multi generational neighborhood.   It was a good area for raising children and having a community.  She preferred a major amendment process and no minor amendments. 
Councilor Voisin would not support the motion without amendments.  She thought the developers should pay for the outlying infrastructure and have it in place prior to annexation.  She wanted to delay a decision until there was a plan to finance the outlying infrastructure.   Citizens should not pay for the development through advance financing.  The project would remove 94-acres from buildable lands and as it developed, the state would require the City to add more land to the urban growth boundary.  Water was also an issue and she wanted to wait until the Water Master Plan was completed.
Councilor Lemhouse did not think the plan was perfect but plans often changed.  Doing nothing would not keep someone from developing in the area.  Having a plan was important.  When an application for annexation was submitted, there would be another time for public input and review.  The City should not be anti-development or anti-developer.  It was important to provide affordable housing and workforce housing.  The zoning in the plan mirrored adjacent neighborhoods. 
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s amend the motion and change the land designated NN 1-3.5C to NN 1-3.5.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Lemhouse explained the amendment would address concerns regarding commercial mixed-used development in the plan area.  Councilor Marsh did not fully support removing the commercial due to the potential for little neighborhood services that could enrich the community.  This could include a coffee shop or hair salon.  The plan currently designated a two-block area as commercial.  She suggested leaving the most northern area along East Main Street as commercial and removing that zone from the block internal to the neighborhood.  Councilor Lemhouse preferred no commercial but would support that change.  Councilor Morris had a concern it would affect traffic at the intersection of East Main Street.  Councilor Seffinger thought a coffee shop could serve as a community builder in that area.
Councilor Lemhouse withdrew his motion.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to amend the main motion to change the property zoned as NN 1-3.5C with the exception of the northern most block to NN 1-3.5.   Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Morris, Seffinger, Marsh, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO.  Motion passed 4-1.
Councilor Voisin/Seffinger m/s to amend the motion to delete (b.) Minor amendments for those that result in any of the following:  iii.  A change in the Plan layout that changes the boundaries or location of a conservation area to correspond with a delineated wetland and water resource protection zone, or relocation of a designated open space area.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Voisin explained a minor amendment was subject only to an administrative decision and she thought the public needed to be involved in any changes to the conservation area and there needed to be a more stringent metrics that guided such a change.  A major amendment Type II procedure satisfied the minor amendment and 1.a.v.i would ensure concerns regarding the deletion of  Councilor Seffinger thought the amendment protected the wetlands and the wildlife corridors better than the minor amendment.
Councilor Marsh talked to staff regarding administrative level decisions and they explained that every application went to the Planning Commission and Council and offered review at those levels at that time.  She had concern regarding the major amendment criteria, “E. The proposed amendment was necessary to accommodate physical constraints evident on the property or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, streams, wetlands, water resource protection zones or similar natural features or to adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries.”  The amendment applied to street changes and did not apply well to a reduction in open spaces indicated on a wetlands inventory. 
Councilor Morris explained several delineations in the Delineated Wetland Map might not be accurate because they some were conducted with binoculars at a distant and not as a site visit.  Due to that he thought the map amendment should fall under the minor amendment process and not a major amendment.  Councilor Voisin clarified staff had indicated the major amendment was more rigorous.  She wanted conservation changes, wetland resource, or relocation of open space to go through the full process of the Planning Commission and Council so there was plenty of public input.  Councilor Lemhouse supported protecting wetlands but was satisfied with staff’s affirming it would go through a rigorous process.  The amendment would make it difficult to develop the land at all and that was unfair. 
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to call for the question.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Marsh, YES; Councilor Voisin and Seffinger, NO.  Motion passed 3-2.
Roll Call Vote on the Amendment:  Councilor Voisin, YES; Councilor Seffinger, Lemhouse, Marsh, and Morris, NO.  Motion failed 4-1.
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to continue debate on this issue to the October 6, 2015 Council meeting. DISCUSSION:  Mayor Stromberg confirmed he had closed the Public Record and the Public Hearing.  Councilor Voisin raised a point of clarification and confirmed that when the ordinance moved to second reading the public could make comments on any changes.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Marsh, Voisin, Morris, Seffinger, and Lemhouse, YES, Motion passed.
1.   First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending the “owner” definitions to AMC Chapters 1.04 General Provisions, 9.04 Weed Abatement and 9.08 Nuisances”
Item moved to the November 3, 2015 Council meeting.
2.   First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 9.16, to require dog licensing and declare certain dog behaviors to be public nuisances”
Item moved to the November 3, 2015 Council meeting.
3.   First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled “An Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 10.120.010 To Add Bill Patton Garden to Existing Enhanced Law Enforcement Area”
Item moved to the November 3, 2015 Council meeting.
4.   First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending Chapter 10.120.020 to add offenses as possible elements of the crime of persistent violation”
Item moved to the November 3, 2015 Council meeting.
Councilor Marsh announced she was going to Washington DC next week to discuss the expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou Monument. 
Councilor Voisin thanked the Fire Department for the Ashland is Ready Emergency Preparedness workshop.  The event drew 400 people. 
Councilor Seffinger announced there was a 2015 Livability Solutions Forum September 23, 2015 in Medford at the Inn at the Commons.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
___________________________________              ________________________________
Dana Smith, Assistant to the 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

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




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top