Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-1215 Council Mtg MIN City Council Business Meeting December 15, 2015 Page I of 9 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 15, 2015 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at the Civic Center Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Marsh were present. Councilor Rosenthal was absent. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Airport, Forest Lands, Housing & Human Services, Public Arts, Tree, and Transportation Commissions. He addressed agenda item 1. Recommendation from the Public Art Commission for Gateway Island public art under NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS and explained Councilor Rosenthal had requested Council postpone the item to the January 5, 2016 meeting so he could participate in the discussion. They would take public input tonight and again at the meeting in January. However, those who spoke tonight would not be able to speak at the next meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Study Session of November 30, 2015, Executive Session of December 1, 2015, and Business Meeting of December 1, 2015 were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM Dave Helmich/468 Williamson Way/Announced a public discussion would take place January 27, 2016 in the Gresham Room at the library from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. regarding the proposed east Nevada bridge project. The discussion would entail the genesis of the project, status, and justification of the project. He went on to read from a document submitted into the record questioning the project. Mike Gardiner/349 Orange Avenue/Thanked Council and City staff for all the work they did. He thanked the Ashland Food Project as well. During the previous Saturday, he picked up 23 bags of food for the Food Bank, and commented on the success of the program. He supported the Public Arts Commission and looked forward to seeing Council's decision regarding the public art piece. Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Noted China was half way done building the largest expressway in the world due to the rise of automobile use in that country. From 1985 to 2005, automobiles increased in China from 19,000 to 62,000,000 and expected to triple in the next five years. China had experienced 60- mile long traffic jams that lasted I1 days. At $240,000,000,000, this was the biggest infrastructure project in the history of humans. Their technical advancement was due to their top six national leaders being engineers. In America, the top leaders were lawyers and bankers. He thought it would be beneficial if the next group of City Councilors had engineering and technological personalities. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. Contract specific special procurement from Tyler Technologies 3. Approval of a change order in excess of 25% for consulting services to the Ashland Transportation System capital projects City Council Business Meeting December 15, 2015 Page 2 of 9 4. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution clarifying language in Resolution 2015-29 (adopting a supplemental budget increasing appropriations within the 2015-17 biennium budget), Resolution 2015-29 is repealed" Councilor Voisin pulled Consent Agenda items 2, 3, and 4 for further discussion. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the annual licensing fee for software from Tyler Technologies was $144,000. Councilor Voisin wanted to know how the City could finance the project at this time when the night before Council was unable to consider hiring three firefighters. City Administrator Dave Kanner responded firefighters were paid out of the General Fund and the finance software program would come out of Central Services. The cost was offset by a reduction in banking charges and was a cost neutral proposal. Mr. Tuneberg went on to explain the resolution clarifying language in Resolution 2915-29 changed language per the auditors request on page 1 of 3 of Resolution 2015-29 under Central Service Fund, Resources: from "Working Capital Carryover" to "Budgeted Carry Forward." This was the only change to the resolution. Public Works Director Mike Faught addressed Consent Agenda item #3, and explained the lobbyist recommended the City queue up for the legislative short session regarding funds for bridges. The City had already paid $16,000 and this was the second payment. Councilor Voisin motioned to approve Consent Agenda items 2 and 3. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to approve item 3 on the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Marsh, YES, Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-1. Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to approve the balance of the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing and first reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapters 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.2.5, 18.3.2, 18.3.3, 18.3.5 and 18.6.1 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to homegrown marijuana cultivation and marijuana-related businesses including production, processing, retail sales, testing, and wholesale and declaring an emergency" Mayor Stromberg read the rules for the Public Hearing. Community Development Director Bill Molnar briefly went over a few changes made to the ordinance since December 1, 2015. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained there were three primary changes to the proposed ordinance that affected commercial and employment uses. There were no changes to the residential zones and outdoor growing. The first change added a 200-foot buffer from residential zones for wholesale use. It was already in place for laboratories, processing, and production. The second change would add a 1,000- foot separation between production and production, and 1,000-feet between wholesale and wholesale uses. This would allow 4 to 6 of each type of facility in Ashland. Apparently, production and wholesale could take up a lot of space with few employees. This would allow marijuana uses and retain employment space over the next 20-50 years. The third change clarified marijuana retail sales and considered medical and recreational marijuana retail sales the same. Medical and recreational retail sales could occur in the same building if it conformed to state rules. City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the ordinance was noticed for first reading. Staff was declaring an emergency so the ordinance went into effect immediately upon adoption by the Council. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) would start accepting applications for various marijuana licenses January 4, 2016. Applicants had to submit an OLCC Land Use Compatibility City Council Business Meeting December 15, 2015 Page 3 of 9 statement that required review and sign off by the local jurisdiction. Once OLCC received a license application, the local jurisdiction had 21 days to submit the Land Use Compatibility statement. OLCC would process retail licenses last and start issuing them fall of 2016. Staff would determine when the application went into effect. If laws applied to the date received, Council could hold a special meeting for second reading instead of waiting until the January 5, 2016 meeting. Public Hearing Opened: 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Shayne Christen/285 Upper Powell Creek Road [Williams, OR/Explained he was the on the Board of Directors for the Oregon SunGrown Growers Guild. The group formed to stand up for patient rights and small family farms. There were so many regulations it was forcing them out of business. Some of them had operated underground and some within the law for the past seventeen years through medical marijuana. He questioned how Council would feel if someone took a third of his or her medication away. The state would restrict the number of plants grown within city limits to two patients, six plants per patient. Council did not have the right to regulate medical marijuana. Council had the right to regulate recreational marijuana through land use. He asked Council to administrate properly and have compassion for people who were sick. He shared how medical marijuana helped him with his own medical issues. Public Hearing Closed: 7:40 p.m. Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to approve first reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending chapters 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.3.2, 18.3.3, 18.3.5 and 18.6.1 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to homegrown marijuana cultivation and marijuana-related businesses including production, processing, retail sales, testing, and wholesale and declaring an emergency, and moving the ordinance to second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh noted the City was moving in unknown territory and regulating a product some did not know a lot about. They would have to depend on common sense and recognize the City will most likely modify some of the regulations. Councilor Seffinger/Marsh m/s to amend the motion that four plants are allowed for recreational to be grown outdoors and 6 plants are allowed to be grown outdoors for medical use in residential areas. DISCUSSION: Councilor Seffinger commented there was a difference between medical and recreational use. Another issue was being able to afford marijuana for medical use. It was fair to allow people to grow six plants for medical use. Mr. Kanner clarified Councilor Seffinger's motion would amend Section 3 of the ordinance so that 18.2.3.190 (A)(4) Outdoor Cultivation would read, "Up to four marijuana plants per lot are allowed to be grown outdoors for recreational purposes. Up to six marijuana plants per lot are allowed to be grown outdoors for medical purposes." It would also update Table 18.2.3.190.3.c Outdoor Cultivation Dimensional Standards for Homegrown Marijuana to state six or fewer plants for medical purposes. Councilor Marsh agreed with the amendment. They had heard a lot of testimony regarding the efficacy of marijuana as a medicine. Whether it was four or six plants, they would be subject to the same setbacks, grown near the primary dwelling, fenced as delineated in the ordinance, and code enforcement would regulate odor nuisances. Councilor Lemhouse raised a point of clarification and asked Councilor Seffinger how the City would delineate medical from recreational. Councilor Seffinger responded the person growing would have a medical marijuana card. City Attorney Dave Lohman thought it would present some enforcement difficulties because the code was complaint driven. Someone making a complaint would not know if the plants were for medical use or not. Mr. Kanner addressed the City issuing permits to medical marijuana growers. He would check with Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP) on whether the City could City Council Business Meeting December 15, 2015 Page 4 of 9 legally create a permit program. There was a difference between the Planning Department and code enforcement. OMMP would share if a household were a cardholder. He did not think the City could force someone to get a permit for something state law allowed. Mr. Lohman added it was easier to enforce code based on number of plants and not type. He would research the issue further and possibly bring back a response at second reading. Councilor Lemhouse would support the amendment and asked staff to develop a procedure that was straightforward and easy for both parties. Mr. Kanner explained there were approximately a dozen complaints regarding odor over the past year. Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the amendment that two persons on a lot with medical marijuana permits be allowed twelve plants maximum. Mr. Kanner clarified the amendment would change the language in the ordinance regarding Outdoor Cultivation up to 6 marijuana plants per patient for medical marijuana up to a maximum of two patients for a maximum of twelve plants. Councilor Voisin further clarified the patients had to live on the lot. Councilor Lemhouse raised a point of order and explained a councilor had to articulate their motion on his or her own. Mayor Stromberg ruled against the point of order noting Council could ask for help formulating a motion. Motion died for lack of a second. Continued discussion on amendment to motion: Councilor Morris was originally not going to support the amendment. One of the issues was dosage came in grams and plants in pounds. There was roughly 454 grams per pound. He could support the amendment as long as the requirement of 50-square feet allowed for growing did not change. Mayor Stromberg confirmed the amendment would not change the grow area. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Voisin, Lemhouse, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Lemhouse/Morris to amend the main motion to restrict maximum height of plants to not to exceed maximum allowable fence height which would include Table 18.2.3.190.3.C that refers to the ten-foot maximum height of plants in Section 3. DISCUSSION: Mr. Kanner clarified the amendment removed 10-foot plants and replaced it with the words, "Not to exceed maximum allowable fence height." Mr. Molnar confirmed deer fencing was open fencing and 8-feet high. It might be easier to administer the ordinance using the standard of 6.5-feet solid fencing. Councilor Lemhouse responded his intent was 6.5-feet solid fencing. Miss Harris explained the Planning Commission discussed matching fence height and thought visually 10-feet was reasonable. Councilor Lemhouse thought to have a successful ordinance, it needed to be straightforward, easily understood and enforced. Allowing a 10-foot fence could invite neighbors opposing the grow to insist they see the plant from a public space. The amendment would eliminate that situation by stating it cannot be visible beyond the fence line. It would limit the ability to make it an attractive nuisance for trespass and burglaries. Councilor Morris raised a point of clarification to staff regarding language that required screening for marijuana plants to limit the view from adjacent residential property with a solid wood fence or masonry wall and access points to the cultivation area secure at all times for unauthorized access. Mr. Molnar explained a property owner could have a 10-foot fence if it was outside setbacks. Fence height maximums were along the property line or within a yard area. There was not a height limit for fencing seven or eight feet from the property line. Councilor Morris would support the amendment. Eight-feet seemed adequate. Councilor Marsh would oppose the amendment. Marijuana was legal for people to grow. Fencing would not obscure grows fully. She doubted marijuana would be much of an attractive nuisance if everyone City Council Business Meeting December 15, 2015 Page 5 of 9 started growing it in his or her backyards. Councilor Voisin would also oppose the amendment. The City received only ten complaints in a year regarding odor. She assumed there would be less crime because medical and recreational marijuana was legal. She questioned regulating the height of a plant. Councilor Seffinger opposed the amendment. The reason for having medical marijuana was to ensure there was enough of the product for medical reasons. The screening requirements already in the ordinance were adequate. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, and Morris, YES; Councilor Seffinger, Voisin, and Marsh, NO. Motion failed 2-3. Councilor Lemhouse m/s to amend the motion to restrict commercial grows, production facilities, and labs from within the city limits. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Lemhouse m/s to amend the motion and restrict marijuana grows from R-1 designated areas. Motion died for lack of a second. Continued Discussion on amended main motion. Councilor Lemhouse was not supportive of recreational marijuana. His amendments were attempts to find compromise with those in the community who also opposed recreational marijuana and supported medical marijuana. He did not want Ashland to be known for commercial grows, laboratory facilities, and production and cited issues the City of Denver experienced. He was also concerned allowing marijuana in the R-I area and thought there should be one area in the city that would prohibit growing marijuana. Councilor Voisin would support the motion but had concern there was not enough allowance for outdoor medical marijuana grows. Limiting the number of outdoor plants to six per lot was punitive. Councilor Marsh responded to comments made by Councilor Lemhouse and explained how the proposed ordinance was different from Colorado who allowed 100,000 square feet facilities to grow marijuana. The City was limiting that space to 5,000 square feet and requiring separation buffers. Council may revisit the ordinance in the future but this was a reasonable starting place. Councilor Seffinger suggested six plants because she wanted it to be successful. With twelve plants, the odor would be objectionable in many neighborhoods. The City could address number of plants in the future. Councilor Morris thought staff did a good job on the ordinance. He was not concerned with large commercial grows in Ashland. Commercial development was expensive in Ashland. People growing for profit would most likely grow in a less expensive and code restrictive area. It was a good start. Mayor Stromberg confirmed two people living on the same lot with medical marijuana cards could grow six plants outdoors and six indoors. Roll Call Vote on amended main motion: Councilor Voisin, Marsh, Seffinger, and Morris YES; Councilor Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 4-1. Councilor Voisin/Morris m/s to declare an emergency for ordinance amending Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code for Homegrown Marijuana and Marijuana Related Businesses and Declaring an Emergency. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Recommendation from the Public Art Commission for Gateway Island public art Alice Mallory/438 Taylor Street/Read all the documentation regarding "Gather," and attended some meetings. The Public Arts Commission was highly trained, very responsible, diligent, and mindful. However, she left meetings feeling that the voice of the non-academic was not heard. She had pages and pages of people supporting or opposing the piece. Mostly people opposing the art work. Commissions City Council Business Meeting December 15, 2015 Page 6 of 9 served in an advisory capacity to Council. Given the number of people against "Gather," she implored Council to take the citizenry into advisement. Julie Akins/107 California Street/Explained her conflict with "Gather," was that it did not seem to represent values of the City of Ashland. She wanted something that spoke to kindness, community, and values. "Gather" was just a big piece of metal. She also wanted to see something community balanced and locally produced. Her final concern was the $100,000 cost. She had issues spending that amount when there were affordable housing needs. Art could be tiny houses that people lived in instead of the sidewalk. George Kramer/386 North Laurel/ Read from a document he submitted that took great issue with the selection process and the inappropriateness of "Gather" in the historic district. Councilor Voisin asked Mr. Kramer how it could be done better. To his knowledge, Mr. Kramer thought the Public Arts Commission created the request for proposal (RFP) in a vacuum without any input from the public, the Historic Commission or from outside the arts community. Mayor Stromberg addressed Councilor Voisin and thought she was trying to extend Mr. Kramer's public input time to state his position. Councilor Voisin clarified she wanted Mr. Kramer to explain how to improve the process. Staff explained Councilor Voisin could make a request for information for clarification but not for argument. Mayor Stromberg ruled Councilor Voisin was allowing Mr. Kramer to extend his time for making the argument. Rachel Jones/2635 Takelma Way/Strongly objected to "Gather" in its proposed location. It was too large. The design did not enhance downtown and was not representative of the community. Public art had a responsibility to a transparent public process and this did not occur regarding "Gather." She cautioned Council to think about what this project would symbolize for Ashland and that the community had long memories and would remember not having any input when the request for proposal (RFP) was developed or when the artwork pieces were up for consideration. If chosen, "Gather" will be a symbol of a disconnect between community and local government, elitism and a flawed process. 2. City Council support for lifting the statewide pre-emption on inclusionary zoning Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the Housing and Human Services Commission (HHSC) requested Council consider voicing support for a statewide effort to lift the current ban on inclusionary zoning. Councilor Marsh/Voisin m/s to direct staff to draft a letter, to be signed by the Mayor, in support of removing the statewide pre-emption on inclusionary zoning. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained this did not require any action. Oregon and Texas were the only states in the country that did not allow inclusionary zoning. Legislative leadership had indicated an interest in moving forward on removing the pre-emption. Councilor Voisin noted the HHSC discussed and reviewed the parameters and their recommendation to Council was a good enough reason to send a letter of support. Councilor Seffinger would support the motion because it encouraged family friendly neighborhoods. Councilor Lemhouse would not support the motion. He thought this was a shortsighted answer to a problem. Inclusionary zoning would force developers to sell houses below market at affordable prices. Developers would most likely add profit lost on affordable housing to other housing and price out the middle class quickly. It artificially altered the market. It would also affect the economy. Councilor Morris would also oppose the motion. Affordable housing was good but subsidized housing and moved the subsidy onto the developer. Mandating a certain percentage of houses as affordable could diminish building houses overall. Councilor Marsh reiterated that it only made an inclusionary zone a possibility for communities and did not mandate. The City had adopted this tactic in other projects. This gave City Council Business Meeting December 15, 2015 Page 7 of 9 jurisdictions across the state a chance to look at the option. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Seffinger, and Voisin, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, and Morris, NO. Motion passed 3-2. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second readings of an ordinance 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" and ,,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" and ,,An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new Chapter 18.3.4 Normal Neighborhood District, amending Chapter 18.2.1.020 to add a Normal Neighborhood zoning classification, and amending Chapter 18.2.1.040 to add a Normal Neighborhood Special District." Senior Planner Brandon Goldman read the amendments for all three ordinances into the record. He addressed the change to minor amendments. Requiring a Type 11 planning action for any modification to open space was a similar process to a major amendment. The full improvement for East Main Street would happen from Walker Street to Clay Street upon installation of a second new public street that intersected with East Main Street. For the installation of one street connecting with East Main Street, an applicant could do a phase where they only improved 250-feet on either side of the intersection and full sidewalk or pedestrian path for the full frontage between East Main Street and Clay Street. The next phase for the second intersection would trigger a full street improvement. Completion on the railroad crossing would be concurrent with annexation and development of properties adjacent to the railroad tracks. Wetland delineation would happen concurrently with an application. Having a smaller wetland delineation did not modify the open space network. The applicant would have to provide findings to address conformance with the open space plan. The Planning Commission approved the delineation, the amended open space became part of the development also approved by the Planning Commission and sent to Council as part of the annexation package. Public Hearing Open: 9:09 p.m. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Joseph Kauth/1 Corral Lane/It was important to improve wetland health. Changing conservation space to open space for development did not make sense. Wetlands provided moisture, cooling, various atmospheric qualities the area, region and country desperately needed. It was important with City objectives that wetlands are preserved or enhanced. Drafting an idea that would turn the last wetland in Ashland to open space for cookie cutter houses made him question if this was what the city actually needed. The environmental impact statement on the streets would affect the roads that Ashlanders traveled daily. Citizens needed to address this issue prior to asserting elected official rights. Julie Matthews/2090 Creek Drive/Explained the map change in the zoning and the commercial overlay City Council Business Meeting December 15.2015 Page 8 of 9 were her ideas. Her intent was to find a way to get more return on investment for the developer since they had to compromise elsewhere. There was a lot of unknown information and detail regarding costs for phasing East Main Street. Purchasing traffic lights was most likely a huge cost to the infrastructure and an unknown. She did not think the community as a whole should be responsible for a particular area in the city to assure and enhance a return of investment on private property. She supported the plan as a way to discuss development per proposal. She did not fully understand minor and major amendments. She noted the open space network plan and conformance and was not sure what was in place to ensure it was carefully protected. She liked Mr. Kauth's testimony about enhancing the health of open space and riparian areas and expressed concern for the wildlife living in the Normal neighborhood area. Public Hearing Closed: 9:24 p.m. Councilor Marsh/Seffinger m/s to approve Ordinance #3117 as amended and 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." DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh noted the process had taken several years and this was the best possible plan. The Working Group process that occurred last year resulted in important changes. Over the last 27 years, the City annexed 55 acres with the potential for 375 housing units and built 90% for an average 6.8 units per acre. The Normal Neighborhood Plan including open space would develop less than five units per acre. Without wetlands, it was 6.6 units per acre. This zoning provided housing diversity and preserved land for great neighborhoods. Councilor Seffinger agreed with Councilor Marsh. She was comfortable with the minor amendment. The ten-year review or 150-house review added an additional layer of protection to the plan. The plan also addressed transportation and adequately protected open space. Councilor Morris noted transportation for east west was still limited. It was almost as if the City felt they owned the property and were designating 25%-30% of private property as open space and prohibiting development. Developers would donate the 25% for affordable housing to someone else to build. He was concerned this was heading towards another Croman Mill plan with strict regulations and oversight and thought the City had over planned. He would vote for it but did not support the plan. Councilor Voisin thought the City should focus on infill. There were 1,884 buildable lots within city limits. She wanted an urban growth boundary (UGB) master plan with zoning and density projections. She could not support the advance financing or reimbursement district. Developers should pay their own way, not the City, or the taxpayers. The outlying infrastructure should be built prior to development. There were also concerns regarding the private railroad crossing on Normal. She did not see substantive changes presented in the plan that came from the public. The public had one to three minutes to make their case during meetings. She would not support the plan. Mayor Stromberg clarified the 1,800 available lots was based on a misunderstanding. People in the Normal neighborhood could apply for annexation whenever they wanted. The Normal Master Plan provided guidance for Council regarding community benefit and interest should Council approve annexation. If the City did not have the Normal Neighborhood Plan, it would refer to the Comprehensive Plan that allowed for higher density. Developers paid for the infrastructure in their development. In some cases, the City would develop parts of the infrastructure to enable that to happen and divided the cost between the City and the developer using a formula that identified the City's portion as a benefit to the community as a whole. The money that paid for that part of the infrastructure came from System Development Charges (SDC) dedicated only for those types of expenses. Since the railroad crossing already existed, the City could modify the crossing without issue. The Normal Neighborhood Plan set the City Council Business Meeting December 15, 2015 Page 9 of 9 stage for an annexation process where the Council could evaluate the potential benefit to the community. He and Councilor Marsh discussed whether the affordable housing provision in the annexation ordinance was so demanding due to master plan requirements it would prevent other development. Also discussed was the possibility to pitch the affordable housing requirement to people employed at Rogue Valley wages and could not afford Ashland housing. Council may get initiatives in the future about the annexation ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-1. Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to approve Ordinance #3118 as amended and titled: "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." DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought the street plan was the most important. Councilor Morris agreed it was a critical part. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Lemhouse, Morris, Marsh, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-1. Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to approve Ordinance #3119 as amended and titled: "An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new Chapter 18.3.4 Normal Neighborhood District, amending Chapter 18.2.1.020 to add a Normal Neighborhood zoning classification, and amending Chapter 18.2.1.040 to add a Normal Neighborhood Special District." Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Seffinger, Marsh, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-1. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Lemhouse provided a Council Liaison report on the Public Arts Commission. In addition to "Gather," the Commission was working on three projects. One was an idea from a citizen for a mural on Calle Guanajuato Way using an artist from Guanajuato. The second project was ideas from the Watershed Art Group to add more art to the watershed. The third were concept recommendations for entrance signs in three locations. They were working with a local artist and narrowing down concepts for Council consideration. The Commission would forward the concepts to the Historic Commission and possibly the Planning Commission for input. Councilor Seffinger announced the Parks and Recreation Department developed a video on Facebook about Ashland parks. Councilor Marsh noted the State of the City was January 11, 2016 and asked Council to let them know what part they wanted to play during the event. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING Meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder Jo Stromberg, Mayor