Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Minutes
Tuesday, July 01, 2014

MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
July 1, 2014
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street

 
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Slattery called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
 
ROLL CALL
Councilor Morris, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present.  Mayor Stromberg, Councilor Lemhouse and Voisin were absent.
 
MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Chair Slattery announced vacancies on the Airport, Conservation, Forest Lands, Historic, Public Arts, Tree, and Wildfire Mitigation Commissions, and two vacancies on the Citizen Budget Committee.
 
Councilor Rosenthal introduced Guanajuato Mexico City Councilor Clarissa Arrache.  Councilor Arrache expressed gratitude for the City’s donation of a fire truck and presented old Mexican silver coins as gifts for the Mayor and staff involved in the donation.  She introduced Queen Natalia Dominguez of the City of Guanajuato, and Princess Sabrina Scroggins, and Princess Quinn Blackwolf from the City of Ashland who each expressed gratitude to Ashland and Guanajuato.  This was the 45th year of the sister city relationship.
 
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session June 16, 2014, and Business Meeting of June 17, 2014 were approved as presented.
 
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1.   Presentation by Oregon Shakespeare Festival regarding Green Show stage redesign
Cynthia Rider, the executive director of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) explained changes OSF wanted to make to Chautauqua Square located at the Black Swan Theatre and the courtyard area between the Angus Bowmer Theatre and the Allen Elizabethan Theatre commonly known as The Bricks.  The Chautauqua Square redesign would involve the City removing the defunct fountain outside the theatre as well as cement planter boxes to utilize the space better.  OSF would improve the function of The Bricks as a performance and working space.  Construction on The Bricks would begin November 2015.  OSF was currently working on Chautauqua Square.
 
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the City owned the fountain and the planter box Ms. Rider referenced. The fountain had not functioned for 23 years and repair estimates ranged from $15,000-$20,000.  OSF had leasehold to the property and the City did not have the right to have a fountain in that space.  The Street Department could demolish and remove the fountain or the City could hire someone to remove it in one piece.
 
2.   2014 Drought update
Public Works Director Mike Faught expressed appreciation to the citizen’s for using water wisely and averaging approximately 4,000,000 gallons per day (mgd).  He explained the area was experiencing the lowest snow pack ever setting a new record.  The goal was keeping Reeder Reservoir as full as possible starting with adding 1 mgd of Talent Irrigation District (TID) water daily to retain levels.  The City would divert TID water from 94 city customers from Park and Terrace to Wimer Street starting July 2, 2014 that would increase TID flow up to 2 mgd possibly higher.  This created a severe impact to the 94 customers but in terms of a drought year staff thought it was more important to treat that TID for drinking water.  If that was not enough the City would shut down city owned TID customers from Walker Street to Terrace Street and divert that water for drinking water as well.  If that failed, the City would initiate curtailment stages. 
 
The City Administrator had the authority to implement water curtailment at any time deemed necessary and have it ratified at the next Council meeting.  The TAP (Talent Ashland Phoenix) construction project was on time.  The City decided not to plant vegetation this season and encouraged the community to do the same.  Staff also posted Use Water Wisely signs throughout the city.  Mr. Faught and Conservation Specialist Julie Smitherman were meeting with the public discussing the drought and ways to conserve water.  The Parks and Recreation Department put together a comprehensive water curtailment procedures document.  Ms. Smitherman offered citizens several ways to reduce water use long term from evaluating irrigation, toilet rebates, water efficient showerheads, soil moisture meters, and recently the Lawn Replacement Program.
 
TID water would be available until September 15, 2014 and TAP would produce 2 mgd starting mid August or early September.  The City would cosponsor with the Chamber of Commerce on a Drought Seminar August 12, 2014 at Southern Oregon University in Stevenson Hall.  The Public Works crews would also use reclaimed water when possible.  Staff was working with SOU on their water usage and sprinkler system.   Mandatory curtailment measures needed to coincide with utility billing cycles.
 
CONSENT AGENDA
1.   Request to modify existing Hamilton Creek Conservation Easement
2.   Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Oregon Department of Aviation Pavement Maintenance Program
3.   A resolution titled, “A resolution authorizing a loan from the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund by entering into a financing contract with the Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority”
4.   Contract with Pathway Enterprises to provide janitorial services
 
Council pulled Consent Agenda items #1 and #3 for further discussion.  Senior Engineer Pieter Smeenk clarified the Hamilton Creek Conservation easement encompassed the entire property.  Mr. Smeenk went on to address the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and thanked the IFA (Infrastructure Finance Authority) and Jackson County Commissioner Don Skundrick for their efforts.
 
Councilor Rosenthal/Morris m/s to approve the Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
 
PUBLIC FORUM
Bill Harris/853 Pavilion Place/Spoke regarding Council’s decision to table the gun ordinance at the previous Council meeting.  He proposed a non-binding resolution supporting a gun ban of open carry that encouraged the state representatives and senators to change current laws and give cities authority to ban open carry in public business.  Guns did not belong in a City Council meeting.  He also suggested an ordinance giving private businesses the authority to ban guns on their premises.
 
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.   First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code Title 6 Business Licenses and Regulations to add Chapter 6.50 establishing time, place, and manner regulations and a permitting process for medical marijuana dispensaries”
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained Council needed to decide whether to have a special permit for medical marijuana dispensaries, and fees that he suggested setting by resolution.  He went through proposed changes that included changing the word “giver” in 6.50.020 Definitions (I) Medical Marijuana Qualifying Patient to “caregiver.”  Section 6.50.040 Initial Permit Application and Fee (A) added a provision clarifying the permit application was initially picked up at the Community Development Department.  Added (A) (2) requiring the application to include the true names and addresses of persons or legal entities that had an ownership interest in the dispensary, loaned or gave money or property to the applicant within the preceding year or leased property to the applicant for use by the dispensary.
 
Section 6.50.050 Permit Termination – Renewal – Fee (A) would clarify a permit could be terminated automatically if state or federal enforcement officials changed direction and prohibited dispensary operations.  Section 0.50.060 Permit Conditions would (A) require a current City business license and (E) clarify retail sales hours and (G) not allow dispensaries to co-locate with a marijuana social or smoking club on the same property or in the same building.  Mr. Lohman suggested substituting the wording in Section 0.50.060 Permit Conditions (I) regarding prior convictions with language taken from the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission).  Section 6.50.020 (D) would define “Company Principal” and Section 6.50.020 (F) would define “Financial Interest.”  If Council approved the language suggestions, he would clarify 30-day invoice scenarios.
 
Similar felony conviction standards applied to restaurants with stricter requirements for liquor stores.  The state did not have a standard with respect to people with a financial interest in dispensaries and did not conduct background checks or requirements for employees.  Some legislators were looking into adding background checks for employees to the state requirements.
 
Section 6.50.060 Permit Conditions (N) addressed sales or transfers of marijuana products outside of the dispensary by third parties.  Section 6.50.065 Background Checks would ensure background checks were kept confidential as much as possible with the Ashland Police Department only reporting whether the person passed or did not.
 
Police Chief Terry Holderness explained other agencies had issues with customers purchasing medical marijuana and selling it to another person in the parking lot as well as shoulder tap situations.  The provision addressed transfers on the property.
 
Council comments ranged from supporting the additions, using the same conditions the state used versus OLCC’s conditions, and having a nominal fee for the permit process.  Concerns included the accounting detail, background checks on investors, and operator standards.  One comment preferred a list of investors instead of background checks and using the state language on prior convictions.
 
Councilor Morris/Rosenthal m/s to approve first reading of an ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Title 6 Business Licenses and Regulations to Add a Chapter Establishing Time, Place and Manner Regulations and a Permitting Process for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries as listed in the agenda packet and with amendments from staff.” 
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Morris thought the prior convictions provision was onerous but marijuana was a federally controlled substance and supported the background checks. 
 
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s amend the motion to eliminate background checks on investors but still require the operator to list who the investors are as noted in Section 6.050.060 Permit Conditions (L).  DISCUSSION:   Councilor Marsh clarified the motion also related to Section 6.50.060 Permit Conditions (I) and would strike language after (2), (3), and (4).  It would retain in the application process in Section 6.050.060 Permit Conditions (L) the requirement for records listing all the names and aliases of persons who have ownership interest.  Staff confirmed the motion would apply to Section 6.50.040 Initial Permit Application and Fee (A) (2) and limit background checks.  Mr. Lohman proposed incorporating Councilor Marsh’s changes for second reading without passing an amendment.
 
Councilor Marsh withdrew her amendment with Councilor Slattery’s consent and directed staff to make the changes for second reading.
 
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to the amend the motion Section 6.50.060 Permit Conditions (I) and keep the state standards convicted once in 5 years or twice ever.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Marsh, Morris, Slattery, and Rosenthal, YES.  Motion passed.
 
Councilor Marsh motioned to amend the motion and eliminate (K) under Section 6.50.060 Permit Conditions (K) and eliminate the first sentence in (L) regarding accounting in the books.  Motion died for lack of a second.
 
Roll Call Vote on amended motion:  Councilor Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh, and Morris, YES.  Motion passed.
 
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1.   Planning Commission’s Report on considering a limited type of short term traveler’s accommodation in residential zones
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Planning Commission and staff recommendation focused on primary elements of the zoning code and standards if Council decided to pass a limited form of short-term rentals (STR), and if it was desirable to have them.
 
Planning Commission vice Chair Michael Dawkins further explained the Planning Commission looked for an accommodation type and rules.  The Commission did not consider accessory units because they were potentially long term affordable rentals.  They defined long-term rentals as a unit with a kitchen and did not recommend short-term rentals of an entire house.  Another discussion was whether the rental was a Bed and Breakfast or a room in a house.  They looked at specific one car per visit scenarios.
 
Mr. Molnar added the Planning Commission recommended an owner occupied set up where the primary residence was on the property.  Eligible locations were similar to traveler’s accommodations in multifamily zones, on a property within 200-feet of a major street.  One of the primary standards was having the accommodation within the footprint of an existing residence excluding out buildings. There was not clear consensus on maximum size or occupant number.   The Commission recommended not allowing units with kitchen facilities to discourage converting an accessory unit within the building to a STR or an on sight space that had potential for a kitchen facility. 
 
The Commission suggested using a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with a reduced fee since the STR was smaller than a Bed and Breakfast or multiuse accommodation.  A Type 1 procedure involved a pre-application where a property owner submitted a conceptual idea to the Community Development Department that led to a meeting with staff.  Neighbors within 200-feet of the property received a land use request to operate as a STR.  Staff would send another notice regarding approval to the same residents that could subsequently initiate an appeal process. 
 
Dr. Ruth Resch/1000 Terra Avenue/Lived in an R-1 zone, was a handicapped senior citizen renting one bedroom in her house in order to retain her home.  Her home was located a block and a half from Siskiyou Boulevard.  The one bedroom she rented did not create congestion, cars parked in her driveway.  It was important for the community to maintain economic community diversity so Ashland was not just home for the rich and people could maintain homes with small businesses like short-term rentals.  
 
Larry Chaser/1271 Munson Drive/Encouraged Council to allow host occupied STRs in all neighborhoods and provided examples of consistent use with small home businesses currently allowed in R-1 zones.  Creating reasonable regulations to guide host occupied STRs, as a use already consistent with current use would maintain a suitable and sustainable R-1 housing environment.  He urged Council to support sharing economy and allow host occupied STRs.
 
Ellen Campbell/120 Gresham/Ashland had a strong tourist industry and a local vibrant community due to zoning laws. Council needed to look for ways to broaden business base and not rely on tourism.  Housing needed to be affordable and available to long-term residents not tourists.  She encouraged Council not to move forward and change the ordinance.  Allowing STRs in R-1 would be difficult to enforce.  If STRs were allowed in the R-1 zone the requirements should be the same as R-2 and R-3 zones with a Conditional Use Permit, 200-foot buffer, owner occupied, no subletting, require user street fees, taxes, registered with the state, fire and county health inspections, water rates, and provide off street parking for each unit.
 
Corinne Lombardi/1685 Old Hwy 99 South/Explained she was surprised the Planning Commission ordinance referenced all residential zones.  The term sharing economy was just a name change.  San Francisco had 5,000 Air B&B rentals and over 66% were not one bedroom as indicated but multiple bedrooms and entire units.  A third of the owners had multiple units and managed it as a property manager.  The Ashland Compliance Officer removed 95 people who were operating illegally in Ashland.
 
Abby Hogge/1700 Parker Street/Described the difference from renting to a long-term tenant to when she used her accessory unit as an STR.  She supported regulating STRs in R-1 zone and suggested Council conduct a one-year trial like the one the City did for Bed and Breakfasts in the 1970s.  According to the City code enforcement division there were zero complaints regarding host occupied STRs.  She encouraged Council to explore shared economy and facilitate peer-to-peer networking and commerce.
 
Tom Dubois/690 South Mountain Avenue/Noted 20 years prior Council approved residents in all residential zones to operate businesses from homes.  STRs owners were neighbors and friends.  People staying at STRs were visitors to Ashland and welcome guests.  Allowing hosted micro stays in the R-1 was a seamless, natural addition.  He supported reasonable regulations for host occupied micro stays in R-1 zones. 
 
Melody Jones/79 Pine Street/Agreed with Ms. Hogge and Mr. Dubois and hoped the Council approved owner occupied STRs and did not exclude accessory dwelling units (ADU).   Her ADU was 375 square feet and two small for someone to live in long term.  She wanted to rent it short term during the summer and long term during winter.  With owners receiving cease and desist letters there were fewer places for visitors to stay.  The City would be able to collect TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) and Food and Beverage Tax.  Her property was more beautiful as an STR than it would be if she were not having guests.
 
Laura Westerman/252 Timberlake Drive/Encouraged Council to pass the STR requirement.  She had vacation rentals on her property with room to park six cars if needed.  Her home was more beautiful now that it was an STR.  She had her home as an STR for the past two years with no complaints from the neighbors.
 
Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to consider this type of home occupation and traveler’s accommodation in the R-1 zone.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Marsh supported the motion, expected to vote yes on the ordinance when it came back and wanted background information.  There were three critical questions.  The first was whether STRs in R-1 neighborhood provided tourists with positive and safe experiences.  The second question was allowing STRs without undermining R-1 neighborhoods.  The third question was if allowing STRs in R-1 could happen in a way that created a level playing field.  She would limit STRs in R-1 to one bedroom, exclude accessory units, address the parking issue, and retain the same fee structure in the CUP.  Councilor Morris would support the motion.  His concern was impact to housing stock and rentals.  He wanted the Planning Commission to look into parking and square footage instead of one bedroom.  Councilor Slattery was not in favor of moving it forward or supporting visitor accommodations in R-1 zones.  Overnight guests in neighborhoods changed the dynamic in that neighborhood. He was not comfortable allowing STRs in the entire R-1 zone even with a CUP.
 
Councilor Rosenthal withdrew motion with Councilor Marsh’s consent.
 
Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to direct staff to craft an ordinance to permit a single traveler accommodation in the R-1 zone.
 
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to amend the motion to specifically exclude accessory residential units. 
Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Marsh, Slattery, Morris, and Rosenthal, YES.  Motion passed. 
 
Councilor Morris/Marsh m/s to amend the motion and require it is owner occupied. 
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Morris clarified the owner needed to be present when the STR was rented. 
Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Slattery, Marsh, Morris, and Rosenthal, YES.  Motion passed.
 
Continued Discussion on Main Motion:  Councilor Marsh requested the Planning Commission provide specific guidance on the 200-foot limit and that staff provide information on enforcement.  She also wanted the equivalent requirements imposed on lodging to apply to STRs.  Councilor Morris wanted an evaluation of which R-1 may or may not work.  Roll Call Vote on amended main motion:  Councilor Marsh, Morris, and Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Slattery NO.   Motion passed 3-1. 
 
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1.   Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending 18.08, 18.32.025, 18.40.030, and 18.52.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code establishing medical marijuana dispensaries as a special permitted use in the Commercial (C-1), Employment (E-1) and Industrial (M-1) zoning districts”
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained changes since first reading included adding dispensaries as a conditional use in the C-1 and E-1 zone if the location was at least 200-feet from a residential zones and not adjacent to a boulevard. Another change added dispensaries to the list of prohibited home occupations and the final change deleted language regarding hours of operation.
 
Dave Helmich/468 Williamson Way/Asked Council to reconsider and amend the acceptable locations for medical marijuana dispensaries (MMD) and increase the buffer around residential property from 200 to 300 feet.  He submitted a petition into the record not to allow significant business traffic on their narrow streets.  A 1,000 square foot dispensary would bring 80-200 additional auto transits through their neighborhood daily.  Council needed to protect their neighborhood from the impact traffic would have.
 
Linda Stickle/492 Rogue Place/Expressed concern regarding the traffic impact on her neighborhood.  Williamson Way was not designed to handle traffic and a dispensary could possibly generate several 100 trips daily.  Increasing the buffer from 200 feet to 300 feet would solve the issue and have no affect on the current dispensary at Clear Creek.
 
Mary Canfield/465 Williamson Way/During the last meeting Council discarded the Planning Commission recommendations.  She asked Council to delay the vote until there was a full Council.  Other neighborhoods in E-1 zones were just becoming aware of the impact MMDs would have on them, and they needed time to educate community.  
 
Ronda Barker/459 Williamson Way/Noted that during the last meeting, the Planning Commission recommended putting MMDs on the boulevards and she supported that recommendation.  Then Council went a different direction and established the 200-foot buffer zone.  A 200-foot buffer zone was too small to address Williamson Way concerns.  She asked Council to adopt a 300-foot buffer zone and to delay a decision until all of Council was present.
 
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained dispensaries 200-feet or more from a residential zone required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that entailed two notices and posting of the property.  A dispensary going into an existing building would need administrative approval.  If appealed, the Planning Commission was the final decision maker for the City before it went to the Land Use Board of Appeals.  The CUP required that adequate transportation was available, evaluated surrounding traffic on streets and level of service at intersections.  Given the Williamson Way area, a high traffic generator would be a medical office that was an outright permitted use and not a CUP.  If a request came through to locate a medical office on Williamson Way, staff would evaluate traffic and building design. It was a permitted use as long as it met the City’s design standards and traffic generation within the thresholds established by the code.
 
The City’s transportation plan for the remainder of the railroad property integrated into the existing transportation system in the Williamson Way and Rogue Place area.  The Williamson Way neighborhood was a peninsula at the edge of one of the largest employment areas in Ashland.  The 200-foot buffer was standard and Mr. Molnar was unaware of an employment zone with a buffer larger than 200 feet.  He confirmed that 100 car trips a day in an E-1 zone was not as high as the zone allowed and the focus was typically on peak hour generation.  Staff specifically designed the street in the Williamson Way neighborhood with 20-foot wide two-way lanes and bays to calm traffic and discourage fast cut through traffic.  
 
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to approve second reading of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending 18.08, 18.32.025, 18.32.030, 18.40.030, 18.40.040, 18.52.020, and 18.94.120 of the Ashland Municipal Code allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in specified portions of the commercial (C-1), employment (E-1), and industrial (M-1) zoning districts.”  DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought the areas Council decided were appropriate for dispensaries on boulevards and designated employment zones with a CUP was a good first effort.  Councilor Morris did not think a 300-foot buffer would make a difference.   Additionally, he did not think traffic would go through the Williamson Way neighborhood since it was not convenient and would go out to Hersey instead.  Councilor Slattery would support the motion.
 
Councilor Marsh added that Council was applying something across the community, could not add specific exclusions or inclusions to a corner of a neighborhood, and had to do what was best for community as a whole.  Council could also not write a land use code that excluded or included a specific business. Another important principle was following the lessons of the land use code and remaining consistent.
 
Ms. Harris read the changes to the ordinance.  Section 318.32.025 (G) Medical Marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the follow requirements (1), would read: The dispensary must be located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard, except that dispensaries are not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards zone.
 
Section 318.32.025 (G) Medical Marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the follow requirements (2) Operating Hours – stricken.
 
Added SECTION 18.32.030 Conditional Uses.  The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with the chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
A.  Electrical substations.
B.   Automobile fuel sales, and automobile and truck repair facilities, except as allowed as a special permitted use in 18.32.025.
C.  New and used car sales, boat, trailer, and recreational vehicles sales and storage areas,
except within the Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
D.  Hotels and motels.
E.   Temporary uses.
F.   Outdoor storage of commodities associated with a permitted, special permitted or conditional use.
G.  Hostels, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least the first three years, after which time the Planning Commission may approve, under a Type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility.
H.  Building material sales yards, but not including concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants.
I.    Churches or similar religious institutions.
J.   Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section
      18.72.180.
K.  Structures which are greater than forty (40) feet in height, but less than fifty-five (55) feet, in the “D” Downtown Overlay District.
L.  Medical marijuana dispensaries, except as allowed as a special permitted use in 18.32.025, and meeting all of the following requirements:
1. The dispensary must be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone, except that dispensaries are not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards zone.
2.  The dispensary must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited.
3.  Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited.
4.  The dispensary must not have a drive-up use.
5.  The dispensary must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the dispensary’s exterior refuse containers.
6.  The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under the state of Oregon’s medical marijuana facility registration system under ORS 475.300 – ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Marijuana Facilities.
 
Amended SECTION 5 18.40.030 Special Permitted Uses (J) Medical marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the following requirements - Operating Hours – stricken.
 
Added SECTION 6 18.40.040 Conditional Uses.  The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with the chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
A.  Electrical substations.
B.   Mini-warehouses and similar storage areas.
C.  Contractor equipment storage yards or storage and rental of equipment commonly used by a contractor.
D.  Automobile fuel sales.
E.   New and used car sales, boat, trailer and recreational vehicles sales and storage areas, provided that the use is not located within the Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
F.   Hotels and motels.
G.  Any use which involves outside storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the primary use on the site.
H.  Private college, trade school, technical school, or similar school.
I.    Cabinet, carpentry, machine, and heating shops, if such uses are located less than or equal to 200' from the nearest residential district.
J.   Cold storage plants, if such uses are located less than or equal to 200' from the nearest residential district.
K.  Automotive body repair and painting, including paint booths.
1.   The use shall not be located within 200' of the nearest residentially zoned property.
2.   All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot, to the greatest extent feasible.  For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected.
3.   The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
L.   Churches and similar religious institutions.
M.  Nightclubs and Bars.
N.  Theaters (excluding drive-in) and similar entertainment uses.
O.  Temporary uses.
P.   Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
Q.  Medical marijuana dispensaries, except as allowed as a special permitted use in 18.40.030, and meeting all of the following requirements:
1.   The dispensary must be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone.
2.   The dispensary must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited.
3.   Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited.
4.   The dispensary must not have a drive-up use.
5.   The dispensary must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the dispensary’s exterior refuse containers.
6.   The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under the state of Oregon’s medical marijuana facility registration system under ORS 475.300 – ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Marijuana Facilities.
 
Added SECTION 18.94.120 Prohibited Uses.  The following uses are prohibited as home occupations:
A.  Any activity that produces radio or TV interference, noise,  glare, vibration, smoke or odor beyond allowable levels as determined by local, state or federal standards.
B.   Any activity involving on-site retail sales, except as allowed in the Historic Railroad District or items that are incidental to the occupational use, such as the sale of beauty products from salons, lesson books or sheet music for music teachers, or computer software for computer consultants.
C.  Any uses described in this section or uses with similar objectionable impacts because of automobile traffic, noise, glare, odor, dust, smoke or vibration:
1.   Ambulance service;
2.   Ammunition or firearm sales;
3.   Ammunition reloading business;
4.   Animal hospital, veterinary services, kennels or animal boarding;
5.   Auto and other vehicle repair, including auto painting;
6.   Repair, reconditioning or storage of motorized vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles or large equipment on-site; and
7.   Medical marijuana dispensaries.
 
Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Morris, Marsh, Slattery, and Rosenthal, YES.  Motion passed.
 
2.   First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance establishing a tax on the sale of marijuana and marijuana-infused products in the City of Ashland”
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained it was highly probable the measure to legalize marijuana in the state would pass in November.  The measure stated no city or county could impose a tax.  However, there was a possibility a city with a tax already in place would not be affected but it could.  The ordinance was a gross receipts tax ordinance based on Food and Beverage tax that would impose a 5% gross receipts tax on medical marijuana and a 10% gross receipts tax on recreational marijuana as well as marijuana infused products.
 
Medical marijuana was a controlled substance and not prescribed by doctors.  Instead, doctors made referrals to the Oregon Health Authority who determined who was eligible to receive a medical marijuana card.  Marijuana was an herbal remedy and there was no proscription against taxing herbal remedies.  Collected taxes would go into the General Fund.  Council could change Section 4.38.030 Levy of Tax (B) to read the amount of tax levied shall be established by Council resolution up to 5% for medical marijuana and up to 10% for recreational marijuana.
 
Councilor Marsh/Rosenthal m/s approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An Ordinance Establishing a Tax on the Sale of Marijuana and Marijuana-infused Products in the City of Ashland.”  And amend to change 4.38.030 Levy of Tax and section B up to 5% gross sale of the amount paid to the seller for item #1 and up to 10 % gross sale of amount of item #2.”
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Marsh thought it was appropriate to have something that related to legal marijuana.  She was less convinced on taxing medical marijuana.  Councilor Rosenthal thought it was a smart move to position the City by establishing the tax.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Rosenthal, Slattery, Morris, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed.
 
3.   First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 1.08 General Penalty, Sections 1.08.010, 1.08.020 and 1.08.030 compliant with current state statues”
Item delayed due to time constraints.
 
4.   Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 2; Rules of City Council, Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for advisory commissions and boards, Recreation Commission, Conservation Commission; and certain administrative and operating departments”
Item delayed due to time constraints.
 
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 
 
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
 
 
 
___________________________________              ________________________________
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder                 Dennis Slattery, Council Chair
 
                       

Ashland 24/7

Pay Your
Utility Bill
Connect
to AFN
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Apply for
Building Permits
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2017 City of Ashland, OR | Site by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

twittertwitter facebookfacebook Emailemail Share
Back to top