Staff noted that it was important to understand that the adoption of the plan is not a plan for development and annexation. That hopefully the plan will provide predictability and provide the decision makers with a point of preference.
Mr. Goldman provided maps that identified water protection areas, draft land use framework and the transportation network. He explained that the neighborhood charrettes had provided some plan iterations.
Council offered concern on the phrase “acceptable levels” in regards to traffic. Staff explained this would all be based on traffic engineering studies and take into consideration future transportation needs.
Councilor Lemhouse arrived at 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Goldman explained that staff arrived at the proposed zoning using comparable to existing areas and current Comprehensive Plan. This included the dedicated wetlands and remaining planned units. It is designed as a hybrid frame that allows for a little more density but also for pocket neighborhoods.
Mr. Goldman concluded by explaining the steps for the final draft of the plan for public hearings to presentation to the City Council. He also stated that the Planning Commission might need more time to review prior to it coming before the council.
3. Discussion of Unified Land Use Ordinance update
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided in the council packet an update of key changes to the land use ordinance prior to the adoption of the Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO), which will replace the current land use ordinance Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code.
No discussion was held on this topic.
4. Discussion of ordinance updates: City Council Rules (Chapter 2.04), Boards and Commissions Rules and Procedures (Chapter 2.10), and Miscellaneous Chapters (2.18 and 2.28)
City Attorney Dave Lohman went over the suggested changes to the various chapters of the Ashland Municipal Code that dealt with Council Rules and Boards and Commissions Rules and Procedures. He explained that these proposed amendments also include some suggested modifications that are intended to clarify procedural questions.
Mr. Lohman explained that Robert’s Rules can be cumbersome and the proposed amendments are an attempt to reduce complexity and provide greater clarity. Robert’s Rules would still govern some parliamentary procedures, not covered in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Lohman presented the proposed amendments to the Rules of City Council AMC Section 2.04.010 through AMC Section 2.04.040.
Council voiced concern in regards to the proposed changes for Study Sessions. Mr. Lohman explained that there is nothing in state public meetings law that precludes the Council from taking action in study sessions that would be permissible in other public meetings. The proposal replaces, “deliberate towards a decision,” with more concrete terms describing actions that can and cannot occur in study sessions. He provided examples of these types of actions.
Council was reluctant to allow decision making at study sessions and if any motions would be moved on, they should only be based on direction to staff and not policy related. It was suggested that if a councilor were to object to a motion being made then it would moved to a regular meeting. Concern was raised over noticing requirements and accommodating the public. It was agreed that staff would continue with proposed language in this section.
Mr. Lohman continued with the proposed amendments and provided further clarification on the current noticing requirement of meetings at 36 hours. There was a suggestion that this should be increased or keep all noticing requirement consistent at 36 hours.
Further discussion was held on guidelines for setting perimeters for the time limits regarding council speaking. It was suggested that a councilor should not be allowed to speak more than two times unless called on by the chair. It was agreed that this should be a judgment call made by the chair.
Staff will continue to work on the proposed amendments, which includes further clarification on motions. Council requested that staff bring this back for further discussion and completion at a future study session.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder