Item 2: Ordinance on Minor Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

that these amendments were not minor in nature and had broad policy implications. The Planning Commission also expressed concern about the impacts of the amendments on residential density and questioned if the proposed code language was the appropriate tool to address the issues. The Planning Commission also acknowledged the difficultly in balancing density and livability and appreciated the efforts of the neighborhoods. Ultimately, the Planning Commission agreed that these topics deserve a more comprehensive look and broader community dialogue than could be afforded through the minor code amendment process. The text of the Planning Commission’s motion is presented below, following the amendment topics. 5. Building Height Transitions within South University Neighborhood Association On this topic, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment at this time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identification of long term solutions. However, in the event the City Council decides to adopt an amendment related to this topic, the Planning Commission would recommend the adoption of a revised proposal put forth by the neighborhood (see Attachment C), as opposed to the proposal in the draft ordinance. 7. Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South University Neighborhood Associations On this amendment topic, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment at this time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identification of long term solutions. In making this recommendation the Planning Commission stated that the parking issues near campus require review of a broader scope of issues that may lead to other more appropriate tools or mechanisms to address this issue. Given these fundamental questions, the Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendment or more recently suggested revision at this time. Staff has incorporated the non-substantive Planning Commission recommendations into the draft ordinance provided with this council packet (Attachment A). The draft ordinance also contains the proposed language for the above two amendments considered by the Planning Commission. The neighborhood proposed revision for amendment #5 is included as Attachment C. The City Council held a work session on the minor code amendments on June 4, 2008, which provided an opportunity for an overview of the draft ordinance. The City Council provided feedback on the proposal including specific suggestions on potential modifications to the ordinance. To facilitate council action on the draft ordinance by July 14, 2008, staff will provide a memorandum responding to the City Council’s comments, including potential options that could be considered, prior to council action on July 14, 2008. Following the close of the public hearing, staff encourages City Council direction, to the extent possible, on any possible modifications which should be considered at the July 14, 2008, meeting. Background material on the key elements of this ordinance, as well as evidence and testimony provided to the Planning Commission will be available for review in the City Council office. Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080616\S0806162.doc