Item B: Jefferson-Westside Options for Immediate Protection

Home Browse Search

Metro Plan, recent procedures established a more rigid hierarchy. This shift created significant problems for implementing neighborhood plans adopted years earlier. As was noted above, many refinement plans in the past adopted new land use diagrams which provided more specific direction, thereby replacing the more general information provided in the Metro Plan diagram. Through this process, there was no need to rely on the Metro Plan diagram for those affected neighborhoods, and therefore, there was no need to make changes to the Metro Plan diagram (the changes were already made on the refinement plan diagram). Under the current system, the City's criteria now state that if there is an inconsistency between the two plans, the Metro Plan prevails. In many cases such as the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan area, the Metro Plan still showed (prior to the Housekeeping Amendments) the original low density designation (for the reasons discussed above), while the neighborhood plan and legislative history clearly reflects medium density residential. The current zone change criteria make it very difficult to rely onthe original adoption process, as evidenced in a recent denial of a zone change request in this neighborhood. That decision relied on the simple fact that the two maps (regardless of their history) did not match each other, thereby requiring that the Metro Plan prevail. It is worth noting that the staff, many neighborhoods as well as the Planning Commission have been increasingly frustrated that these legal interpretations have made it more difficult to carry out the intent of these adopted neighborhood plans. One purpose of the Housekeeping Amendments was to ensure that the policy direction previously adopted for various neighborhoods plans could be legally implemented. In the case of the area at issue, the Housekeeping Amendments revised the Metro Plan diagram to allow medium density h~using as the neighborhood plan, adopted through a public process, intended. Possible Options Councilor Bettman has also asked what concrete steps can be taken to prevent rezonings in this area, or reverse this action altogether. There are a variety of options which the city could pursue, if the Council so desires. Following is a list of possible options which could be considered. 1. Metro Plan and Refinement Plan Amendment: This option would formally address possible redesignation of the subject area from medium density to low density residential. Process requires Planning Commission and City Council action. 2. Code Amendment: In order for zone changes to be approved, they must demonstrate consistency with "siting criteria" established in the Land Use Code. While these siting requirements are intentionally broad, the City could consider modifications to the siting requirements for the R-2 zone to limit future rezonings. Requires Planning Commission and City Council action. 3. Moratorium on rezoning: A short term option would be for the City to consider a moratorium on zone change applications in this area. This option would provide a limited window of time in which to take some long term action. The statutory process for adoption ofa moratorium would require at least 45-days notice to the state prior to the Council's final hearing on adoption and the moratorium would need to be limited to a 120-day duration (with extensions possible). Such a moratorium could only be justified if, among.other things, the City could demonstrate that the moratorium is needed to "prevent irrevocable public harm from development in the affected geographical area." Any consideration of this option should involve a thorough discussion of the legal limits and other associated factors. The Council has discussed moratoriums previously, most recently related to 'big box' stores and cell towers.. In both cases it was decided that the costs of defending a moratorium did not justify the action. Page 3 of 4