Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Piercy expressed her appreciation for the discussion about how to live more densely while preserving the character of neighborhoods. She thought another council goal should be to ensure the economic diversity of residents within neighborhoods. She was interested in a tool to accomplish density while preserving neighborhood character that could be applied broadly instead of taking a piecemeal approach. Mr. Pryor said the challenge was to find a unified approach that addressed the problem of density and neighborhood character across the community. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the neighborhood in question was the densest neighborhood in the entire city and included a variety of housing types. She said it was important to the health of the entire neighborhood that Area 15 remain a stable section of single-family homes. She hoped that the solution could be simple and not require an extraordinary amount of resources. Ms. Taylor said the neighborhood was not wealthy or sparsely populated and urgent attention was needed to protect it. Regarding mixed housing, she referred to her previous discussions of inclusionary zoning, which she thought should happen but was currently prohibited by the State. She hoped that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations could take the matter up during the next legislative session. Mr. Papé agreed that while the neighborhood was more densely developed than the south hills or other areas in the community, it still did not match the planned for density. He was not certain that the neighborhood would be opposed to appropriate densifying of the area. He asked which of the two options under consideration was the most legally defensible. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that while the options were procedurally different, each of them was legally defensible. Mr. Papé asked if the two options were short of a Metro Plan amendment. Ms. Jerome replied that the proposed process was two-step. She said the neighborhood and staff agreed to present to the council the possibility of a Metro Plan amendment process to identify the neighborhood as low density which could take some time, and an interpretation process to address the neighborhood’s concerns in the interim. The neighborhood hoped the interpretation would be consistent with the way they viewed the intent of the neighborhood refinement plan and provide a basis for arguing against an upzone in the area until the Metro Plan amendment took effect. She noted that, this two-step strategy was viewed by the neighborhood as an interim measure and infill standards were regarded as the best way to address concerns about density. She clarified that the neighborhood’s intent is to support a return to a medium density Metro Plan designation once the Council has adopted infill standards. Ms. Muir added that staff was committed to making an administrative interpretation decision initially and, if appealed, the interpretation would move through the appeal process. Mr. Papé asked if the decision would apply to other neighborhoods. Ms. Muir said the decision would only apply to the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan but clarified that anyone could request an interpretation by the Planning Director by filing a form and paying a fee. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to Low Density Residential development. In addition, to direct the City Manager to make this task priority #1 on the Planning Commission work plan and pull resources from the other high priority work program items to accomplish this as quickly as possible within the parameters of the amendment process. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the motion by deleting the sec- ond sentence of the motion entirely and rewording the end of the first sentence as follows: “Move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 5 Work Session