Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Muir said the motion before the council considered some of the options in the May 24, 2006, memoran- dum from staff, including work on site review and design standards. She said that changing the language from “low to medium” to “low” was identified in discussions with the neighborhood as part of a future action that might implement opportunity siting. She said that was not emphasized in the staff report because there was never a guarantee unless there was a sunset date. She did not want to rely on that until there was something concrete to consider. She thought the work associated with the proposed motion would require a little more time and effort to present a product to the council. City Manager Taylor clarified that the proposed motion would require more staff time than the motion suggested in the AIS. Mr. Pryor observed that just designating an area low density would not address the issue of neighborhood character or inappropriate infill. He understood that there was no expectation an area would remain low density; that was an interim measure while other strategies were developed. He preferred to make it a priority task. Regarding the hope that low density was an interim solution while other strategies were developed, Mr. Kelly noted that there was great enthusiasm in 1993 for nodal development, also known as mixed-use centers, and 13 years later, that effort was barely started. He said his amendment would not allow four to eight more units per lot as that was based on blanket R-2 and his amendment specified density lower than the maximum R-2. Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the amendment as the matter of protection required some urgency. She said that increasing rentals in a neighborhood created a transitory effect and reduced the number of residents with a long-term interest in the stability of the neighborhood. Mr. Papé asked if the motion would require moving to a density of four to eight units per acre. Ms. Jerome replied that Mr. Kelly’s motion limited density to something below the maximum allowed in R-2 but an interpretation would still be necessary to determine what that number would be. Mr. Kelly said the number would be defined by staff during the process. Mr. Papé asked if the council’s action could be sunsetted in two or three years to ensure that long-term strategies were developed. Ms. Muir said a sunset provision would not be part of the council’s current action but, if an amendment was initiated, staff would work with the city attorney to draft that type of language. Ms. Jerome encouraged a sunset provision to establish a specific sunset date instead of indicating it would happen when the City adopted infill standards. The vote on the motion to amend the main motion was tied, 4:4; Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Poling voting in opposition, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Papé voting in favor. Ms. Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion to amend and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Papé suggested including a sunset provision. City Manager Taylor said that staff would include a recommended timeframe for a sunset provision in its report to the council. Ms. Muir clarified that her reference to a sunset clause related only to redesignation from low-medium to low density as an interim step before opportunity siting was implemented. Ms. Piercy stated that she voted in favor of the amendment in part because there were many priorities and she was not comfortable with it being number one, although it was important. The vote on the main motion as amended was tied, 4:4, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Poling voting in opposition, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solo- mon and Mr. Papé voting in favor. Ms. Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion as amended and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 7 Work Session