Item 1: PH on Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbance

Home Browse Search

than R-l but lower than R-2. Mr. Pape, as the second, accepted the revised lan- guage. Mr. Pape reiterated his concern about other neighborhoods having the same problems and the need for a consistent approach. Ms. Bettman pointed out that there were a number of high -density developments adjacent to Area 15, which made the area the highest density with the highest threat of any neighborhood in the community. She noted that the petition requesting a remedy was signed by 286 residents, including many who lived outside of Area 15. She thought that Mr. Kelly's amendment would perpetuate the issue of disparity between the original meaning of low to medium residential and the current understanding that it meant upzoning to R-2 was acceptable. 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 AlS. 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 ita 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. Pape 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. Pape 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. MINUTES-City Council Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 7