Item 4: Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbances

Home Browse Search

than R-I 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, \vhich made the area the highest density with the highest threat afany neighborhood in the community. She noted that the petition requesting a remedy ,vas signed by 286 residents, including many \vho lived outside of Area 15. She thought that. Mr. Kelly's amendment would perpetuate the issue of disparity bet\:voon the original meaning of Io'V\! to medium residential and the current understanding that it meant upzoning to R-2 \vas acceptable. Ms. Muir said the motion before the council considered some of the options in the May 24, 2006, memoran- dum from staff, including \\lork on site revie,,, and design. standards. She said that changing the language from "low to medium" to ~'lo"v" ,vas identified in discussions with the neighborhood as part ofa future action that might implenlent opportunity siting. Sbe said that \vas not enlphasized 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\vas 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 \vould require more stafftinle than the motion suggested in the AlS. Mr. Pryor observed that just designating. an area 10\\1 density would not address the issue of neighborhood character or inappropriate infiH. He understood that there \-vas no expectation an area would remain lo\\' density; that was an interim measure while other strategies \vere developed. He preferred to make ita priority task. Regarding the hope that lo\v density \vas an interim solution while other strategies were developed, Mr. Kelly noted that there \vas great enthusiasm .in 1993 for nodal development, also KnO\VIl as mixed-use centers, and 13 years later, that effort was barely started. He said bis amendment would not allow four to eight more units per lot as that was based on blanket R-2 and bisamendment specified density lower than the maximumR-2. Ms. Taylor said she\vould 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-teon interest in the stability of the neighborhood. Mr. Pape asked if the motion\vould require moving to a density of four to eight units per acre. Ms. Jcronle replied that Mr. KeUy~s motion limited density to something belo'\;v the maximum allowed in R-2 but an interpretation 'Vvould still be necessary to determine \vhat that nunlber would be. Mr. KeUy said the number \vould be defined by staff during the process. Mr. Pape asked if the council's action could be sunsetted in t\:vo or three years to ensure that long-term strategies ,vere developed. Ms. Muir said a sunset provision \vauldnot be part of the council's current action but, if an amendment was initiated, staff vvould ,vork with the city attorney to draft that type of language. Ms. Jer01l1e encouraged a sunset provision to establish a specific sunset date instead of indicating it would happen when tbe City adopted infilI standards. MINUTES-City Council Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 7