Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Commission the issues of whether the 18-month expiration period for PUDs is too long and whether the City is authorizing too many time-extensions of that expira- tion period. The motion passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Pryor and Poling voting no. The main motion as amended passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling and Solomon voting no. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4988, an ordinance concerning land use regulations related to building height transitions. Councilor Zelenka said neighborhoods were concerned about potential activities during the usual 30-day period prior to an ordinance going into effect and had indicated an interest in having the ordinance go into effect immediately. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to delete the text in Section 4 of Ordinance B and replace it with the following: “An immediate effec- tive date of this Ordinance is necessary in order to serve the important public pur- pose of ensuring that infill development in the affected area is compatible with the surroundings.” In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Ms. Hansen said that Ordinance B as drafted, contained only the amendment to building height transitions that was specific to the South University Neighborhood. She noted that the staff recommendation was to adopt that ordinance and send that topic, plus the topic of multi-family unit required parking to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for a more thorough review. She pointed out that the ordinance included an 18-month sunset date that would allow the infill project time to either determine the ordinance was sufficient or recommend changes. Councilor Solomon expressed concern with governing the City on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. Councilor Pryor said he supported the sunset provision and referral back to the infill project. The motion to amend passed, 7:1; Councilor Solomon voting no. Councilor Zelenka said the neighborhood areas affected by the ordinance were faced with unique issues that did not extend to other parts of the City. He said his next motion was intended to address the problem of multi-family development that included five- and six-bedroom units and that created large problems with parking as there were no longer just one or two cars per unit. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to add a new section to Ordinance B that included the text provided as Alternative B1 in Attachment C to the agenda item summary (AIS) and to replace the Goal 12 findings for Ordinance B with those provided as Attachment D to the AIS. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Ms. Hansen said the language in the ordinance would not be applied retroactively; it would only affect applications submitted after it went into effect. Councilor Bettman asked if the term “multi-family” could be changed to “multi-unit.” Ms. Hansen said the term appeared throughout the code, including the definitions section, and the change would be added to the list of ongoing code amendments.