CC_Minutes_2016_0822 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 22, 2016 Page 9 to address that excess impervious coverage for the overall site. However, Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Freihammer, that staff would not perform that analysis unless a property owner was attempting to exceed those lower limits addressed in city code. In referencing the same section as Councilmember McGehee (specifically line 52) and ageeing some may be more impervious than suggested, Councilmember Et- ten asked how 70% was arrived at for LDR-2 and 50°/o in LDR-1 designated are- as. Mr. Lloyd stated he could not recall the 2010 conversations that prompted that percentage specific to that provision, other than recognizing that LDR-2 parcels on smaller lots allow for the expectation of greater development levels on more compact properties. Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no one appearing to speak for or against. McGehee move�l, Etten seconded, revising proposed language in RCA Exhibit B, Section 3, Item C, line 52 from 70% to SO% to make it consistent with LDR-1 designated parcels. Mayor Roe consulted City Attorney Mark Gaughan on whether such a language change was within the process for ordinance zoning change adoptions, or whether it needed to go through the Planning Commission public hearing process again. Mayor Roe noted the City Council was changing a different technical requirement of city code beyond that recommended at the Planning Commission level and previous public hearing opportunity. City Attorney Gaughan stated the only obligation was that ordinance changes ini- tially go through the Planning Commission and public vetting process; but clari- fied the proposed percentage change was not required to go through that process again, and advised that the City Council was within their authority to amend the proposed ardinance language in Exhibit B further at this time. Mr. Gaughan fur- ther stated that the City Council was operating out of due diligence, and while it could send this revised text amendment back to the Planning Commission if it felt it was a different topic than previously proposed before the Commission, it also had the discretion to do so. Mayor Roe suggested amending the motion on the table to direct staff to take this proposed revised text amendment back to the Planning Commission. Makers of the motion agreed with the amendment; and the motion is restated as follows: