Residential Infill (RI) zone
Proposed new zone for in-fill housing with 4,000-square-foot minimum lots, tied to a private rezone request. The Planning Commission found the application premature; the council tabled Ordinance 2020-13 for up to nine months on October 1, 2020.
Tabled
- Type
- Zone change
- City Council: Ordinance 2020-13: Residential Infill (RI) zone
- City Council: Public hearing: Residential Infill (RI) zone text amendment
In brief
Residential Infill (RI) zone appears on 2 recorded agendas, from the City Council meeting of September 17, 2020 to the City Council meeting of October 1, 2020.
On record, it was continued once and tabled once.
The most recent decision was tabled (6-0) at the City Council meeting of October 1, 2020.
Follow the money and project delivery
Residential Infill (RI) zone
- Council action
No approval or denial linked in the records collected.
- Money in the record
No itemized amount linked in the records collected.
- Signed agreement and payments
Execution and project-level disbursements are not verified by this tracker. They require separate records; meeting approval alone does not establish either.
- Work and operating costs
Check the linked records for completion and recurring operating costs; this tracker does not verify them. Record →
Every hearing and vote
October 1, 2020 · City Council
Ordinance 2020-13: Residential Infill (RI) zone
Tabled · 6-0
Council Member Gibbons moved to table; Council Member Durham amended the motion to table for up to nine months, with the ordinance terminating if not approved in that time.
September 17, 2020 · City Council
Public hearing: Residential Infill (RI) zone text amendment
Continued
The community development director said the proposal would create a more flexible zone than three existing options and must be located in an area of equal or greater density. The hearing ran from 6:15 to 6:35 p.m. In the work meeting, the Planning Commission was said to have found the application premature; Quinn raised water absorption (80% versus the city's 60% limit), Fotheringham did not support approval at this time, and Gibbons and the mayor also viewed it as premature. Staff said it supports the general concept.