Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant outlines accelerated commercial master plan as commissioners debate a proposed non‑binding referendum on height and density
Summary
Rafallis presented an accelerated commercial redevelopment master plan with a mid‑July community survey and fall draft; at the same meeting, a proposed non‑binding referendum on future height/density was discussed but staff/legal advice warned that state law constrains referendums 'in regard to land development regulations.'
At the June 2 regular meeting the city’s consultant Rafallis (Terry Bovery) presented an accelerated commercial redevelopment master‑plan engagement. The consultant described two parallel tracks: (1) public engagement (website, an online controlled survey anticipated in mid‑July, area open meetings and a visioning open house in early fall), and (2) feasibility and economic‑impact modeling for candidate redevelopment sites using a certified valuation analyst. The team said a draft plan would follow in late fall and a final report was planned for Nov–Dec under the current schedule.
Commissioners and the consultant discussed survey controls (to prevent multiple responses), the nine‑month schedule and whether plan‑development (PD) zoning work should run in parallel with the master plan. Rafallis said the PD process can be run in parallel to accelerate potential projects but emphasized the master plan’s economic analysis would provide key evidence for any code changes.
Separately, Commissioner Ardan Dicki had proposed placing a non‑binding referendum on the ballot to gauge public preference for approaches to future development: preserve current height/density, preserve with targeted flexibility, or allow broader increases. Late on June 1 commissioners received an email from the city attorney advising that state law broadly prohibits initiative/referendum processes “in regard to land development regulations,” and staff warned that putting such a question on the ballot could create legal exposure. The attorney suggested the commission could seek an Attorney General advisory opinion on narrowly framed advisory language but cautioned the statutory language is restrictive.
Public commenters and several commissioners urged greater public input and the master plan’s feasibility work before adopting any PD code changes; others said voters can express preferences at the ballot box in March and that a controlled community survey and open houses are lawful ways to gather public sentiment.
Outcome and next steps: Rafallis will post engagement materials, release the survey mid‑July, and continue the economic modeling; the commission did not put any referendum on the ballot and staff recommended seeking further legal certainty (Attorney General opinion) before pursuing a ballot question tied to land‑use regulation.
