Item C: Inappropriate Infill - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Small lot provisions: Allows reduced lot size in multi-family zone, primary to accommodate single-family designs, while meeting minimum density requirements. . Building height restriction for R-3, R-4 developments near R-1 to minimize mass/scale impacts. Soecial Area Zones . Specific geographic areas within the city contain a specialized set of provisions tailored for a particular neighborhood. . Examples include: Whiteaker, Downtown Westside, Royal Node, Chase Garden Node, Chambers Special (pending). For the most part, the tools and regulations listed above rely on a "standards-based" approach, as opposed to a discretionary process. This direction was an integral part of the discussion during the adoption ofLUCU in 2001. During that process, one of the key policy decisions made was the need to establish additional measures regarding infill, with an emphasis on clear and objective standards. The creation of the multi-family standards was a primary tool added in the multi-family zones. In addition, the council evaluated the provisions for infill in the single-family neighborhoods. Two key decisions in response to neighborhood concerns were the elimination of alley access lot provisions and increased setback requirements for flag lots. The Planning Division currently has two high priority work items on the council-approved work plan which may be appropriate forums for addressing the concerns raised in this work session. They are the Mixed Use Center/Opportunity Siting program and the Code Amendment process (Round 2). Staff would ask the council to consider whether the issues raised should be included within these high priority work tasks or whether they should be identified as a separate work task to be evaluated along with other potential priority items. RELATED CITY POLICIES The City's Growth Management Policies include several policies related to infi11. Most applicable is the following: Policy 6: Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. No action. 2. Direct staff to address the issues raised at this work session within the approved Planning Division high priority work tasks. 3. Direct staff to identify the issues raised at this work session as a separate work task to be addressed as part of the annual work program review Goint meeting with the Planning Commission). CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that staff be directed to address the issues raised at this work session within the approved Planning Division high priority work tasks. LICMOl200S Council Agendas1MOS12141S0S1214C.doc