Laserfiche WebLink
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE <br />November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 23 of 59 <br />D also received moderate support, and a combination of B and D was strongly preferred in feedback from the <br />working group open house . The two options rated identically in evaluation. <br />To best support compact urban development, while protecting and enhancing neighborhood livability a nd <br />natural resources, combining options B and D is recommended. The clear and objective review track currently <br />does not have a means to address compatibility impacts and implementing these concepts would improve <br />effectiveness. To promote efficient use of our buildable land supply, and in line with stakeholder support, it is <br />recommended that the compatibility criterion apply only when separating different-intensity uses (such as <br />between multi-family and single family) and be scaled so that smaller infill developments are not <br />disproportionately burdened. This would support compatibility with emphasis on gradual transitions to lower <br />intensity uses and efficient use of space . <br />Transitional buffering would be accomplished using increased building setbacks, height step-downs (a reduction <br />in building height as a means of transitioning between the higher and lower intensity uses), and required <br />landscape screening. This will require drafting new code language to guide specific application of the <br />requirements, which will require moderate time (relative to a simpler code revision) but is technically feasible <br />and offers significant benefit to the community if implemented. In addition, there are three related issues that <br />are affected by the outcome of this issue —COS-02 (30-Foot Buffer Requirement for PUDs), COS-09 (Conditional <br />Use Requirement) and COS-12 (Site Review Requirement). If this recommendation is implemented, then <br />replacing the existing 30-foot buffer requirement for planned unit developments with this criterion is also <br />recommended. It would also improve effectiveness of the conditional use track as currently it largely points to <br />general development standards that do not address compatibility. <br />November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2