Laserfiche WebLink
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE <br />November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 25 of 59 <br />Recommendation : Replace with new compatibility criterion proposed under COS-01 Clear and Objective <br />Compatibility. (Option E) <br /> This issue is one of six related to the clear and objective criteria for planned unit development that contribute <br />to limiting development feasibility of many sites. The cumulative effect of these six requirements is particularly <br />limiting for those properties subject to the South Hills Study and additional criteria at EC 9.8325(12). The six <br />criteria include the 30-foot buffer, 20% slope grading limitation, one-acre accessible open space, South Hills <br />Study limitation over 900 feet, 300-foot ridgeline setback, and 40% common open space and clustering. (See <br />related Issues COS-03, COS-04, COS-05, COS-06 and COS-07) <br />Requiring a 30-foot buffer around all sites subject to a planned unit development inhibits compact urban <br />development, especially when applied to smaller infill developments. The discretionary track does not contain a <br />similar requirement as it more specifically addresses the compatibility impacts that this requirement is intended <br />to alleviate. While a 30-foot setback may be somewhat effective in some situations, in many instances the <br />developments that go through the planned unit development process are subdivisions that require the planned <br />unit development due to an overlay zone or their location. In these cases, what would otherwise be a standard <br />five-foot residential setback between neighboring low-density properties along the border of the development <br />site must be 30-feet. In recognition of this and the disproportionate impacts on smaller development sites, <br />stakeholders supported retaining a scalable buffer criterion related to planned unit developments (PUD) when a <br />new development of higher intensity is proposed near lower intensity uses or zones (i.e. multi-family next to <br />single-family). A combination of support for C and D was expressed as well as E which would rely on the new <br />criteri on from issue # COS-01 to address compatibility. Given the similarity in the direction on COS-01—to apply <br />specifically in transitions between different intensity developments and be scalable —replacing this criterion <br />with the new compatibility criterion will promote both efficiency (eliminate a criterion that is a blunt effort to <br />address compatibility in a clear and objective manner) and effectiveness (the new criterion will more specifically <br />and effectively address compatibility impacts). <br />November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2