Laserfiche WebLink
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE <br />November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 33 of 59 <br />COS-06 (RIDGELINE S ETBACK FOR PUDS) <br />Description : The clear and objective planned unit development track includes a requirement for a 300-foot <br />setback from the ridgeline for properties within the South Hills Study. This can impact residential development <br />feasibility of subject sites by reducing site area that may be developed. This is especially impactful on smaller <br />sites. <br />Applies To : Planned Unit Development <br />Existing Code Section(s): 9.8325(12)(b) <br />Existing Code Language : <br />(12) For any PUD located within or partially within the boundaries of the South Hills Study, the following <br />additional approval criteria apply: <br />(b) Development shall be setback at least 300 feet from the ridgeline unless there is a <br />determination by the city manager that the area is not needed as a connection to the city’s <br />ridgeline trail system . For purposes of this section, the ridgeline trail shall be considered as the <br />line indicated as being the urban growth boundary within the South Hills Study plan area. <br />Recommendation : Revise to make setback applicable to areas above 900’ elevation. <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 />Feedback from stakeholders was somewhat mixed. Several preferred no change, some support changes to allow <br />the setback to be scalable , and some want the setback eliminated altogether. Comments from the stakeholders <br />A. No Change – – + – o o+ <br />B. Reduce setback requirement to a lesser amount +–+oo o– <br />C. Revise to make the setback requirement scalable <br />based on the size of the development site (smaller <br />setback for smaller sites) <br />+–++o +o <br />D. Eliminate -- intent met through City acquisition of <br />ridgeline park land within the urban growth <br />boundary <br />+o+oo oo <br />+ promotes o neutral –inhibits <br />Possible Concepts <br />November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2