Agenda Packet 11-26-18 Work Session

Home Browse Search

CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 36 of 59 Study limitation over 900 feet, 300-foot ridgeline setback, and 40% common open space and clustering. (See related Issues COS-03, COS-04, COS-05, COS-06 and COS-07) Some of the members of the working group saw this requirement as redundant and supported options D or E, while others supported retaining the existing criterion. Other concepts suggested included revising the criterion to scale open space requirement relative to the size of lots (reduced lot size requires greater open space); revise to align contiguous open space areas for planned unit developments where the ridgeline buffer and park connections are in place; and to revise to scale open space requirement relative to the slope of the development. This criterion appears to come from the following South Hills Study recommendations: That planned unit development procedures shall be utilized for the following purposes: 1.To encourage clustering of development in areas characterized by: a. Shallowest slopes b. Lowest elevations c. Least amount of vegetation d. Least amount of visual impact. 2.To encourage preservation as open space those areas characterized by: a. Intermediate and steep slopes b. Higher elevations c. Significant amounts of vegetation; d. Significant visual impact. That developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space elements of different developments in order to preserve the maximum amount of continuous open space. The requirement for sites to retain an area of at least 40% in three or fewer contiguous common open spaces may be unnecessary and overly burdensome for less visible lower elevation sites. Because areas for preservation were intended to include high elevation, steeply sloped, significantly vegetated areas with high visual impact, overlap with COS-04 may not fully address policy direction . While the requirement may be less problematic for large sites that have greater options to cluster buildings in creative arrangements, for smaller sites the standard can create design complications, as they may have limited places to locate structures, streets, and utilities. When the South Hills Study was written, as mentioned previously in COS-05, the south hills area was largely vacant. In addition, since that time, the City has acquired and preserved many acres of the ridgeline trail system and other high-elevation parks. The following reasons further support the recommendation to reassess the suitability of this criterion: the 40% figure was an arbitrary attempt to quantify the “maximum amount” of con tinuous open space to be preserved it may be ineffective as it applies broadly to sites regardless of view potential , vegetation coverage, and steepness it may inhibit the efficient use of land , as it may lead to unnecessary preservation of large areas of buildable land (e.g., when applied to lower elevation, less visible sites suitable for more dense development) November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2