Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

characteristics remained. "Contractor storage yard" is the similar use in this case and is a permitted outright use in the 1-2 and 1-3 zones. Therefore, trucking terminals are currently allowed under this category. Adding the term "trucking terminat' back to the use table does not allow any new development options. However, it clarifies the code for the user since the current table is not intuitive for this use. The rai(vard site adjacent to the Trainsong neighborhood is currently unzoned. Therefore, the 1-2 and 1-3 provisions do not apply. The railyard is limited to rail related services. There are sites a({jacent to the rai~yard that are zoned 1-2 and 1-3 which currently allow trucking terminals. 21)25) 9.2760,9.2761 (6) Does this provision, which I think applies only to new development, essentially decrease density? The text on page 368 makes the percentages of higher density IIpermitted" which seems to change it from a requirement to an option. Is that correct? Will a fourplex lot in r..l that is 16,000 sq ft, that "may" developed as a single family home functionally circumvents the 13, 5000 max lot size? Response: The code provisions related to duplex, triplex andfourplex units in R-1 are specifically limited to subdivision applications. This provision is optional, but if the applicant avails themselves of it, the subdivision plat shall indicate which lots are designated for duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. The question in the proposed amendment is whether a future builder must be held to the original request. The amendment would allow an applicant to build a single-family residence instead of the previous requested multi-famiZv units. However, there is no minimum density requirement in R-I, so such a request would not affect any required density provisions. With regard to the 13,500 sq. ft. lot size requirement, it is possible that a fourplex lot of 16,000 sq. ft. could be created and later developed with a single-family residence. To address this issue, staff will propose that a statement be added requiring the applicant to demonstrate that all other requirements of the land use code are satisfied in order to build a single-family residence. 22) 9.2760 Regarding the possibility that this will increase property values, was the 50' lot width a mistake when lucu was updated? Flat out mistakes that preclude the II desired" objectives should be corrected. Response: The Council specifically added rowhouses as a permitted housing type l-vithin the R-l zone during L UCU However, it appears that a corresponding reduced lot width should have been included to account for the unique (narrow) design of row houses. The amendment would provide this necessary reduced lot width provision. 24) 9.2761 Does this create the ability for staff to use their discretion to waive the maximum lot size? How can staff establish that the "protection" is in perpetuity and not just long enough to obtain the waiver? Won't this also reduce density? 2