Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

Response: The code currently allows requests for adjustment review regarding maximum lot size however, these requests do not include natural resource protection as a reason for considering such requests. Depending on the application type, either the Planning Director or Hearings Official is the decision maker. Typical~v, these issues would arise during a partition, subdivision or PUD. These applications already have the ability to establish conditions which ensure the long-term protection of natural resources and would be applied when requests for maximum lot size a<!justment arejustifled. 33) 34) (.5500 (8) (a) Page 374, Does this make the area of landscaping equal to that of Ii open space"? Isn't II open space" permitted to be paved? If that is the case could this result in NO landscaping? Response: This amendment is limited to the R-2 zone. In R-2, the code currentZv requires 20% of the site to be devoted to common open space. The code amendment 'would require an equivalent amount of landscaping, which tvould require at least 20% of the site to contain landscaping. Since the definition of open space includes features such as courtyards and pedestrian paths as well as some landscaping, features such as lawns could count toward the 20% open space requirement. However, landscaping is more narrowly defined as living plant material. Therefore, no portion of any hardscape material could count t01-vard the 20% landscaping requirement. This will ensure that at least 20% of the site is landscaped, regardless of what additional form of open space is provided. The current code language essential~y prohibits anv hardscape (including driveways, patios and pedestrian paths) outside the maximum allowed buildingfootprintfor R-2 property, which is inconsistent with all other zones. 42)9.6400 again, was this just a mistake in the lucu? How do you determine it is a mistake, or lJinadvertent?" It shouldn't be considered an up zone if it fixes a mistake. Response: This issue specifically relates to 9.64 J 0 (table). Following adoption of LUCU it came to staffs attention that the parking requirement for wholesale trade changed. In the preparation of the new parking table during the L ueu process, it appears the ratio corresponding to "manufacturing" was used for "wholesale trade" rather than the more accurate ratio for "storage. " If a wholesale trade use has a manufacturing component to the business, that higher ratio is applied to that portion of the site. 44) 9.6420 (f) Isn't this provision meant to #buffer" non-commercial uses from parking? Would it be just as effective if it articulated that instead of eliminating it altogether? If the # existing" structure is another commercial use, it makes sense to waive the provision. Response: This standard is primarily intended to create a landscape strip between the parking structure and the street to provide a softer edge for adjacent to sidewalks and streetscapes. The existing code language does not appear to address buffering of adjacent properties. Parking structures typical~v contain commercial uses 011 a portion of the ground floor. The code essentially requires that where the ground floor commercial ends (exposing the parking structure), there shall be a 5' strip between the parking structure (e.g. "non-commercial portion of the parking structure") and the propel1y line. This works well along the street frontages, but not along an interior property line (ac[jacent to another building). The current language requires this landscaping even if the 5' landscape strip is the only separation between the parking structure and adjacent building. Such conditions are not conducive to landscape survival. The proposed language not only maintains the buffering 3