Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

along street frontages, it also maintains a requirement for buffering along interior property lines (even though its unclear if this was intended). However, it does resolve the "canyon effect" potential by requiring at least 15' of separation betlveen buildings. 57)9.6810 This loosens the criteria for which the exception shall be granted based on lInot creating excessive travel lengths. 11 The provision was established according to standards for creating Pedestrian friendly and walkable developments. But your criteria do not differentiate between travel lengths for autos or for humans on foot. Doesn't it need to specifically address pedestrian travel lengths and define what is excessive? Response: One of the approval criteria for most land use applications is that the project develop a street system with block lengths of 600' or less. In addition to that criterion, the code also requires several others components related to streets, transit, pedestrian and bicycle access. This proposed amendment would be limited to the 600' standard. All other provisions addressing circulation and access for all modes 'would remain in effect. [n other words, all other criterion would need to be met in order to consider block lengths longer than 600'. 58) This adds to the trend of removing objective and clear code standards and vesting all discretion for waiving provisions with staff. Response: The code currently contains an adjustment review process related to street connectivity. Since street connectivity is always considered as part of a land use application, the current code requires 2 separate requests for the same project. This amendment essential~y consolidates these provisions by moving the m{justment review process under the main land use application. For example, a subdivision application would contain the street connectivity alijustment process rather than processing the same provisions in a separate parallel request. This amendment will not change any of the criteria for adjustment, the public notice/involvement process, or the decision making authority. 66) 9.7805, 9.7885 Who is the decision making authority for the Industrial Corridor Agreement and what will be the process to change the boundaries if this code revision is adopted? What specific properties are affected by this change? Response: The Council originally authorized the creation of the Industrial Corridor Agreement. That agreement specified which parcels were included within the boundaries. The proposed amendment is limited to correcting the figure included in Chapter 9. so that it accurately represents those parcels referenced in the approved agreement. The figure currently shol-1.-'S some parcels in the Airport Road area li/hich should not be included within the boundaries. No change to the agreement or the process to amend this agreement are proposed. 71) 9.8055 (1) Does this create an automatic waiver authority for staff? Would it apply to potential M37 claims? Response: The code currently allows for flexibility in the design of cluster subdivisions. The proposed 4