Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

#6 - 9.5000; Lot width definition. Testimony expressed concern that the revised detinition will allow additional lots to be developed. Response: The revised lot width definition attempts to address a more logical place on the lot to measure the true width of a lot (midway backfrom the front property line, rather than only 10 feet back). Staff does not see any correlation between this change and the potential for additional/ots. #8 - 9.2160; RV sales. Testimony noted concern in allowing RV sales as a pennitted use in the C-2 zone. Response: Issue covered in attached e~mai/ response to Councilor Bettman. #12 - 9.2171(11)(d); Outdoor display. Concern expressed that creation of adjustment review provision win lead to rampant sign pollution. Response: The proposed amendment addresses outdoor display rather than signs. The code currently limits outdoor display to plant and garden supplies. The atnendment would allow consideration of additional outdoor displays through an adjustment revievv process. Future reque..<;ts (beyond plant and garden supplies) would need to submit aformalland use application, andju.stifY that their proposal is consistent ~ith the intent of the commercial development standards. #14 - 9.2171(15)(e), Ground floor windows/Loading Docks. Concern with proposed exemption. Response: Issue covered under Council que..<;tions above. #17 - 9.2450 (table), Trucking Terminals. Concern expressed about whether the current table needs to be changed or whether it reflects true intent. Response: This issue is partially covered in attached e-mail response to Councilor Bettman. With regard to the que..\'tion of intent, it should be noted that any attempt to intentionally eliminate tnicking terminals from I- 2 and I- 3 during LUCU would have involved significant discussion as such an amendment would have banned thi.... use citywide. #19 - 9.2741; Height limit. Testimony notes that the impact of this change should be explained for public process. Response: T7lis amendment clar(fies an existing provision in the Public Land (PL) zone, limiting the height of buildings within 50}t. of a residential zone. The language would clarify that a building straddling the 50foot line, would have to meet the reduced height limit for any portion of the building within 50' ofa residential zone, but not for that portion outside of this 50/oot line. #24 - 9.2761, Maximum lot size exception for natural resource protection. Concern was expressed that this provision would reduce available tools for natural resource protection. Response: T71e intent of this amendment is to enable greater opp011unityfor natural resource preservation. Staff sees this being more applicable to smaller scale projects (such as partitions). Larger projects, especially PUD 's, already have the ability to consider different options regarding lot cOl!figurations. #26 - 9. 775(1)~ Screening of flag lotfi. Testimony requests that the provision for screening along the driveway of flag lots be added back into the code. Re.~ponse: When LUCU was adopted, the Council modified the flag lot provisions, which included the elimination of the screening requirement alongflag lot driveway. However, the "Purpose section" of the Page 5 of7