Item 3: Action - Minor Land Use Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

flag lot standards, left in a reference to screening. Although the Purpose section hCL<; no regulatory effect, the proposed amendment is intended to ensure consistency between the regulations and the intent. #27 - 9.2795; Solar Setback. Testimony indicates that the proposed change is technically wrong and reduces the opportunity for solar access. Response: Thepurpose of the solar setback standard is to limit the shadow cast from a building on one property, thereby enhancing solar access opportunities for neighboring properties. Staff agrees with the public testimony that buildings on a steep south-facing lot cast shorter shadows than buildings on a steep north-facing lot. However, the current code allows an exemption from the setbackfor north-facing lots which produce the longest shadows. The amendment would correct what appears to be a mistaken compass reference by focusing the exemption on lots that will produce less shade. In doing so, this amendment will actually increase solar access opportunities. #29 - 9.4730(3)/9.4830(2)(b); Site Review for wetland restoration projects. Testimony opposes the proposed amendment to exempt wetland restoration projects from site review and request strengthening regulations. Response: Currently, wetland restoration projects require site review approval. These projects have all been undertaken by the city or other public agencies withfederalfimds. Both the state andfederal requirements for these projects have far exceeded our local site review process. As such, staff has seen no additional benefit resultingfrom the site review process. 171e question for Council to consider is whether there is value in maintaining this separate site review process? #34 - 9.5500(9)(a); Open Space requirement. Testimony expresses concern that the proposed amendment regarding minimum open space dimension is significant. Response: The code currently has two conflicting provisions regarding open space. Staff views the minimum area for common open space of 250 squarefeet as the key standard. A minimum dimension is required as an additional means to ensure that the open space counted in this calculation is not too narrow. The minimum dimension of 20 ft. would require 400 square feet. The proposed change to 15ft. ensures consistency between these two standards. #44 - 9.6420(3)(f)(1); Landscape requirement adjacent to parking structures. Comments question why this provision should be changed, especially if there are ground floor windows. Response: This question is partially addressed in the attached e-mail re'~lJOnse to Councilor Bettman. With regard to the groundjloor windows, this requirement only applies to that portion of the parking structure that does not contain commercial uses. There;fore, there would be no groundfloor windows involved. The amendment attempts to ensure landscaping z) required where it has a reasonable chance of survival and bene;fit. #61- 9.6885; Certified Arborist requirement. The testimony received does not support the option of allowing a licensed landscape architect to prepare tree preservation plans. Response: Although the training and education requiredfor each profession is different, stafJbelieve certified professionals in both fields possess the ability to create an effective tree preservation plan. This change would not affect PUD 's, as the code L'Urrently re1Juires the design team to include both a certified arborist and landscape architect. #64 - 9.7110; Type I decisions. Testimony expressed concern that this would reduce public involvement opportunities in favor of greater staff discretion. Page 60f7