Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

40th Avenue) high-impact/activity areas including parking areas and trash enclosures are shown located right on or adjacent to the property line. No trees or vegetation is proposed to be retained or preserved in these areas, nor is any screening shown on the site plans. As apparent on the aerial photo, this area backs up to outdoor living areas of the adjacent residential uses. While staff believes that residential development is not necessarily or inherently incompatible with other adjacent, residential uses, the applicant's plans with regard to setbacks, fencing and screening are not entirely clear under this standards in terms of ensuring privacy to adjacent outdoor areas. It may be that with additional information, clarification, and perhaps refinements to the proposed site plans that the applicant could demonstrate compliance under this standard." Staff Report 12. Although the exact details of the CIR housing would not be provided until a CIR developer is brought in, the proposed site plan shows the areas where the housing, roads, parking lots, and public facilities would be located. Even though the precise details of development are not known, the proposed site plan shows where the development would be located in relation to adjoining residences. EC 9.724(2)(b)(2) concerns ensuring "privacy to adjacent outdoor living areas." The adjacent outdoor living areas at issue are the back yards of residences adjoining the subject property to the south and west. I agree with the staff report that the proposed CfR housing has sufficient setbacks and screening from the residences to the south and southwest. In the south and southwest portions of the proposed site plan the proposed CIR housing is not developed up to the property line. There are open spaces and existing trees that would be retained that provide adequate screening to adjoining backyards. The back yards to the west present a closer question. The proposed site plan shows the CIR development. There are residences, parking areas, and trash receptacles very close to the west property line on the site plan. If the approval criterion required that there be adequate setbacks and screening to ensure the privacy of adjacent outdoor uses, I would likely agree with opponents that the application does not satisfy the approval criterion. EC 9.724(2)(b)(2), however, only requires that the privacy of adjacent outdoor living area be ensured when "possible and practical." The applicant explains that the Planning Commission determined what EC 9.724(2)(b)(2) means in the Woodleaf Village case. "[EC 9.724(2)(b)(2) does] not promise much in the way of absolute protection from impacts of an abutting development of a controlled income and rent housing project. In short, the criterion requires the developer to 'do the best you can under the circumstances.' No absolute level of effectiveness of setback or Hearings Official Decision (CU 02-4)