Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 10th Avenue www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401 The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2013 – REGULAR MEETING (11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) 11:00 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak. 11:10 a.m. II. APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION FOR OAKLEIGH MEADOWS COHOUSING (PDT 13-1) – DELIBERATIONS/ACTION Staff: Becky Taylor, 541-682-5437 12:30 p.m. III. ENVISION EUGENE: HOUSING REDESIGNATIONS – DELIBERATIONS/ACTION Staff: Heather O’Donnell, 541-682-5488 Staff: Terri Harding, 541-682-5635 1:45 p.m. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky; Jonathan Belcher; Rick Duncan; John Jaworski (Vice- Chair); Jeffery Mills; William Randall (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 16, 2013 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Heather O’Donnell & Terri Harding, Planning Division Subject: Envision Eugene Implementation: Deliberations on Residential Re‐designation package (City files MA 13-2, RA 13-1, Z 13-7) ACTION REQUESTED Hold a Planning Commission work session to deliberate and provide a recommendation to the Eugene City Council on city initiated Metro Plan Diagram Amendments, and corresponding refinement plan diagram/text amendments and zone changes as part of Envision Eugene. The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions deliberated together on those re-designations proposed on land outside the city limits but inside the UGB (the Crow Road Study Area and the Irving Road/Eagles site) on December 3rd. As such, the remaining sites (Gilham Rd, 13th/Naval Reserve, Willamette St/Rest-Haven) are the only three sites that will be the focus of deliberations on December 16th, and are therefore the only three sites that are addressed in this Agenda Item Summary. BRIEFING STATEMENT Envision Eugene is the city’s plan to establish a new Eugene-only urban growth boundary (UGB) to accommodate the next 20 years of growth. The City Council initiated land use re- designations as part of a package of recommendations associated with Envision Eugene to accommodate more of the 20 year housing need inside the current UGB. The December 16 deliberations will address the following subject sites for re-designation and corresponding refinement plan diagram/text amendment and zone change: Current Proposed Location Size in Metro Zoning Change Metro Plan Zoning acres (ac) Plan in acres Gilham Rd** R-2 (8.6 ac) 1703083208600 9.6 ac MDR & 9.6 ac LDR R-1 C-1 (1.5 ac) 13th/Naval Reserve* 3 ac G&E PL 3 ac MDR R-2 1704364210400 Willamette St/ Rest- Haven R-1 (47 ac) 1803180000300 & 74.5 ac POS & 74.5 ac LDR R-1 1803074302100 PL (28 ac) (about 29.5 ac for PC Agenda - Page 1  cemetery, 45 ac for new housing,) *Includes an automatic refinement plan land use diagram amendment ** Includes corresponding refinement plan land use diagram and text amendment See Attachment A for a map of the subject areas and Attachments C and D for individual site maps. BACKGROUND The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public hearing on November 19, 2013 to consider the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendments and associated refinement plan amendments and zone changes. A total of 18 people testified on the subject three sites at the public hearing; 5 testified regarding the Gilham Rd site, 2 regarding the 13th/Naval Reserve site, and 6 testified regarding Willamette St/Rest-Haven. Following the close of the public hearing, the record was left open for the various sites. The following summarizes when the record was/will be closed and the amount of additional testimony that has been received. The additional testimony received for these sites as of Dec. 9, 2013 was forwarded to the Planning Commission under separate cover and can be viewed at the website at the end of this memo. Site Deadline for Testimony New Testimony Received Gilham Rd Nov. 27, 2013 0 13th/Naval Reserve Dec. 13, 2013 1 by Dec. 9 Willamette St/ Rest-Haven Nov. 27, 2013 8 Staff had requested that the record be extended to receive more comments on the 13th/Naval Reserve site in anticipation of holding an additional outreach meeting in the neighborhood before the record closed. Given the holidays and short timeframe available to plan and provide notice of a meeting, this meeting was not held. Staff proposes additional opportunities for public comment in the New Year and requests that Planning Commission reopen the record at that time to accept additional testimony on the 13th/Naval Reserve site. As such, staff suggests delaying deliberations on this site until a later date. Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commissions asked staff to respond to several issues raised in testimony. Staff responses are provided in Attachment B. For the preliminary findings, refer to the draft included in the Nov 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting materials. Envision Eugene Recommendation The proposed package of re-designations and corresponding refinement plan and zone changes directly implement several Envision Eugene strategies under the housing affordability and compact development pillars. Specifically, these amendments achieve the following Envision Eugene strategies in italics: • Accommodate more of the single-family housing need inside the current UGB: Re-designate selected areas that are more suited to single-family housing than multi-family housing. (Housing Affordability pillar, strategy 3.a) PC Agenda - Page 2  • Promote compact development and denser housing types (e.g. multi-family housing) closer to existing and planned services such as downtown, along key transit corridors, and in core commercial areas: 100% of the multi-family housing need can be accommodated inside the current UGB…increase the number of multi-family homes that are constructed in the downtown, along key transit corridors, and in core commercial areas. (Housing Affordability pillar, strategy 2) Meet all of the 20-year multi-family housing and commercial job needs within the existing UGB… Integrate new development and redevelopment in the downtown, on key transit corridors, and in core commercial areas… (Compact Development pillar, strategy 1.a) • Support subsidized affordable housing projects: Re-designate the former Naval Reserve site, currently owned by the city, to multi- family housing for a future affordable housing development. (Housing Affordability pillar, strategy 7.h) • In keeping with the Neighborhood Livability pillar, public outreach has been undertaken and considered in the crafting of recommendations for additional housing in existing neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATION/NEXT STEPS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the testimony and the staff recommendations, and provide any suggested revisions before forwarding the proposed Metro Plan amendments and corresponding refinement plan diagram/text amendments and zone changes on to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS A. Envision Eugene: Residential Re-designation map (city-wide map from Nov 19, 2013 public hearing) B. Staff Response to Public Testimony /Planning Commission C. Gilham Road Site Map D. Willamette St/Resthaven Site Map FOR MORE INFORMATION Heather O’Donnell at 541‐682‐5488 or heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us Terri Harding at 541-682-5635 or terri.l.harding@ci.eugene.or.us Visit www.envisioneugene.org > implementation projects > residential re-designation. PC Agenda - Page 3  Attachment A Envision Eugene: Residential Redesignation Sites (MA 13-2, RA 13-1, Z 13-7) GREEN HILL RD SPRING CREEK DR I5 SB LYNNBROOK DR RIVER LOOP 2 E ENID RD T NOR I5 NB IRVINGTON DR AIRPORT RD E EST AIRPORT RD MC Irving Road/Eagles HW K EN ZIE VI E WAY Gilham Road W ESS DR XPR CLEAR LAKE RD IRVING RD HUNSAKER LN IE RD PRAIR HW NG WB BELTLINE RD Y LAKEVIEW E DE DR AM RIVER AVE LT BODENHAMER RD A M N CRESCENT AVE FAR MAXWELL RD NC RD COBURG RD WY S NORKENZI CH CUBIT HOWARD AVE EB BELT N PARK AVE EY R RD LI NE RD AD L WAY ELT INTERNATIONA LAR BARGER DR DR GILHAM RD LAKE DR AH RIVE LEGACY ST E RD ONN ECHO HOLLOW RD T ST I5 C BELTLINE RD N TERRY ST SB WB TANEY ST HORN LN D D NZIE R GATEWAY ST E AVALON ST WILLAK BE I5 EB BELTLINE RD TH CAL YOUNG RD ST E WY L BAILEY LN SATRE PARK AVE GREEN HILL RD OAKWAY RD DR TA H ROYAL AVE DEL N BERTELSEN RD NB HARLOW RD ELMIRA RD HW NN Y9 ROOSEVELT BLVD CO 9N RA I WB OFRP LR O I10 WB I105 EB I105 I5 B NN I105 EB I105 5 AD LE S CO WB W 1ST AVE B O FAIRVIEW DR Crow Road Study Area HA W 2ND AVE LVD RR NB SENECA RD I5 GARFIELD ST IS W 5TH AVE E 4TH AVE PK RAINBOW DR ASPEN ST W 6TH AVE W Y MILL ST W 7TH PL W 7TH AVE E 7TH AVE POLK ST S BERTELSEN RD RD OAK ST CR W 11TH AVE W D ST OW E 11TH AVE W 13TH AVE PATTERSON ST OLIVE ST HIGH ST NB I5 OFRP ST SA W 18TH AVE I5 SB E 19TH AVE AMAZON AUGUSTA ST IT AVE ON LINCOLN ST EEK R D 13th/Naval Reserve SUMM W CR RP WILLO I5 SB ONRA MP CHAMBERS ST W 24TH AVE E 24TH AVE LN WILLAMETTE ST PKWY HARRIS ST HAWKIN W 28TH AVE S HILYARD ST AGATE ST BL VD WA I5 SB G SP BAILEY HILL RD DR CREST RIN DR ON W 39TH AVE E 30TH AV E M AZ E 40TH AVE E 43RD AVE ´ VE RD A DONALD E 43 ILL RD Willamette Street/Rest Haven ST GIMPL H FO XH LA OL D IL LO R W RD RD D Ft Proposed Plan Designation/Zoning 0 5000 10000 20000 Note: In some cases the plan designation or zoning will not change Zoning and Metro Plan Designations Key Current Proposed Plan Designations Metro Plan Zoning Metro Plan Zoning COM Commercial Gilham Road MDR R‐2/C‐1 LDR R‐1 G&E Government and Education 13th/Naval Reserve G&E PL MDR R‐2 LDR Low Density Residential Irving Rd./Eagles POS R‐1 LDR R‐1 MDR Medium Density Residential Willamette St./Rest‐Haven POS R‐1/PL LDR R‐1 POS Parks and Open Space Crow Study Area MDR R‐1 Commercial/R-1 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential/R-2 Medium Density Residential Zoning Low Density Residential/R-1 low Density Residential C‐1 Neighborhood Commercial PL Public Land R‐1 Low Density Residential PC Agenda R‐2 - Page Medium 4 Residential Density  Attachment B Memorandum Date: December 10, 2013 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Heather O’Donnell, Planning Division Subject: Staff Response to Testimony/Planning Commission – Residential Re-designations: Gilham Rd & Willamette St/Rest-Haven This memo addresses major themes that have been raised in public testimony as part of the Residential Re-designation proposal process, as well as those raised by the Planning Commission. The issues are identified in bold below, followed by staff response. This memo specifically addresses those comments related to the city jurisdiction sites; Gilham Rd & Willamette St/Rest-Haven. Gilham Road 1. Reconfiguration of Commercial on Property The subject 9.6 acre site is designated on the Metro Plan as MDR and is split zoned R-2 medium density residential and C-1 neighborhood commercial. Public testimony demonstrated support for the recommended proposal to re-designate the property entirely to LDR and rezone the property entirely to R-1. This will eliminate the commercial zoning on the site which is problematically located in the middle of the lot. There is a property to the south of the subject site that is located on the corner of Ayres Road and Gilham Road which is split designated Commercial on the western interior of the parcel and MDR near the street and is entirely zoned AG agriculture since it is not annexed. There is no proposal at this time to change the designation of this property; staff sent a letter to the property owner in 2012 inquiring about interest in re-designating their property to LDR and received no response. However, future opportunities may exist to examine whether Commercial still makes sense on the interior of this lot. Willamette St/Rest-Haven 1. Land Use Application Background Planning Commission asked for background and next steps for the existing land use applications/approvals on this site. Public testimony also stated the belief that the housing previously proposed on the site was denied. Below is a chronological summary of land use permits pertaining to the site, followed by a summary of the current approvals and future land use process requirements. Chronological application information is as follows: 1. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) file no. CU 81-6 for additional cemetery use buildings. — Status: Approved. 2. Modification to CU 81-6, file no. MDR 92-5, for addition to columbarium. — Status: Approved. PC Agenda - Page 5  3. Modification to CU 81-6, file no. MDR 95-13, for relocation of crematorium, facilities in support of crematorium and other mortuary activities. Approval appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) but appeal withdrawn. — Status: Approved. 4. Conditional Use Permit file no. CU 95-2 for a conceptual plan to expand the cemetery use over the site. Following Hearings Official approval, the Hearings Official issued a memorandum clarifying the decision, including but not limited to a tree removal permit being required before significant trees could be removed and that the southern-most portion of the property (zone 6 on the site plan) was left without a development plan but was approved for cemetery use. — See this link for Hearings Official decision and approved site plans for CU 95-2 http://ceonline/PDDServices/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=CU-95-2 — Status: Approved. 5. 1999 tree felling permit for the northern portion of the site (zones 1-5). The Hearings Official’s partial approval of the tree removal was appealed to LUBA by the applicant. The applicant then appealed LUBA’s determination to the Court of Appeals, who affirmed LUBA’s decision that the appeal was moot because the tree permit had expired. — Status: Expired. 6. 2001 tree felling permit file no. TRE-0115 for zones 3 and 4. Applicant appealed this approval to LUBA who determined the appeal was moot because the tree permit had expired. On judicial review this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. — Status: Expired. 7. Conditional Use Permit file no CU 02-4 for Controlled Income and Rent (CIR) housing for the southern-most portion of the site. Prior to the application being deemed as complete and ready for processing, the city notified the applicant that it would not process the application because it was proposed in an area of the site already subject to an existing CUP. The applicant appealed that determination to LUBA who found that the city’s refusal to process the application was not authorized by the city’s code and remanded (sent back) the issue to the city for the application to be processed. Per state law, an applicant can initiate the local application process on remand by submitting a written request to initiate, which has not happened to date in this case. — See this link for the submitted site plans http://ceonline/PDDServices/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=CU-02-4 — See this link for LUBA decision LUBA No. 2002-131/132 http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/pages/2003opinions.aspx — Status: On hold until applicant requests city to begin processing. City must also determine that, given the length of time that has elapsed, it is still valid to process. 8. Modification to CU 95-2, file no. MDR 03-14, to remove zone 6 from the footprint of CU 95-2 and to allow for certain public facilities to be allowed in portions of CU 95-2 footprint. Opponent’s appeal of the Planning Director approval was upheld by the Hearings Official who determined that the proposal amounted to a significant change to CU 95-2 that was not justified. The applicant appealed this to LUBA who affirmed the Hearings Official’s decision. — See this link for LUBA decision LUBA No. 2004-016 http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/pages/2004opinions.aspx — Status: Denied. 9. 2004 tree felling permit to remove trees associated with CU 95-2 was approved but has since expired. — Status: Expired. In summary: • The 1995 Conditional Use Permit (CU 95-2), which includes a conceptual cemetery master plan for the entire site and includes a buffer along the southwest and southern portion of the property, is still in effect for the entire site. 2 PC Agenda - Page 6  • The 2002 Conditional Use Permit application for Controlled Income & Rent (CIR) housing was not denied, but is on hold until whenever the applicant reinitiates it. The application was sent back to the city (remanded) due to a ruling that the city could not refuse to process the application as it did (the city never made a determination of whether or not the application meets the approval criteria). • A new Conditional Use Permit for the site is required before housing (such as proposed in the 2002 CIR Conditional Use Permit) can be approved, so that the new CUP only covers the cemetery portion of the site and removes (or unencumbers) the portion of the site proposed for housing. • The proposed re-designation to LDR would not affect the status of these permits, but would allow the city to count a portion of the site as capacity for housing and as such reduce the need for a UGB expansion. 2. Buffer Options Public testimony requested a larger buffer (than what the current CUP requires) be established that extends up a ridge (along the 700 and 720 contours) on the southern-most portion of the property to address concerns such as tree preservation, streams, storm-water runoff and erosion. Condition 17 of the CU 95-2 cemetery approval currently establishes a buffer as follows: 17. The proposed buffer zone in the southern portion of the site shall be a minimum 75 feet in width. [Page 4 of 8 of the Approved Plans illustrates a buffer zone that exceeds the 75 feet width requirement.] Planning Commission asked what mechanisms there are for requiring a buffer on the site and what are the pros and cons of these options. Below, staff outlines the options and their implications, followed by a summary. (The following options assume processing of the CIR CUP. They also assume that the CIR CUP would be subject to the 2002 regulations in effect at the time the application was submitted.) 1. Let the intended buffer area be addressed as part of any future development applications. • CU 95-2 cemetery approval is currently in effect and requires a buffer along the southwest and southern boundary of the property between adjacent homes and cemetery uses. As mentioned above, prior to developing housing on the southern portion of the site, a new CUP is required so that a new cemetery CUP no longer encumbers the portion of the site intended for the housing. At the time of the new CUP, tree preservation and South Hills Study regulations, including whether a buffer is needed between cemetery uses and adjacent homes, would be reviewed. • CU 02-4 CIR housing application, if reactivated, would not be subject to tree preservation requirements (there are minimal requirements for CIR applications in order to remove regulatory barriers to affordable housing developments.) • The applicant could choose to submit a different housing application, such as a new CIR application (which under current code is a standalone building permit that does not require a land use application) or a Type II subdivision. Either a CIR building permit or a Type II subdivision application would also have to address tree preservation regulations. Type II applications require public notice, and are appealable. 2. Leave the intended buffer area designated Parks and Open Space (POS). In this case, the POS designation would only protect the area from development under certain development scenarios: • A POS-designated buffer would not protect the area from development under the pending CU 02-4 CIR application because the approval criteria for the CIR application in effect at the time (2002) do not address or require consistency with the adopted plan designation. • A POS-designated buffer would not protect the area from development under a new CIR application because current land use regulations allow CIR housing without a CUP, and the 3 PC Agenda - Page 7  applicable standards for CIR development do not trigger approval criteria related to the plan designation. • A POS-designated buffer would protect the area from development under a future subdivision, CUP, or planned unit development application because current regulations for those application types require consistency with the Metro Plan designation. New housing wouldn’t be allowed on the portion designated POS for the purposes of maintaining a buffer. 3. Add a policy to the South Hills Study refinement plan that prohibits development in the requested buffer area. Again, any new policy that restricts development in a buffer area would only protect the area from development under certain development scenarios: • A new refinement plan policy would not protect the area from development under the pending CU 02-4 CIR application because the CIR CUP would be reviewed against the land use regulations in affect at that time (2002). • A new refinement plan policy would not protect the area from development under a new CIR application because current land use regulations allow CIR housing without requiring consistency with refinement plan policies. • A new refinement plan policy would protect the area from development under a future CUP or planned unit development applications because these application types require consistency with adopted refinement plans. • A new refinement plan policy would be protect the area from development under future partitions, subdivisions or site reviews if the policy is codified (placed into the Land Use Code) because these application types require consistency with the codified adopted refinement plan policies. In summary, there is no clear mechanism that would require either the development proposed in the existing approvals or the on-hold CIR CUP to comply with a new buffer area because those developments are subject to the approvals or land use regulations that were in effect at that time. If Planning Commission determines an additional mechanism is necessary at this stage in the land use process to plan for a buffer, adding a policy in the South Hills Study requiring a buffer in a delineated area is an option, but it should be clear that this policy would only be applicable to new applications that require consistency with adopted refinement plan policies. 3. Loss of Open Space Public testimony noted that the Rest-Haven property has been used for recreational purposes and asked if the city has identified alternatives or replacements for the potential future loss of this recreational use. While it is clear that the property is privately not publically owned, it is recognized that cemeteries and other similar uses often have a semi-public feel to them and are utilized by the public unless otherwise restricted by the property owner. Regarding the re-designation proposal, the City has two documents related to long-range parks planning: the Parks, Recreational and Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS) and its list of implementing projects in the PROS Project and Priority Plan. The PROS Project and Priority Plan is adopted and therefore provides some direction to the City regarding recreational needs. The PROS Project and Priority Plan identifies the need for a neighborhood park in this vicinity; however the PROS Project and Priority Plan states that the location of proposed acquisitions are approximate and subject to change based on land availability and public involvement. The property owner has indicated no interest in selling any portion of their site for parks. Regardless, City parks are allowed in LDR/R-1 therefore re-designation of the entire site to LDR would not preclude a future park nor affect the City’s provisions for or access to recreational areas, facilities or recreational opportunities. 4 PC Agenda - Page 8 Regarding future development of the site, open space on the site may be required through review of the CIR CUP application or a new application (such as a new CIR application or a subdivision). However, it is likely that any provisions for open space would be directed at providing open space for the residents of the property, not necessarily for access by neighboring properties. 4. Impacts from Future Development Public testimony identified several areas of concern regarding future development of the site that have not already been discussed above: 1. Traffic Congestion • Future traffic may be addressed through the city’s current update to its long-range transportation plan (TransPlan). This update will address how traffic anticipated from development (such as from low density residential homes on the Rest-haven site) is accommodated on higher-order streets (e.g. arterials and collectors). At the time of a new housing development proposal that results in at least 100 pm peak hour vehicle trips, the applicant may be required to address impacts to local streets (Traffic Impact Analysis). 2. Erosion/Drainage • Public testimony identified several significant and costly issues with erosion and drainage in the area and homes around Rest-Haven and there is concern these issues could increase with development on the Rest-Haven property. Erosion or drainage issues are reviewed at an overall site level at the time of land use application submittal (e.g. conditional use permit, subdivision) in accordance with the regulations that are in affect at the time of application. However, regardless of when the land use application review occurred, the development is again reviewed at the time of building permit submittal for consistency with the most current building regulations regarding erosion and drainage. Both the land use and building regulations regarding erosion and drainage have been improved since most of the surrounding properties were developed. 3. Tree Removal/Habitat Loss/Neighborhood Character (Vegetation, Light, Wildlife) • Existing approvals and applications are subject to approved conditions of approval or regulations in effect at the time of submittal. A new land use application, such as a new CUP, planned unit development, or subdivision, would be reviewed for consistency with the adopted refinement plan policies of the South Hills Study, which are focused on how development fits into the south hills character by regulating tree and vegetation removal, habitat, and development on slopes. The application would also be subject to tree preservation regulations and development setbacks for streams (two streams are currently identified on the site as significant upland or riparian resources for protection). New building permits without a previous land use approval (e.g. a new CIR application) would need a tree felling permit, which emphasizes tree preservation in areas such as natural drainage way, along ridgelines and along property lines, and would be subject to the stream development setbacks. 4. Monitoring/Enforcement of Future Development • Developments that receive approval through a land use process are encumbered by a performance agreement between the developer and the City that the site will be developed according to the conditions of the approval. The City also oversees a number of programs that affect our community livability such as Building Codes and Nuisance and Zoning Codes. Enforcement of these issues (e.g. noise, tree removal, other construction impacts) are complaint driven and can be submitted to Planning & Development staff for coordination. 5 PC Agenda - Page 9 5. Inverse Condemnation Potential for Adjacent Properties Public testimony stated that reverse condemnation legal action against the city could be possible if the city re-designates a property and as a result, another property is damaged (e.g. falling trees, erosion). Staff is coordinating with the city attorney’s office on this question. 6. Would Re-designation Allow More Housing Types Public comment stated that it has not been made clear that re-designation of the site from POS to LDR would allow more uses, particularly regarding types of housing. The following clarifies what type of housing is permitted on the site under the existing and proposed plan designation/zoning combination. With the exception of CIR housing, the allowable density range in the R-1 zone is up to 14 homes per net acre, which excludes land for roads. 1. Existing: plan designation Parks & Open Space / zoning R-1 Low Density Residential • Single-family detached housing; a subdivision would not be allowed because current subdivision regulations require consistency with the Metro Plan designation • Multi-family housing (market rate); would not be allowed because it is only permitted through a planned unit development and those current regulations require consistency with the Metro Plan designation • Controlled Income & Rent Housing; is allowed because current regulations do not require consistency with the Metro Plan designation. The allowable density range is higher for CIR housing; up to 150% of the maximum (or up to 21 homes per net acre). 2. Proposed: plan designation Low Density Residential / zoning R-1 Low Density Residential • Single-family detached housing; a subdivision would be allowed because housing would be consistent with a Low Density Residential Metro Plan designation • Multi-family housing (market rate); would be allowed through a planned unit development because housing would be consistent with a Low Density Residential Metro Plan designation • Controlled Income & Rent Housing; is allowed because current regulations do not require consistency with the Metro Plan designation. The allowable density range is higher for CIR housing; up to 150% of the maximum (or up to 21 homes per net acre). 7. Vehicle Trip Cap and Transportation System Plan Update & Timeline Please review the December 3, 2013 AIS memo for responses to these questions. Since the December 3rd memo, staff recommends a slight rewording of the proposed revisions to the trip cap findings. This rewording (in double underline text) clarifies that the mitigation identified in future traffic analysis could be transportation projects or programmatic measures (e.g. review of the city’s transportation level of service standards). The findings would be revised as follows: • The city proposes to temporarily cap the allowed number of trips generated from the subject property at the existing allowed trip generation rate of... (pages 13 and 15) • This analysis and, if necessary, adoption of mitigation or programmatic measures, would occur as part of the City’s update to its Transportation System Plan (TSP) or could occur through a separate process. (pages 14 and 15) 6 PC Agenda - Page 10  Attachment C Gilham Road Site PC Agenda - Page 11  Attachment D Willamette Street/Resthaven Site PC Agenda - Page 12