Item 1: Ordinance on Oregon West Management

Home Browse Search

on testimony provided by both the applicant and opponents at the hearing, there was discussion about gross VS. net acres that I think deserves are-look.) Regarding the applicant's testimony mentioned above, to summarize, the applicant stated that there is a certain amount of acreage that would be extracted from the total buildable acreage and would thus reduce the potential density available on the property, significantly lower than the potential density stated in the staff report. On page 20 of the staff report, staff found that the 7.3 acre portion of the site could provide a maximum of approximately 102 units under R-l zoning (consistent with existing LDR designation) and the 1.3 acres could provide a maximum of approximately 37 units under the R-2 zoning (proposed zoning). This calculation is the gross density based solely on the maximum density allowed in the zone and the acreage. Net density was not calculated because the applicant has not proposed a specific development plan (nor is one generally required at this land use approval level) which would otherwise enable the net density to be calculated by excluding streets, parks and other public facilities (EC 9.2751(1)(c)). Therefore, in order to provide a general potential net density of the site in response to this question, staff will assume that 32 percent of the site will be utilized for auxiliary purposes. The 32 percent is based on the Metro Plan findings that approximately 32 percent of the residentially designated land will be utilized for auxiliary uses such as streets, parks, and other public facilities (page II-G-3). Based on this assumption, the following indicates the potential maximum net density for each portion of the site comparing the potential density of the 7.3 acres if it was rezoned to R -1 consistent with the existing LDR designation, with the potential density of the 1.3 acres now proposed for re-zoning to R-2 (and re- designated to MDR): (7.3 acres): (1.3 acres): 7.3 - 32% = 4.9 acres 1.3 - 32% = .88 acres 4.9 acres x 14 max units::::::: 68.6 = 69 potential units .88 acres x 28 max units = 24.6 = 25 potential units In response to the applicant's testimony sited above, this exercise deinonstrates that the 7.3 acres has the potential for significantly more units than the applicant testified to, even considering the potential net density. Staff notes that the staff report analyzed gross density because there is no development plan under review to determine net density and because there are other tools, such as a planned unit development, that can provide more flexibility regarding development standards (which could affect density). Help us understand staff's reasoning behind the conclusion that the property is not part of existing strip development. RRSC Policy 3 (discussed on pages 21-22 of the staff report) states: Prohibit the linear expansion of existing strip commercial areas fronting on River Road. Existing strip commercial development may expand by infilling, redevelopment; or expansion onto contiguous property that does not front on River Road. (Policy 3.0) Staff does not believe that the 7.3 acres of the subject property is part of an "existing strip commercial area." The subject property is adjacent to commercial uses to the north, south and west. However, staff believes that the subject property breaks up the surrounding commercial area. The property is of a significant size at 7.3 acres and staff believes that the size of the property, coupled with the RRSC designation of the property as Government and Education (not commercial), provides enough interruption along this section of River Road to break up any strip commercial in that area.