/WR conservation area. SDR applications are generally subject to Type II review, however, if the <br />applicant requests SDR in conjunction with a Type III application, such as a PUD, SDR can be <br />considered with the Type II application. EC 9.8465. The applicant bears the burden to demonstrate <br />compliance with all applicable approval criteria. The applicable criteria, and the evaluation of those <br />criteria as applied to this application, are as follows: <br />EC 9.8320(1) The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies''of the Metro Plan. <br />The applicant's written statement (pp. 9-11) and completeness review response (pp. 2-3) identifies a <br />number of Metro Plan policies that relate to the proposed development. Staff concurs that those policies <br />generally support residential development at a range of housing types and densities to provide choice for <br />the housing consumer; designate low density residential as an acceptable housing density for some areas; <br />promote the use of `the planned unit development process to establish open space areas and protect <br />% important natural features; support transportation connectivity; and promote energy conservation in <br />residential siting, design and construction. <br />As noted by the applicant, the subject property is designated for low density residential development in the <br />Metro Plan, consistent with the R-1 zoning of the site. With 17 lots on 3.66; acres, the proposed <br />development will result in a residential density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre. This is well within the <br />low density residential density range of up to 10 dwelling units per gross acre, and up to 14 units per net <br />acre identified in Residential Density Policy A.9'at page III-A-7 of the Metro Plan. <br />With respect to Transportation Policy F26, the applicant indicates that the Iroposed street layout provides <br />travel lanes, parking, sidewalks and planting strips in accordance with city standards, which will enhance <br />neighborhood livability by providing connectivity for secondary access and by providing sufficient right- <br />of-way to allow safe vehicle, bike and ptedestrian use. The applicant clarifies that Gilham Road has <br />adequate right-of-way to allow for future sidewalk improvements to the road. However, the applicant's site <br />plans do not accurately identify the right-of-way in Gilham Road adjacent to the subject site. Additional <br />right-of-way dedication is necessary to conform to the applicant's mapped right-of-way and to <br />accommodate full street improvements with sidewalks. If conditioned to require the-dedication, the <br />hearings official concludes the proposed design provides a comfortable pedestrian environment, with the <br />future access to the city park site within convenient walking distance along the proposed streets.3 <br />Policy C.21, page III-C-12, states: <br />"When planning for and regulating development, local governments shall consider the need for <br />protection of open spaces, including those characterized by significant vegetation and wildlife. <br />Means of protection open space include but are not limited to outright acquisition, conservation <br />easements, planned unit development ordinances, streamside protection ordinances, open space tax <br />deferrals, donations to the public, and performance zoning." <br />The applicant maintains that the PUD is consistent with Policy C.21 because natural resources on the <br />subject property are being protected through the /PD overlay process and through compliance with <br />EC 9.8320(4) and the /WR overlay zone (EC 9.4900). The applicant notes that additional protection for <br />on-site resources is afforded by a "Preservation Zone around the existing on-site drainage features and <br />3 Staff asserts that if the applicant modified the proposal to provide for street frontage for all lots and the extension of a <br />pedestrian and bicycle access through the property to connect to the Mirror Pond subdivision to the north and River Pointe <br />"d <br />2 Addition to the west, Metro Plan connectivity standards would be better served. The hearings official concludes that <br />there is adequate pedestnan/bicycle access to River Pointe 2nd Addition via the park to the south. While the extension of the <br />multi,-use path to connect to the Mirror Pond subdivision would be advantageous, it is not required by this policy <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 4 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1132 <br />