Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

development, and the existing zoning is consistent with that designation. The Response Committee and several neighbors also argue that the density is actually much greater than indicated and allowed because of site constraints and the areas the applicant has proposed for open space and preservation. They argue that the applicant should not be permitted to count the individual and common preservation areas in calculating the proposed density. They argue that "in an effort to camouflage the incontrovertible massive neighborhood impact of the proposed PUD, the Applicant has grossly understated actual density by 59%." (Response Committee March 7, 2018 Written Hearing Testimony, page 102.) They also argue that proposed Lots 18 and 19 should not be included in the net density calculations because they "neither physically abut the development sites of the other 32 lots nor are they physically visible from the other 32 lots." By excluding these two lots and subtracting the common and private preservation areas, the Response Committee concludes that the density would be 5.25 units per acre, in violation of the maximum allowed. The Response Committee cites no legal justification for their desired recalculation of the proposed density. The common and private preservation areas are part of the proposed PUD and appropriately considered in determining net density. And all lots, whether or not visible from other parts of the PUD, not only may, but must be considered in the density calculations. The applicant and city have correctly calculated the proposed density and the proposed 2.6-2.9 dwellings per acre is well within the density allowed under the Metro Plan. The Planning Staff have identified the three following policies within the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element as approval criteria for the proposed PUD: Policy A.10: Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure, improvements the efficient ofpublic services and facilities, and conserves rural resource lands outside the UGB. Policy A.13: Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future neighborhoods. Policy A.17. Provide opportunities for a .full range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost and location. The Staff Report described how the proposed PUD generally furthers these three policies. The Response Committee and numerous neighbors provide extensive discussion as to how the proposed development fails to satisfies these Metro Plan policies. However, none of these policies constitute a mandatory approval criterion for the proposed development. By their terms, they are directives to the City to guide the City in implementing the Metro Plan. And, in fact, for many of the reasons the Response Committee and neighbors cite, the City has not designated this property for `higher density' residential development. Consistent with the Metro Plan designation, the City has zoned the subject property, as well as the surrounding residential Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 14