Building_development + Forests_green_space + Wildlife_habitat

35:01 become unfeasible to continue operations we've also built in at council's direction and think shared with this commission that we will allow obviously the replacement repair and expansion of mobile homes and manufactured dwellings in those parks but will also allow other development provided it's permanently affordable then we have our low scale and medium scale neighborhoods the to round out the residential neighborhood plan districts our urban mixed-use plan district includes a mixed-use neighborhood and a regional activity district and then employment and industry includes our institutional campus zone industrial employment zone and then heavy industrial and as we continue to say throughout this process heavy industrials pretty much

35:56 stay in the same in geography and standard we haven't made a lot of changes to that we've had some minor revisions to our heavy industrial code based on our stakeholder involvement and then working with our parks folks we have two green space districts will have our parks for for developed parks and then our natural areas for those more naturally naturally natural areas it's in the name okay I'm gonna pass this back to Rebecca Kennedy for this slide great thanks mark this is Rebecca Kennedy deputy director of the community development department for the city so walking through the the preferred alternative process this has been a something we've been receiving quite a bit of questions on from folks how did X get X donating and so we thought it would be important to talk kind of remind

36:51 everybody what the process for getting to the preferred alternative was so we we developed land use alternatives and we analyzed those you all as well as the city council and many other people were part of that process we we worked with council to develop a framework that would help us essentially combine and apply different elements of those options around the city and and so we'd got to that preferred alternative and it was endorsed by council at the end of last year but how did we get to it why is it applied the way it is so this is the framework we we incorporated comments we received through the draft environmental impact statement where they aligned with council policy we looked at our centers and corridors growth concept and ensured that on those major centers and corridors we were allowing an

37:48 appropriate scale of development typically a higher intensity of use particularly around transit corridors and other transportation corridors we did coordinate with schools to look at where they had existing capacity issues we just did not want to exacerbate very bad existing capacity issues and there was one area that we went one direction on because they said they had quite serious capacity issues that they didn't anticipate to go away in the short term I think important to note that all the schools are focused facing declining enrollment so they're not really concerned about capacity broadly at this point we looked at tree canopy so our urban forestry team did an analysis of where we have existing privately owned significant from an ecological or species benefit perspective tree stands

38:43 and we looked at applying typically low-scale neighborhood in those significant areas because that would allow for greater tree preservation because of that lower density of development we looked at we have a essentially a map that you know shows where our parks infrastructure are in our recreation centers and we added increase so medium scale housing typically a neighborhood typically around those areas same with schools we heard over and over and over again from so many people that parks and schools are essential places that they need access to every day and that we should put more housing in the near those assets we looked carefully at our industrial lands specifically our light industrial lands and how we manage those I did important to recognize that you know Columbia Business Center which is a heavy industrial zoned area approached the city during the you know sort of alternatives

39:43 development process and asked to be rezoned a regional activity center but as a really a long-term signal that they would plan for redevelopment after their existing industrial users would no longer viable we put an industrial holding over there that so until that is lifted they it's it's the same as heavy industrial those uses can continue they can expand they can grow you can't build housing there because there's a lot of work that needs to be done to plan for the redevelopment over time but also how to serve that redevelopment their infrastructure issues in that area we we looked at our service deserts map so that's essentially we have a map of essential services and we can look at where places are better or worse served and we tried to locate growth in areas that were served well to an extent because those were already places with at least some of the components of a connected and accessible

40:43 neighborhood we looked at land use strategies again that reduced vehicle miles traveled in the associated greenhouse gas emissions and that was really looking at where do we have transit corridors particular enhanced transit corridors where do we have active trip potential where do we have some components of those again those essential services that allow people to take near housing that allow people to take different trip types we looked at our capital facilities plans and where we have made or are planning to make infrastructure investments largely the city is built out and has it you know we I was explaining to someone today that you know we don't have we don't make like in some some more rural areas you would make decisions about where growth is versus where you have public sewer we have public sewer everywhere right and so it's we have and we have so it's really

41:40 about where are we making transportation investments where there are other critical investments that would really serve growth talked about transportation we used our modal networks so that's our pedestrian network our transit networks our bike and small mobility networks and even our freight networks in informed industrial land decisions and then we did look at our health and climate vulnerability assessments and didn't necessarily not locate certain things near in in those areas because a lot of times where you have like for instance the greatest air quality issues are your busiest corridors but those are also where you have like the best transit service and so we looked at other strategies through implementation and policy that we could use to mitigate those impacts in large part though they didn't inform the final map that is how we got to the preferred alternative so we just thought it was important

42:37 to put this in there because we've gotten a lot of questions about it and here is the preferred alternative again it maps those new zoning districts that mark described to you and we do still have an interactive map online that people can go to to look at what their current zoning is and what their future zoning proposed is as well as a story map that kind of walks you through the zoning districts and what they mean gonna turn it back over to mark thanks rebecca mark person again development review planner this slide is showing our densities and heights associated with those base districts that I described earlier our manufactured home base district does not have a minimum residential density again that's was created to protect those 16 existing manufactured home parks within

43:32 the city maximum height in those would be 45 feet our low-scale develop our low-scale neighborhood has a minimum density of 8 units per acre you'll see floors here just for low scale we don't regulate by floors except in the low-scale neighborhood that's the one where we'll limit development to three floors above grade median scale neighborhood is is one higher up that's 16 units per acre 75 feet maximum height and then our mixed use it would be 32 units an acre 110 feet and then our regional activity center steps up again 64 units an acre and no maximum height in that zone and then we get into our institute and employment and industrial uses the institutional campus has no minimum residential density

44:28 and no maximum height and that our employment and industrial does not allow any residential and has a max height of 150 and then our heavy industrial does not allow any residential and does not have a maximum height we have a few draft code changes since the last publish