Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 1, 2017 PC PacketCENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 1, 2017- 6:00p.m. . MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Mike Oliver (chair), Tom Van Voorhees, Elizabeth Powell, Craig Nelson Sr., Kay Harrison, Amy Moore, John Whiting. IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the July 18, 2017 meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit application to operate a preschool in a residential neighborhood. The preschool, "Imagination Station", proposes to locate in an existing accessory structure in the Residential Single -Family (R-1-10) zoning district. The project site is located at 917 Mendolia Way, and is defined on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W JOBB, Tax Lot 807. Owner: Jeanne Quigley Applicant: Kendra Marineau B. Public Hearing to consider the Housing Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Applicant: City of Central Point. VIII. DISCUSSION IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:04P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners, Mike Oliver, Tom Van Voorhees, John Whiting, Craig Nelson, Elizabeth Powell and Kay Harrison were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Chris Clayton, City Manager, Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director, Sydnee Dreyer, City Attorney, Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner, Molly Bradley, Community Planner, and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE III. CORRESPONDENCE League of Oregon Cities Magazine IV. MINUTES Mike Oliver stated that the packet minutes contained a clerical error on page 2, the numbers 219 and 222 regarding parking spaces were transposed. The commissioners had a corrected copy of the minutes with their packets. Tom Van Voorhees pointed out that on page 10 the name of Mr. Stamps was stated incorrectly as Mr. Sample. Karin Skelton said she would make the correction. Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting as corrected. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes, Elizabeth Powell, yes; Craig Nelson, abstain; John Whiting, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES None VI. BUSINESS A. Consideration of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks, a 245 -unit multifamily development within the Medium Mix Residential (MMR) zone in the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan area. The 9.45 acre project site consists of two (lots) on North Haskell Street identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 03C Tax Lot 138 and 37S 2W 03DC Tax Lot 3400. Applicant: PCMI, Inc.; Agent: Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 Pagel Planning Commission Chair Mike Oliver announced that this meeting was a continued deliberation of the public hearing held on June 6, 2017. He said that he had received a telephone call from Dennis Richardson on Saturday July 15, 2017, who asked him questions regarding the subject application related to traffic, timing of the railroad crossing and the notice area. Mr. Oliver stated that he advised Mr. Richardson of the testimony and evidence in the record on those issues and Mr. Richardson said that he did not have a position on the subject application. Mr. Oliver stated that his discussion with Mr. Richardson did not influence his potential decision on the matter in any way. Mr. Oliver explained that the initial public hearing was closed on June 6, 2017 but per a duly seconded motion, the record was left open for an additional 7 days to present new evidence. The meeting tonight is to have staff review any new evidence or argument presented and to move forward with deliberations on the application. He explained that at the previous meeting he read the rules governing a quasi-judicial hearing. He proceeded to explain the rules of decorum and commissioner abstention. Commissioners Craig Nelson and Elizabeth Powell were absent from the June 6, 2017 planning commission meeting. Commissioner Elizabeth Powell stated that she had reviewed the record and would not be deliberating on the matter. She removed herself to the audience. Commissioner Craig Nelson stated that he had reviewed the record and would deliberate on the matter. He stated he had no conflicts of interest, bias or ex parte contacts to disclose. Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner, reviewed the application background. She said that the Applicant, PCMI, Inc. is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review approval to construct multi -family housing on two (2) lots each lot representing a separate phase of development. Phase 1-37S 2W 03 Tax Lot 138 will have100-units. Phase 2-37S 2W03DC Tax Lot 3400 will have 145 units. The Site Plan and Architectural Review application was considered at the June 6, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. At that time staff presented an evaluation of the proposal relative to its compliance with the site plan and architectural review criteria for applications in the TOD per CPMC 17.66.050(B). Based on the evidence submitted, the proposal was found to comply with the applicable review criteria as conditioned. The Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents of the application. One participant requested that the record be left open for seven (7) days following closure of the public hearing to allow additional time to review the evidence in the record and submit additional written evidence. The public hearing was closed and, per a duly seconded motion, the request to leave the record open was granted with written comments to be submitted by these deadlines: ❑ Open record period -Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. ❑ New evidence rebuttal period -Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 4:30p.m. ❑ Applicant rebuttal period -Tuesday June 27, 2017 at 4:30p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 Page3 Written testimony and new evidence was received during the open record period. There were no requests to respond to new evidence submitted during the open record period. The Applicant submitted their written rebuttal addressing concerns raised during the open record period. Staff has reviewed the evidence submitted during the open record period, Applicant's Rebuttal, and all other evidence in the record and finds that the conditions previously recommended by staff adequately address the site plan and architectural review approval criteria and do not need to be modified. However, per the Planning Commission's direction, Condition No. 1 has been modified to limit shared access between Phase 1 and the adjoining parcels for emergency purposes "only." During the open record period, new evidence was submitted including photos of on -street parking conditions for a similar development in Medford, and a revised site plan for Phase 2. Additionally, the City received three letters in opposition to the proposal. The Applicant responded to opposing testimony with a timely rebuttal. It should be noted that multiple arguments were raised beyond the scope of the site plan and architectural review criteria in CPMC 17.66.050(B), some of them addressing aspirational statements such as solar orientation, views and building massing, and transitions in density. Other arguments raised beyond the scope of the site plan and architectural review criteria include property value impacts, company reputation and commitment concerns, and social factors such as the impacts of home ownership vs. rental occupancy on educational attainment, etc. Aspirational statements are not code standards and are addressed in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings. Ms. Holtey summarized the new evidence. Revised Site Plan. The Applicant submitted a revised site plan for Phase 2. The revised site plan illustrates 251 total parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum number of spaces required for Phase 2. To achieve the increase in parking, the site plan illustrates a decrease in landscaped open space by roughly 11,700 square feet. Based on analysis ofthe proposed revisions and the Applicant's rebuttal, the landscape open space accounts for 22% of the Phase 2 site area, which meets the 20% minimum landscape area requirement per Table 2 in CPMC 17.65.050(F). The Planning Department Supplemental Findings have been updated to reflect changes proposed in the revised site plan. On -Street Parking. A public hearing participant submitted photographs of on -street parking conditions at Charles Point, a development built by the Applicant in Medford. These photos supplement oral testimony in opposition to proposed parking on the basis that the number of spaces is inadequate. Written Testimony. Three letters were received in opposition to the proposed project on the basis that the project will adversely impact Twin Creeks and the immediate neighborhood. Several arguments were raised contesting the adequacy of the City's code requirements for landowner notification in CPMC 17.05.400 and lack of covered parking required in the TOD for multifamily housing per CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3)(a), as well as provisions in the Twin Creeks Master Plan. Code amendments are not within the scope of the current application, and the project does not trigger the need to modify the Master Plan per CPMC 17.66.030(1)(b). Arguments addressing code amendments and master plan updates are not addressed further. Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 Page4 Written testimony primarily cites the following concerns: Project Size. There are concerns that the project is too big, containing too many units. Ms. Holtey said that project size is a function of density and the demonstrated ability of the proposal to meet the design and development standards in the TOD district and MMR zone. As conditioned in the Revised Staff Report dated June 6, 2017, the proposed development for Phase 1 and 2 complies with the requirements for site plan and architectural review including density. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). There are concerns that the Traffic Impact Analysis needs to be updated prior to the Planning Commission's decision and that traffic generated by the proposal will cause congestion and safety concerns, specifically at the intersection of West Pine and Haskell Street. Ms. Holtey said that the Applicant's Rebuttal states that traffic concerns relative to traffic congestion and safety were addressed as part of the Twin Creeks Master Plan, which included a Traffic Impact Analysis. This is further supported by the Planning Department Supplemental Findings which addresses Traffic Impact Analysis/Master Plan requirements and concludes that no further traffic studies are needed for the proposed multifamily housing project because: 1) The application is consistent with Chapters 17.66.030, 17.72 and 17.05.900, which govern the requirement to obtain a TIA at the time of master plan application, site plan and architectural review criteria, and TIA requirements. 2) A traffic impact analysis was conducted as part of the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan and resulted in enactment of a trip cap to assure development within a 230 -acre planning area can be accommodated by the street system based on assumed full build -out in 2020. 3) The proposed development has been reviewed against the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan and found to comply with the density, housing type, and trip cap as conditioned per the Revised Staff Report dated June 6, 2017. She stated that staff recommends that the traffic concerns raised in the written testimony are addressed by the Applicant's Rebuttal and evidence in the record and that a new traffic study is not a condition of approval under City Code. Parking. Written testimony expresses concern that the proposed off-street parking plan is inadequate and will adversely impact the neighborhood. An additional concern was raised regarding the adequacy of the code. Ms. Holtey said that the Applicant's Rebuttal addresses concerns raised during the public hearing and the open record period concerning the proposed off-street Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 Pages parking plan being inadequate. To address this, the Applicant submitted a revised site plan for Phase 2 increasing the off-street parking from 219 spaces to 251 spaces. The proposed changes exceed the minimum requirement to provide 1.5 parking spaces per unit by 34 spaces. The Planning Department Supplemental Findings have been updated to reflect the changes submitted during the open record period, which are consistent with the minimum parking standards in the TOD, the Twin Creeks Master Plan and responsive to public opposition to the lower parking threshold. Landscaping. Due to past problems in other areas of Twin Creeks, written testimony asserts that proposed landscaping needs careful review to assure plant selection and placement avoids utility conflicts, hazardous conditions and maintenance issues. Ms. Holtey stated that per the Public Works Department, landscape improvements in the public right-of-way are evaluated for utility conflicts prior to building permit issuance. Since this is a separate requirement of the building permit process, no conditions of approval are recommended. Transition in Density. Written testimony states that the density transition from Blue Moon Drive to Phase 1 is not "incremental" per CPMC 17.67.050(1). Ms. Holtey stated that written testimony states that the proposed multifamily housing for Smith Crossing does not comply with CPMC 17.67.050(1)(7), which recommends incremental transitions in density with a focus on housing type. As stated in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings, incremental changes in housing type and density were addressed in the land use and housing exhibits in the Master Plan, which identified zoning districts, density requirements and housing types for the project site and adjoining neighborhoods. In particular, the Master Plan identifies existing housing on North Haskell Street and Blue Moon Drive as one- and two-story single-family attached row house development as a transition between small lot single-family dwellings and the project site, which was designated multifamily apartment housing. Additionally, per the Planning Department Supplemental Findings, the proposal provides a 101 -foot buffer between the proposed buildings and existing structures on North Haskell Street and Blue Moon Drive, which will be comprised of street right-of-way, and public and private landscape improvements. Given the proposal's compliance with the Master Plan and standards relative to buffering and screening, it is found to provide incremental transitions in density with adjustments as necessary to the landscaping and buffering to mitigate adverse impacts on adjoining neighborhoods. Notification Requirements. Written testimony contests the adequacy of the City's code requirements for landowner notification in CPMC 17.05.400, which requires that landowners within 100 -feet of the project perimeter be notified of the proposed land use action within 10 -20 -days of the public hearing. Ms. Holtey said that the Applicant's Rebuttal addresses notification concerns. Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 Page6 On May 2, 2017 written notice of the site plan and architectural review application and the June 6, 2017 public hearing was mailed to property owners within 100 -feet of the project perimeter. In addition to meeting the minimum notification requirements, the Applicant's Rebuttal states that additional notification for a voluntary neighborhood meeting in January was held consistent with the above municipal code requirements. As shown above, evidence in the record demonstrates landowner notification complies with the municipal code requirements in Section 17.05.400. Building Height. Written testimony identified a discrepancy between the applicant's findings and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings relative to building height. The Applicant's Findings reference a maximum building height of37-feet and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings reference a maximum building height of 34 -feet. Ms. Holtey explained that the Planning Department Supplemental Findings are based on the Applicant's Building Elevations. It appears the discrepancy is a typographical error. Based on the written testimony received, the Applicant's Findings have been corrected for the record. The discrepancy has been reviewed and determined to have no impact on the proposal's ability to meet the building height requirements in CPMC 17.65.050, Table 3. Pedestrian Access way. Written testimony referenced the proposal's compliance with the Master Plan Circulation and CPMC 17.67.040(A)(9) relative to off-street pedestrian access ways. Specifically, there is a 65 -ft segment of the proposed minor pedestrian access way that does not comply with the standard as illustrated on the site plan, but which can comply if relocated. The letter asked if owner approval has been obtained to relocate the path. Ms. Holtey stated that as conditioned, the Applicant is required to provide written authorization from the open space tract owner to relocate the subject section of the pedestrian access way. This requirement must be met prior to building permit issuance. No evidence was submitted during the open record period demonstrating this requirement has been satisfied. If not satisfied, building permits will not be issued. No additional conditions are recommended. Housing Demand. Written testimony addresses impacts of the proposed multifamily housing project on housing demand and vacancy rates in other areas of Central Point. Ms. Holtey said that typically this topic is addressed as part of a land use or zoning amendment, and not at the time of site plan and architectural review. However, during the public hearing the Applicant spoke to the current housing shortage in the Rogue Valley, including Central Point. He stated that there is currently a 3% vacancy rate throughout the valley when the vacancy rate is typically 5%. Additionally, he said that similar projects they own have less than a 1% vacancy rate, indicative of strong demand for multifamily housing. Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 Page 7 Code Amendments. Several arguments were raised contesting the adequacy of existing code provisions, such as lack of covered parking requirement for multifamily housing and lighting provisions. Ms. Holtey said that the municipal code requirements for site plan and architectural review in effect at the time of application acceptance are the only criteria that can be considered. Any future changes to the municipal code requirements will have no impact on the current application. Ms. Holtey stated that based on the evaluation of new evidence, testimony received, the applicant's rebuttal and all other evidence in the record, the conditions of approval previously recommended by staff adequately address the site plan and architectural review approval criteria. Per the Planning Commission's direction, Condition No. 1 has been modified to limit shared access between Phase 1 and the adjoining parcels for emergency use "only". Mike Oliver asked Ms. Holtey to read the Conditions of Approval. She read the conditions for the Commissioners. 1. Prior to building permit issuance for any structure in any Phase, the Applicant shall provide a copy of a signed and recorded reciprocal access easement with the adjoining parcel to the North (37S 2W 03CA Tax Lot 1500 and 37S 2W 03CA Tax Lot 1400) ("Lots") as necessary to allow shared access between the Lots for emergency purposes only. 2. Per the Public Works Staff Report dated May 19, 2017, the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing shall be complete prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2 residential buildings. Prior to building permit issuance for Building No.5 in Phase 1, the Applicant shall either 1) provide a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) demonstrating that the site for Building No. 5 is outside Flood Zone AE; or, 2) obtain a floodplain development permit for Building No. 5 in Phase 1 as necessary to comply with CPMC 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention requirements for residential construction. 4. Prior to building permit issuance for any building in Phase 1, the Applicant shall provide a written authorization to locate a portion of the Minor Pedestrian Access way identified in the Twin Creeks Master Plan, Exhibit 3 on the adjacent open space tract, as necessary to comply with the Minor Pedestrian Access way standard in Master Plan Exhibit 12. 5. At the time of building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for Phases 1 and 2 demonstrating compliance with the tree planting and parking lot screening requirements in CPMC 17.67.050(K)(2)(a-b). 6. The Applicant shall comply with agency conditions as per the Fire District #3, Building Department, and Public Works Department staff reports. Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 Page8 7. At the time of building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a revised site plan for Phases 1 and 2 demonstrating compliance with the Accessible Parking Spaces requirement in the 2010 Oregon Structural Specialty Code and the overall parking standards in CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3). Mike Oliver stated that the Planning Commission would deliberate on the application. The Commissioners made clear that they needed to evaluate based on compliance with the Master Plan and the Municipal Code. They expressed appreciation for the concerns regarding traffic and parking. City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer requested that the Planning Commission make a motion on the application to either approve or deny the application and then continue the deliberations on that motion. Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for a 245 -unit multifamily development within the Twin Creeks TOD Master plan area and medium mix residential zone as conditioned. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. The Commissioners agreed that the Master Plan had been in effect for a long time. They discussed the traffic issues with regard to the school. They also reviewed the parking standards and the traffic impact analysis. They acknowledged the citizens' concerns regarding the current traffic problems and the projected completion of the railroad crossing. They also noted that the project would place more people within walking distance of the downtown area which would benefit local businesses. Kay Harrison mentioned that the City had an obligation to meet State and Federal density standards. The Commissioners agreed that the City needed to plan for not only the current residents but also for the future. They said that concerns regarding renting vs. owning a home had been mentioned and that renting was not unique to this project but was going on throughout the City, including both apartments and houses. They felt that the project would provide a quality housing option for people who were not in a position to purchase a home. Mike Oliver asked if the School District had been notified and Ms. Holtey responded that all affected agencies were notified. The Commissioners agreed that the project was consistent with the Master Plan which was approved in 2001 and that it was consistent with the Municipal Code. Their decision needed to be based on that criteria. Sydnee Dreyer spoke to the commissioners and noted that there were conditions in the July 6, 2017 meeting and those conditions were restated in the July 18, 2017 staff report with the correction that the Commission requested. She asked that the commissioners clarify that the conditions are based on conditions 1 through 7 of the July 18, 2017 staff report. Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2017 Page9 Tom Van Voorhees clarified that the motion was based on conditions 1 through 7 of the July 18, 2017 staff report. Kay Harrison stated that her second of the motion was based on the July 18, 2017 staff report. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes: Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; John Whiting yes. Motion passed. Commissioner Powell did not rejoin the commission and left the meeting. VII. DISCUSSION Tom Humphrey stated that if any of the commissioners were interested in ongoing training, there would be training for planning commission members at the Council of Governments regarding ex parte, conflicts of interest and deliberations such as the present matter. It would be sometime in August. Mr. Humphrey gave an overview of current development projects in the City. He said that Costco has begun construction and they were hoping to be open by November. He noted there would be some interim improvements on Table Rock Road and at the intersection of Hamrick and Table Rock until the County begins its project to widen that road. He said the veterinary hospital is complete and open. The partition has been final platted and Microdevices will be closing soon and getting a building permit. The Rogue Credit Union is nearing completion. The Commissioners wondered about the existing building and staff advised them that Goodwill may be expanding into that space. Stephanie Holtey advised that there have been inquiries about commercial development on the Wal Mart property but no applications have been received. Tom Van Voorhees asked about the White Hawk Development. Mr. Humphrey said that the DEQ was satisfied with the mitigation for the contamination on the site and there may be some activity in the near future. He stated there is an approved plan for an Elder Care Facility on Haskell which would be getting building permits soon. Mike Oliver stated that he was concerned regarding the minimum noticing requirements and suggested that the required area be expanded. Attorney Sydnee Dreyer stated that an amendment to the code requirement for noticing would need to state a clear and definite noticing area, such as 200 feet, etc. She suggested looking at what other cities have in place. She added that any Homeowners Association could send a letter to the Planning Department requesting notification of any applications that impacted them. She added that there was also a component of homeowner responsibility in exercising due diligence when purchasing a home. Planning Commission Minutes July 18,2017 Page 10 Tom Van Voorhees asked if noticing a Homeowners Association was something the City could do. Ms. Dreyer responded that the Association could request notification of any applications, however there was no obligation for the City to notice the Associations. Mr. Humphrey reviewed the history of the Twin Creeks Development and the steps the City took in obtaining citizen input prior to the Master Plan being developed. Kay Harrison noted that although she understood the resistance to the project, the Master Plan had been in effect for a long time. The Commissioners discussed the noticing procedures and a possible study session. Ms. Dreyer said that changing the code for noticing was fine, however the current application must be evaluated by the codes in effect at the time it was submitted. Mr. Humphrey explained differences between current planning and long range planning and how the Planning Department has made efforts to obtain input from the community. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Ii:�u1041:1arWAMG1&1 X. ADJOURNMENT Kay Harrison made a motion to adjourn. Tom Van Voorhees seconded. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the July 18, 2017 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the 1 st day of, August, 2017. Planning Commission Chair CENTRAL Community Development STAFF REPORT POINT �F1ump�rcF N O1 egCommunity Development Director STAFF REPORT August 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM (File No. CUP -17001) Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application to operate a preschool in a residential neighborhood. The preschool proposes to locate in an existing accessory structure in the Residential Single -Family (R-1-10) zoning district. The project site is located at 917 Mendolia Way, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W IOBB, Tax Lot 807 (Property). Owner: Jeanne Quigley Applicant: Kendra Marineau SOURCE Molly Bradley, Community Planner I BACKGROUND The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a preschool, "Imagination Station", in an existing 400fe, detached accessory structure located in the rear yard of the Property (Attachment "A"). Per CPMC 17.20.030(C), preschools are designated Conditional Uses in the R-1 zoning district, and require special consideration so they are properly located with respect to the objectives in the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties. The operation of preschool facilities is regulated by the Early Learning Division in the Oregon Department of Education. The City's review will be limited to land use issues. Project Description: The Applicant proposes to open a Recorded Preschool, "Imagination Station", in Fall of2017, and enroll six (6) 4 -year old students, with the potential to increase enrollment in the future. A Recorded Preschool means a facility providing care for preschool children that is primarily educational for four hours or less per day and where no child is present at the facility for more than four hours per day (Attachment "B"). Hours of operation are proposed to be Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 9:00am- I2:00pm, following the school district calendar. Access to the site will be from the public street, Mendolia Way, and off-street parking is provided in the driveway of the project site, per the Applicant's Findings. (Attachment "E"). There is a gate to the backyard, accessed from the driveway, which will serve as the main access to the preschool. Restroom facilities will be available to the preschool children inside the primary residence. The Property is surrounded by Single -Family Residential (R-1- 10) properties. ISSUES There are three (3) issues relative to the proposed preschool, which are addressed below: Page 1 of5 1) Parking Requirements. Per CPMC 17.64.02B, a Preschool requires one (1) off-street parking space per employee, plus 1 space per 5 children the facility accommodates. Based on the Applicant's proposal to have one (1) employee and six (6) students, a total of two (2) off-street parking spaces would be required to meet the code standard. The proposed parking plan illustrates two (2) covered off-street parking spaces for the single-family residence, and three (3) uncovered parking spaces in the driveway (Attachment "A"). As shown on the Applicant's site plan, use of two (2) of the uncovered parking spaces will cause intermittent disruption of the access to covered spaces provided in the garage during the hours designated for drop-off and pick-up, causing a potential conflict with the covered parking spaces. Comment: The potential conflict with the covered parking spaces is considered minor and can be mitigated by the Applicant through coordination of ingress/egress for the covered parking to avoid drop- off and pick-up times. Staff finds that because of the unique characteristics of this application in regards to proposed preschool attendance and the intermittent disruption of access to the covered garage parking spaces, that the potential conflict can be prevented through an agreement between the Applicant and property owner. 2) Enrollment. The Applicant's Findings state that enrollment may be increased in the future. The State does not determine enrollment standards for Recorded Preschool Programs; therefore, the number of students permitted to occupy the preschool will be dictated by the off-street parking spaces available at the preschool site. Per CPMC 17.64.02B, a Preschool requires one (1) off-street parking space per employee plus 1 space for every 5 students. On this basis, where the maximum number of off-street parking spaces available is three (3), the maximum number of students that can be accommodated is ten (10). Comment: Staff recommends that, per Condition of Approval 44, the Applicant be limited to maximum enrollment of ten (10) students at the proposed preschool. 3) Public Comments. During the public comment period, two (2) letters of opposition were received from property owners adjacent to the project site (Attachments "D-1, D-2"). The concerns raised in the letters are summarized and addressed in categories of concern below: A) Alternative Zoning Districts. Both letters received by the City raise concerns about the compatibility of a preschool within the residential zoning district, and recommend finding an alternative zoning district to locate the operation. Comment: Per the current municipal code, preschools are classified as a conditional use in the Residential Single -Family (R-1), Residential Two -Family (R-2), and Residential Multiple -Family (R-3) zoning districts. Preschools are not identified as a permitted use or as a conditional use in any other zoning district. Because preschools may pose potential impacts to the livability or desired character of an area, a conditional use permit is required to identify these potential impacts, and to apply conditions that will address identified concerns. This Application has been conditioned per the approval criteria in CPMC 17.76.040 to mitigate the potential impacts that a Page 2 of5 preschool may pose to the surrounding neighborhood. B) Child Safety and Liability. One letter of public comment asks if the City could be held responsible for incidents of child negligence or inadequate supervision that might put a child in danger. Comment: Child safety and liability are addressed through the State's operation requirements and are regulated by the Early Learning and Child Care Division in the Oregon Department of Education. The proposed preschool is classified as a Recorded Preschool Program, which means it must be recorded with the State but is exempt from licensure. Per OAR 414-450-0030, the two (2) requirements for Recorded Preschool Programs are 1) Complete a background check on all staff and volunteers 18 years of age or older who have contact with children in the program; and 2) Post a notice where it is visible to parents that the preschool is recorded with the Child Care Division and is legally exempt from licensure (Attachment "B"). The proposed preschool operation is subject to both sanctions and denial of application by the State if it is found to be in violation of regulations per applicable OAR. Through Condition of Approval #2, the City also has authority to revoke the conditional use permit and business license if the Applicant violates any State Rules for Recorded Programs, or any conditions of approval that are set forth in this report. The City is not liable for potential negligence that occurs at a privately run preschool on private property. C) Noise. The letters of opposition from the adjacent property owners state concerns regarding the potential impact to their quality of life due to noise from preschool students that could disrupt surrounding neighbors during the hours of the preschool's operation. Comment: The preschool is proposing to operate in the 4002 accessory structure in the backyard of the Property, with activities occurring both inside and outside the structure. The Applicant has stated in her findings that a 6 -foot fence surrounds the back yard of the Property, and four tall trees stand next to the rear yard fence, which may help to contain or buffer noise from the preschool. The Conditional Use Permit process provides an opportunity to mitigate potential impacts, such as noise, from a proposed use. In response, staff recommends Condition of Approval #4 which prohibits the Applicant from operating the preschool outside the hours of 9:OOam- 12:OOpm on Monday, Wednesday and Friday during the school year, and limits the number of preschool student enrollment to ten (10). FINDINGS The Applicant has stated in their findings that all requirements outlined per the Conditional Use Permit section 17.76.040 have been met (Attachment "E"). Page 3 of5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) Prior to commencing operation of the preschool, the Applicant shall obtain a business license with the City of Central Point. 2) Prior to issuance of a business license, the Applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with an active program record for the proposed preschool, "Imagination Station", issued by the State of Oregon Child Care Division per ORS 329A.255. 3) The proposed preschool shall comply with all state and local laws, including State regulations for Recorded Preschool Programs. Failure to comply with these regulations will result in the City revoking the conditional use permit and business license for the proposed preschool. 4) The preschool shall not operate outside the hours of 9:00am-!2:00pm, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, excluding drop-off and pick-up times which may occur within 15 -minutes of the hours of operation. The preschool shall be limited to the enrollment often (10) students. Any changes to the proposed use (i.e. increasing enrollment or hours of operation, etc.) are subject to CPMC 17.09, Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval. 6) Prior to issuance of a business license, a Change of Occupancy Permit is required per the condition stated in the Building Department letter, dated June 26 (Attachment "C-4"). 7) A sign permit shall be obtained by the Applicant and approved by City staff prior to installation. The sign face shall be limited to 4 -feet by 2 -feet in area. ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A-1" — Site Plan Attachment "A -2" -Elevations and Photos Attachment "B" -"Rules for Recorded Programs" -Oregon Administrative Rules Attachment "C-1" —RVSS Comments, June 1, 2017 Attachment "C -2" -Airport Comments, June 28, 2017 Attachment "C -3" -Fire District #3 Inspection, June 15, 2017 Attachment "C -4" -Building Official Comments, June 26, 2017 Attachment "C-5"- Public Works Department Comments, June 26, 2017 Attachment "D-1"- Public Comment #1, dated July 11, 2017 Attachment "13-2"- Public Comment #2, dated July 17,2017 Attachment "E" -Applicant's Findings of Fact Page 4 ofS Attachment "F"- Resolution No. 843 ACTION Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a preschool, "Imagination Station", to operate in the Residential Single -Family (R-1-10) zoning district. The Planning Commission may choose to I) Approve the CUP; 2) Approve the CUP with conditions; or 3) Deny the CUP. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions as recommended in the Staff Report dated August 1, 2017, or as otherwise amended by the Planning Commission. Page 5 of5 o� ap 0t 0 0c ..-v..IN3WH::>v1 1v r- 0 c� I= .� ..Z -V.. J.N311 \ 1 H3 VJ.J.V 0, Location ❑ The preschool will be located at 917 Mendolia Way in Central Point ❑ It will be in a 20x20 detached studio en W oes en a� c ro O ", 0 ::::s en (1) ..c: c en O vivo vivo c rn en L... O O 1110 0 3: L» rn (1) L... (1) ..c: I — 9 Entrances &Exits Jrnn inued The kids will enter through the gate on the side of the house If the gate was not accessible, due to an emergency, and we needed to evacuate we could go through the back door on the house and out the front door Parking There is plenty of parking to accommodate the parent/guardian when dropping off their child There are 3 parking spots in the driveway at 917 Mendolia Way and at least 2 curb parking spots in front of the house Across the street is a retention pond that has 5-6 curb parking spots ilia I., J. I - A - W-- W-! - C-0 s_ My parents live across the street from my grandma at 916 Mendolia Way and there is 4 drive way parking spots ATTACHMENT "B" State of Oregon Employment Department CH1D CARE DIVISION Rules for Recorded Programs School -Age and Preschool Programs Oregon Employment Department Child Care Division 503-947-1400 ❑1-800-556-6616 REC-305 07/01/2010 Oregon Employment Department [AKM Care Division I www.childcareinoregon.org im Introduction And Information Regarding Recorded Programs There is a large body of knowledge, including new brain research, about the importance of early childhood. We know that the foundation of a child's health and character is established during the early years of life. If children do not have opportunities early in life for normal development of their minds, bodies, and relationships with others, it becomes increasingly difficult to make it up to them later. There is no second chance at childhood, and the future of this state depends on the healthy physical, mental, and emotional growth and development of today's children. It was with this in mind that the state of Oregon enacted Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 414-425-0000 et seq and 414-450-0000 et seq, that are the Child Care Division requirements for recorded programs. The purpose of these rules is to collect and publish information on school-age programs and require criminal background checks on staff and volunteers having contact with children in these programs The Child Care Division, with the assistance of child care programs, the Center for Career Development in Childhood Care and Education, the Oregon Family Child Care Network, the Department of Human Services (Health Division), the USDA Food Program (Department of Education), the Commission on Children and Families, the Commission for Child Care, and several other state agencies developed these administrative rules. You do not need to record your oroaram with the Division if it is: Operated by a school district as defined in ORS 332.002 C Licensed with the Child Care Division L Provides care that is primarily a single enrichment activity, for eight hours or less a week If any of these apply, your program is not required to be recorded with the Division Questions regarding these rules can be directed to: Oregon Employment Department Child Care Division 503-947-1400 ° 1-800-556-6616 13 RULES FOR RECORDED PROGRAMS PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 414-450-0000 Purpose (1) Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 414-450-0000 through 414-450-0040 are the Child Care Division's minimum requirements for preschool recorded programs. The purpose of these rules is to collect and publish information on preschool recorded programs, and require criminal background checks on staff and volunteers having contact with children in these programs. (2) Nothing in these rules is intended to create requirements applicable to a program that is: (a) Required to be certified under ORS 657A.280 or registered under ORS 657A.330; or (b) Operated by a school district as defined in ORS 332.002; or (c) Operated by a political subdivision of this state; or (d) Operated by a governmental agency. 414-450-0010 Definitions (1) "Child Care" means the care, supervision, and guidance on a regular basis of a child, unaccompanied by a parent, guardian, or custodian, during a part of the 24 hours of the day, with or without compensation. (2) "CCD" means the Child Care Division of the Employment Department, or the Administrator or staff of the Division. (3) "Preschool -Age Child" means a child who is 36 months of age up to the summer vacation months prior to being eligible to be enrolled in the first grade in public school. (4) "Preschool Recorded Program" means a facility providing care for preschool - age children that is primarily educational for four hours or less per day and where no preschool child is present at the facility for more than four hours per day. (5) "Program Record" means the document a preschool recorded program is issued by the Child Care Division to operate a preschool recorded program pursuant to ORS 657A.257 and OAR 414-450-0000 through 414-450-0040. (6) "School -Age Child" means a child eligible to be enrolled in the first grade or above in public school including the months of summer vacation prior to being eligible to be enrolled in the first grade or above in the next school year, up to age 13. For purposes of these rules, a child attending kindergarten may be considered a school-age child. 4 14 (7) "Staff' means any individual 18 years and older who works in, and has contact with children in the program. (8) "Volunteer" means any individual 18 years or older who intends to perform uncompensated duties for the program and who may have unsupervised contact with the children in the program; or who is in the facility more than four hours per year and has contact with children in the program. 414-450-0020 Application for a Proaram Record (1) No person or organization shall operate a preschool recorded program without an active program record issued by the Child Care Division (CCD). (2) Application for a program record shall be made on forms provided by CCD. The original forms must be submitted to C20 for processing. (3) A completed application is required: (a) For a new program record (b) For renewing a program record (4) There is a non-refundable processing fee of $20 for each application. (5) To determine if requirements are met, the applicant may be required to supply additional information or permit C@O to visit and assess the program. 414-450-0025 Issuance of a Preschool Proaram Record (1) CCD shall issue a program record to a person or organization operating a preschool program if C@O determines that the applicant meets the requirements of ORS 657A.250 to 657A.450 and OAR 414-205-0000 et seq and OAR 414-300- 0000 et seq and OAR 414-450-0000 through 414-450-0040. (2) A program record is valid for two years from date of issuance. (3) A program record authorizes operation of the preschool recorded program only at the address described in the record and only by the person named in the record. (4) CCD will create and maintain a database of preschool recorded programs. The database will include: (a) Name and address of the program; (b) Name of contact person; and (c) Program information such as capacity, age range of children served, and hours of operation. 5 414-450-0030 General Reauirements (1) The preschool recorded program must assure that criminal background checks are done on all staff and volunteers prior to having contact with children in the program. (2) The preschool recorded program must post a notice where it is visible to parents that the program is recorded with CCD and is legally exempt from licensure. 414-450-0040 Denial of Application and Sanctions (1) An initial application for a new program record or renewal application may be denied if the Division finds that: (a) The program or its operation does not comply with ORS 657A.250 to ORS 657A.450, with applicable rules or with any term or condition imposed under the record; or (b) A visit, on-site investigation or inspection of a program or its records authorized by ORS 657A.390 has not been permitted. (2) A person or organization that violates any provision of this section or any term or condition of a program record is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100. i11 �r slw4pilo' June 1, 2017 ATTACHMENT "C-1" ROGUE VALLEY SEWER SERVICES Location: 138 West Vilas Road, Central Point, OR- Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3130, Central Point, OR 7502-0005 Tel. (541) 664-6300, Fax(541)664-7171 www.RVSS.us Molly Bradley City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: 917 Mendolia Way, Tax Lot 807, Map 37 2W lOB There is an 8 inch sewer main on Mendolia Way fronting the East property line of Tax Lot 807. The subject tax lot is currently served by a connection to this main. The sewer service for this tax lot will not be affected by the proposed use. However, the change of use will require a calculation and payment of applicable SDC charges. An RVSS sewer service permit will be subject to the configuration of any proposed building sewer outside of the existing structure. The project is within the Phase 2 stormwater quality area, however the project does not require stormwater management as impervious surface will not be added. Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this project be subject to the following conditions: Prior to the start of construction: 1. Applicant must provide site and architectural plans to RVSS for the calculation of applicable sewer SDC fees and evaluation of a sewer service permit. 2. Applicant must pay all applicable sewer SDC fees to RVSS. 3. Applicant must obtain a sewer service permit if required. During Construction and prior to final acceptance. 1. Sewer service to the proposed project must be inspected and accepted by RVSS if a sewer permit is required. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Nicholas R. Bakke, PE District Engineer K:\DATA\AGENCIES\CENTPT\PLANNG\PA\2017\917 MENDOLIA WAY PRESCHOOL.DOC IVA Molly Bradley From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Molly: The Airport has no comments. Thanks, :Marcy 'B{acli Deputy Director -Administration ATTACHMENT "C-2" Marcy Black <BiackMA@jacksoncounty.org> Wednesday, June 28, 2017 8:53AM Molly Bradley RE: Action Needed: Agency Comments on Land Use Application image001.png From: Molly Bradley [mailto: Molly. Bradley@centralpointoregon.gov] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 9:24AM To: Aaron Gratias <Aaron.Gratias@pacificorp.com>; Bobbie Pomeroy <Bobbie.Pomeroy@centralpointoregon.gov>; Chad Pliler <Chad.Piiler@ECS0911.com>; David McFadden<David.McFadden@avistacorp.com>; Derek Zwagerman <Derek.Zwagerman@central pointoregon.gov>; Jeff Keyser <jeff.keyser@pacificorp.com>; Jeff Wedman <jeff.wed man@centurylink.com>; Marcy Black <BiackMA@jacksoncounty.org>; Mark Kimmelshue <mark.kimmelshue@centurylink.com>; Mark Northrop <MarkN@jcfd3.com>; Matt Samitore <Matt.Samitore@central pointoregon.gov>; Mike Ono <Mike.Ono@centralpointoregon.gov>; ctappert@rvss.us Subject: Action Needed: Agency Comments on Land Use Application Good Morning, The City has received a Conditional Use Permit application to operate a preschool in a residential neighborhood (File No. CUP -17001). The project site is located at 917 Mendolia Way in the Residential Single -Family (R-1-10) zoning district, and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37 2W 10BB Tax Lot 807. The request for comments is attached to this email for your review. Additional information regarding the application, including site plan and findings of fact, is available at the link below: http: Uwww.centralpointoregon.gov/cd/projecVimagination-station-preschool-conditional-use-permit Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Molly Bradley Community Planner I City of Central Point 140 South 3'd Street Central Point, OR 97502 Desk: (541) 664-3321(x245) Fax: (541) 664-1611 www.centralpointoregon.gov ATTACHMENT "C-3" Jackson County FD #3 Occupancy: ® EI (GA&RQStation Address: 917 Mendolia WAY Central Point OR 97502 Inspection Type: HIGH HAZARD FIRE INSPECTION Inspection Date: 611512017 By: Northrop [P], Mark (1127) Time In: 11:30 Time Out: 12:00 Form: GENERAL Authorized Date: Not Author By: INSPECTION FORM FOR Next Inspection Date: 06/15/2017 HIGH HAZARD FIRE INSPECTION FLSD GENERAL INSPECTION INFORMATION COMMENTS/NOTES Status: NO HAZARDS NOTED Notes: I conducted a Fire Safety Inspection and found no violations, ex"gary Notes: No Additional time recorded Overall Result: PASS Inspector Notes: stat Duce 1 Time End Date I Total Additional Time:0 minutes Inspection Time: 30 minutes Total Time: 30 minutes PJintedQJJ 6f16f11 at 14:15;28 1 oft 19 Cit of Central Point, Ore on 140 S Third Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www. central l)ointore n. y June 26, 2017 Molly Bradley Community Planner 1 City of Central Point CENTRAL POINT Orcr,on RE: CUP -17001 /Imagination Station Preschool A Change of Occupancy permit will be required for this structure. No other comments. al --� Derek Zwage an, P.E. Building Official 20 ATTACHMENT "C -4" Building Department Derek Zwagerman, P.E., Building Official Molly Bradley From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Molly, PW has no comment on the CUP. ATTACHMENT "C-5" Matt Samitore Monday, June 26, 2017 9:24AM Molly Bradley RE: Action Needed: Agency Comments on Land Use Application imageOOI.png Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director Public Works Department City of Central Point 140 South Third Street Central Point, OR 97502 Desk:541-664-3321(x205) Fax: 541-664-6384 www.centralpointoregon.gov A011111116 CENTRAL POINT From: Molly Bradley Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 9:24AM To: Aaron Gratias; Bobbie Pomeroy; Chad Pliler; David McFadden; Derek Zwagerman; Jeff Keyser; Jeff Wedman; Marcy Black; Mark Kimmelshue; Mark Northrop; Matt Samitore; Mike Ono; ctappert@rvss.us Subject: Action Needed: Agency Comments on Land Use Application Good Morning, The City has received a Conditional Use Permit application to operate a preschool in a residential neighborhood (File No. CUP -17001). The project site is located at 917 Mendolia Way in the Residential Single -Family (R-1-10) zoning district, and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37 2W 10BB Tax Lot 807. The request for comments is attached to this email for your review. Additional information regarding the application, including site plan and findings of fact, is available at the link below: http://www_centralpointoregon.gov/cd/proiect/imagination-station-preschool-conditional-use-permit Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Molly Bradley 21 0 JUL 2 0 2417 July 11,2017 Dear Central Point Planning Com ission, ATTACHMENT "D-1" am writing with deep concern for the future quality of life change that may occur upon my household with the institution of a daycare/preschool outside my back door. As a precursor, my wife and I moved here two years ago from Juneau,Alaska. Both of us are retired teachers and I having spent nearly 25 years as an elementary physical education instructor. I feel comfortable saying from experience that I am expert dealing with 5-12 year olds playing in an enclosed space. The idea of a preschool in such close proximity is a cruel hoax to me and the many retired neighbors in our quiet residential area. Having been in physical education for 25 years, I was extremely aware of liability, lawsuits,and negligence in dealing with children. Is this something the city can be held responsible for in a court of law? I coached gymnastics for 10 years and know the liability of improper instruction and supervision. Are you willing to open this door? In our search for a retirement area a few years ago we had many options. Family in the Midwest,other family in Alaska, Florida with no taxes, Arizona... etc. We chose Central Point. Peaceful, laid back, hardworking people. We would Never Ever have chosen a home next to a lumber mill,downtown business, school, amusement park, or daycare. And I'll bet neither would any of you in your retirement home search! Already,with knowing few in this community,this is pitting neighbor against neighbor. I don't want to live next to screaming, playing, bouncing, high children's voices in my residential area. Please find somewhere else already zoned for this type of business. Please stand by your established residential codes and deny the conditional use permit for the Imagination Station. Thankyou aTn /o & 1Z John Pastorino 330 Meadow lark Way Central Point, OR 97502 22 NE (0 F- u - JUL 2 0 2017 July 17,2017 City of Central Point Planning Commission 140 S.3rd Street Central Point,OR 97502 Dear City of Central Point Planning Commission: ATTACHMENT "D-2" Cindy Pastorino 330 Meadow Lark Way Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Objection to Grantlnt Conditional Use Permit for I Tta Ination Station within the Residential Sintle-Family (R-1-10)Zoning District When I purchased my home in a peaceful residential neighborhood at 330 Meadow Lark Way,Central Point, I never imagined I would be writing to the Central Point Planning Commission a short two years later. Alas,l am not imagining that a proposed preschool,the Imagination Station,is seeking a conditional use permit to operate in an accessory structure directly adjacent to my home and backyard. When we first moved to Central Point after living over 40 years in Juneau, Alaska,we had many options. The decision was not easy,but after exploration and research we decided on the Rogue Valley. We looked at many different properties in different communities: Talent, Medford, Jacksonville, Eagle Point, Ashland, Shady Cove -we chose Central Point. We feel very blessed to have found our beautiful home with a lovely backyard on a quiet cul-de-sac in a neighborhood where people show pride in home ownership. Please understand how disappointing it is for us to have our little slice of paradise compromised. After the initial adjustment period of such a major move,we have been very pleased with the Central Point community. We enjoy attending the 4th of July and Holiday parades, activities in the parks,events at the Expo,walking about the town, and supporting local schools, charities,and businesses. We have good neighbors and feel we are good neighbors and citizens. My husband and I are retired teachers;combined we have over 45 years of teaching experience in public schools.While we have been committed to children's success and enjoyed our careers as teachers, we would never have chosen a property in such close proximity to a daycare, preschool, elementary, middle or high school. Because of its proposed location, I'm concerned my property will be the one most impacted. After reviewing Central Point Municipal Code, I've learned I have legitimate claims to object to the granting of this conditional use permit. Due to the close proximity to my property and the impact the preschool will have on the quality of life in my home and backyard, I request the Central Point Planning Commission deny the applicant's conditional use permit. I believe the for-profit business to be incompatible with a Residential Single -Family zoning district. 1 23 Location Central Point Municipal Code states conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be properly located with respect to the objectives of the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties. Given its proposed location, this business will have a negative effect on our property. (CPMC 17.76.010) How close will the proposed Imagination Station be from our property? 0 Approximately 4 feet from the fence C i Approximately 14 feet from the patio C Approximately 32 feet from the living room & dining room 0 Approximately 40 feet from the master bedroom & bathroom Unfortunately, all of our home's major living space faces this proposed business. Our living room, dining room, master bedroom, newly remodeled master bathroom, and patio all face its direction. It will be hard for us to escape the sound. (CPMC 17.76.040, C.) & (CPMC 17.76.040, D.) Please refer to the enclosed pictures from our side of the fence to visually realize the close proximity to our property. The building beyond the fence is the proposed Imagination Station. The yard where the children will be playing is on the immediate other side of the fence. Noise If you have or have had children please remember when they were 4 year olds. Now take your one 4 year old and multiply by 6. This will be the amount of sound generated by the students. We enjoy our peaceful Residential Single -Family zoning district neighborhood. Yes,there are several barking dogs and we can hear a lot of the activities going on,but these are neighborhood sounds (not for-profit business sounds) and are to be expected. Sound carries.Sound is powerful. I believe a person has the right to peace and quiet in her own home and yard. The applicant states in her findings "In the winter most activities will be inside, so noise should be held to a minimum. " Key words "should be held to a minimum" not "will be." She goes on to state "Any outdoor activities would take place between 9 am to 12 pm, most neighbors are awake or at work during those hours so it will not be a disruption. " If outdoor activities are held between 9 am till 12 pm that means that the noise from 6 preschoolers playing in the yard could potentially be for 3 solid hours,3 days a week! The applicant should not make the assumption that most neighbors are awake at this time (neighbors' sleeping habits are not her concern nor should they be dictated by her business noise.) Nor should the applicant make the assumption that most neighbors are at work at this time jwe are retired and we know other neighbors that are retirees too). Contrary to her claim,the noise from this business will be adisruption to our IivesJCPMC 17.76.040, E.B.) 24 Hours The hours of the preschool also relate to my noise concerns. The hours proposed are 9 am till noon. Does this mean no kids will be onsite until 9 am or will they be allowed to be dropped off earlier (say 8:30)? Will they be all gone by noon or will they be allowed to stay later (say 1:00)? My point is, what assurances do we have the preschool will only be in operation 3 hours a day? I fear logistically it will be more than 3 hours a day. (CPMC 17.76.040, E.B.) Size have concerns regarding the size of the preschool. When the applicant first approached me to see how felt about her proposed business, she indicated eight 4 -year olds would be her target. In her written proposalshe states "Since the building is 400 square feet, 1 can have up to 11 kids at one time." In another paragraph she states 'According to Municipal Code, for the preschool located at 917 Mendolia Way it can hove up to 15 kids." Although she is currently applying for the conditional use permit for 6 children, if approved, what assurances are there that the preschool wouldn't grow to 15 children, more than doubling the noise from more children,more parents,and therefore more traffic noise as well. (CPMC 17.60.190, C.8) Building & Yard While the applicant has determined the site/structure to be appropriate,one of the windows directly faces and is within 4 feet of our shared fence. Noise from this window will come directly to our house. One of the two doors is clearly visible from our property and is very close. Noise coming from the opening and shutting of this door would have an impact. You'll see this window and door in our enclosed pictures. (CPMC 17.76.040,C), (CPMC 17.60.190, C.S.) Regarding the yard the children will play in,the applicant states, "There is lawn and garden boxes in the backyard as well as 30' by 35' slob of concrete. The concrete slab is located between the house and preschool so there is a noise barrier for the neighbors behind." I'm not sure how this concrete slab will provide a noise barrier, the structure is 4 feet from our shared fence. While she claims the fence will help with any excessive noise I'm not as confident the fence will mitigate the noise of preschoolers and their teacher in any significant way. (CPMC 17.76.040, E.7.) In her findings the applicant states 'lour big trees against the backfence wifl significantly reduce any noisefrom the preschool." I'm not convinced the arborvitae trees will significantly reduce noise from preschoolers and their teacher in any notable way. (CPMC 17.76.040, E.7.) The accessory structure for this business may have been permitted back in 1999, but I believe that a preschool business was not the intent when it was permitted. There was no conditionaluse permit granted for building our home.That is,our home was permitted because it meets the intent of a structure in a Residential Single -Family zoning district. 91 25 Alternative Locations was told by the city it would be a good idea to come up with possible alternative locations. I have found other locations in more appropriately zoned locations and I'm sure the applicant can too. While these locations may not be as economically attractive, there is a cost to doing business that the applicant should have to pay, not her neighbors. Closing Honestly, I'm disappointed to be put in the position of having to take a side that is neighbor vs neighbor. Ididn't move here to be a neighborhood activist. Being as I oppose the proposed conditional use permit I'm concerned that hard feelings could possibly come about between me and my neighbor. I'm certain this is not the intent of a residentially zoned neighborhood, but it is the awkward position I now find myself in, one I never imagined I would be in when I purchased my property. Alii want to do is live peacefully and quietly in my beautiful home in the fair city of Central Point. I want to be a good neighbor,but given the circumstances I must object to granting this conditional use permit. This just isn't an appropriate business for a Residential Single -Family zoning district so close that it is literally in my backyard. respectfully request the City of Central Point Planning Commission deny the conditional use permit for the Imagination Station located at 917 Mendolia Way. Sincerely, 6njly'-f/ Cindy Pastorino Retired Teacher 330 Meadow Lark Way Central Point, OR 97502 Enclosures: Pictures 26 0 Nuic- LV '%ndo « -*- '-Duo rte, -F;' m ��.-L1 c) L o -f 4 28 ...w lqcA M. eA. M. I A 0 Imagination Station Kendra Marineau 916 Mendolia Way Central Point OR, 97502 541-621-6976 ATTACHMENT "E" A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code; Finding: The studio where the preschool will be located was built with a permit when the house was built in 1999. It is 400 square feet, and complies with setback requirements for accessory structures in the R-1-10 zone. The State of Oregon requires 35 square feet per child. Since the building is 400 square feet, I can have up to 11 kids at one time. Two exits are required for safety of the children. There are two doors and three windows in the preschool. The children will have an adequate amount of outdoor play area and access to a bathroom. Conclusion: No structural modifications to the building are necessary. B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use; Finding:The preschool is located off of Mendolia Way, a public streetthat is well maintained bythe City. The proposed preschool will not generate a significant amount of traffic that street improvements would be required. The Central Point Municipal Code states that 1 space per employee; plus 1 space per 5 children the facility is designed or intended to accommodate. No requirements for facilities caring for 5 orfewer children simultaneously. According to the Municipal Code, for the preschool being located at 917 Mendolia Way it can have up to 15 kids. There are three parking spots in the driveway. I do not plan on having any employees. Per code requirement, one (1) off-street parking space will be designated specifically for the preschool facility during its hours of operation. This parking space is paved and located to the side of the driveway on the subject property, as noted on the proposed site plan. Conclusion: The site has adequate access to Mendolia Way, a public street, and the street is in adequate condition to accommodate traffic to the site. C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings and structures; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; Finding: The hours of the preschool will be from 9AM to Noon and will follow the School District 6 calendar. In the winter most activities will be inside, so noise should be held to a minimum. Any outdoor activities would take place between 9AM to 12PM, most neighbors are awake or at work during those hours so it will not be a disruption. The studio is in the back right hand corner of the property. The ceiling is 9 feet tall. There is a concrete walkway down the side yard to access the studio. There is lawn and garden boxes in the backyard as well as 30' by 35' slab of concrete. The concrete slab is located between the house and preschool so there is a noise barrier for the neighbors behind. The fence is 6 feet tall and boarders the property line which will also help with any excessive noise. Conclusion:The building is built to code so there should be no effect on abutting properties. The fence that is surrounding the backyard, and four big trees against the back fence will significantly reduce any noise from the 31 preschool. The concrete stab is located between the house and preschool so there is a noise barrier for the neighbors behind. D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section; Finding: Afire extinguisher, smoke detector, and carbon monoxide alarm are present. I will have evacuation drills once a month to insure the safety of the children. An inspection on the fire extinguisher will be completed annually. The State of Oregon says that each child needs 35 square feet. Since the preschool is 400 square feet I can have up to 11 children at one time. I plan on starting with about 6 children, so my ratio would be in compliance. Background checks are required for any adult that is interacting or on the facility where children are present. All necessary background checks are completed. Recorded Preschools in the State of Oregon there is no staff to student ratio. Conclusion: All applicable local, state and federal health and safety regulations are satisfied, and the proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or the surrounding neighborhood. E. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and may include: 1. Adjustments to lot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use; provided the lots or yard areas conform to the stated minimum dimensions for the subject zoning district, unless a variance is also granted as provided for in Chapter 17.13, Finding: The lot is 10,636 square feet. The house is 2,254 square feet and the preschool is 400 square feet, so there Is plenty of yard for the kids to play in. Conclusion: Lot size and yard areas will not need to be adjusted since the studio is already built and there is sufficient square footage. 2. Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or addition of street signs ortraffic signals to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use, Finding: The street width is wide enough to accommodate the preschool and daily use. Conclusion: No modifications to streets, traffic signals, or signs would be needed. 3. Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of the proposed use, Finding: The requirement for parking is 1 off street parking spot per 5 kids. There are 3 off street parking spots at 917 Mendolia Way. I will not permitted to have more than 11 kids so it should not be a problem. Conclusion: Off- street parking would not be needed due to available parking in drive way. 4. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, Finding: The cars can enter and exit on Mendolia Way from Grant Road to Mitchell Way or Blue Heron Drive. Conclusion: No changes to accommodate vehicle ingress and egress are needed. 5. Requiring landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting and a property maintenance program, Finding: The landscaping, irrigation system, lighting and property maintenance is done by the property owner and will continue to be maintained by the property owner. Conclusion: Landscaping, irrigation system, lighting and property maintenance will not change. 32 6. Regulation of signs and their locations, Finding: A small sign (about 2' by 4') will be hung on the fence where kids enter. The sign will be hung all of the time unless only permitted during business hours. Conclusion: The sign will not disturb surrounding neighbors. 7. Requiring fences, berms, walls, landscaping or other devices of organic or artificial composition to eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors, visual incompatibility or other undesirable effects on surrounding properties, Finding: A 6 foot wood fence is around the property line in the backyard. There are a few tall trees as a burrier along the back fence. Most activities in the winter will be inside so noise will be kept to a minimum. Conclusion: No required changes are needed. B. Regulation of time of operations for certain types of uses if their operations may adversely affect privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with other community or neighborhood functions, Finding:I plan on running weekdays from 9AM to noon.Most neighbors are at work or awake during these hours. Depending on weather, outside playtime will be no more than 3 hours a day. There is a 6-foot wood fence between surrounding properties. The preschool is located by the back right corner fence. There is a 30' by 35' slab of concrete for kids to play that is between the preschool and house. Conclusion: Time of operation will not affect the community or surrounding neighbors. 9. Establish a time period within which the subject land use must be developed, Finding: The building is already built. Conclusion: Not applicable since no development is needed. 10. Requirement of a bond or other adequate assurance within a specified period of time, Finding: The structure of the proposed preschool already exists; therefore, this proposal does not require assurances, such as a bond. Conclusion:This criterion is not applicable. 11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, Finding: The preschool will not affect the public health, safety and general welfare in anyway_ Conclusion: The proposed preschool complies with all requirements to protect public health, safety and general welfare. 12. In considering an appeal of an application for a conditional use permit fora home occupation, the planning commission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17.60.190. (Ord. 1823 §5, 2001; Ord. 1684 §72, 1993; Ord. 1615 §55, 1989; Ord. 1533 §1, 1984; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). Finding: Per CPMC 17.60.190, this proposed preschool would be considered a home occupation. A business license will be obtained prior to operation. Conclusion: All criteria as listed in 17.60.190 is satisfied_ 33 ATTACHMENT 7" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 843 A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A PRESCHOOL LOCATED AT 917 MENDOLIA WAY Applicant: Kendra Marineau; Owner: Jeanne Quigley (37S 2W 1OBB, Tax Lot 807) File No. CUP -17001 WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Preschool in the Residential Single -Family (R-1-10) zoning district (Application), identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 10BB, Tax Lot 807 (Property); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently planned and zoned for Residential Single -Family uses, which stabilize and protect the urban low density residential characteristics of the district while promoting and encouraging suitable environments for family life; WHEREAS, a preschool is classified as a Conditional Use in the R-1 zone, designated as such to allow for special consideration of the use and its effect on surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2017, the Central Point Planning Commission opened a duly -noticed public hearing on the Application, at which time the Planning Commission heard testimony and comments on the Application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as part of the Conditional Use Permit application, has considered and finds per the Staff Report dated August 1, 2017, that adequate findings have been made demonstrating that approval of the conditional use permit is consistent with the intent of the Residential Single -Family (R-1) zoning district, now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 843 does hereby approve the Application based on the findings and conclusions of approval as set forth in Exhibit "A", the Staff Report dated August 1, 2017, which also includes attachments, attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein; and PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of August, 2017. ATTEST: City Representative Approved this day of August, 2017. Planning Commission Resolution No. 843 Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Chair 34 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) Prior to commencing operation of the preschool, the Applicant shall obtain a business license with the City of Central Point. 2) Prior to issuance of a business license, the Applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with an active program record for the proposed preschool, "Imagination Station", issued by the State of Oregon Child Care Division per ORS 329A.255. 3) The proposed preschool shall comply with all state and local laws, including State regulations for Recorded Preschool Programs. Failure to comply with these regulations will result in the City revoking the conditional use permit and business license for the proposed preschool. 4) The preschool shall not operate outside the hours of 9:00am-12:00pm, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, excluding drop-off and pick-up times which may occur within 15 -minutes of the hours of operation. The preschool shall be limited to the enrollment often (10) students. Any changes to the proposed use (i.e. increasing enrollment or hours of operation, etc.) are subject to CPMC 17.09, Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval. 6) Prior to issuance of a business license, a Change of Occupancy Permit is required per the condition stated in the Building Department letter, dated June 26 (Attachment "C-4"). 7) A sign permit shall be obtained by the Applicant and approved by City staff prior to installation. The sign face shall be limited to 4 -feet by 2 -feet in area. 35 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM VII -B CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT August 1, 2017 Planning Department Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator Consideration of Resolution No. 844 approving the Housing Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan. (File No. CPA -17004, Applicant: City of Central Point) STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt, Planning Manager BACKGROUND: On Aprill 1, 2017 the Citizens Advisory Committee discussed the draft Housing Element and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council and Planning Commission to accept. At the May 2, 2017 meeting the draft ofthe Housing Element was discussed by the Planning Commission. Since the May 2nd Planning Commission the draft Housing Element has been distributed for review and comment. The attached final draft includes comments from the Department of Land Conservation and Development and 1,000 Friends of Oregon. Also attached is a clean copy of the final draft. At the Planning Commission meeting of August 1, 2017 the Housing Element will be presented at a public hearing to take further public input. Staff will provide an overview of the Housing Element, including an overview of DLCD and 1,000 Friends of Oregon comments, followed by the Planning Commission opening the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission has two choices: 1. Close the public hearing and proceed to discussion and action; or 2. Continue the public hearing to allow for further public discussion and comment. ISSUES: No known issues at this time. The most significant finding from the Housing Element is the number of acres needed over the course of the next twenty years and the required densities. Staff will cover the main findings of the Housing Element at the meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" —Housing Element with comments Attachment "B" -Housing Element (clean) Page 1 oft 36 ACTION: Consideration and discussion of the Housing Element. RECOMMENDATION: Close public hearing and direct staff to prepare resolution a final consideration at the September 5, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Page 2 of2 37 Attachment A City ofCentral Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 , 441 Housing Element 2017-2037 City of Central Point s Comprehensive Plan a_ - Ordinance No. DLCD Acknowledged 2017-37 Housing Element Page 1 38 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Contents 1 Summary..................................................................................................................................4 2 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 6 3 Purpose of the Housing Element............................................................................................. 7 4 Household Characteristics....................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Household Tenure............................................................................................................ 8 4.2 Age of Householder......................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Household Size................................................................................................................. 9 4.4 Household Income.......................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Summary, Household Characteristics................................................ :........................... 11 5 Special Needs Housing.......................................................................................................... 11 5.1 Elderly Residents............................................................................................................ 11 5.2 Handicapped Residents..................................................................................................12 5.3 Low Income Residents................................................................................................... 12 6 Housing Characteristics......................................................................................................... 12 6.1 Housing Age............................................................................................................... 12H 6.2 Housing Type................................................................................................................. 13 6.3 Housing Value................................................................................................................ 15 6.4 Summary, Housing Characteristics................................................................................ 16 7 Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning............................................................................... 16 7.1 Land Use and Housing Type......................................................................................18-1-9 7.2 Summary, Housing Density ....................................................................................... 19;w 8 Buildable Residential Lands.............................................................................................. 19;w 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands......................................................................... 22 9 Housing Affordability ............................................................................................................ 22 9.1 Renter Households..................................................................................................... 22 9.2 Owner Households......................................................................................................... 23 9.3 Summary, Affordability................................................................................................. 24 10 Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need ........................................................ 24 10.1 General........................................................................................................................24 10.2 Future Housing Tenure............................................................................................... 27 10.3 Future Housing Types................................................................................................ 27 11 Housing Goals and Policies............................................................................................... 27 2017-37 Housing Element Page2 39 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 2017-37 Housing Element Page 3 40 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 1 Summary During the next twenty year planning period (2017-37) the physical and demographic characteristics of the City's housing and housing needs are not expected to significantly change. It is anticipated that single-family detached owner -occupied housing will continue to be the preferred housing type, followed by multiple -family rental housing. It should he noted that if wages continue to lag housing costs then the "preferred" housing mix may experience preference chane due to issues of affordability, in which case attached single-family dwellings may become the new norm in preferred housing type. The policies of this HousinZ E-lemeni take in to account the possibility of a change in housing "preference" through adjustments to minimum densities and a broader range ofhousing types in the various residential land use classifications_ Aside from the Great Recession in 2007 (the "Recession") the most significant influence on the City's housing program was theadoption of a minimum development density of6.9 dwelling units per gross acre 1 i The relevance of this new density standard becomes apparent when compared to the City's average re -idemial development density between 1980 — and 2016, which had an average gress-density of 5.05 dwelling units per gross acre. The new density standard represents, a 37% density increase (Table ] I and Table 1.21. To achieve the new average density standard it i • will be necessary modify either the current mix of residential land use classification, or the density within a classification, or, both I'IIaKI:I 'ty!s-Ej-i5if..j.ett feA-&f t'e!?ie!em.jaf-.land-tt -e-vlassi.fiea en fl HFFefiHTltlti-m<tm-aeA&tHes-be-me4fleE1-(Tables 1.1 and 1.2). It is important to note that residential density is typically mea ured in terms of net acres. but the new density standard is measured in terms of gross acres. Throughout this Housing Element considerable effort has been made to consi tently calculate density on a Jzross acre ba i , thu retaining consistency witll the Regional Plan Element's minimum densi , requirement. The primary distinction between gross acres and net acres is street right-of-way, which typically acco unts for 25% of the gross acreage. Table 1.1 City of Central Point Residential Development by Land Use Classification, 1980- 2016 Note: ' Based on Net Acres adjusted 25% for public right- 1 -way.. I City of Central Point Regional Plan 2017-37 Housing Element Page 4 41 Percentage of Developed Average Gross Land Use Classification Residential Acres Density VLRes 20N 1.51 LRes 720/ 4.06 MRes 110/ 7.51 HRes 140/ 8.78 Total Percenta :e 1000/ 5.05 Note: ' Based on Net Acres adjusted 25% for public right- 1 -way.. I City of Central Point Regional Plan 2017-37 Housing Element Page 4 41 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 1.2 City of Central Point Residential Development by Land Use Classification 1980-2016 vs. New Distribution Using the new minimum density requirement f>l:Jflag-for the 2017-37 planning period it is projected that 1,750 new dwelling u.nit will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth At an average minimum den ity of6.9 unit per gross acre the City will need 52 gross acres Of tlet-Ijt#lea\Jie-re idential land ]Q) I1.3 . ! 1 E!_aki!g into C_2! 1 iatin ! he g! !y's____ Percentage of New Vacant needed. I think this is gross which means that ie net is 326 (\90+136). Where did that come from? Developed Residential ----, Residential Acres, Acreage Land Use Classification 1980-2016 Distribution VLRes 2% S% LRes 72% 60% MRes 11% 20% HRes 14% 15% Total Percenta(le 100% 100% Using the new minimum density requirement f>l:Jflag-for the 2017-37 planning period it is projected that 1,750 new dwelling u.nit will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth At an average minimum den ity of6.9 unit per gross acre the City will need 52 gross acres Of tlet-Ijt#lea\Jie-re idential land ]Q) I1.3 . ! 1 E!_aki!g into C_2! 1 iatin ! he g! !y's____ Comment [UI]: Table Wshows 252 gross acres current inventory of residential land (136acres) there is a need for an additional! .L6f OO needed. I think this is gross which means that ie net is 326 (\90+136). Where did that come from? grass neres. I ----, _ -- Did you use a conversion factor? Comment [HG2]: 252 acres plus a 25% factor for Table 1.3 Needed Residential Acreage (2017-37) public lands would be 315 acres. Proposed Minimum Percentage Projected Gross Gross by Land Use Dwelling Acres Land Use Classification Densitv Class Units Needed Densi VLRes 1.00 5% 13 12.60 1.00 LRes 4.00 60% 605 151 4.00 MRes 8.00 20% 403 50 8.00 HRes 20.00 15% 756 38 20.00 Average Densitv 100% 1,777 252 7.05 !Housing affordability will continue to be an impediment for some households, improving --and declining as a function of the economy. The City's role in addressin g hou.ing affordability programs needs to be re-eva luated . He1tS'i:ag-a,ffeffia&iliey-i HiR-:i5! I lte-tftllHSe-Gity-eaa ef.fe i-vely-i.ftf.Ittenee-etber-lban-as-a-pafl'ieipun tH!te-developmeM-❑ Cir gieo&ka:ategies aclar-ess-itl-g-keu&itlg.a:lfl>J'ti.adlC'Yrlln an effort to broach the housing aflbrdability is ue 1!S_ erul-the Housing Element includes policies calling for the development of a Housing Implementation Plan (the "HIP"). The specific purpose of the HIP will be to monitor housing affordability in the context of regional efforts by local governments and the private sector to address the affordability issue, and to put into action those strategies that have the most impact on addressing barriers to improving housing affordability - at both the local and regional level. 2 City of Central Point Population Element 2017-37 Housing Element Page 5 42 Comment [U3]: Is this true entirely7 Are there barriers that the City has created that have an effect on prices (e.g. SDCs, parking standards, etc. )? What about cities who have created programs to collect $$ for housing or use urban renewal to build housing? City orCentTal Point Comprehensive Pion, ZO\7-2037 The City does have control over a very critical resource in the affordability equation -the availability of vacant land necessary to meet market demand for housing. The primary objective of this Housing Element is the continued assurance that sufficient land is available for housing and that zoning standards are flexible and take in to account all housing types. Secondarily, it is the objective of this Mou •ing Element, through its 1-11 P, to investigate and address impedi ments to affordable housing. 2 Introduction The City's Housing Element was last updated in 1983 and stated as its purpose that: "The role of the housing element is not aimed at seeking precise solutions to the housing problem. Both national and regional trends are the greatest influence on the housing market. Attempts to resolve these fluctuating conditions at the local level are usually ineffective. Therefore, the purpose or objective of this element is open to an avenue of communication between private industry and local public officials in seeking an improved housing environment. " Ironically, the 1983 Housing Element was completed just after the 1980's Real Estate Crash. Its purpose statement reflects local government's frustration in its inability to offer timely, meaningful and sustainable solutions to needed housing as"... usually ineffective." This reaction is understandable given the circumstances in 1983. At the housing peak in 1978 over 4 million homes across the U.S. were sold. Then, over the course of the next four years housing sales dropped over 50%. With interest rates in excess of 15% housing affordability was a major issue. It wasn't unti11996, almost two decades later, that the national housing market recovered to its 1978 level. Since the Recession we once again confront the issue of housing need and affordability. Housing demand and supply, as with most commodities, varies with changing demographics and economic cycles. Demographic changes can affect the long-term (generational) demand for housing and is predictable and easily factored into the supply side of the housing equation. Economic cycles, unlike demographic changes, are more whimsical, less predictable in scope and depth, and can be very disruptive to the shorter -term demand and supply for housing. The recent Recession had, and still poses, a significant impact on housing, both on the demand and the supply side of the equation. Prior to the Recession demand for housing was high and with sub -prime lending practices housing was affordable. By the end of 2007 the housing bubble had burst -the Recession had arrived. Unemployment skyrocketed (16%), mortgage foreclosures reached historic levels, and housing prices tumbled. Overnight housing production of all types virtually ceased. Without jobs homeownership was out of reach for many households. Without 'ob fridin an affordable lace to live wa difficult. he Recession did not reduce the real demand for housing; people still needed a place to live. 1 Comment [u4]: This is especially true for areas Consequently, the demand for rental units increased, but due to the failure of the financial experiencing consistent population growth. system, real estate lending for all housing types dried up, the short-term housing supply plateaued. With the increase in the demand for rental housing rents began to escalate. Today, unemployment and interest rates are at all-time lows, wages are increasing (although slowly), and lending practices are easing, all of which are improving the supply and affordability of 2017-37 Housing Element Page 6 43 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 housing, but affordability still remains a challenge. As the economy continues to improve the question remains -will housing affordability continue to improve, or will additional measures be needed before sustainable solutions to the affordability issue are realized? Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal Goal 10, Housing, offer a venue to address not only housing needs in general, bttf.&1-se-#le-broadeHpet*E lel:lstng--:including its affordability. The stated purpose of Goal 10 is to"... encourage adequate numbers of needed housing at price ranges and rent levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of the City's households". The City of Central Point's Housing Element focu e on hou -ing need, with a primary emphasis on a. Suring through its goal and policiesfGeals--an<.J... Polieies!} that adequate land is available to accommodate and /encourage the upply side of the housing equation. supported by a clear. obiective. and efficient land yseymces - I!Lit!_thjs le ve.UhJ.!\1q!Y h -!he ITiost§ret influence on addre sing needed housing. As we've seen from recent history the scope of what is defined as "needed housing" can change significantly in a shorter period than the typical20-year planning timeframe. It is for this reason that this Housing Element will not only encourage adequate numbers of needed housing, but also includes a secondary emphasis -the continuous monitoring of housing activity as it relates To: ❑ ...ffi V-1_eed and affordabilit34nd ! tfte..dQevelopment of strategies and actions to assure and maintain a fair and efficient re ug latory process that addressing housing affordability through flexjble zoning standards to meet market needs and avoid excessive develoyment costs and fees. It is for this reasonto this end that the Housing Element introduces the creation of a Housing Implementation Plan, a dynamic working document that monitors housing activity within the City and coordinates with other communities in the development and implementation of affordable housing at both the local and regional level. 3 Purpose of the Housin& Element Over the course of the next twenty years (2017-37) the City's population is projected to increase by 4,700 people3- With an average household size of2.5 persons there will be a need for Q approximately 1,880 dwelling units. The types, density, and land required to meet the projected housing demand will be addressed in this Housing Element. On the demand side the Housing Element will monitor measure and monitor the demand for housing and make necessary adjustments in land supply necessary to meet demand, and encourage and support the financing and construction of a wide array ofhousing types. The purpose of this Housing Element has been modified only slightly from the previous purpose statement, and now reads as follows: To assure that the City's land use policies, support a variety of housing types at densities and locations that provide and encourage opportunities for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of the City's households. It is also the purpose of this element to open and 'City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element 2017-37 Housing Element Page 7 44 Comment[HGS]: Here would be agoodplaceto note that the city can also affect housing affordability positively notjust by providing enough land, but also by having a fair and efficient regulatory scheme for considering new housing development applications, in terms of having clear and objective standards that are not affiicK<i by unreasonable cost and delay, by providing flexible zoning standards that allow developers to provide the housing the market demands, and by not burdening new housing with excessive costs and fees that drive up the price ofhousing. City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 maintain communication between private industry and local public officials in seeking an improved housing environment within the City of Central Point and the Greater Bear Creek Valley Region. 4 Household Characteristics One of the factors in determining housing demand, other than population growth, is an understanding of the characteristics of ffilfthe City's -households_. As defined by the U.S. Census a household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit (such as a house or apartment) as their usual place of residence. There are two major categories of households, "family" and "non: family." For purposes of this Housing Element the term "household" includes both "family" and "non -family" households. The following describes those household characteristics pertinent to an understanding the City's housing needs. 4.1 Household Tenure By definition tenure refers to the distinction between owner -occupied and renter -occupied housing units. For the City of Central Point owner occupied housing has been historically the dominant form of tenure, representing approximately 70% of all households (Figure 4.1). Renter occupied units have typically been less than half of owner occupied units (approximately 35%). As a result of the Recession, and its impact on jobs and income, the owner occupied percentage declined 8% as foreclosures forced many to abandon their homes and seek rental housing. Since the Recession, as jobs and wages gradually improved, there has been a steady movement back to ownership as the preferred tenure. At the county and state level, although slightly lower, similar percentages and changes occurred in tenure. Figure 4.1. Housing Tenure 69% 70% Owner ERenter 62% 63% 38% 37% 31% 30% 11 11 1990 2000 2010 2015 4.2 Age of Householder A householder is a person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned or rented. If there is no such person present then any household member 15 years old and over can serve as 2017-37 Housing Element Page 8 45 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 the householders. As illustrated in Figure 4.2 the dominant householder age has been within the 35 to 64 category. As a result of the Recession, and the subsequent loss in jobs and income, householders in this age category experienced a reduction in -numbers. Since the recession, as job conditions improved this age category has returned to its pre -recession level. The age category 65 plus did not appear to be WftS-flet affected by the Recession. Householders in this category are typically retired, and therefor insulated against the income induced short- term impacts Gobs) of a recession. However. as this category-Awtke-ei--he sehel4> age. till;y are often confronted with other longer-term housing challenges, such as death of a spouse, Physical limitations, and the continuing increase in housing maintenance while on a fixed- income.:r-Re-tn-a-Mehaleef!Hge Fee—agt Boomer generation. Unlike the other two age categories the 15 to 34 category experienced an increase as a result of the Recession. Since the recovery the housing participation of this category has dropped below 20%, possibly as a result of relocation for employment purposes. Figure 4.2. Household Age Characteristics DAge 15 -34 G$ JH -35-64 L$ JH65 Plus 54% 53% 53% 49 27% 28% 22% I---- 24% 23% 1 19% n n 11 1990 2000 2010 2015 4.3 Household Size The average household size is computed using the occupied housing and the total population. Until the Recession the average nousehold size bad aeeR-continually been declining and projected to level-ou t at 2.5 person per nousehold Since the Recession the average household size has actually increased. The increase in household size has also occurred at the state and county level. The primary cause for the increase in average household size is again -due to the Recession as many younger adults moved in with their parents or cohabitated for affordability reasons. It is anticipated that as the economy improves and housing becomes more affordabllltflftt the average household size will continue its downward trend. Figure 4.3 identifies the average household size. The Population Element identified an average 5 U. . cnsus Glossary City ofCcntmlPoint Population Element 2017-37 Housing Element Page 9 46 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 household size of2.5 for planning purposes over the next twenty years. FIGURE 3.3. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1980-2015 E:City D County 10 tO N Y N Q� N N Y+ bco 000 C O I 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 4.4 Household Income Since 1990 median household income has steadily increased, peaking in 2010 at $50,631. Since the Recession household incomes have declined. As of2015 the median household income was $48,984 (Figure 4.4). A similar trend has been exhibited at the county and state level. Figm•e 4.4. Median Household Income $40,622 $35,000 $50.631 $48,984 1990 2000 2010 2015 Pending continued improvement in the economy it can be expected that the median household income will continue to improve, which in turn should improve housing affordability. During the Recession the most financially impacted household income group was the $35,000 to $49,999 category. This group has almost recovered to pre -Recession levels (Figure 4.5). The $50,000 to $74,999 income group is the largest group representing approximately 25% of all households. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 10 47 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 4.5. Household Income Distribution 0.3 0.25 i - i 1 0.2 �. 0.15 0.1 0.05 - 0 ' acs `off `0 `0S `a�` `0 4i `J� syr o 056,60 5 •' o� d� o� v„ 4i`�. ��h • �.yh' ro's'y" c'4s�" r,}'�5" -- 1990 - - - 2000 --2-010 ----- 2015 4.5 Summary, Household Characteristics The City has a higher percentage of owner occupied units thant at the county and state level. The median household income is higher than the county and the state. Although the average household size increased this is expected to be a reaction to the Recession, and will return to lower levels in the future as housing affordability improves. 5 Special Needs Housing Certain minority groups within the general population have unique problems or needs that deserve consideration as part of this Housing Element. Often these groups are ignored because they represent a small portion of the total population. However, it is the responsibility of local government to ensure that all citizens have an opportunity for safe and decent housing. The City's most significant contribution to addressing special housing is assurances that the City's zoning and building regulations are not impediments and that the City works collaboratively with other organizations to assure that special needs housing is not left behind. 5.1 Elderly Residents The Baby Boom Generation is the fastest arowina segment of the population at both the national state, and local level. By 2014 it is proiected that nationally one in ei hit persons will be at least 75. In 20114 that figure was one in sixteen. Among individuals aged 84 and over more than 75% live in their owl " theTlreference of most of the elder population. However, as this older demographic continues to row tl• iey will rind themselves in housing that is ill _ .. re ared to meet their increasing need for affordabilijy, accessibility, social connectivity, and well-being ." As people age, their physical needs change. Climbing stair's and .doorknobs can become more difficult imoactinA the ability to "age in place" becomes more difficult. lrhe majority of elderly residents are retired and living on pensions or other forms of fixed 7 1 lousing Amcrica's Oldt:r Aduil.. Joint Cclllcr for Housing Sl!ldie • of Harvard University, 2014, page 7 Ibid. page 2017-37 Housing Element Page II 48 City of Central Point Comprehensive Pllln, 2017-2037 income. As the costs of maintaining a household increase over time the elderly are typically spending an increasing percentage of their income on housing. LR C?P..Ie e 1 tkr1 leed busing --- : Comment [u6]c Mention the aging in that i structurally and mechanically safe and that is de i2ned to accommodate people with place/lifelong housum initiative! di abiIitie.o. Given the widejy varying circumstances or older adults, meeting their housing and housing -re lated need. requires a range of responses. 5.2 Handicapped Residents Residents who are physically handicapped suffer many of the same problems as the elderly, such as fixed incomes,4\00 physical I imitation and inability to maintain property. 5.3 Low Income Residents As with all communities there is a percentage of the City's households that are at, or below, the poverty level. In 2015 . %of all familie were etas ified as at or below the poverty level9, while approximately 25% were considered low-income 10 6 Housing Characteristics +he-Gi.ey-'-s-ho s-ing-.steek--i FRI Fisecl-ef.ever-6-;Q(:)O..tlwel-l-ing-tt .s-ef: aFiett tCW , age; and vall;le. In 1980 the City's housing inventory totaled 2,291 11 dwelling units. By the end of 2016 the housing unit inventory reached 6,321 dwelling units. The following describes the characteristics of the City's housing stock by age, type, tenure, and value. 6.1 Housing Age Based on the age ofthe City's housing stock Central Point is considered a young community. Most of the housing was constructed after 1980 ( Table 6.1) The older housing stock (pre -1949) is concentrated in the original eentFal-core area of the City. Because of its age most of the City's housing stock is in very good physical shape. EUS. Census Amcricnn Fact Finder. dcctcd Economic Chamctcristics.2011-2015 Reference Fomnotc9 City of Central Point Housing Element 2017-37 Housing Element Page 12 49 City Or Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Figure 6.1. Age of Housing Stock 80% 70% 67% 60% 50% 40% 30% 26% 20% 10% 0% 0 Built 1980 or later Built 1979 -1950 7% Built 1949 or earlier 6.2 Housing Type The City's housing stock is comprised of seven (7) housing types as follows: 1. Single -Family Detached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be occupied by only one family. 2. Single -Family Attached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be occupied by only one family, but has a common wall with other single-family attached dwelling(s); 3. Duplex/Triplex; a group of dwellings on a legally defined property having 2 to 3 dwelling units with separate entrances. This includes two-story houses having a complete apartment on each floor and also side-by-side apartments on a single legally described lot that share a common wall; 4. !Apartment; four or more attached dwellings with common walls, floors and ceilings shared with other dwelling units on a legally defined property. Apartments that have accessory services such as food service, dining rooms, and housekeeping are included within this definition; I .. --- -- -- 5. Manufactured Homes; a dwelling on a legally defined property that is constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a foundation in accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction and safety standards and regulations. 6. Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Parks; a group of dwellings located on a legally defined property (Mobile Home Park) that are constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a foundation in accordance with local laws and 2017-37 Housing Element Page 13 50 Comment [U7]: From a building code standpoint, when does the commercial code apply'Of it's at 4 units, then it makes sense to lump 4 or more together. Ifthe code kicks in at 5, then it might make sense to call out 4-plexes individually. City or Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 federal manufactured construction and safety standards and regulations and 7. Government Assisted, housing that provides the occupants with government sponsored economic assistance to alleviate housing costs and expenses for needy people with low to moderate income households. Forms of government assisted housing include direct housing subsidies, non-profit housing, public housing, rent supplements and some forms of co-operative and private sector housing. In 2016 the City's inventory of Government As -isted housing represented 4% of the ity' total housing invemory The City's zoning regulations allow for all of the above housing types. The current distribution of housing type by land use eategory classification is illustrated in Table 6.2. Table 6.2. City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use ClassiFication Land Use Cl as.s VLRes LRes MRes IIRes R sldf[iiiJl Unh s P.c-re. NKC Orlbullon 80 1 % S,-, I a lo/. 4'/. olA 1 DO At 80% of the total housing stock the single-family detached home (Table 6.2) is the preferred housing type, followed by multiple -family (9%) and Duplex/Triplex (6%). To illustrate the sensitivity of housing demand by type Table 6.3 illustrates the shifting of preferences occurring in new residential construction between 2006 and 2016. As a percentage of new construction single-family detached represented 63% of the housing types constructed during that period. For the duplex/triplex housing types it was 9%, and for apartments it was at 19%. Table 6.3. City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification Owellina Units Dwelling Unitlil Mobile Total SFR SFR Mobile Home Government Housing Detached Attached Dupt__ Tri 1 Apartment Home Park Assisted Unit 75 Land Use Class Detached Attached 75 3.733 4 18 3 4 8 VLRes 3,770 740 16 86 15 114 1 15 987 499 16 191 27 465 67 224 1.489 6 321 5.047 36 591 76 224 1 P.c-re. NKC Orlbullon 80 1 % S,-, I a lo/. 4'/. olA 1 DO At 80% of the total housing stock the single-family detached home (Table 6.2) is the preferred housing type, followed by multiple -family (9%) and Duplex/Triplex (6%). To illustrate the sensitivity of housing demand by type Table 6.3 illustrates the shifting of preferences occurring in new residential construction between 2006 and 2016. As a percentage of new construction single-family detached represented 63% of the housing types constructed during that period. For the duplex/triplex housing types it was 9%, and for apartments it was at 19%. Table 6.3. City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification he reasoning for the decline in single-family detached was the loss of job and the ub equent reduction in income occurring as a result ofth•Recession.113y_ Ol 6 Muir frt)nf oitl g!- family detached homes has improved, whether or not it will continue improving to its post - Recession levels remains to be seen. It is clear ihat the future hollsing preference i for the 2017-37 Housing Element Page 14 51 Comment [US]: Do you think changing preference plays a part? Particularly the millennials and aging baby boomers'/ Dwelling Unitlil Mobile Total SFR SFR Mobile Rome Government Housing Land Use Class Detached Attached Duplex Triplex Apartment Home Park.. Assisted Units VLRes I - I LRes 202 4 12 - - - 218 MR. 75 6 12 28 15 136 HRes 5 12 18 56 1 92 Residential Uoits 283 22 42 84 1 15 447 Porun ft Dlrll'lb ullon .63_ 0% Oo/. 0% J iooA he reasoning for the decline in single-family detached was the loss of job and the ub equent reduction in income occurring as a result ofth•Recession.113y_ Ol 6 Muir frt)nf oitl g!- family detached homes has improved, whether or not it will continue improving to its post - Recession levels remains to be seen. It is clear ihat the future hollsing preference i for the 2017-37 Housing Element Page 14 51 Comment [US]: Do you think changing preference plays a part? Particularly the millennials and aging baby boomers'/ City or Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 sing! -family detached dwelling type. However. when other housing demand vadables are considered, or left unaddressed, such aa(fordability. pecial needs. etc. there may bea heft in the preferred housing type. Only time will tell. It is worth noting (Table 6.1) that a significant number of single-family detached units are located within the higher density land use classifications (24%). The reason for this is primarily historic and regulatory. Many of the older single-family detached neighborhoods have been designated as medium density (MRes) to encourage infill development. On the regulatory side it was not until2006 that new single-family detached dwelling units were prohibited in both the MRes and the HRes classifications as an acceptable housing type. This practice was suspended in 2006 with amendments to the zoning code requiring minimum densities in all residential zones, and the exclusion of single-family detached dwellings in the medium and high density residential districts. 6.3 Housing Value Prior to the Recession the median owner occupied housing value increased substantially reaching a peak value of$233,000. These early value increases were indicative of the demand and affordability of housing. Jobs were plentiful and easy financing was accessible. With the on -set of the Recession the real estate bubble burst causing a 22% reduction ($181,200) in the 2010 median house value. Since 2010 owner occupied housing values have been increasing, but not to pre -Recession levels. By 2016 the estimated median housing value, at $192,87212, resumed its upward movement and by 2017 is expected to reach and exceed its 2010 peak. Figure 6.2. City of Central Point, Median Owner Occupied Value $25o,000 r - $:23 ;000- $200,000 $181,200 $192,872 $150,000 I $125,300 $100,000 I — $65,000 $50,000 $- 1 1990 2000 2010 2015 2016 12 Zillow, 2016 City of Central Point 2017-37 Housing Element Page 15 52 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 35% 30% 25% 1 20% 15% 10% 5% Figure 6.3. City of Central Point, Percentage Housing Value Distribution, 2015 0 n 2015 mLess than $50,000 1101$50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 01150,000 to $199,999 111$300,000 to $499,999 D$500,000 to $999,999 "'$1,000,000 or more The latest housing value distribution 13 (Figure 6.3) places 30% of the City's owner occupied inventory in the $150,000 to $199,999 category (median value). 6.4 Summary, Housing Characteristics The City's housing inventory is typical of the regien-area reflecting the western region's preference for single-family detached housing. The housing stock is young and heavily concentrated in the single-family detached category. The cost of housing is slightly on the high side for the region, but typical for the state. 7 Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning In 2012 the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan was approved by Jackson County. Shortly thereafter the City of Central Point adopted its component of the Regional Plan as an element to the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the City's Regional Plan Element it was agreed that all new residential development within the UGB would be constructed at an average minimum density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre, and after 2036 the minimum density would increase to 7.9 dwelling units per gross acre. In the 1983 Housing Element only maximum densities were addressed, not minimum densities, in the hopes that residential development by the private sector would pursue the higher density development. This did not come to pass. Since 1983 the actual built densities have been far below the maximum densities set in both the Housing Element and the City's zoning ordinance (Table 7.1). In 2006 the City amended its zoning ordinance setting mandatory minimum density standards and housing types for all residential zoning districts. Until then the higher density zoning districts were allowed to build at much lower single-family detached densities. 13 U.S. Census 2015 American Community Survey 2017-37 Housing Element Page 16 53 City of Ceotral Poiot Comprebeosive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 7.1 City of Central Point Maximum Allowable Densities vs. Actual Built Densities, 1983-2016 Assumes Build -Out Table 7.2 identifies the City's average density by both land use classification and housing type for housing built between 1980 and 2016. After the zoning code was amendment (2006) establishing minimum density standards the City's gross density for the period 2006-2016 increased significantly from 5.05 to 7.08 dwelling units per gross acre (Table 7.3). The result of the minimum density code revisions is most evident in the MRes and the HRes land use classifications. When looked at by zoning district (Table 7.4 and 1 .5) the same pattern is revealed -in the higher density districts (R-2 through HMR) the density has improved. Table 7.2 City of Ceotral Poiot Hoosiog loveotory by Hoosiog Type nod Land Use, City Limits, 1980-2016 Average Cro» Demllv Gro Maximum Density by Allowable Llind U e Land Use Classification Density* Class VLRes 1 1.50 LRes 6 4.08 MRes 12 7.50 HRes 25 8.79 Avera2e Net Densitv by Housin2 Tvoe 10.79 5.08 Assumes Build -Out Table 7.2 identifies the City's average density by both land use classification and housing type for housing built between 1980 and 2016. After the zoning code was amendment (2006) establishing minimum density standards the City's gross density for the period 2006-2016 increased significantly from 5.05 to 7.08 dwelling units per gross acre (Table 7.3). The result of the minimum density code revisions is most evident in the MRes and the HRes land use classifications. When looked at by zoning district (Table 7.4 and 1 .5) the same pattern is revealed -in the higher density districts (R-2 through HMR) the density has improved. Table 7.2 City of Ceotral Poiot Hoosiog loveotory by Hoosiog Type nod Land Use, City Limits, 1980-2016 Table 7.3 City of Ceotral Poiot Hoosiog loveotory by Housing Type nod Land Use, City Limits, 2006-2016 Cro» Demllv A'C:UIR,t' Ctou Mobile Dtrioll)' GWI SFR Mobile Home GovernmentI f Zonine Dctathcd Mobile Duple'( Tri lex MFR Home I1< All!lillted SFR SFR 165 Mobile Home Go\ crnment II� Zoninu Deta.ched Attached Duplex Tri Ilex MFR Home PIII"k A i!11 U VLRes 151 MRes 8.60 1244 9 36 22 00 151 LRes 4 05 734 8 35 1799 1426 2 07 1R 00 .116 MRes 664 1199 904 20.19 6 12.84 7.51 + H7 ZJI3 19 67 10.75 IJ 41 1585 639 f1.Jh' $ 7 Af n .r!It DPMI VIIV'UG 15>nuT "t ......r.. 13.37 10.09 11-41 16.73 i.S61 6.JR I U.B- Table 7.3 City of Ceotral Poiot Hoosiog loveotory by Housing Type nod Land Use, City Limits, 2006-2016 2017-37 Housing Element Page 17 54 Cro» Demllv A'C:UIR,t' Ctou Mobile Dtrioll)' SFR SFR Mobile Home GovernmentI f Zonine Dctathcd Att&:bed Duple'( Tri lex MFR Home PIII"k All!lillted �J . VLRes 165 Ms LRos 4.83 7 34 8Jl - MH MRes 8.60 1244 9 36 22 00 12,84 11IJ +lo ❑ i40 1799 1426 1R 00 6. 1K L JIl L\%nure N 1 n—nd . Wh of+7 11 Tmt !Ii7 < 6 6. R 12..R4 2017-37 Housing Element Page 17 54 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 7.4 identifies the densities for development between 1980 and 2016 that occurred in each zoning district Table 7.4- Housing Density by Housing Type and Zoning, 1980-2016 Table 7.5. Housing Density by Housing Type and Zoning, 2006-2016 $ YMCIUml LI) ®mt. b 11oUII < SFR Average Triplex Gross Manu£ Mobile Demdty 7-1111 SFR SFR Mobile Home Govemruan t by Zoning ZI10LL1O Det abed Attached Duel Triplex MER Hllme Park Asdbted District R -L 151 Home Home Park 1.65 1.51 R-1-10 3.26 3.26 R-1-8 3 70 Yes No No 2 78 3.70 R-1-6 4.11 R-1-6 4,82 LRes 11.77 4.09 R-2 6.02 15,61 8,96 15.61 9 36 6.34 R-3 7.83 No 10.75 17.41 15.76 639 6.38 8.66 LMR 5.30 7.34 835 1119 LMR 570 5.37 MMR 10.78 11.13 12,88 No 20,19 12.84 13.08 HMR 19M Yes 22.00 I U I 19.08 JJ.J7 1009 13.41 16.73 5.56 64R 12.84 5.0< Averoex Net Densl tvIbY Kousi ocz lYite 4.48 Table 7.5. Housing Density by Housing Type and Zoning, 2006-2016 7.1 Land Use and Housing Type The City has four (4) residential land use classifications and seven residential zoning districts These classifications accommodate differing densities and housing types as follows: Each land use classification has assigned zoning districts. Within each residential land use classification certain housing types are allowed as follows: !Land Use Average SFR Cross Triplex Mobile Density Manu£ SFR SFR Mobile Home Government by Zoning 7-1111 Detacked. Altoch<d Trlole F -I MFR Home Park Asdsted Olitrl<l R -L 1,65 Home Home Park 1.65 R-1-10 R-1-8 4.30 Yes No No No No 4.30 R-1-6 4,82 LRes 4.82 R-2 7.45 15.61 9 36 Yes No No 8.16 No Yes 14.26 MRes 18,00 1119 LMR 570 734 8 35 R-2 No I606 MMR 10.03 8.85 No Yes 22.00 LMR 12.84 12.82 7.1 Land Use and Housing Type The City has four (4) residential land use classifications and seven residential zoning districts These classifications accommodate differing densities and housing types as follows: Each land use classification has assigned zoning districts. Within each residential land use classification certain housing types are allowed as follows: !Land Use SFR SFR Duplex Triplex Apt Manu£ Mobile Class. Detached Attached Home Home Park VLRes R -L Yes No No No No Yes N&Yes LRes R-1 Yes No No No No Yes N&Yes MRes R-2 No Yes Yes No No Yes N&Yes LMR Yes Yes Yes Yes We NeYes HRes 2017-37 Housing Element Page 18 1161 City of CentTal Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 R-3 No Yes Yes Yes YesNo YesNo MMR Yes Yes Yes Yes No No HMR No Yes Yes Yes No NQ The maximum and minimum density for each of the land use classifications and zoning districts is illustrated in Table 7.7. Table 7.7 Proposed Maximum and Minimum Gross Density, Zoning 7.2 Summary, Housing Density Isince 1980 the City's average gross density, at 5.08 is considerably lower than the 6.9 minimum density required in the Regional Plan Element. Depending on the time period elected to calculate density the results vary, often significantl>J: s no ed the pe i(A .0 to 2016 y!cldeda aro s den itv for re •idential con !ruction during that Deriod of 5.08. while for the 1 eriod 2006 to 2016 yielded a higher gross den •ity of7.08. The period 1980 to 2016 was used as a density baseline in the Housing Element becau •e it involved two economic cycles. both of which involved the hou ing sector. As uch it was more representative of the long-term housing market. For the period 2006 to 2016 only one business cycle occurred and it was ab ent a recovery in the housing sector. 8 Buildable Residential Lands The 2016 BLI identifies a total residential land inventory within the City's urban area of approximately 1,530 net acres that are zoned and planned for residential use (Table 8. 1), representing 52% of the City's total area. The City's residential lands are distributed over four residential land use categories and nine zoning districts. The largest of the residential classifications is the LRes at 55% of all residentiallands-fl'al*e-8,+1. The four (4) residential 2017-37 Housing Element Page 19 NO Comment [HG9]:Statelawrequiresthat manufactured homes be allowed in any zoning district where detached "stick -built" homes are allowed. State Jaw also requires that manufactured home parks be permitted (i.e. no "conditional use," just clear and objective standards) in any zoning district where 6-12 dwelling units per acre are allowed, in other words, a medium density district. It appears that Central Point has a couple ofdistricts which need to be revised to comply with state law on this point Comment [UIO]: Do you want to point out that the past 10 years has been higher than 6.9. Seems like a better apples -to -apples comparison since the minimum densities put in place then are in effect now. Minimum Gross Maximum Gross Zoning District Density Density R -L 1.00 2.50 2.50 Totals 1.00 R-1-6 6.00 8.00 R-1-8 5.00 6.00 R-1-10 4.00 5.00 7.06 Totals 5.30 LMR 7.00 10.00 R-2 7.00 10.00 1 10.00 Totals 7.00 R-3 12.00 20.00 MMR 12.00 20.00 HMR 25.00 50.00 Totals 15.90 34.15 Grand Total 7.031 16.81 7.2 Summary, Housing Density Isince 1980 the City's average gross density, at 5.08 is considerably lower than the 6.9 minimum density required in the Regional Plan Element. Depending on the time period elected to calculate density the results vary, often significantl>J: s no ed the pe i(A .0 to 2016 y!cldeda aro s den itv for re •idential con !ruction during that Deriod of 5.08. while for the 1 eriod 2006 to 2016 yielded a higher gross den •ity of7.08. The period 1980 to 2016 was used as a density baseline in the Housing Element becau •e it involved two economic cycles. both of which involved the hou ing sector. As uch it was more representative of the long-term housing market. For the period 2006 to 2016 only one business cycle occurred and it was ab ent a recovery in the housing sector. 8 Buildable Residential Lands The 2016 BLI identifies a total residential land inventory within the City's urban area of approximately 1,530 net acres that are zoned and planned for residential use (Table 8. 1), representing 52% of the City's total area. The City's residential lands are distributed over four residential land use categories and nine zoning districts. The largest of the residential classifications is the LRes at 55% of all residentiallands-fl'al*e-8,+1. The four (4) residential 2017-37 Housing Element Page 19 NO Comment [HG9]:Statelawrequiresthat manufactured homes be allowed in any zoning district where detached "stick -built" homes are allowed. State Jaw also requires that manufactured home parks be permitted (i.e. no "conditional use," just clear and objective standards) in any zoning district where 6-12 dwelling units per acre are allowed, in other words, a medium density district. It appears that Central Point has a couple ofdistricts which need to be revised to comply with state law on this point Comment [UIO]: Do you want to point out that the past 10 years has been higher than 6.9. Seems like a better apples -to -apples comparison since the minimum densities put in place then are in effect now. City ofCentral Point Comprehensive Piau,1017-1037 land use classifications and their related zoning districts are: 1. Very Low Density Residential (VLRes); a. VeryLow 2. Low Density Residential (LRes); a. R-1-6 b. R-1-8 c. R-1-10 3. Medium Density Residential (MRes); a. LMR b. R-2; and 4. High Density Residential (HRes). a. R-3 b. MMR; and c. HMR Table 8.1 City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Land Use Designation Table 8.2 identifies the City's residential land allocations by zoning district. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 20 57 Percentage of Total Total City Total UGB Total Urban Residential Com rehensivePianDesi nation Acres Acres Acres Acres VLRes 45.87 21.86 67.73 4.4% LRes 802.95 39.28 842.23 55.1% MRes 245.23 48.45 293.67 19.2% HRes 301.28 23.68 324.96 21.3% Residential Acres 1.395.33 133.26 1,528.60 100% Table 8.2 identifies the City's residential land allocations by zoning district. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 20 57 City of Central Point &M SUIIQMPiau, 2017-2037 Table 8.2. City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Zoning Total Glly Total EGO Totd u ban I p-ercentage of Zonina Acres 45.87 Acres 21.86 ),\r(UJ Act -e, 67.73 Total R -L 4.4% R-1-6 375.95 5.92 381.87 LNMM R-1-8 393.31 11.25 404.56 26.5% R-1-10 33.69 22.12 55.81 3.7% LMR 136.72 48.45 185.16 12.1% R-2 108.51 3.53 108.51 7.1% R-3 193.85 13.32 193.85 12.7% MMR 72.66 23.68 96.34 6.3% HMR 34.77 X% 34.77 1 2.3% ItillMkicntlllf >ttres 1 1395.33 1332'6 hS9,-S.M I iiH 0% As of the end of 2016 there were approximately 13 9 gross aeves of \'Beaat resielentiel laad • e! tte 136 acres of net buildable residential land' within the City's urban area. The vacant acreage in each land use classification is illustrated in Table 8.3. The vacant acreage available in the single-family VLRes and LRes land use classification:; is 2.6% and 1 .5% respectively of the total vacant land use inventory. The bulk of the City's net buildable residential acreage is in the MRes (31%) and HRes (47%) classifications, representing over 78% of the City' net buildable vacant residential acres (107 acres), a disproportionately high number given the hi toric development in those two higher density classification (18%) since 1980. Table 8.3 City of Central Potot Net Buildable Vacant 14Nctl3uiltlnblc lantldclin<:d as grossbuitdnblc acres minus land ncC(kd lOrpublic fuciliticsplus redeveloping nt acres. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 21 58 TofolTolal &U2® • 1 P rctrU ge Or Gra< (10«)( Bullds I (,A ) Oulldabl< (plus) ToralNer Tohll <1 Vinllt &RUDIR05 Vtunt Pubnt Vaant Mt4loproenl Build[bit Bulldoblt Zonll!il . 0. nr(('a Act 1 Aerts -\trU Attea. .. VLRes 4.25 4.25 1.06 3.19 0.34 3.53 3° LRes 17.87 0.12 17.76 4.44 13.32 11,81 25.13 190 MRes 41.51 4.82 36,69 9.17 27.52 14.83 42.34 X% HRes 1 75.15 1 1 02 1 71-13 1".78 1 53.35 11.47 1 6181 1 48% Yaunt At Jdtmlal Actor 1 138.791 8.961 119.83 J2A6 1 97.37 JSAS 1 135.82 1 100 14Nctl3uiltlnblc lantldclin<:d as grossbuitdnblc acres minus land ncC(kd lOrpublic fuciliticsplus redeveloping nt acres. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 21 58 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 8.4 City of Central Point Buildable Land Inventory by Zoning Zoning Total Gross Vacant Acres (less) Envir. Constrained Acres Total Gross Buildable Vacant Acres (less) Public Lands Total Net Buildable Acres (plus)Total Redev. Acres Total Net Buildable Acres Percentage ofTotal Net Buildable Acres R -L 4.25 - 4.25 1.06 3.19 0.34 3.53 3o/ R-1-6 10.88 0.09 10.79 2.70 8.09 5.58 13.67 10°/ R-1-8 3.86 0.02 3.84 0.96 2.88 5.42 8.29 6N R-1-10 3.13 0,00 3.13 0.78 2.35 0,82 3.17 2% LMR 37.99 4.82 33.17 8.29 24.88 7.98 32.86 24% R-2 3.52 3.52 0.88 2.64 6.85 9.49 7% R-3 15.44 - 15.44 3.86 11.58 3.06 14.64 111/1 MMR 46.21 0.37 45.84 11.46 34.38 6.75 41.13 30% HMR 1 13.50 3.65 11 9.85 2.46 7.38 1.661 9.05 7% Total Residential Acres 1 138.79 1 8.96 1 129.831 32.46 1 97.37 1 38.45 1 135.82 1 100% While the higher density land use classifications account for the greater majority of the vacant residential land (78%) it is out of sync with the demand side of the equation (20%). 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands The City's net buildable residential land inventory is overly represented in the higher density residential land use classifications (MRes and HRes). Going forward this disparity will need to be taken into consideration. It is unlikely that these higher density lands will be re -designated and rezoned to lower density residential land use. 9 Housing Affordability Housing affordability, whether renter or owner occupied is typically measured as a percentage of household income. A standard benchmark for affordability is when housing costs are less than or equal to 30% of total household income. In 2015 67% of homeowners oaid less than 30% of household income for housine 15. Another measurement of housine affordabi lilv is the ational A sociation of Realtors Housing Affordability Index (I -IM). The HAI measures whether or not a typical family could Qualify for a morteaee loan on a typical home. A typical horn i defined as the national median -priced. existing single-family home as calculated by AR. The typical family is defined a one earning the median family income as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. In 2015 the national HAI was 168. An HAI of 100 i. the threshold for affordability, anything below that indicate:affordability is an issue. In 2015 the ity HAI was 161. 9.1 Renter Households As illustrated in Figure 9.1 the Recession had a significant impact on housing affordability for renter households as the percentage of renter households paying more than 30% increased from U. S. Census 20 11 -201 S Amcricnn Community Sur ccy.. elected Housing Cham 1!.:ri - tic § 2017-37 Housing Element Page 22 59 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 37% to over 85% by 2010 and by 2015 had further increased to 53% of all renter households. At the county and state level the experience was much the same except that by 2015 there was a drop in the number of renter households at the state level paying more than 30%. Figure 9.1. Renter Households Paying 30% or More for Housing 37% _M_ 2000 ERenter 87% 2010 2015 9.2 Owner Households To a lesser extent the rate of affordability in owner households followed the pattern of renter households (Figure 8.2). Since the Recession the price of housing has been exceeding the increase in wages. As of March 2017 average hourly wages are u2.7% year over year, while the median sales price of a previously owned home was up 7.7% 6. Prior to the Recession 25% of owner households exceeded 30% of household income for housing (Figure 8.2). Figure 9.2. Owner Households Paying 30% or More of Income on Housing E2000 E2010 D 2015 16 2017-37 Housing Element Page 23 M 44% 38% 33". 34 31% 2S% 25Gb 25% 26% 16 2017-37 Housing Element Page 23 M City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 9.3 Summary, Affordability The question of housing affordability, especially since the Recession, is without question a social issue that needs addressing. The demand and supply mechanics of housing affordability are easily understandable, but the solutions; either demand or supply side, are extremely complex, especially at the local level. The ettly-sekttieru;-action that this Housing Element e recommend to fe!.Nif&i.ttg-addres affordabl i.ty- housinor ...... 1. Provide an inventory of vacant residential lands sufficient to accommodate the need for all housing types. 2. Prepare and maintain a Housing Implementation Program .(!::llfithat annually tracks and evaluates the demand and supply of vacant residential lands and housing construction by type of housing with specific attention given to the sum>ly and demand of needed housing. The HIP shall identify impediments and recommends actions to be taken by the City that will mitigate any identified impediments to the provision of affordable housing_ 3. Collaborate at the regional level in the identification, prioritization, and development of solutions addressing housing affordability. 10 Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need 10.1 General Based on the Population Projections prepared by PSU it is projected that by 2037 the City's population will have increased by 4,700 people. The City's average household size is 2.5 persons per household 17 requiring an additionall,750 new dwelling units to accommodate the projected population growth. At a density of6.9 dwelling units per gross acre's the City will need. ..... acres of residentially planned lands to accommodate 1,750 new dwelling units. It is expected that new residential construction will follow a similar land use distribution pattern as experienced between 1980 and 201619 (Table 10.1). 17 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element, 2016-36 18 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element 19 . Adjusted for the high occurrence of single-family detached construction in the MRes and the HRes land use classifications, 2017-37 Housing Element Page 24 61 Comment [HG11]: Suggest an additional city action would be to consider city codes, processes and fees to see if they are discouraging needed housing development, and consider changes to remove or lessen such baniers. Comment [HG12]: "Square up" this number with the numbers commented on earlier — include associated public land need City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 10.1. Housing Units Built by Dwelling Units Gross Acres Needed Densitv Land Use Category, 1980- 2016 0.75 15 20 0.75 LRes 3.75 1,370 Housing 3.75 Projected 11.20 75 Units Percentage Housing 1 24.00 290 1.750 Constructed by Land Use Adjusted Demand Land Use Class 1980-2016 Class Percenta :e 2017-37* VLRes 30 1% lo/ 15 LRes 2,503 58% 78% 1,370 MRes 715 17% 4% 75 HRes 1,051 1 24% 170/ 290 Total 1 4.299 1 100% 100% 1.750 0ITXHbf mm&d The "Adjusted Percentage" in Table 10.1 is an adjustment for all the single-family detached development that occurred prior to 2006 within the MRes and the HRes classifications. In Table 10.2 the current minimum density allowed in each residential land use classification and the resulting gross acreage needed to accommodate future housing demand is identified. Based on today's minimum densities for each of the land use classifications and the Riloe!lted allowed housing types the average projected density would be 4.33 dwelling units per gross acre. This is not an acceptable outcome. To achieve the minimum density standard it is necessary to either re -allocate the distribution of housing by land use classification, increase the minimum density requirements for each land use classification, or a combination of both. Table 10.2 Average Projected Density based on Current Minimum Densities Current Projected )� Y Land Use Classification Minimum Density Dwelling Units Gross Acres Needed Densitv / VLRes 0.75 15 20 0.75 LRes 3.75 1,370 365 3.75 MRes 11.20 75 7 11.20 HRes 1 24.00 290 1.750 12 404 24.00 4.33 Average Density By adjusting both the mix and density of the various residential land use classifications (Table 10.3) results in an average gross density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre. The justification for the density and allocation adjustments is illustrated in Table 10.3, and explained as follows: 2017-37 Housing Element Page 25 62 Comment [DB 131: In response to similar comment earlier I included in the text the reasoning for using the 1980-2016 period vs. 2006-2016. Simply stated the 2006-2016 period has too many biases against SFR detached construction, i.e. low starts due to financing chaUenges. For this very reason MFR construction has accelerated to fill in the gap opened as a result of the SFR financing issue. Comment [U 14]: How does this change ifyou use the 2006-16 data? Gordon: agree with Josh -the 2006-2016 data is the right base because it is based upon the current code provisions with minimum densities. Comment [DB151: Given the density range in the MRes and the HRes to allow for detached SFR is not reasonable vs. attached SFR, just two dense. Even at the high end off -Res the density necessitates attached SFR. units. Comment [HG16]: How does this correlate to the statement that most of the vacant land left is designated for medium and high density development? Would minimum densities even allow detached residential development in these zoning districts? City ofCentral Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 10.3 Needed Residential Acreage (2017-37) EILIVLRes -The allocation of very low density lands has increased from 1% to 5%. The allocation increase was based on the finding that the low demand for large lot development was due to a lack of developable land. The increase in density went from .75 to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre, a minor increase in density adjusting for the conversion of net acreage to gross acreage. LILILRes -The allocation of low density residential lands has been reduced from a previous 78% (adjusted) to 63%. Historically the LRes has been the preferred land use category, with an emphasis on single-family detached housing. The single-family detached preference is likely to continue into the future. Consequently, this land use classification experienced the most quantitative changes in density and allocation. The density went from 3.75 to 8 dwelling units per gross acre. Viewed from a lot size perspective the minimum lot size went from approximately 12,000 gross sq. ft. per lot to 5,500 gross sq. ft. per lot. LILIMRes -The allocation of medium density residential lands increased from 4% (adjusted) to 20%. The density increased from the current 11.2 to 14 units. A minimum density of density of 14 units per gross acre is consistent with the TOO MMR zoning designation. EIIIHRes -The allocation of the high density residential lands was reduced from 17% (adjusted) to 15%. The minimum density increased slightly with the conversion from net density to gross density. As illustrated in Table 10.3 the revised mix of residential land use categories and changes in density result in a minimum build -out density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre. The City currently has an inventory of 136 net buildable acres (Section 8, Buildable Residential Lands) of residential land. The assumption is that the 136 acres is properly allocated and supports the relevant housing demand by type. Table 10.4 identifies the current vacant land, need, and where there is a shortage, the additional needed acreage by land use classification. Of the overa11252 acres needed to satisfy the future demand a total of 143 new gross acres are needed to supplement the existing inventory. The projected need is dedicated to the two low density residential land use districts; VLRes and LRes. As discussed earlier the MRes and the HRes land use classifications already have an excess supply of vacant land. Rather than re - 2017 -37 Housing Element Page 26 63 Proposed Minimum Percentage Projected Gross Gross by Land Use Dwelling Acres Land Use Classification Densitv Class Units Needed Densitv VLRes 1.00 5% 13 12.60 1.00 LRes 4.00 60% 605 151 4.00 MRes 8.00 20% 403 50 8.00 HRes 20.00 15% 756 38 20.00 Average Density 100% 1.777 252 7.05 EILIVLRes -The allocation of very low density lands has increased from 1% to 5%. The allocation increase was based on the finding that the low demand for large lot development was due to a lack of developable land. The increase in density went from .75 to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre, a minor increase in density adjusting for the conversion of net acreage to gross acreage. LILILRes -The allocation of low density residential lands has been reduced from a previous 78% (adjusted) to 63%. Historically the LRes has been the preferred land use category, with an emphasis on single-family detached housing. The single-family detached preference is likely to continue into the future. Consequently, this land use classification experienced the most quantitative changes in density and allocation. The density went from 3.75 to 8 dwelling units per gross acre. Viewed from a lot size perspective the minimum lot size went from approximately 12,000 gross sq. ft. per lot to 5,500 gross sq. ft. per lot. LILIMRes -The allocation of medium density residential lands increased from 4% (adjusted) to 20%. The density increased from the current 11.2 to 14 units. A minimum density of density of 14 units per gross acre is consistent with the TOO MMR zoning designation. EIIIHRes -The allocation of the high density residential lands was reduced from 17% (adjusted) to 15%. The minimum density increased slightly with the conversion from net density to gross density. As illustrated in Table 10.3 the revised mix of residential land use categories and changes in density result in a minimum build -out density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre. The City currently has an inventory of 136 net buildable acres (Section 8, Buildable Residential Lands) of residential land. The assumption is that the 136 acres is properly allocated and supports the relevant housing demand by type. Table 10.4 identifies the current vacant land, need, and where there is a shortage, the additional needed acreage by land use classification. Of the overa11252 acres needed to satisfy the future demand a total of 143 new gross acres are needed to supplement the existing inventory. The projected need is dedicated to the two low density residential land use districts; VLRes and LRes. As discussed earlier the MRes and the HRes land use classifications already have an excess supply of vacant land. Rather than re - 2017 -37 Housing Element Page 26 63 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 designate the excess acreage, and having to address appropriateness of location and the takings issue, it was decided that it will remain as currently designated. Table 10.4 City of Central Point Net Required New Buildable Vacant Residentail Land As previously noted the current net buildable residential land inventory is 136 gross acres distributed across four residential land use classifications. When considering the current vacant acreage inventory it needs to be recalled that there is a significant over allocation to the higher density residential districts. Rather than reclassify these higher density lands to a lower density classification they will remain as excess net buildable acreage. To meet its 20 -year supply of buildable residential land the City will need to add, at a minimum, an additional 143 gross acres, primarily in the LRes land use category IO::a 1- Q.4)..-- Comment [u17]:lsthis gross ornef/Table 10.4 stays net. 10.2 Future Housing Tenure It is expected that the mix of owner (70%) and renter (30%) occupied will remain in the long run as it was prior to the Recession. Tenure should not be confused with housing type and density, which are components of affordability. 10.3 Future Housing Types For the foreseeable future the preferred housing type will be the single-family detached dwelling. The only impediment to this choice will be affordability, which will rise and fall with changes in the economy. It is expected that attached single-family will continue to improve as a housing choice. The City's current land use regulations provide for a wide variety of housing types. Over the course of time the City needs to monitor, through it HIP, any changes in housing type demand against deficiencies in land supply, and where appropriate make adjustments. 11 Housing Goals and Policies Goall. To provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households. Policy 1.1. Continue to support new residential development at minimum residential densities per the Regional Plan Element. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 27 64 Net Needed Required Total Net Gross Surplus or New Zoning Buildable Acres Acres (Shortage) Acres VLRes 3.53 12.60 (9.07) 9.07 LRes 25.13 151.20 (126.07) 126.07 MRes 42.34 50.40 (8.06) 8.06 HRes 64.81 37.80 27.01 NA Vacant Residential Acres 135.82 252.00 143.19 As previously noted the current net buildable residential land inventory is 136 gross acres distributed across four residential land use classifications. When considering the current vacant acreage inventory it needs to be recalled that there is a significant over allocation to the higher density residential districts. Rather than reclassify these higher density lands to a lower density classification they will remain as excess net buildable acreage. To meet its 20 -year supply of buildable residential land the City will need to add, at a minimum, an additional 143 gross acres, primarily in the LRes land use category IO::a 1- Q.4)..-- Comment [u17]:lsthis gross ornef/Table 10.4 stays net. 10.2 Future Housing Tenure It is expected that the mix of owner (70%) and renter (30%) occupied will remain in the long run as it was prior to the Recession. Tenure should not be confused with housing type and density, which are components of affordability. 10.3 Future Housing Types For the foreseeable future the preferred housing type will be the single-family detached dwelling. The only impediment to this choice will be affordability, which will rise and fall with changes in the economy. It is expected that attached single-family will continue to improve as a housing choice. The City's current land use regulations provide for a wide variety of housing types. Over the course of time the City needs to monitor, through it HIP, any changes in housing type demand against deficiencies in land supply, and where appropriate make adjustments. 11 Housing Goals and Policies Goall. To provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households. Policy 1.1. Continue to support new residential development at minimum residential densities per the Regional Plan Element. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 27 64 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Policy 1.2. Develop and maintain a Housing Implementation Plan i!:!.!fl_that is regularly updated based on current demographic and housing market conditions. Policy 1.3. Provide and maintain an efficient and consistent development review process. Policy 1.4. Work with regional partners to develop and implement measure that reduce upfront housing development costs. Policy 1.5. Support UGB expansions and annexations that can be efficiently provided with urban services and that will, in a timely manner, meet the City's housing needs. Policy 1.6. When properly mitigated support higher density residential development within the Downtown and older surrounding residential area, capitalizing on availability of existing infrastructure and supporting revitalization of the City's core areaeffefts. Goal2. To encourage the development and preservation of fair and affordable housing. Policy 1.1. A part of the HIP re •earch and obtain Getaffi-local, state, and federal financial resources and incentives that support the development and preservation of affordable housing. Policy 1.2. Through a -Heusi ng-ImttlemeAtAtic:m P1eHlhe I -I IP explore and promote programs and incentives that support new affordable housing. Policy 1.3. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional housing strategies, particularly as they apply to affordable housing Policy 1.4. As part of the HIP support Support regional efforts addressing homelessness and housing, medical and social services to special need households. Goal3. To maintain a timely supply of vacant residential acres sufficient to accommodate development of new housing to serve the City's projected population. Policy 1.1. Provide a sufficient inventory of residential planned and zoned vacant land to meet projected demand in terms of density, tenure, unit size, accessibility, and cost. Policy 1.2. Throughout the 2017-2036 planning period the City's new vacant residential land use mix shall support an average density of not less than 6.9 dwelling units per gross. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 28 65 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Policy L3. Update the Housing Element's vacant acreage needs every four -years consistent with the PSU Population Research Centers update of population update.? Policy 1.4. To avoid speculation the City shall, when expanding the UGB establish procedures that give priority to lands that will be developed in a timely manner. Goa14. To ensure that a variety of housing will be provided in the City in terms of location, type, price and tenure, according to the projected needs of the population. Policy L 1. Residential land use designations on the General Land Use Plan and the Zoning Map shall be compliant with the residential land use needs identified in the Housing Element. Policy 1.2. Based on the findings of the Housing 1ffifJlementation P1imHIP incentivize housing types that are needed but not being provided in adequate numbers by the market forces. Policy 1.3. In larger residential developments encourage a mix of densities and housing types to accommodate a variety of households based on age and income levels. Policy L4. Support programs that encourage the ability of older residents to age in place by making existing housing more age friendly and accessible. Goal5. To ensure that municipal development procedures and standards are not unreasonable impediments to the provision of affordable housing. Policy 1.1. As part of a Housing Implementation P1anHIP periodically evaluate development procedures and standards for compliance with the goals of this Housing Element and modify as appropriate. Goal 6. To develop and maintain a Housing lffifJlementation P1anHIP that includes programs that monitor and address the housing affordability needs of the City's low- and moderate -income households. Policy L 1. Support collaborative partnerships with non-profit organizations, affordable housing builders, and for-profit developers to gain greater access to various sources of affordable housing funds. Policy 1.2. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional housing strategies. Policy 1.3. Address the special housing needs of seniors through the provision of affordable housing and housing related services. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 29 M City ofCeotrol Polo! Comprebeosive Ploo, 2017-2037 Goal 7 To assure that residential development standards encourage and support attractive and healthy neighborhoods. Policy 1.1. Encourage quality site and architectural design throughout the City that acknowledges neighborhood character, provides balanced connectivity (multi- modal), and integrates recreational and open space opportunities. Policy 1.2. Provide flexible development standards for projects that exceed minimum standards for natural resource protection, open space, public gathering places, and energy efficiency. Policy 1.3. Where appropriate encourage mixed uses at the neighborhood level that enhance the character and function of the neighborhood and reduce impacts on the City's transportation system. Policy 1.4. Support minimum parking standards for multiple family development served by public transit. Policy 1.5. Maintain and enforce Chapter 17.71 Agricultural Mitigation ensuring that all new residential development along the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary includes an adequate buffer between the urban uses and abutting agricultural uses on lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). 2017-37 Housing Element Page 30 67 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Attachment a Housing Element 2017-2037 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. DLCD Acknowledged 2017-37 Housing Element Page 1 68 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Contents 1 Summary..................................................................................................................................4 2 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 6 3 Purpose of the Housing Element............................................................................................. 7 4 Household Characteristics....................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Household Tenure............................................................................................................ 8 4.2 Age of Householder......................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Household Size................................................................................................................. 9 4.4 Household Income.......................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Summary, Household Characteristics............................................................................ 11 5 Special Needs Housing.......................................................................................................... 11 5.1 Elderly Residents............................................................................................................ 11 5.2 Handicapped Residents.................................................................................................. 12 5.3 Low Income Residents................................................................................................... 12 6 Housing Characteristics......................................................................................................... 12 6.1 Housing Age............................................................................................................... 12g 6.2 Housing Type................................................................................................................. 13 6.3 Housing Value................................................................................................................ 15 6.4 Summary, Housing Characteristics................................................................................ 16 7 Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning............................................................................... 16 7.1 Land Use and Housing Type...................................................................................... 1i-1-9 7.2 Summary, Housing Density....................................................................................... 19M 8 Buildable Residential Lands.............................................................................................. 19M 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands..................................................................... 21 9 Housing Affordability............................................................................................................ 22 9.1 Renter Households..................................................................................................... 22:2-7. 9.2 Owner Households..................................................................................................... 22:2-7. 9.3 Summary, Affordability............................................................................................. 23M 10 Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need .................................................... 23M 10.1 General....................................................................................................................23M 10.2 Future Housing Tenure........................................................................................... 262:/- 10.3 Future Housing Types............................................................................................ 262:/- 11 Housing Goals and Policies........................................................................................... 262:7- 2017-37 Housing Element 69 Page 2 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 2017-37 Housing Element 70 Page 3 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 1 Summary During the next twenty year planning period (2017-37) the physical and demographic characteristics of the City's housing and housing needs are not expected to significantly change. It is anticipated that single-family detached owner -occupied housing will continue to be the preferred housing type, followed by multiple -family rental housing. It should be noted that if wages continue to lag housing costs then the "preferred" housing mix may experience preference changes due to issues of affordability, in which case attached single-family dwellings may become the new norm in preferred housing type. The policies of this Housing Element take in to account the possibility of a change in housing "preference" through adjustments to minimum densities and a broader range of housing types in the various residential land use classifications. Aside from the Great Recession in 2007 (the "Recession") the most significant influence on the City's housing program was the City's adoption of a minimum development density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre 1. The relevance of this new density standard becomes apparent when compared to the City's average residential development density between 1980 and 2016, which had an average density of 5.05 dwelling units per gross acre. The new density standard represents a 37% density increase (Table 1.1 and Table 1.2). To achieve the new average density standard it will be necessary modify either the current mix of residential land use classification, or the density within a classification, or, both (Tables 1.1 and 1.2). It is important to note that residential density is typically measured in terms of net acres, but the new density standard is measured in terms of gross acres. Throughout this Housing Element considerable effort has been made to consistently calculate density on a gross acre basis, thus retaining consistency with the Regional Plan Element's minimum density requirement. The primary distinction between gross acres and net acres is street right-of-way, which typically accounts for 25% of the gross acreage. Table 1.1 City of Central Point Residential Development by Land Use Classification, 1980 - 2016 Note: 1 Based on Net Acres adjusted 25% for public right-of-way. 1 City of Central Point Regional Plan 2017-37 Housing Element Page4 71 Percentage of Developed Average Gross Land Use Classification Residential Acres Density VLRes 2% 1.51 LRes 72% 4.06 MRes 11% 7.51 HRes 14% 8.78 Total Percentas-e 100°/ 5.05 Note: 1 Based on Net Acres adjusted 25% for public right-of-way. 1 City of Central Point Regional Plan 2017-37 Housing Element Page4 71 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 1.2 City of Central Point Residential Development by Land Use Classification 1980-2016 vs. New Distribution Using the new minimum density requirement for the 2017-37 planning period it is projected that 1,750 new dwelling units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth2 ®At an average minimum density of 6.9 units per gross acre the City will need 252 gross acres of residential land (Table 1.3). After taking into consideration the City's current inventory of residential land (136 gross acres) there is a need for an additional) 16. Table 1.3 Needed Residential Acreage (2017-37) Percentage of New Vacant Developed Residential Residential Acres, Acreage Land Use Classification 1980-2016 Distribution VLRes 2% 5% LRes 72% 60% MRes 11 % 20% HRes 14% 15% Total Percentage 100% 100% Using the new minimum density requirement for the 2017-37 planning period it is projected that 1,750 new dwelling units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth2 ®At an average minimum density of 6.9 units per gross acre the City will need 252 gross acres of residential land (Table 1.3). After taking into consideration the City's current inventory of residential land (136 gross acres) there is a need for an additional) 16. Table 1.3 Needed Residential Acreage (2017-37) Housing affordability will continue to be an impediment for some households, improving and declining as a function of the economy. The City's role in addressing housing affordability programs needs to be re-evaluated. In an effort to broach the housing affordability issue the Housing Element includes policies calling for the development of a Housing Implementation Plan (the "HIP"). The specific purpose of the HIP will be to monitor housing affordability in the context of regional efforts by local governments and the private sector to address the affordability issue, and to put into action those strategies that have the most impact on addressing barriers to improving housing affordability - at both the local and regional level. The City does have control over a very critical resource in the affordability equation -the availability of vacant land necessary to meet market demand for housing. The primary objective of this Housing Element is the continued assurance that sufficient land is available for housing 2 City of Central Point Population Element 2017-37 Housing Element 72 Page 5 Proposed Minimum Percentage Projected Gross Gross byLandUse Dwelling Acres Land Use Classification Density Class Units Needed Density VLRes 1.00 5% 13 12.60 1.00 LRes 4.00 60% 605 151 4.00 MRes 8.00 20% 403 50 8.00 HRes 20.00 15% 100% 756 1,777 38 252 2000. Average Density 7.05 Housing affordability will continue to be an impediment for some households, improving and declining as a function of the economy. The City's role in addressing housing affordability programs needs to be re-evaluated. In an effort to broach the housing affordability issue the Housing Element includes policies calling for the development of a Housing Implementation Plan (the "HIP"). The specific purpose of the HIP will be to monitor housing affordability in the context of regional efforts by local governments and the private sector to address the affordability issue, and to put into action those strategies that have the most impact on addressing barriers to improving housing affordability - at both the local and regional level. The City does have control over a very critical resource in the affordability equation -the availability of vacant land necessary to meet market demand for housing. The primary objective of this Housing Element is the continued assurance that sufficient land is available for housing 2 City of Central Point Population Element 2017-37 Housing Element 72 Page 5 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 and that zoning standards are flexible and take in to account all housing types. Secondarily, it is the objective ofthis Housing Element, through its HIP, to investigate and address impediments to affordable housing. 2 Introduction The City's Housing Element was last updated in 1983 and stated as its purpose that: "The role of the housing element is not aimed at seeking precise solutions to the housing problem. Both national and regional trends are the greatest influence on the housing market. Attempts to resolve these fluctuating conditions at the local level are usually ineffective. Therefore, the purpose or objective of this element is open to an avenue of communication between private industry and local public officials in seeking an improved housing environment. " Ironically, the 1983 Housing Element was completed just after the 1980's Real Estate Crash. Its purpose statement reflects local government's frustration in its inability to offer timely, meaningful and sustainable solutions to needed housing as"... usually ineffective." This reaction is understandable given the circumstances in 1983. At the housing peak in 1978 over 4 million homes across the U.S. were sold. Then, over the course of the next four years housing sales dropped over 50%. With interest rates in excess of 15% housing affordability was a major issue. It wasn't until 1996, almost two decades later, that the national housing market recovered to its 1978 level. Since the Recession we once again confront the issue ofliousing need and affordability. Housing demand and supply, as with most commodities, varies with changing demographics and economic cycles. Demographic changes can affect the long-term (generational) demand for housing and is predictable and easily factored into the supply side of the housing equation. Economic cycles, unlike demographic changes, are more whimsical, less predictable in scope and depth, and can be very disruptive to the shorter -term demand and supply for housing. The recent Recession had, and still poses, a significant impact on housing, both on the demand and the supply side of the equation. Prior to the Recession demand for housing was high and with sub -prime lending practices housing was affordable. By the end of 2007 the housing bubble had burst -the Recession had arrived. Unemployment skyrocketed (16%), mortgage foreclosures reached historic levels, and housing prices tumbled. Overnight housing production of all types virtually ceased. Without jobs homeownership was out of reach for many households. Without jobs finding an affordable place to live was difficult. The Recession did not reduce the real demand for housing; people still needed a place to live. Consequently, the demand for rental units increased, but due to the failure of the financial system, real estate lending for all housing types dried up, the short-term housing supply plateaued. With the increase in the demand for rental housing rents began to escalate. Today, unemployment and interest rates are at all-time lows, wages are increasing (although slowly), and lending practices are easing, all of which are improving the supply and affordability of housing, but affordability still remains a challenge. As the economy continues to improve the question remains —will housing affordability continue to improve, or will additional measures be needed before sustainable solutions to the affordability issue are realized? 2017-37 Housing Element Page 6 73 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals, Goal 10, Housing, offers a venue to address not only housing needs in general, including its affordability. The stated purpose ofGoal10 is to"--- encourage o"___encourage adequate numbers of needed housing at price ranges and rent levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of the City's households". The City of Central Point's Housing Element focuses on housing need, with a primary emphasis on assuring through its goals and policies that adequate land is available to accommodate and encourage the supply side of the housing equation, supported by a clear, objective, and efficient land use process. It is at this level that the City has the most direct influence on addressing needed housing. As we've seen from recent history the scope of what is defined as "needed housing" can change significantly in a shorter period than the typica120-year planning timeframe. It is for this reason that this Housing Element will not only encourage adequate numbers of needed housing, but also includes a secondary emphasis -the continuous monitoring of housing activity as it relates To: ❑ Need and affordability; and ❑ Development of strategies and actions to assure and maintain a fair and efficient regulatory process that addressing housing affordability through flexible zoning standards to meet market needs and avoid excessive development costs and fees. It is to this end that the Housing Element introduces the creation of a Housing Implementation Plan, a dynamic working document that monitors housing activity within the City and coordinates with other communities in the development and implementation of affordable housing at both the local and regional level. 3 Purpose of the Housing Element Over the course of the next twenty years (2017-37) the City's population is projected to increase by 4,700 people3. With an average household size of 2.5 persons there will be a need for approximately 1,880 dwelling units. The types, density, and land required to meet the projected housing demand will be addressed in this Housing Element. On the demand side the Housing Element will measure and monitor the demand for housing and make necessary adjustments in land supply necessary to meet demand, and encourage and support the financing and construction of a wide array of housing types. The purpose of this Housing Element has been modified only slightly from the previous purpose statement, and now reads as follows: To assure that the City's land use policies, support a variety of housing types at densities and locations that provide and encourage opportunities for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of the City's households. It is also the purpose of this element to open and maintain communication between private industry and local public officials in seeking an improved housing environment within the City of Central Point and the Greater Bear Creek Valley Region. 3 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element 4 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element 2017-37 Housing Element Page 7 74 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 4 Household Characteristics One of the factors in determining housing demand, other than population growth, is an understanding of the characteristics of the City's households. As defined by the U.S. Census a household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit (such as a house or apartment) as their usual place of residence. There are two major categories of households, "family" and "non - family." For purposes of this Housing Element the term "household" includes both "family" and "non -family" households. The following describes those household characteristics pertinent to an understanding the City's housing needs. 4.1 Household Tenure By definition tenure refers to the distinction between owner -occupied and renter -occupied housing units. For the City of Central Point owner occupied housing has been historically the dominant form oftenure, representing approximately 70% of all households (Figure 4.1). Renter occupied units have typically been less than half of owner occupied units (approximately 35%). As a result of the Recession, and its impact on jobs and income, the owner occupied percentage declined 8% as foreclosures forced many to abandon their homes and seek rental housing. Since the Recession, as jobs and wages gradually improved, there has been a steady movement back to ownership as the preferred tenure. At the county and state level, although slightly lower, similar percentages and changes occurred in tenure. Figure 4.1. Housing Tenure Owner tenter 69% 70% 62% 63% 38% 31% 3096 1990 2000 2010 2015 4.2 Age of Householder A householder is a person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned or rented. If there is no such person present then any household member 15 years old and over can serve as the householder . As illustrated in Figure 4.2 the dominant householder age has been within the 35 to 64 category. As a result of the Recession, and the subsequent loss in jobs and income, householders in this age category experienced a reduction in numbers. Since the recession, as job conditions improved this age category has returned to its pre -recession level. S U.S. Census Glossary 2017-37 Housing Element Page 8 75 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 The age category 65 plus did not appear to be affected by the Recession. Householders in this category are typically retired, and therefor insulated against the income induced short-term impacts (jobs) of a recession. However, as this category ages they are often confronted with other longer-term housing challenges, such as death of a spouse, physical limitations, and the continuing increase in housing maintenance while on a fixed-income. Unlike the other two age categories the 15 to 34 category experienced an increase as a result of the Recession. Since the recovery the housing participation of this category has dropped below 20%, possibly as a result of relocation for employment purposes. Figure 4.2. Household Age Characteristics oAge 15 -34 C$ JH35-64 C$ JH65 Plus ° 53% 53% 49% 27% 28% 22% 1 23% 24% 1 24% 23% 19% Q n1..1 1990 2000 2010 2015 4.3 Household Size The average household size is computed using the occupied housing and the total population. Until the Recession the average household size had continually been declining, and projected to level -out at 2.5 persons per household6 . Since the Recession the average household size has actually increased. The increase in household size has also occurred at the state and county level. The primary cause for the increase in average household size is due to the Recession as many younger adults moved in with their parents or cohabitated for affordability reasons. It is anticipated that as the economy improves and housing becomes more affordable the average household size will continue its downward trend. Figure 4.3 identifies the average household size. The Population Element identified an average household size of 2.5 for planning purposes over the next twenty years. 6 City of Central Point Population Element 2017-37 Housing Element Page 9 2017-37 Housing Element 77 Page 76 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 FIGURE 3.3. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1980- 2015 ECity D County N N N N N O1 N N lf� (D l70 to 00 ~ CO ❑ 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 4.4 Household Income Since 1990 median household income has steadily increased, peaking in 2010 at $50,631. Since the Recession household incomes have declined. As of 2015 the median household income was $48,984 (Figure 4.4). A similar trend has been exhibited at the county and state level. Figure 4.4. Median Household Income $50,631 $48,984 $40,622 $35.000 1990 2000 2010 2015 Pending continued improvement in the economy it can be expected that the median household income will continue to improve, which in tum should improve housing affordability. During the Recession the most financially impacted household income group was the $35,000 to $49,999 category. This group has almost recovered to pre -Recession levels (Figure 4.5). The $50,000 to $74,999 income group is the largest group representing approximately 25% of all households. 2017-37 Housing Element 77 Page 10 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 4.5. Household Income Distribution , , Ve 1�� > C)o,o, . CJ 0, e,Ci o,Ci Cg 1)0. ti ° >< 10 ,o ,O O, 0<$. o'. �0 <i,:> O ,O • 1990 — — — 2000 -2010 O -----2015 4.5 Summary, Household Characteristics The City has a higher percentage of owner occupied units than at the county and state level. The median household income is higher than the county and the state. Although the average household size increased this is expected to be a reaction to the Recession, and will return to lower levels in the future as housing affordability improves. 5 Special Needs Housing Certain minority groups within the general population have unique problems or needs that deserve consideration as part of this Housing Element. Often these groups are ignored because they represent a small portion of the total population. However, it is the responsibility oflocal government to ensure that all citizens have an opportunity for safe and decent housing. The City's most significant contribution to addressing special housing is assurances that the City's zoning and building regulations are not impediments and that the City works collaboratively with other organizations to assure that special needs housing is not left behind. 5.1 Elderly Residents The Baby Boom Generation is the fastest growing segment of the population at both the national, state, and local level. By 2014 it is projected that nationally one in eight persons will be at least 75. In 2014 that figure was one in sixteen. Among individuals aged 80 and over more than 75% live in their own homes, making "aging in place" the preference of most of the elderly population. However, as this older demographic continues to grow, they will find themselves in housing that is ill"... prepared to meet their increasing need for affordability, accessibility, social connectivity, and well-being 8.' As people age, their physical needs change. Climbing stairs and turning doorknobs can become more difficult impacting the ability to "age in place" becomes more difficult. The majority of elderly residents are retired and living on pensions or other forms of fixed 7 Housing America's Older Adults, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2014, page 7 8 Ibid, page 1 2017-37 Housing Element 78 Page 11 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 income. As the costs of maintaining a household increase over time the elderly are typically spending an increasing percentage of their income on housing. As people age, they need housing that is structurally and mechanically safe and that is designed to accommodate people with disabilities. Given the widely varying circumstances of older adults, meeting their housing and housing -related needs requires a range of responses. 5.2 Handicapped Residents Residents who are physically handicapped suffer many of the same problems as the elderly, such as fixed incomes, physical limitations and inability to maintain property. 5.3 Low Income Residents As with all communities there is a percentage of the Cit}s households that are at, or below, the poverty level. In 2015 8.8% of all families were classified as at or below the poverty level9, while approximately 25% were considered low-income to 6 Housing Characteristics In 1980 the City's housing inventory totaled 2,29111 dwelling units. By the end of2016 the housing unit inventory reached 6,321 dwelling units. The following describes the characteristics ofthe City's housing stock by age, type, tenure, and value. 6.1 Housing Age Based on the age of the City's housing stock Central Point is considered a young community. Most of the housing was constructed after 1980 (Table 6.1) The older housing stock (pre -1949) is concentrated in the original core area of the City. Because of its age most of the City's housing stock is in very good physical shape. 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 6.1. Age of Housing Stock Built 1980 or later Built 1979 - 1950 T/o . Built 1949 or earlier 9 U.S. Census American Fact Finder, Selected Economic Characteristics, 2011-2015 1O Reference Footnote 9 11 City of Central Point Housing Element 2017-37 Housing Element 79 Page 12 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 6.2 Housing Type The City's housing stock is comprised of seven (7) housing types as follows: 1. Single -Family Detached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be occupied by only one family. 2. Single -Family Attached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be occupied by only one family, but has a common wall with other single-family attached dwelling(s); 3. Duplex/Triplex; a group of dwellings on a legally defined property having 2 to 3 dwelling units with separate entrances. This includes two-story houses having a complete apartment on each floor and also side-by-side apartments on a single legally described lot that share a common wall; 4. Apartment; four or more attached dwellings with common walls, floors and ceilings shared with other dwelling units on a legally defined property. Apartments that have accessory services such as food service, dining rooms, and housekeeping are included within this definition; 5. Manufactured Homes; a dwelling on a legally defined property that is constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a foundation in accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction and safety standards and regulations. 6. Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Parks; a group of dwellings located on a legally defined property (Mobile Home Park) that are constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a foundation in accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction and safety standards and regulations and 7. Government Assisted, housing that provides the occupants with government sponsored economic assistance to alleviate housing costs and expenses for needy people with low to moderate income households. Forms of government assisted housing include direct housing subsidies, non-profit housing, public housing, rent supplements and some forms of co-operative and private sector housing. In 2016 the City's inventory of Government Assisted housing represented 4% of the City's total housing inventory The City's zoning regulations allow for all of the above housing types. The current distribution of housing type by land use classification is illustrated in Table 6.2. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 13 80 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 6.2. City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification At 80% of the total housing stock the single-family detached home (Table 6.2) is the preferred housing type, followed by multiple -family (9%) and Duplex/Triplex (6%). To illustrate the sensitivity of housing demand by type Table 6.3 illustrates the shifting of preferences occurring in new residential construction between 2006 and 2016. As a percentage of new construction single-family detached represented 63% of the housing types constructed during that period. For the duplex/triplex housing types it was 9%, and for apartments it was at 19%. Table 6.3. City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification Dwelling Units Mobile Total SFR SFR Mobile Mobile Home Government Housing Land Use Class Oetacbed Attached Duplex Triplex Apartment Home fark Assisted Units VLRes 75 Units VLRes - - - - 75 LRes 3,733 4 18 3 4 8 - - - 3,770 MRes 740 16 86 15 114 1 28 15 987 HRes 1 499 16 191 27 465 67 224 92 1,489 Residential Units 5047 36 295 45 583 76 224 151 6,321 At 80% of the total housing stock the single-family detached home (Table 6.2) is the preferred housing type, followed by multiple -family (9%) and Duplex/Triplex (6%). To illustrate the sensitivity of housing demand by type Table 6.3 illustrates the shifting of preferences occurring in new residential construction between 2006 and 2016. As a percentage of new construction single-family detached represented 63% of the housing types constructed during that period. For the duplex/triplex housing types it was 9%, and for apartments it was at 19%. Table 6.3. City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification The reasoning for the decline in single-family detached was the loss of jobs and the subsequent reduction in income occurring as a result of the Recession. By 2016 the preference for single- family detached homes has improved, whether or not it will continue improving to its post - Recession levels remains to be seen. It is clear that the future housing preference is for the single-family detached dwelling type. However, when other housing demand variables are considered, or left unaddressed, such as affordability, special needs, etc. there may be a shift in the preferred housing type. Only time will tell. It is worth noting (Table 6.1) that a significant number of single-family detached units are located within the higher density land use classifications (24%). The reason for this is primarily historic and regulatory. Many of the older single-family detached neighborhoods have been designated as medium density (MRes) to encourage infill development. On the regulatory side it was not until2006 that new single-family detached dwelling units were prohibited in both the MRes and the HRes classifications as an acceptable housing type. This practice was suspended in 2006 with amendments to the zoning code requiring minimum densities in all residential 2017-37 Housing Element Page 14 81 Dwelling Units Mobile Total SFR SFR Mobile Home Government Housing Land Use Class Detached Attached Duplex Tri plex Apartment Home Park Assisted Units VLRes 1 - 1 LRes 202 4 12 - - - 218 MRes 75 6 12 28 - 15 136 HRes 5 12 18 56 1 92 Residential Units 283 2 2 42 - 84 - 1 15 4 4 7 Percentage Distribution 63% 5% 9% 0% 19% 0% 0% 3% 100% The reasoning for the decline in single-family detached was the loss of jobs and the subsequent reduction in income occurring as a result of the Recession. By 2016 the preference for single- family detached homes has improved, whether or not it will continue improving to its post - Recession levels remains to be seen. It is clear that the future housing preference is for the single-family detached dwelling type. However, when other housing demand variables are considered, or left unaddressed, such as affordability, special needs, etc. there may be a shift in the preferred housing type. Only time will tell. It is worth noting (Table 6.1) that a significant number of single-family detached units are located within the higher density land use classifications (24%). The reason for this is primarily historic and regulatory. Many of the older single-family detached neighborhoods have been designated as medium density (MRes) to encourage infill development. On the regulatory side it was not until2006 that new single-family detached dwelling units were prohibited in both the MRes and the HRes classifications as an acceptable housing type. This practice was suspended in 2006 with amendments to the zoning code requiring minimum densities in all residential 2017-37 Housing Element Page 14 81 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 zones, and the exclusion of single-family detached dwellings in the medium and high density residential districts. 6.3 Housing Value Prior to the Recession the median owner occupied housing value increased substantially reaching a peak value of$233,000. These early value increases were indicative of the demand and affordability ofhousing. Jobs were plentiful and easy financing was accessible. With the on -set ofthe Recession the real estate bubble burst causing a 22% reduction ($181,200) in the 2010 median house value. Since 2010 owner occupied housing values have been increasing, but not to pre -Recession levels. By 2016 the estimated median housing value, at $192,872 12 , resumed its upward movement and by 2017 is expected to reach and exceed its 2010 peak. Figure 6.2. City of Central Point, Median Owner Occupied Value $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $125,3U0 $100,000 $65,000 $50,000 1990 2000 2010 2015 2016 $233,000 Figure 6.3. City of Central Point, Percentage Housing Value Distribution, 2015 35% 0 M 30% 25% N - 20% 15% 10% 5% �k 2015 12 Zillow, 2016 City ofCentral Point 2017-37 Housing Element Page 15 82 IBLess than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 E9150,000 to $199,999 11:11$300,000 to $499,999 D$500,000 to $999,999 ,,. $1,000,000 or more City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 The latest housing value distribution 13 (Figure 6.3) places 30% of the City's owner occupied inventory in the $150,000 to $199,999 category (median value). 6.4 Summary, Housing Characteristics The City's housing inventory is typical of the area reflecting the western region's preference for single-family detached housing. The housing stock is young and heavily concentrated in the single-family detached category. The cost of housing is slightly on the high side for the region, but typical for the state. 7 Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning In 2012 the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan was approved by Jackson County. Shortly thereafter the City of Central Point adopted its component of the Regional Plan as an element to the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the City's Regional Plan Element it was agreed that all new residential development within the UGB would be constructed at an average minimum density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre, and after 2036 the minimum density would increase to 7.9 dwelling units per gross acre. In the 1983 Housing Element only maximum densities were addressed, not minimum densities, in the hopes that residential development by the private sector would pursue the higher density development. This did not come to pass. Since 1983 the actual built densities have been far below the maximum densities set in both the Housing Element and the City's zoning ordinance (Table 7.1). In 2006 the City amended its zoning ordinance setting mandatory minimum density standards and housing types for all residential zoning districts. Until then the higher density zoning districts were allowed to build at much lower single-family detached densities. Table 7.1 City of Central Point Maximum Allowable Densities vs. Actual Built Densities, 1983-2016 *Assumes Build -Out Table 7.2 identifies the City's average density by both land use classification and housing type for housing built between 1980 and 2016. After the zoning code was amendment (2006) 13 U.S. Census 2015 American Community Survey 2017-37 Housing Element Page 16 83 Average Gross Maximum Density by Allowable Land Use Land Use Classification Density* Class VLRes 1 1.50 LRes 6 4.08 MRes 12 7.50 HRes 25 8.79 Average Net Density by Housing Type 10.79 5.08 *Assumes Build -Out Table 7.2 identifies the City's average density by both land use classification and housing type for housing built between 1980 and 2016. After the zoning code was amendment (2006) 13 U.S. Census 2015 American Community Survey 2017-37 Housing Element Page 16 83 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 establishing minimum density standards the City's gross density for the period 2006-2016 increased significantly from 5.05 to 7.08 dwelling units per gross acre (Table 7.3). The result of the minimum density code revisions is most evident in the MRes and the HRes land use classifications. When looked at by zoning district (Table 7.4 and 7.5) the same pattern is revealed -in the higher density districts (R-2 through HMR) the density has improved. Table 7.2 Average Gross Densitv Gross Densitv Tvue City of Central Point Average Housing Inventory by Housing Type and Land Use, City Limits, 1980-2016 Gross Gross DensJty Mobile Density Mobile SFR Density Average SFR Home Mobile Home Government by Land Gross Detached Attached Duplex Triplex MFR Horne Park Mobile Density VLRes SFR SFR Mobile Home Government by Land Zonine Detached Attached Du lex Tri lex 4.83 7.34 Use Class VLRes 1.51 3.26 - 3.70 4.98 _ 1.51 LRes 4.05 7.34 8 35 - 2.07 - - 4.06 MRes 6.64 11.99 9.04 - 20.19 18.00 - 12.84 7.51 HRes 7.83 19.67 10.75 13.41 15.85 6.39 6.38 8.78 Averaee Net Densitv by Housine TVDe 4.48 1 13.37 10.09 13.41 16.73 5.56 6.38 12.84 5.115 Table 7.3 City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Housing Type and Land Use, City Limits, 2006-2016 Table 7.4 identifies the densities for development between 1980 and 2016 that occurred in each zoning district. Table 7.4. Housing Density by Housing Type and Zoning, 1980-2016 Average Gross Densitv Gross Densitv Tvue Average Average Gross Gross Mobile Density Mobile SFR Density SFR SFR Home Mobile Home Government by Land Zonin2, Detached Attached Duplex Triplex MFR Horne Park Assisted Use Clam VLRes 1.65 - - 1.51 - 1.65 LRes 4.83 7.34 8.35 - 3.26 R-1-8 3.70 4.98 MRes 8.60 12.44 9.36 22.00 R-1-6 4.11 12.84 10.52 HRes 8.40 17.99 14.26 4.09 18.00 6.02 6.18 8,96 15.87 - 5.47 1298 1055 R-3 19.16 - 6.18 12.84 6.39 Table 7.4 identifies the densities for development between 1980 and 2016 that occurred in each zoning district. Table 7.4. Housing Density by Housing Type and Zoning, 1980-2016 2017-37 Housing Element Page 17 84 Average Gross Densitv by Housin2, Tvue Average Gross Mobile Density SFR SFR Mobile Home Government by Zoning Zonine Detached Attached Dur ex Triplex. MFR Home Pack Assisted Distdct R -L 1.51 - - 1.51 R-1-10 3.26 _ 3.26 R-1-8 3.70 - - - - 2.78 3.70 R-1-6 4.11 - 1.77 4.09 R-2 6.02 15.61 8,96 - - 634 R-3 7.83 - 10.75 13.41 15.76 6.39 6.38 - 8.66 LMR 5.30 7.34 8.35 -- _ 537 MMR 10.78 11.13 12.88 _ 20.19 12,84 13.08 HMR 19.67 18.21 19.08 Avera2 e Net Densitv by Housin2 Type 4.48 1337 10.09.1 13.411 16.73 1 5.56 6.38 12.114 2017-37 Housing Element Page 17 84 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 7.5. Housing Density by Housing Type and Zoning, 2006-2016 Mobile SFR SFR Mol ile Home Government Zonilll! Detached Attached Duplex a Park Assisted A>erRge Gross Ocnslr)' by Zoning Districl R -L 1.65 _ _ 1.65 R-1-10 - NO NO _ No R-1-8 4.30 LRes 4.30 R-1-6 4.82 R-1 4.82 R-2 7.45 15.61 936 No - 8.16 R-3 8.40 - 14.26 18.00 - 6.18 15.59 LMR 5.70 7.34 8.35 No Yes 6.06 MMR 10.03 8.85 22.00 12.84 12.82 HMR Yes 17.99 Ye Ye 17.99 Averalle Net Densi tv by Ho usi ne TvPe I 5.47 1 12.98 10.55 19.161 6.18 1 12.84 7.08 7.1 Land Use and Housing Type The City has four (4) residential land use classifications and seven residential zoning districts. These classifications accommodate differing densities and housing types as follows: Each land use classification has assigned zoning districts. Within each residential land use classification certain housing types are allowed as follows: Land Use SFR SFR Duple:x: Triplex Apt Manuf. Mobile Class Detached Attached Home Home Park VLR R -L Yes NO NO NO No Yes Yes LRes R-1 Yes No No No No Yes Yes MRe R-2 No Yes Yes No NO Yes Yes LMiR Ye. Ye_ Yes Yes Ye Ye Y4 HRes R-3 NO Ye Y s Yes Ye NO NO MMR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NO NO BMR No Ve Ye Yss Ve 'NO NO The maximum and minimum density for each of the land use classifications and zoning districts is illustrated in Table 7.7. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 18 85 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 7.7 Proposed Maximum and Minimum Gross Density, Zoning Zoning District Minimum Gross Density Maximum Gross Density R -L 1.00 2.50 Totals 1.00 2.50 R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-10 6.00 5.00 4.00 8.00 6.00 5.00 Totals 5.30 7.06 LMR R-2 7.00 7.00 10.00 10.00 Totals 7.00 10.00 R-3 MMR HMR 12.00 12.00 25.00 20.00 20.00 50.00 Totals 15.90 34.15 Grand Total 7.031 16.81 7.2 Summary, Housing Density Since 1980 the City's average gross density, at 5.08 is considerably lower than the 6.9 minimum density required in the Regional Plan Element. Depending on the time period selected to calculate density the results vary, often significantly. As noted the period 1980 to 2016 yielded a gross density for residential construction during that period of 5.08; while for the period 2006 to 2016 yielded a higher gross density of7.08. The period 1980 to 2016 was used as a density baseline in the Housing Element because it involved two economic cycles, both of which involved the housing sector. As such it was more representative of the long-term housing market. For the period 2006 to 2016 only one business cycle occurred and it was absent a recovery in the housing sector. 8 Buildable Residential Lands The 2016 BLI identifies a total residential land inventory within the City's urban area of approximately 1,530 net acres that are zoned and planned for residential use (Table 8.1), representing 52% of the City's total area. The City's residential lands are distributed over four residential land use categories and nine zoning districts. The largest of the residential classifications is the LRes at 55% of all residential lands. The four (4) residential land use classifications and their related zoning districts are: 1. Very Low Density Residential (VLRes); a. VeryLow 2. Low Density Residential (LRes); a. R-1-6 b. R-1-8 2017-37 Housing Element Page 19 86 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 c. R-1-10 3. Medium Density Residential (MRes); a. LMR b. R-2; and 4. High Density Residential (HRes). a. R-3 b. MMR; and c. HMR Table 8.1 City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Land Use Designation Table 8.2 identifies the City's residential land allocations by zoning district. Table 8.2. City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Zoning Zoning Total City Acres Total UGB Acres Total Urban Area Acres Percentage R -L 45.87 21.86 67.73 R-1-6 375.95 5.92 of Total 25.0% Total City Total UGB Total Urban Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation Acres Acres Acres Acres VLRes 45.87 21.86 67.73 4.4% LRes 802.95 39.28 842.23 55.1% MRes 245.23 48.45 293.67 19.2% HRes 301.28 23.68 324.96 21.3% Residential Acres 1,395.33 133.26 1,528.60 100% Table 8.2 identifies the City's residential land allocations by zoning district. Table 8.2. City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Zoning Zoning Total City Acres Total UGB Acres Total Urban Area Acres Percentage of Total 4.4% R -L 45.87 21.86 67.73 R-1-6 375.95 5.92 381.87 25.0% R-1-8 393.31 11.25 404.56 26.5% R-1-10 33.69 22.12 55.81 3.7% LMR 136.72 48.45 185.16 12.1% R-2 108.51 - 108.51 7.1% R-3 193.85 - 193.85 12.7% MMR 72.66 23.68 96.34 6.3% HMR 34.77 - 34.77 2.3% Residential Acres 1,395.33 133.26 1,528.60 100.0% As ofthe end of2016 there were approximately 136 acres of net buildable residentialland 14 within the City's urban area. The vacant acreage in each land use classification is illustrated in 14 Net Buildable Land defined as gross buildable acres minus land needed for public facilities plus redevelopment acres. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 20 87 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Table 8.3. The vacant acreage available in the single-family VLRes and LRes land use classifications is 2.6% and 18.5% respectively of the total vacant land use inventory. The bulk of the City's net buildable residential acreage is in the MRes (31%) and HRes (47%) classifications, representing over 78% of the City's net buildable vacant residential acres (107 acres), a disproportionately high number given the historic development in those two higher density classifications (18%) since 1980. Table 8.3 City of Central Point Net Buildable Vacant Table 8.4 City of Central Point Buildable Land fuventory by Zoning ZOninfl Total Total Gross TotaJ Gross Bulldn!Jle Vacant- Ae:tes Net TofaJ. N t Buildabl e Iles Percentage of Total Net BulldabiC" Acreos Gross (less) Envir. Buildable (less) Buildable (plus) Total Net Total Net 0.34 Vacant Constrained Vacant Public Vacant Redevlopment Buildable Buildable Zoning Acres Acres Acres Lands Acres Acres Acres Acres VLRes 4.25 - 4.25 1.06 3.19 0.34 3.53 3% LRes 17.87 0.12 17.76 4.44 13.32 11.81 25.13 19°/ MRes 41.51 4.82 36.69 9.17 27.52 14.83 42.34 31% HRes 75.15 4.02 71.13 17.78 53.35 11.47 64.81 48% Vaeant Residentl al Acres 1.38.7.9 8.96 129.83 32.46 97.37 38.45 135.82[:::: 100% Table 8.4 City of Central Point Buildable Land fuventory by Zoning ZOninfl Total Goss Vacant Acres tless) EnVl'r. Collstrainod eyes TotaJ Gross Bulldn!Jle Vacant- Ae:tes Q S:) Public Lans TofaJ. N t Buildabl e Iles (plus)1'o tal Rede"V. Acres Total Net BulldabiC" Acreos Pe:rceu.tag of Total Ne Bul.ldable AereJ R -L 4.25 - 4.25 1.06 3.19 0.34 3.53 30 R-1-6 10.88 0.09 10.7 ,• 2.70 8.09 5.58 13.67 100 R-1-8 3.86 0.02 3.84,• 0.96 2.88 5.42 8.29 60 R-1-10 3.13 0.00 3.131 0.78 2.35 0.82 3.17 20 LMR 37.99 4.82 33.17,. 8.29 24.88 7.98 32.86 24% R-2 3.52 - 3.521 0.88 2.64 6.85 9.49 7% R-3 15.44 - 15.44,. 3.86 11.58 3.06 14.64 11% MMR 46.21 0.37 45.84 ,. 11.46 34.38 6.75 41.13 30°/ HMR 13.50 3.65 9.85 2.46 7.38 1.66 9.05 7% irotn] Residential Acres 1 138.79 1 8.96 1 1!.9.83 32,46 1 97.37 1 38.45 1 135.82 100% While the higher density land use classifications account for the greater majority of the vacant residential land (78%) it is out of sync with the demand side ofthe equation (20%). 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands The City's net buildable residential land inventory is overly represented in the higher density residential land use classifications (MRes and HRes). Going forward this disparity will need to be taken into consideration. It is unlikely that these higher density lands will be re -designated and rezoned to lower density residential land use. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 21 88 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 9 Housing Affordability Housing affordability, whether renter or owner occupied is typically measured as a percentage of household income. A standard benchmark for affordability is when housing costs are less than or equal to 30% of total household income. In 2015 67% ofhomeowners paid less than 30% of household income for housing 15. Another measurement of housing affordability is the National Association of Realtors Housing Affordability Index (HAI). The HAI measures whether or not a typical family could qualify for a mortgage loan on a typical home. A typical home is defined as the national median -priced, existing single-family home as calculated by NAR. The typical family is defined as one earning the median family income as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. In 2015 the national HAI was 168. An HAI of 100 is the threshold for affordability, anything below that indicates affordability is an issue. In 2015 the City's HAI was 161. 9.1 Renter Households As illustrated in Figure 9.1 the Recession had a significant impact on housing affordability for renter households as the percentage of renter households paying more than 30% increased from 37% to over 85% by 2010 and by 2015 had further increased to 53% of all renter households. At the county and state level the experience was much the same except that by 2015 there was a drop in the number of renter households at the state level paying more than 30%. Figure 9.1. Renter Households Paying 30% or More for Housing I Renter 87% 2000 2010 2015 9.2 Owner Households To a lesser extent the rate of affordability in owner households followed the pattern of renter households (Figure 8.2). Since the Recession the price of housing has been exceeding the increase in wages. As of March 2017 average hourly wages are up 2.7% year over year, while the median sales price of a previously owned home was up 7.7% 16 . Prior to the Recession 25% of owner households exceeded 30% of household income for housing (Figure 8.2). 15 U.S. Census 2011-2015 American Community Survey, Selected Housing Characteristics 16 2017-37 Housing Element Page 22 89 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Figure 9.2. Owner Households Paying 30% or More of Income on Housing 44% 33% 25% ®00 ®10 02015 38% 31% 25% 34% 25% 26% 9.3 Summary, Affordability The question of housing affordability, especially since the Recession, is without question a social issue that needs addressing. The demand and supply mechanics of housing affordability are easily understandable, but the solutions; either demand or supply side, are extremely complex, especially at the local level. The actions that this Housing Element recommends to address affordable housing are: 1. Provide an inventory of vacant residential lands sufficient to accommodate the need for all housing types. 2. Prepare and maintain a Housing Implementation Program (HIP) that annually tracks and evaluates the demand and supply of vacant residential lands and housing construction by type of housing with specific attention given to the supply and demand of needed housing. The HIP shall identify impediments and recommends actions to be taken by the City that will mitigate any identified impediments to the provision of affordable housing. 3. Collaborate at the regional level in the identification, prioritization, and development of solutions addressing housing affordability. 10 Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need 10.1 General Based on the Population Projections prepared by PSU it is projected that by 2037 the City's population will have increased by 4,700 people. The City's average household size is 2.5 persons per household 17 requiring an additional 1,750 new dwelling units to accommodate the projected population growth. At a density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre 18 the City will need 260acres 17 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element, 2016-36 18 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element 2017-37 Housing Element Page 23 90 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 of residentially planned lands to accommodate 1,750 new dwelling units. It is expected that new residential construction will follow a similar land use distribution pattern as experienced between 1980 and 201619 (Table 10.1). Table 10.1. Housing Units Built by Land Use Category, 1980- 2016 *Figures rounded The "Adjusted Percentage" in Table 10.1 is an adjustment for all the single-family detached development that occurred prior to 2006 within the MRes and the HRes classifications. In Table 10.2 the current minimum density allowed in each residential land use classification and the resulting gross acreage needed to accommodate future housing demand is identified. Based on today's minimum densities for each of the land use classifications and the allowed housing types the average projected density would be 4.33 dwelling units per gross acre. This is not an acceptable outcome. To achieve the minimum density standard it is necessary to either re -allocate the distribution of housing by land use classification, increase the minimum density requirements for each land use classification, or a combination of both. Table 10.2 Average Projected Density based on Current Minimum Densities Housing Projected Projected Units Percentage Housing Gross Acres Constructed by Land Use Adjusted Demand Land Use Class 1980-2016 Class Percentage 2017-37* VLRes 30 10/ l0/ 15 LRes 2,503 58% 78% 1,370 MRes 715 170/ 4% 75 HRes 1,051 24% 170/ 290 Total 4,299 1 100% 100% 1 750 *Figures rounded The "Adjusted Percentage" in Table 10.1 is an adjustment for all the single-family detached development that occurred prior to 2006 within the MRes and the HRes classifications. In Table 10.2 the current minimum density allowed in each residential land use classification and the resulting gross acreage needed to accommodate future housing demand is identified. Based on today's minimum densities for each of the land use classifications and the allowed housing types the average projected density would be 4.33 dwelling units per gross acre. This is not an acceptable outcome. To achieve the minimum density standard it is necessary to either re -allocate the distribution of housing by land use classification, increase the minimum density requirements for each land use classification, or a combination of both. Table 10.2 Average Projected Density based on Current Minimum Densities 19 Adjusted for the high occurrence of single-family detached construction in the MRes and the HRes land use classifications, 2017-37 Housing Element Page 24 91 Current Projected Minimum Dwelling Gross Acres Land Use Classification Density 0.75 Units 15 Needed 20 Density 0.75 VLRes LRes 3.75 1,370 365 3.75 MRes 11.20 75 7 11.20 HRes 24.00 290 12 24.00 Average Density 1,750 404 4.33 19 Adjusted for the high occurrence of single-family detached construction in the MRes and the HRes land use classifications, 2017-37 Housing Element Page 24 91 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 By adjusting both the mix and density of the various residential land use classifications (Table 10.3) results in an average gross density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre. The justification for the density and allocation adjustments is illustrated in Table 10.3, and explained as follows: Table 10.3 Needed Residential Acreage (2017-37) ❑ VLRes- The allocation of very low density lands has increased from 1% to 5%. The allocation increase was based on the finding that the low demand for large lot development was due to a lack of developable land. The increase in density went from .75 to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre, a minor increase in density adjusting for the conversion of net acreage to gross acreage. ❑ LRes —The allocation of low density residential lands has been reduced from a previous 78% (adjusted) to 63%. Historically the LRes has been the preferred land use category, with an emphasis on single-family detached housing. The single-family detached preference is likely to continue into the future. Consequently, this land use classification experienced the most quantitative changes in density and allocation. The density went from 3.75 to 8 dwelling units per gross acre. Viewed from a lot size perspective the minimum lot size went from approximately 12,000 gross sq. ft. per lot to 5,500 gross sq. ft. per lot. ❑ MRes-The allocation of medium density residential lands increased from 4% (adjusted) to 20%. The density increased from the current 11.2 to 14 units. A minimum density of density of 14 units per gross acre is consistent with the TOD MMR zoning designation. ❑ HRes —The allocation of the high density residential lands was reduced from 17% (adjusted) to 15%. The minimum density increased slightly with the conversion from net density to gross density. As illustrated in Table 10.3 the revised mix of residential land use categories and changes in density result in a minimum build -out density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre. The City currently has an inventory of 136 net buildable acres (Section 8, Buildable Residential Lands) of residential land. The assumption is that the 136 acres is properly allocated and supports the relevant housing demand by type. Table 10.4 identifies the current vacant land, need, and where there is a shortage, the additional needed acreage by land use classification. Of 2017-37 Housing Element Page 25 92 Proposed Minimum Percentage Projected Gross Gross by Land Use Dwelling Acres Land Use Classification Density Class Units Needed Density_ VLRes 1.00 5% 13 12.60 1.00 LRes 4.00 60% 605 151 4.00 MRes 8.00 20% 403 50 8.00 HRes 20.00 15% 756 38 20.00 Avera2:e Density 100% 1,777 252 7.05 ❑ VLRes- The allocation of very low density lands has increased from 1% to 5%. The allocation increase was based on the finding that the low demand for large lot development was due to a lack of developable land. The increase in density went from .75 to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre, a minor increase in density adjusting for the conversion of net acreage to gross acreage. ❑ LRes —The allocation of low density residential lands has been reduced from a previous 78% (adjusted) to 63%. Historically the LRes has been the preferred land use category, with an emphasis on single-family detached housing. The single-family detached preference is likely to continue into the future. Consequently, this land use classification experienced the most quantitative changes in density and allocation. The density went from 3.75 to 8 dwelling units per gross acre. Viewed from a lot size perspective the minimum lot size went from approximately 12,000 gross sq. ft. per lot to 5,500 gross sq. ft. per lot. ❑ MRes-The allocation of medium density residential lands increased from 4% (adjusted) to 20%. The density increased from the current 11.2 to 14 units. A minimum density of density of 14 units per gross acre is consistent with the TOD MMR zoning designation. ❑ HRes —The allocation of the high density residential lands was reduced from 17% (adjusted) to 15%. The minimum density increased slightly with the conversion from net density to gross density. As illustrated in Table 10.3 the revised mix of residential land use categories and changes in density result in a minimum build -out density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre. The City currently has an inventory of 136 net buildable acres (Section 8, Buildable Residential Lands) of residential land. The assumption is that the 136 acres is properly allocated and supports the relevant housing demand by type. Table 10.4 identifies the current vacant land, need, and where there is a shortage, the additional needed acreage by land use classification. Of 2017-37 Housing Element Page 25 92 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 the overall 252 acres needed to satisfy the future demand a total of 143 new gross acres are needed to supplement the existing inventory. The projected need is dedicated to the two low density residential land use districts; VLRes and LRes. As discussed earlier the MRes and the HRes land use classifications already have an excess supply of vacant land. Rather than re- designate the excess acreage, and having to address appropriateness of location and the takings issue, it was decided that it will remain as currently designated. Table 10.4 City of Central Point Net Required New Buildable Vacant Residentail Land As previously noted the current net buildable residential land inventory is 136 gross acres distributed across four residential land use classifications. When considering the current vacant acreage inventory it needs to be recalled that there is a significant over allocation to the higher density residential districts. Rather than reclassify these higher density lands to a lower density classification they will remain as excess net buildable acreage. To meet its 20 -year supply of buildable residential land the City will need to add, at a minimum, an additional 143 gross acres, primarily in the LRes land use category (Table 10.4). 10.2 Future Housing Tenure It is expected that the mix of owner (70%) and renter (30%) occupied will remain in the long run as it was prior to the Recession. Tenure should not be confused with housing type and density, which are components of affordability. 10.3 Future Housing Types For the foreseeable future the preferred housing type will be the single-family detached dwelling. The only impediment to this choice will be affordability, which will rise and fall with changes in the economy. It is expected that attached single-family will continue to improve as a housing choice. The City's current land use regulations provide for a wide variety of housing types. Over the course of time the City needs to monitor, through it HIP, any changes in housing type demand against deficiencies in land supply, and where appropriate make adjustments. 11 Housing Goals and Policies Goall. To provide an adequate supply ofhousing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 26 93 Net Needed Required Total Net Gross Surplus or New Zoning Buildable Acres Acres (Shortage) Acres VLRes 3.53 12.60 (9.07) 9.07 LRes 25.13 151.20 (126.07) 126.07 MRes 42.34 50.40 (8.06) 8.06 HRes 64.81 37.80 27.01 N.A. Vacant Residential Acres 135.82 252.00 14.3.19 As previously noted the current net buildable residential land inventory is 136 gross acres distributed across four residential land use classifications. When considering the current vacant acreage inventory it needs to be recalled that there is a significant over allocation to the higher density residential districts. Rather than reclassify these higher density lands to a lower density classification they will remain as excess net buildable acreage. To meet its 20 -year supply of buildable residential land the City will need to add, at a minimum, an additional 143 gross acres, primarily in the LRes land use category (Table 10.4). 10.2 Future Housing Tenure It is expected that the mix of owner (70%) and renter (30%) occupied will remain in the long run as it was prior to the Recession. Tenure should not be confused with housing type and density, which are components of affordability. 10.3 Future Housing Types For the foreseeable future the preferred housing type will be the single-family detached dwelling. The only impediment to this choice will be affordability, which will rise and fall with changes in the economy. It is expected that attached single-family will continue to improve as a housing choice. The City's current land use regulations provide for a wide variety of housing types. Over the course of time the City needs to monitor, through it HIP, any changes in housing type demand against deficiencies in land supply, and where appropriate make adjustments. 11 Housing Goals and Policies Goall. To provide an adequate supply ofhousing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 26 93 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Policy 1.1. Continue to support new residential development at minimum residential densities per the Regional Plan Element. Policy 1.2. Develop and maintain a Housing Implementation Plan (HIP) that is regularly updated based on current demographic and housing market conditions. Policy 1.3. Provide and maintain an efficient and consistent development review process. Policy 1.4. Work with regional partners to develop and implement measure that reduce upfront housing development costs. Policy 1.5. Support UGB expansions and annexations that can be efficiently provided with urban services and that will, in a timely manner, meet the City's housing needs. Policy 1.6. When properly mitigated support higher density residential development within the Downtown and older surrounding residential areas, capitalizing on availability of existing infrastructure and supporting revitalization of the City's core area. Goal2. To encourage the development and preservation of fair and affordable housing. Policy 1.1. As part of the HIP research and obtain local, state, and federal financial resources and incentives that support the development and preservation of affordable housing. Policy 1.2. Through the HIP explore and promote programs and incentives that support new affordable housing. Policy 1.3. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional housing strategies, particularly as they apply to affordable housing Policy 1.4. As part of the HIP support regional efforts addressing homelessness and housing, medical and social services to special need households. Goal3. To maintain a timely supply of vacant residential acres sufficient to accommodate development of new housing to serve the City's projected population. Policy 1.1. Provide a sufficient inventory of residential planned and zoned vacant land to meet projected demand in terms of density, tenure, unit size, accessibility, and cost. Policy 1.2. Throughout the 2017-2036 planning period the City's new vacant 2017-37 Housing Element Page 27 94 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 residential land use mix shall support an average density of not less than 6.9 dwelling units per gross. Policy 1.3. Update the Housing Element's vacant acreage needs every four -years consistent with the PSU Population Research Centers population update. Policy 1.4. To avoid speculation the City shall, when expanding the UGB establish procedures that give priority to lands that will be developed in a timely manner. Goal4. To ensure that a variety ofhousing will be provided in the City in terms of location, type, price and tenure, according to the projected needs of the population. Policy 1.1. Residential land use designations on the General Land Use Plan and the Zoning Map shall be compliant with the residential land use needs identified in the Housing Element. Policy 1.2. Based on the findings of the HIP incentivize housing types that are needed but not being provided in adequate numbers by the market forces. Policy 1.3. In larger residential developments encourage a mix of densities and housing types to accommodate a variety of households based on age and income levels. Policy 1.4. Support programs that encourage the ability of older residents to age in place by making existing housing more age friendly and accessible. Goa1S. To ensure that municipal development procedures and standards are not unreasonable impediments to the provision of affordable housing. Policy 1.1. As part of a HIP periodically evaluate development procedures and standards for compliance with the goals of this Housing Element and modify as appropriate. Goal 6. To develop and maintain a HIP that includes programs that monitor and address the housing affordability needs ofthe City's low- and moderate -income households. Policy I.I. Support collaborative partnerships with non-profit organizations, affordable housing builders, and for-profit developers to gain greater access to various sources of affordable housing funds. Policy 1.2. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional housing strategies. Policy 1.3. Address the special housing needs of seniors through the provision of affordable housing and housing related services. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 28 95 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, 2017-2037 Goal 7. To assure that residential development standards encourage and support attractive and healthy neighborhoods. Policy I.I. Encourage quality site and architectural design throughout the City that acknowledges neighborhood character, provides balanced connectivity (multi- modal), and integrates recreational and open space opportunities. Policy 1.2. Provide flexible development standards for projects that exceed minimum standards for natural resource protection, open space, public gathering places, and energy efficiency. Policy 1.3. Where appropriate encourage mixed uses at the neighborhood level that enhance the character and function of the neighborhood and reduce impacts on the City's transportation system. Policy 1.4. Support minimum parking standards for multiple family development served by public transit. Policy 1.5. Maintain and enforce Chapter 17.71 Agricultural Mitigation ensuring that all new residential development along the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary includes an adequate buffer between the urban uses and abutting agricultural uses on lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). 2017-37 Housing Element Page 29 96