The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-0506 Study Session MIN CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES Monday, May 6,2019 Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street Mayor Stromberg called the Study Session to order at 5:32 PM Councilors Slattery, Graham, Seffinger and Jensen were present. Councilors Akins and Rosenthal were absent. I. Public Input(15 minutes, maximum) Paul Sheldon—Ashland—Thanked Council for their service. Spoke regarding electromagnetic fields. He urged Council to stand up and look into this issue. Gill—Ashland- Spoke regarding the Ashland flood plain. Spoke regarding the map of Ashland's flood line areas. He spoke that the map is outdated and needs to be updated. Councilor Slattery asked that this be brought back to Council. II. Ashland Housing Strategy Implementation Plan Draft Senior Planner Brandon Goldman presented Council a PowerPoint presentation(see attached). Items discussed were: • Background. • Ashland Housing Strategy Draft. • Regional Problem Solving. • How to accommodate future growth in the existing City limits. • Outline of housing strategies. • Technical Assistant Grant. • Reevaluation of building heights. • Tax abatement programs. • Code amendments. Becky Hewitt of ECONorthwest presented Council a PowerPoint presentation(see attached). Items discussed were: • Obstacles for multifamily rental housing developments in Ashland. • Multi-family zoning map. • Analyzed market data. • Obstacles. • Cost burden. • Ownership market. • Analysis of Code amendments. • Zones. • Height changes. • Density limits. • Parking. • Efficient use of land. • Financial feasibility. • Property tax abatement. Council discussed options and next steps. Council gave consensus to bring this item back to a future meeting. The Study Session was adjourned at 7:15 PM Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder Melissa Huhtala Attest: !r . - i Mayo tromberg In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). CITY OF g Strategy Ashland Housin .ASHLAND Implementation Plan , , . .. .. ...„ Otiig / 1 ),,_ k Iiit fi ' ',. ': PLANNING FOR TWICE City,1 k W. i 1 , , A, f Stud y Session t i , t . ,i, ■ M ay 6 2019 li .,,, ,,..........dige . __,.„.... . , ,'' -1 ,-- ....,.;: , ,.....,_, ... e . owyrilk114.00•P'-:-- l 1 C I T Y OF Introduction ASHLAND ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING Becky Hewitt Project Manager Becky specializes in urban planning , spatial analysis , and land use policy. C I T Y OF -ASHLAND Background • Regional Problem Solving (NowX2) J • Ashland Housing Strategies J • %sniand Housing Strategy graft Implementation Plan (5/06/2019) • Ashland Housing Strategy Final 4 Implementation Plan (06/30/2019) • Council direction regarding drafting Code Amendments and Resolutions • Begin public review and hearing process to drafting final proposed code changes C I T Y O F Regional P Solving -ASHLAND Council Decision City Council Resolution #2003-37 " With more efficient land use strategies, the lands already within Ashland's city limits and urban growth boundary could accommodate the city's anticipated growth urng the plan period City of Ashland \ � � - ' Polentlal Planning Area - - -. Urban Reserve Candidates without expansion . . . . The city A Fiat\�� -- will continue to identify and pursue opportunities for more -- � , efficient land use and kJ 1 ttl transportation planning. " , -= ,` ',�:rb,,- f -3' s - C I T Y OF Regional Problem Solving ASHLAND RPS Issues Raised by the City of Ashland The Ashland City Council requested the Regional Plan identify and structure a time line for the implementation of a variety of regional strategies that encourage a full range of housing types throughout the region . Adopted as part of RPS : Housing Strategies. Participating jurisdictions shall create regional housing strategies that strongly encourage a range of housing types throughout the region within 5 years of acknowledgement of the RPS Plan. C I T Y O F -ASH LAN D Regional Problem Solving Regional Housing Strategy - Ashland +c°,40,0- .��.• Regional Housing Strategies art 1(+ +G'0 ..►+ +�r..a" '.+`.r. . Each community completed a code audit " °" " - `� -• focused on provision of needed housing . ,►r;,.+•�":fir°..y r,...xy. �`' " °• " r ' • ECONorthwest produced Housing •~�=r working with each Strategies g g jurisdiction • Cities are now evaluating specific Housing Strategies to increase the supply and availability of needed housing CITY 0 F -ASHLAND Technical Assistance Grant Department of Land Conservation and Development ( DECD) Grant ore�oneoerantl4mo „ego. Pt' fCendCotlerstantl/n rks A...,„... _ tnSpta and the ciL7 er at/orr ahahveen the M"nm °°am g+�Mn.uing eagle,„ Ash/antl eye/oPment Ore ZI 'atM Ro 'mP�ralicn'the`."mitr+t om8"P1 nsrng Sfrar P l o �o �m�leroentatioa Plans • State funding ava i I a b I e to rent �a�e monof� °n"thous., oot gR'lati not bem4-.the gone xPa; dry thec adOPr hgDi andtLe C'E'P burdened communities. 4'..i.13 4, �o "e Ve .,�c .a°ate h "gs area. x °oman a+ea m 6 VseiIto at "mf --'meiSoo..€a Vv. areauo ofb4,t d. ry me C/�'c L`L`t 1eoj.,.Nil)dos,ab n bur��o`,.. au,q,�y,or yy,,,,�m�'OlhrA f}. and P!o1;de M'al'n . "'o �°'°Bn i . f_'"'aorta of VeHo�ide h mR cojeq 44.4 ofh "e Press r bn_P the We Rry D..._ ero 'dope oMo-h0,,Relief o.„fom Dc qzb tz:i�.ear C i nrL `,,..e oming °n of eet their aobyo h_ftni,zp'nr;u hton.m m�ai, a � 6urR of ''�ateata, ln� • City approved Memorandum of ;nr �1�- ftim to Y p p �ar °/P II aarmey mtOM.Ao mr� mp` DS�"mC ehous w;n dnea;o Ihea,�l Y a_d yt a?va ,, fA:mrhovm Ws Ln.a�'pdauns h°"smF °b)rtiit - .Vf atmb hY the sr�ta$ S`4 C+a, Understanding with DECD . ^L,n4�,a�enran� htu�Pr t - � agwP anah� abler mat.t. �`+ehe Cm `h 5 �ltr. .. s....„., .8 maorYFtal'9r agm AFi&h - °ente toad o Nrum mya d'n•uill md:uPl 14' i ;ng.`hoa;remswa h'de en o°P°tbut .be e∎yh,h nhCu;ug.,,,,L anon of `n xbynle • Final Draft of Ashland Housing " atbro g mg Im lementation Plan due by June 30 , p Y 2019 . C I T Y O F -ASH LAN D Ashland Housing Strategy . , Encourage development of new multifamily in areas zoned for multifamily housing and commercial areas by increasing the amount and density of multifamily development (Policy #2, Actions 2e-2j ). --:\ - t \ N, . ., ., . ..., , _ _ , . . 1100-0- , ....... .. " . ,,. , Nor . _ _ ....ip , -'"*44.. 4 1 off. . .. -, ., of 1011' -- . 11 iiitill �i . ►, , • . ' 4t _ . I 1 , j. ii F. i ,ii t i.....iiik I ij 1 i --. IT ■ (I f 1 i ! 41.00, 1 a C I T Y O F Ashland Housing Strategy '4SHLAND Evaluate opportunities to implement a tax abatement program , such as the multiple-unit limited tax exemption program and the vertical housing tax credit program , to promote development of affordable multifamily housing . (Policy #4, Action 4a). Aft IZ1 \1/4-41 COST COST COST COST C I T Y OF ASHLAND DLCD Grant objectives • Conduct a code audit and evaluation of the impacts of potential increases to maximum residential density, building height and lot coverage, and potential decreases to parking requirements for multifamily housing types. • Evaluate financial returns of for-sale versus rental housing to understand the market conditions necessary to facilitate production of rental housing • Evaluate the potential impact of the multiple-unit limited tax exemption program on the development feasibility of higher density rental housing types. C I T Y OF DLCD Grant objectives ASHLAND • Review the impact of Ashland's annexation policies and approval standards on multi-family residential land supply within the City Limits. • Develop recommendations for code amendments that are most likely to be effective in both removing obstacles and identifying incentives to promote the construction of multifamily rental housing in R-2 , R-3 and other multi-family zones. C I T Y OF Introduction ASHLAND ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING Becky Hewitt Project Manager Becky specializes in urban planning , spatial analysis , and land use policy. Ashland Implementation Pla n City Council Study Session May 6, 20 19 This project is funded by a grant from the Oregon Department of Land E C 0 N o rt Ii we st Conservation and Development (DLCD). The contents of this presentation do ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING not necessarily reflect the views or the policies of the State of Oregon. Icy Que! ira f r this Ar,I *ic What are the obstacles to multifamily rental housing development in Ashland ? Would changing development standards (height, density, lot coverage, parking) for multifamily in residential zones (R-2 and R-3) help ? Could the multiple unit property tax exemption (MUPTE) incentivize multifamily rental housing? iii ?Context: Wh �re is the multfml zoning.. . , 1 ::. Zoning Map —� _ l City Limits } C-1 R-1-3.5 _ Urban Growth Boundary -C-1-D R-1-5 __--- F,ra ': - _ L_ - - - 7 Poverlay E-1 R-1-7,5 \ 1"'-`-�T, Airport Overlay - HC R-2 L1 L Freeway Overlay M-1 I -R-3 l .�� .. —i.� .,i,1 Residential Overlay NM .�.+,-,RR-.5 I Taxlots R-t-t� _RR-1 ` SO ¢°�►�',.a�C � ` a°� \1'�`r`t�v�'', a WR • 45:44.,:-L-Itfot St*': ♦ P e ,►a_°ad d 11 1,t z :. _ Mroa °w +`m w°�°'°'"D -�} --- . I�```it r- _ --. - yd„p.-,ea,Nndn ro:m.e!R ea..tme arav brren. * °A°° Y I +� . °° s_ 16 ' a arom i iw% i%® /%+s � a IIRMINNIIIIIIIIIIMtAPTOP -4k4v, , .,,,,4 :+� W.� �,.., / - t7 4;,'" _ iii a ii _' s c as .- Of>" 4:1, � I te , P b�+T C \ \ ��4�o c e 1 P s-r-\ \ t �.,f>�°° a„aQRR s y It-,- -.._ _t _,. ',I 1'-. r+�i__ r� -,'',, I.� u'r\ ..„., 4+i. i it _.- d:f y:f °dip '� e,�q 8 - — tP9 �, °fir° r.. I'ft� _ u'a' >r J,3 r X ,�c �C nl�iniA it u çi r7; y �.e ' +� 14°rl♦ t,� ,s r2'`s a►S y I/ { �a,d"dt1�+�iy�10 vil41/ �iR „ ,o , .1 - "mot s"�iOw�*� / -f`�,..� :•v. r5 �1 i r 1 f - ° !Y t .ter,.. r:- I► +�' i/ I• d.� �'.�/i+.�/�:�-.t:� 41,-.4:, 3.d,4 8°,,, �i� - th .f �w C 1,'t:'r �'* I til ' 'l ... ��/.�/� '0,:,:'`1' 144. Q. 1-..Lt I- f - j-°+1+^5111-; r i°i ALA i.:&:. . ly r .. iw:it �i a _ it.f ,+.� �.� d �: �+ > ♦ PI , `9 fii�°ao�tZ ( �r III °'^ 41-�j--c.1j(d-'j�'F 'fir..="w;� is O• -= ► '"( ' z Ed ^--a `1°A1 e4t• ` , _ .+ ° ® c s �t°a®4i t W.�. f-1 .44X4044'*"s�t b - - i� I ■I L,.{° 1 N What We Did : Overview • Gather and analyze demographic & market data • Developer interviews • Analyze prototypical housing developments Obstacles to Vultifamily Rental I lousing Development Oltlides t multifamily r�n1� I hin iiimat w.... If! Construction & land costs are high ,, :,, .....,..,..„,, .:_ ,... „sNN re uires premium rents / sales prices, L ,,,„ ,,„...,.. ,, s, ...„. .. , . . . q I , ,,,, 4, .,,,,,a„,,, ., ,, A , .. . „v. . / ... *1,\':"'X it �'.� 'i ., , . . ..... _ .1 ... .. ,, , .... . i y.. .it . .... , _ . 1 , , ... , , Ilk .. -' r 1 1 4 ii ,,,! il. _ . ,,, ' I ' rv.., ..tea • �. 'tea_.-- s a__ -.'d'` -.. a _.> Nit—' Ol :iades ti multifamily rin1aiI hiLn Demand for rental housin g mostly most) at lower income levels (not p remium rents) 3,000 2,500 2,000 0 = 1,500 -Q 1,000 50 0 0 $10,000 to $3 5,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 or more $34,999 74,999 $99,999 Household Income ■ Owner occupied •Renter occupied 8 Source:2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,Ash land Oregon Olililes LI multifamily run1ital hin � mant Ashland condominium purchases: percent Ownership down-payment (2016-2018) 120 market i 100 stronger hi80 buyers with 60 equity from z 40 selling a home 20 0 <20% 20-90% >90% Downpayment as a percent of purchase price 9 OiiliiIes t multifamily rcnitil hctn �cvcl � mant Financing for , apartments is ' hard—large F� investment in a small market to Testing Zoning Code , Part I Development Capacity I , Tenn 7znin - - Ie: WFt we Dili Part I : How many units fit on a typical site? y 7,5 y ( Buildable Lands Inventory li u, City Limits Vacant V/Airport r '' 1i ;� i NM Urban Growth Boundary Partially Vacant V/Parking vi ?Illf I to I_ !1 ,-a e;, r# r / ! ,� V/OS-Park V/UnDev ��I T r �'�,,, V I1 /'.,I(^ 7 �\," —1,1 0 1 0.25 0.S 1 ',fvll!f�5 R i-� - G 7 l 7�`— _+��-Tl %�i Q r+ ,' , :F'a, �� ' :�T 4 :,__ ,, w Typical R-2, R-3 site: 0.5- I ac II � ! f s * i ....... I 1+� 1 . �`� I`L . , (, I ;m Flowill 1 f Jt .-ter- t 16-k:, i T .1. Tin Zznn , we Did Create example buildings with � b:�� _� -_ maximum number of units allowed �.�` by current zoning /\ ,..' - Tested variations in unit size & type: --_ �j 1 -------,_ • Rental : mix of studio, I BR, 2BR, ' 3BR • Rental : all studio • Rental : aII4BR ��1 ▪ Condo: mix of I BR, 2BR, 3BR (larger units) Tustin Znin we Dili Test changes to key development standards how many additional units? Height: 3 stories vs. 2.5 (R-3 only) ,....- Aillib- 4/te,. . i : I . , -- ,...".411, ..1:j1k,HH\ 1 , 9 . a i } — — - ' ' ilirt +a - _ d !TT • G � _ �--.2 ,: JLL / '; i - [ !I' ; +�; �IiIN ; � . - -..._ - -. . , -\ � 1 Fr 14 Tufting Z - fling _ lie: Whiat we Did Test changes to key development standards—how many additional units? Density: Fewer large units vs. more small units • • • • • • III • • • •. 11U . . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • III ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15 Tiin lie: Whigt we Did Test changes to key development standards—how many additional units? Lot Coverage: How much site left landscaped? a ❑ n oon n 000n nnnn 000n flHHfl 16 T' iing _ ie: WFt we Test changes to key development standards how many additional units ? Parking: How many spaces required per unit? 17 T' ting ' onin g SDde: R' uIts R-3, I -acre Example Site:Achievable Units by Zoning Scenario and Unit Mix 90 80 70 E 60 RI 50 > a 40 0 co 30 20 10 II I 0 Existing zoning Existing zoning with Revised zoning: Revised zoning: 25% density bonuses height and density height & density increase increase, parking reduction, and lot coverage increase • Typical Rental Unit Mix • All Studio All 4BR • Typical Condo Mix T' tingoningode: Rasults R-2, I -acre Example Site:Achievable Units by Zoning Scenario and Unit Mix 60 50 E 40 a) co 030 U To 20 10 0 Existing zoning Existing zoning with Revised zoning: Revised zoning: 25% density bonuses density increase density increase, parking reduction, and lot coverage increase • Typical Rental Unit Mix • All Studio All 4BR • Typical Condo Mix T' ing ing ■= �e: T�.l�-Aw�� • Density is the biggest limitation • Lot coverage & other standards not a constraint with current density • Low density limits encourage large units • 2.5 story limit works for better for townhomes than apartments • Density increases particularly benefit smaller units Testing Toning Code , Part 2 : Financial Feasibility Telting F FciiIiIiW Part 2: Evaluate financial feasibility based on local rent, sales prices, construction costs, and fees Unit Type Rent Size (sf) Studio Apartment $900 425 I -br Apartment $ 1 ,050 600 2-br Apartment $ 1 ,280 850 3-br Apartment $ 1 ,540 1 ,000 4-br Apartment $2,000 1 , 100 Unit Type Sales Price Size (sf) I -br Condo $360,000 750 2-br Condo $4 1 0,000 1 , 100 3-br Condo $475,000 1 ,500 F Fair* * ArIm : Realuel Lanni flue RLV (Residual Land Value) is the developer's maximum land budget once they've accounted for their operations, construction, investor returns, etc . i_lal ■ . ■ A `off ei■ w f � � 1 F Fiibili Ariis: Remlidural Land \ Iue Development Example (feasible) RLV (Developer's Land Budget) Max Land Purchase Price Hard Costs (construction) Soft Costs (design, :max permitting, etc.) DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT COST VALUE FirnI F' biIiW A Residt ,ii Land \ iue Development Example (infeasible) 1 1 1 I Subsidy Land Payment I 1 Required ? t to t .,Tb ;t '. "4„*},t" i .d k P r Text x t " DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT COST VALUE TeSin Telt.ing F F' riili1,v: Remul-N RLV thresholds for feasibility $30 $20 — Land Cost - High z 0 $10 0 0 Land Cost- Low cc $0 a w ($10) 0 ($20) Q 0 w ($30) ($40) EXISTING ZONING: R-3 EXISTING ZONING: R-3 R-3: HEIGHT AND R-3: HEIGHT & WITH 25% DENSITY DENSITY INCREASE DENSITY INCREASE, BONUSES PARKING REDUCTION, AND LOT COVERAGE INCREASE Te1in FFriI� iIi : I�e�uIts RLV by Zoning Scenario: R-3 ( I -ac), Rental (Mix) $30 Q $20 Land Cost- High z 0 $10 0 0 Land Cost- Low cc $0 0' w ($10) ($20) F/5 ($30) Rental (Mix) ($40) EXISTING ZONING: R-3 EXISTING ZONING: R-3 R-3: HEIGHT AND R-3: HEIGHT & WITH 25% DENSITY DENSITY INCREASE DENSITY INCREASE, BONUSES PARKING REDUCTION, AND LOT COVERAGE INCREASE Tein Financial F1iIiW: Remiults. RLV by Zoning Scenario: R-3 ( I -ac), Rental (all 4BR) $30 $20 Land Cost - High z 0 $10 •o Rental (all 4BR) 0 Land Cost- Low $0 o' cn w w ($10) ($20) J � O cc --.___z „ -_O— Rental (Mix) ($40) EXISTING ZONING: R-3 EXISTING ZONING: R-3 R-3: HEIGHT AND R-3: HEIGHT & WITH 25% DENSITY DENSITY INCREASE DENSITY INCREASE, BONUSES PARKING REDUCTION, AND LOT COVERAGE INCREASE Tein Taiting Financial Re*jht& RLV by Zoning Scenario: R-3 ( I -ac), Rental (all Studio) $30 $20 ,� Land Cost- High o Rental (All Studio) o $10 o Rental (all 4BR) 0 w Land Cost- Low Q $0 Lt a w ($10) J Q ($20) LIJ ($30) _°_---- -'� Rental (Mix) ($40) EXISTING ZONING: R-3 EXISTING ZONING: R-3 R-3: HEIGHT AND R-3: HEIGHT & WITH 25% DENSITY DENSITY INCREASE DENSITY INCREASE, BONUSES PARKING REDUCTION, AND LOT COVERAGE INCREASE Tein Telting F Fri i i i i : Re,jfrN RLV by Zoning Scenario: R-3 ( I -ac), Condo (Mix) $30 $20 - Land Cost- High Rental (All Studio) z L6- $10 ,Z Condo (Mix) o a Rental (all 4BR) 0 w c_ A Land Cost- Low $0 D w w ($10) J ($20) J o ($30) 0 Rental Mix cr ( ) ($40) EXISTING ZONING: R-3 EXISTING ZONING: R-3 R-3: HEIGHT AND R-3: HEIGHT & WITH 25% DENSITY DENSITY INCREASE DENSITY INCREASE, BONUSES PARKING REDUCTION, AND LOT COVERAGE INCREASE TeAtin! F F • Increasing site development capacity helps if development is financially feasible but can't afford land cost • If costs are too high relative to rents, density increase & parking reduction don't offer enough cost-savings to help • With code amendments, all -studio can out- compete condo if there is enough demand Property Tax Abatement Property Tax Abatement: Overview Two relevant options for multifamily: • Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) • Flexible statute: criteria set by City • I 0 years • Exempts improvement value only (not land) • Temporary abatement for multifamily rental* • Eligibility per statute • Up to I 0 years — City sets how long • Abatement on land + improvements *Not in scope to test in detail PrEper-ry T•( Aatamnt: WhtWe lid • Using prototypical developments: • How much would tax abatement save the property owner? ■ How would a developer value those savings? • How much foregone revenue for City & other taxing districts? • Test with & without rent discounts • Estimate foregone revenue to property owner from reduced rent 11' I'ropariy -4( Añtunnt: ! ejhN Example Value of tax abatement City Taxes $11,134 I� (year one) Other Districts ' Taxes $28,034 Total $39,169 C reT■e�x Alatamunt: Res u I-6 Fifty $50 $40 Rental (all studio), with tax abatement Q $30 z 0 $20 ---- Land Cost- High ~o 0 Rental (All Studio) 0 U- Q $10 Condo (Mix) o Land Cost- Low °- $0 w °z ($10) ($20) ($30) ($40) EXISTING ZONING: R-3 EXISTING ZONING: R-3 R-3: HEIGHT AND R-3: HEIGHT & WITH 25% DENSITY DENSITY INCREASE DENSITY INCREASE, BONUSES PARKING REDUCTION, AND LOT COVERAGE INCREASE Prptyx AI:tmit: Resu Its $50 $40 Rental (all studio), with tax abatement Q $30 0 $20 ---- Land Cost- High f— 0 Rental (All Studio) 0 < $10 Condo (Mix) Land Cost- Low is0 ($10) O O Rental (Mix), with tax • abatement ($20) cc ($30) 0 Rental (Mix) ($40) EXISTING ZONING: R-3 EXISTING ZONING: R-3 R-3: HEIGHT AND R-3: HEIGHT & WITH 25% DENSITY DENSITY INCREASE DENSITY INCREASE, BONUSES PARKING REDUCTION, AND LOT COVERAGE INCREASE Wt we Lrn ' : Pr phirtyTe.x AItnat • Abatement more powerful when combined with zoning changes • When targeted to market- rate rental housing, the abatement can help it compete with condo/townhome Recommendations Rte- immeniati( re.: Aminoling Devel • Increase densities in R-2 and R-3 • Supported by PC & HHSC • Consider using Floor Area Ratio • Increase allowed height in R-3 from 2 '/z to 3 stories • Largely supported by PC & HHSC • Decrease multifamily parking requirements for smaller units • Mixed feedback from PC & HHSC • Increase lot coverage allowances slightly in R-2 and R-3 • Mixed feedback from PC & HHSC Apply code amendments equally to rental & ownership. HrArca Ratii IIIi. satii: n Floor-Area Ratio ( FAR) . The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area . Alri �I i1fill 1 I II 01111111111' Ii 1) I 1 ?III , i V / I T / 100 % LOT COVERED 50 % LOT COVERED 25 % LOT COVERED F. A.R. 1.0 Other e. immenIaticro • Revisit code to streamline multifamily infill • Revise annexation policies: eliminate requirement to demonstrate < 5 -year land supply • Advance discussions on property tax abatements with other taxing districts ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING III ••• im... p-4--: = 1111111 •• la Eugene Portland Seattle Boise