The URL can be used to link to this page

ZOA1995-00001 ZOAI995 - 0000 / PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON FILE NO: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA) 95-0001 FILE TITLE: BOWEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY- (ROBINSON/BOWEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS) APPLICANT: Bowen Development Company OWNER: Same 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3850 Portland, OR 97204 REQUEST: A request by Bowen Development Company to amend the following Tigard Community Development Code Sections in order to permit. attached, common wall town homes on "fee" simple ownership lots: 18.26.030(B)(4), 18.26.030(B)(5), 18.26.030(C)(3), 18.26.030-Compatibility Matrix, 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), 18.80.120(3)(j). LOCATION: CITYWIDE APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.26, 18.32, 18.56, 18.80 and 18.164. CIT: Central, North, East & West CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) DECISION MAKING BODY STAFF DECISION X PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 4/17/95 TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN OTHER STAFF CONTACT: Will D'Andrea (503) 639-4171 x315 ZOA 960001 BOWEN DEVELOPMENT CO. April 12, 1995 C-4/19/94 14:26 IT503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD Z002/003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON C'i 1;__H ,S_" PLAN .itiL.J MENT ZONE CHA} J/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223'- (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY • CASE NO. ACA 000 / OTHER CASE NO'S: .0/4 RECEIPT NO. .I APPLICATION AC PTED Y: t/11 g4 DATE: ' S 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elemen s submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION not applicable Application form (1) II ) Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. not applicable authorization 1 1 (C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE not applicable (pre app check list) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* not applicable t -1D) Filing fee ($ -30 `-)1ti6t,/ ADDRESS PHONE Additional information for Compre- CITY ZIP si a Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes APPLICANT: Bowen Development Company; contact: Jim q (E) Maps indicating property Ekbe g ADDRESS 111 SW 5th Ave. , Ste: :3850PHONE location (pre-app check list) •I CITY Portland, OR ZIP 97204 h 15F) List of property owners and *When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet .(1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization !�(H) Title transfer instrument (1) from the owner or an agent of the owner with written ' authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ ONE DESIqNATION: � applicable) from to d(� and a Zone Change from to / Z, i Number: y CY OR The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code See application narrative. City Council Approval Date: 0737P123P Rev'd: 5/87 Q4/19/94 14:26 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD a003/003 4 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. 5. TEE APPLICANT(S), SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. • B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants - so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. DATED this 17th day of February 19 95 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. Mittel C. ALP/AA.... Michael C. Robinson, Attorney for Applzcant '_Bowen':Development Company (KSL:pm/0737P) •STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES & GREY V r)RNE\'<AF I.AW SUITE 2300 STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE RECEIVED PLAN ,ill PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 T'lepinme(503)224-3380 Telecopier(503)220-2480 EB 1 7 1995 Cable Luwport Tel 703455 Writer's Direct Dial Number (503) 294-9194 February 17, 1995 VIA MESSENGER Mr. Dick Bewersdorff Senior Planner City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 . Re: Proposed Legislative Amendments to Tigard Community Development Code Dear Dick: • Please find enclosed an application form, a check in the amount of $675 . 00 and 18 copies of an application to amend various parts of the Tigard Community Development Code . I had submitted a draft application to you earlier in the week and Will D'Andrea called yesterday and confirmed that it was complete . The submittal is based on the draft application. Please provide me with a copy of the 45-day notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development and the Planning Commission hearing on this matter. The applicant and I will be happy to meet with any neighborhood groups that are interested in discussing this amendment . I would also be happy . to talk with you and your staff if you require additional information or have any questions . Thank you for your assistance . Very truly yours, Milak c Michael C. Robinson MCR:cfz Enclosures cc : Mr. Jim Ekberg (w/encl . ) Ms . Julie 'Morales (w/encl . ) PDX1-171475.1 15966 0009 PORTLAND, SEATTLE. VANCOUVER, BOISE. SALT LAKE CITY, WASHINGTON, OREGON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON IDAHO UTAH DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA • • • • • ,Y,J. :rl_ >•.'a�.:l.'Zl_:tl.-0i1:�.-_4.1:').d,ti.•`..a'� ..• ^t,'�3J•�,�}. �,j.��'w• 1:..•• 1 nt. 4:5), ,,Y`I•".� .1 1�1' r • APPLICATION BY • • BOWEN DEVELOPMENT • • • • • �.. ,+Z.�i;;l:1:.�{`:4.':i:54.cr r.i: .,K','i. J'r_- :.'r , ..`:;'-'FOR:APPROVAL�`OF AMENDMENTS • • �.Y. _w. . TO THE TIGARI).•'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •• • CODE TO PERMIT::r`y :.-:;. ;,,•• • FEE`SIMPLE',•TOWNHOMES ,.. • IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT . • • • ,: .��:; s .. ..SUBNIITTED.:TO. ,,_ _ - _ .. • • • • • Cl'1'Y OF TIGARD '` PLANNING DEPARTMENT • • ON • FEBRUARY 17, 1995 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION 1 II. PROPOSAL 2 A. Need for the Amendments 2 B. Proposed Text Amendments 3 C. Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC 6 III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 7 A. Statewide Planning Goals 7 B. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 12 C. TCDC 18.30.120, "The Standards for the Decision" 16 D. OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 18 IV. CONCLUSION 20 LIST OF EXHIBITS 21 PDX1-1697801 99999 0006 1 L SUMMARY OF APPLICATION APPLICANT: Jim Ekberg Bowen Development Company 3850 US Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 274-8400 Fax: 274-4685 APPLICANT'S Michael C. Robinson REPRESENTATIVE: Stoel Rives Boley Jones & Grey 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 Telephone: 294-9194 Fax: 220-2480 APPLICANT'S PLANNING Bob Moreland CONSULTANT: Julie Morales MCM Architects 1022 SW Salmon, Suite 360 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: 222-5757 Fax: 241-1514 PROPOSAL: To amend the following Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") Sections in.order to permit attached, common wall town homes on "fee" ownership lots to be treated as single-family dwellings: 1. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4), amend definition of single-family attached dwelling; 2. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(5), amend definition of multiple-family dwelling; 3. TCDC 18.26.030(C)(3), delete definition of townhouse; 4. TCDC 18.26.030, amend compatibility matrix to allow more than two attached single-family dwellings in a planned development district next to single- family detached dwellings; PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 1 • 5. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), reduce the front yard set-back for garage openings adjacent to a private street; and 6. TCDC 18.80.120(3)(j), permit up to 50 percent of required off-street parking • spaces in a planned development district be provided in common parking lots as long as at least one off-street parking space is provided on each single-family lot. IL PROPOSAL A. Need for the Amendments This package of legislative amendments to the TCDC text will permit construction of attached single-family dwellings (townhomes) on "fee" ownership lots to be treated as single-family dwellings in base and planned development districts. The TCDC currently treats more than two contiguous lots containing attached single-family dwellings as multiple-family dwellings. See TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4) and (B)(5). Attached single-family dwellings are treated as single- family homes only if in a "condominium" form of ownership. Id. A fee ownership lot is distinguished from a condominium in that the homeowner owns the land beneath the dwelling in common with other homeowners. The difference in lot ownership type will not cause attached single- family dwellings to look any different from other attached single-family dwellings nor result in increased density. The amendments will offer an additional housing type not currently allowed by the TCDC. The benefit of adopting this amendment package is that it addresses a need in the housing market and fills a gap in the current TCDC. The amendments will also assist the City of Tigard in providing for attractive, well-planned, attached PDX1-169780.1 99999(X)06 2 • single-family dwelling developments where multiple-family developments would otherwise be required. In addition, by permitting attached single-family dwellings on fee-owned lots, the City of Tigard will have another device enabling it to meet the density requirement imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. See OAR 660-07-035(2). The proposed text amendments to the TCDC are shown below. New language is "redlined" and deleted language is "lined out". The amendments were reviewed by the City's Senior Planner prior to submittal. A short explanation for the reason for each amendment is provided below the amended language. B. Proposed Text Amendments 1. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling: "Single-Family Attached Dwelling Two or more dwelling units attached side by side on 603ibtfititt my:4009h1eparate lots or some structural parts in common at a common property line * * * Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings include common-wall structures on two or more contiguous lots. Effect of amendment is to permit townhomes on fee-ownership lots. 2. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(5), Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: "Multiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units and any vertical - or horizontal arrangement, located on a single lot or development sitegiNEgOWCWOMWV.WOR4 building PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 3 • • Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that townhomes on fee-ownership lots are excluded from the definition of multiple-family dwelling. 3. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4) and (5): Move illustration under definition of "single-family attached dwelling" to definition of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling" to definition of "single-family attached dwelling." Reason for Change: a. illustrations are reversed. 4. TCDC 18.26.030(C)(3), Definition of 'Townhouse": • • • . • 11 .1 '• • • in • • • • • ;ur. Reason for Change: a. Not necessary to have "townhouse" in the TCDC because the type of dwelling unit is allowed under the definition of "single-family attached dwelling unit." This amendment was suggested by the staff. 5. TCDC 18.26.030, Compatibility Matrix. Change "single-family attached" to: "No-over 2;unkiliii5liiiri-ettiliVe101iniejit district:, Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings, including townhomes on contiguous lots in planned development districts, are compatible with single-family detached homes because of the characteristics of the planned development district. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 4 40 6. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), Garage Opening Setback Requirement in the PD District "A minimum frontyard setback of 20$ feet is required for..any garage ope >..:>.::.>.::::r.: facin a Reasons for Change: a. Each dwelling will have at least one parking space and, possibly, two garage parking spaces. A 20-foot setback behind the garage opening is unnecessary. An 8-foot setback is the minimum required to permit a car to back out of a garage. See Exhibit 1. An 8-foot setback discourages driveway parking. b. Planned developments should be encouraged to handle off- street parking more efficiently. c. Reduces amount of impervious surfaces. d. Other requirements still exist for minimum right-of-way width and obstruction-free roads within planned development. 7. TCDC 18.80.120(3)(j), Parking Requirement in the PD District • • d.:ed on one t re common :._in <ry.:ats< .::::>in �.. Reasons for Change: a. Encourages affordability of housing by allowing "clustered" parking spaces and reduces development costs. b. Improves ability to increase densities within planned developments. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 5 •/ c. Promotes "dual usage" of off-street parking spaces. Provides for visitor parking spaces where visitors might otherwise block sidewalks by parking on driveways and parking within streets. C. Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC Legislative amendments to the TCDC text may be initiated by any person. TCDC 18.30.020(A)(5). A preapplication conference is required by TCDC 18.30.020(B). The applicant's representative met with city staff in a preapplication meeting on December 8, 1994. The applicant's planning consultant previously met with city staff to discuss the need for the amendments. The TCDC provides for a limited "window" in which to submit legislative amendments. An application must be submitted no more than 75 days and no less than 45 days before the first Planning Commission Meeting in April. TCDC 18.30.030(A). The first Planning Commission Meeting is April 3, 1995. This application was submitted on February 17, 1995, 45 days before the first Planning Commission meeting in April. The submitted application must be complete, including an application with an application form, the required fee and 18 copies of a narrative addressing the standards contained in TCDC 18.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(1)-(4). The director is not permitted to accept an incomplete application. TCDC 18.30.030(G). The director has previously determined that this application was a complete submittal. No meeting with a CIT or neighborhood group is required prior to submittal but the applicant intends to meet with interested neighborhood groups at their request prior to the April 3, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 6 • 11, III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA The applicable criteria for the TCDC amendments include the Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals"), applicable policies in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") [(see TCDC 18.10:010(A)), TCDC 18.30.120 and OAR 660-12-055(3) and 660-12-060 (The Transportation Planning Rule). A. Statewide Planning Goals 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement: "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all • phases of the planning process." Response: This Goal is satisfied through provisions in the acknowledged TCP and TCDC which provide for citizen participation. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. 'To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for decisions and actions." Response: This Goal is met because the acknowledged TCP and TCDC contain provisions implementing the planning process. The City will coordinate this application with affected governmental agencies (ODOT, Metro, Washington County, Tri-Met, the Tualatin Valley Parks and Recreation District and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District) by providing notice and an opportunity to comment to the agencies. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 7 3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands: "To preserve and maintain agricultural lands." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the preservation of agricultural land. 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands: 'To conserve forest land by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the conservation of forest lands or the protection of the state's forest economy. 5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources: 'To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the conservation of open space or the protection of natural resources. 6. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: 'To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed • amendments will not affect air, water or land resources quality. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 8 • ! IP 111 7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: "To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not have an affect on the protection of life and property from natural disasters. 8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs: "Satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, where appropriate, to provide for • the siting of necessary recreational facilities, including destination resorts." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the state's recreational needs. 9. Goal 9, Economic Development 'To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon citizens." Response: This Goal is satisfied because the proposed amendments will increase opportunities for economic development in Tigard. The proposed amendments will permit expanded use of attached single-family dwellings, thereby encouraging development of existing, appropriately zoned sites. This activity will benefit the City's economy. 10. Goal 10, Housing. 'To provide for housing needs of citizens of the state." Response: The proposed amendments further this Goal because they encourage two of its central purposes: the availability of needed housing units and PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 9 r • the efficient use of buildable land within the urban growth boundary ("UGB"). See OAR 660-08-000(1). The proposed amendments will also further the city's compliance with minimum residential density requirements. See OAR 660-07-035(3). Attached single-family housing is "needed housing" under the administrative rules implementing Goal 10. OAR 660-08-005(11)(a). As defined by OAR 660-08-005(1), attached single-family housing means "common-wall dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot." There are no restrictions on the number of attached dwellings under the regulatory definition. The proposed amendments will make the TCDC's definition of single-family housing consistent with the state's and promote the availability of this type of housing. In addition, because the proposed amendments will make it easier to increase densities within planned developments, the proposed amendments will encourage the efficient use of land within the UGB and further compliance with the minimum residential density allocation requirements of OAR 660-07-035(3), (the Metropolitan Housing Rule). 11. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services: "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the amendments will not affect the current levels of police and fire services, sanitary facilities, water facilities, storm drainage facilities, or energy and communications services. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 10 • 12. Goal 12, Transportation: 'To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." Response: This Goal is satisfied because the proposed amendments will not cause congestion on nearby streets. The amendments will not increase density in any district where attached dwellings are presently allowed as multiple- family dwellings. 13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation: 'To conserve energy." Response: The proposed amendments will further this goal because common-wall housing units have fewer external walls than free-standing housing units and are, therefore, more energy efficient. 14. Goal 14, Urbanization: 'To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." Response: This Goal is inapplicable because the proposed amendments will not affect urban land use outside of the urban growth boundary. 15. Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway; Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes; and Goal 19, Ocean Resources. Response: These Goals are inapplicable because none of the listed natural resources are affected by the amendments. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments to the TCDC conform to the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. PDXI-169760.1 99999 0006 11 y . B. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies TCDC 18.10.010(A) requires that any procedure initiated pursuant to the TCDC "shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the City of Tigard as implemented by this title. ***" TCDC 18.30.120(A)(4) makes legislative amendments such as this subject to "the applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. ***" Finally, amendments to acknowledged land use regulations, such as the TCDC, require a showing of compliance with the acknowledged comprehensive plan. ORS 197.175(2)(d). This section explains why the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable TCP goals and policies. 1. TCP Policy 1.1.1(a), "General Policies": "This comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the land conservation and development commission, the regional plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District" Response: The applicant hereby incorporates Part fII(A) and (C) of this application in response to this policy. 2. TCP Policy 1.1.1(c), "General Policies": "The Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code are kept current with the needs of the community ***". Response: The proposed amendments will allow townhomes on fee- owned lots to be excluded from the zoning restrictions applicable to multi-family housing units. As a result, the proposed amendments will make it easier to develop alternative housing types consistent with the housing needs of the community. PDX1-769780.7 99999 0006 12 • • 3. TO' Policy 2.1.1, "Citizen Involvement": 'The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Response: Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be provided as required by the TCDC. 4. TOP Policy 6.1.1, "Housing": 'The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various price and rent levels." Response: These amendments accomplish this TCP policy in a number of ways. First, they encourage the use of single-family attached dwellings in planned development districts. Because fee ownership townhomes on more than two contiguous lots are currently not treated as single-family dwellings, according to city staff, this type of housing is discouraged in the planned development district. Single-family attached dwellings provide an opportunity for more affordable owner-occupied homes. These amendments, therefore, increase the variety of residential types, densities and price levels. Second, by reducing the garage door setback onto private streets, the development cost of single-family attached homes is reduced and their affordability increased. The application includes drawings demonstrating how a planned development district with an 8-foot setback to the garage door opening on a private street will nevertheless be able to satisfy off-street parking requirements. See Exhibit 1. A one-car garage with an additional off-street space (either on the lot or in a common lot as proposed in the amendments) or a two-car garage will PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 13 • ' 1 satisfy off-street parking spaces for single family dwellings. See TCDC 18.106.030(A)(1) (2 off-street spaces for each single-family attached dwelling are required). A twenty-foot separation between the garage door opening and a private street is not necessary where the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces are provided. Finally, a reduced garage door opening set-back to the private street will reduce the amount of driveway where it is unnecessary and will discourage the parking of cars in front of garages. 5. TCP Policy 6.1.1, "Housing," Implementation Strategy (2): * * * 'The Tigard Community Development Code shall list a broad range of zoning districts which allow for a variety of housing types, and complies with the adopted Metropolitan Housing Rule (50-50 mixture of single family and attached or multiple-family at 10 units to the net acre on buildable vacant land). * * Response: The City provides increased opportunity to continue to meet the Metropolitan Housing Rule on existing appropriately zoned sites by providing increased opportunities for developing single-family attached dwellings. 6. TCP Policy 6.1.1, "Housing," Implementation Strategy (3): "In addition, the City shall encourage developers to use the planned development process in all developing areas." Response: Because single-family attached dwellings on more than two contiguous lots are treated as multiple-family dwellings under the current interpretation of the TCDC, there is less incentive to use the planned development P0X1-769780.1 99999 0006 14 • district to its fullest potential. These amendments encourage the use of the planned development process as it was intended; that is, an innovative design process providing development superior to traditional lot-by-lot development. 7. TCP Policy 6.2.1, "Housing": "The city shall develop dear and concise development regulations and standards to facilitate the streamlining of development proposals, and will eliminate unnecessary provisions which could increase housing costs without corresponding benefit" Response: These amendments facilitate the streamlining and development proposals by making it easier to develop single-family attached dwellings on fee ownership lots. They also eliminate unnecessary provisions adding to housing costs without corresponding benefit in three ways. First, the amendments encourage the use of fee ownership attached single-family dwellings. As noted above, this makes housing more affordable by reducing its cost. Second, the proposed amendments include reductions and set-backs where appropriate. This reduces the amount of land necessary to develop a single-family attached dwelling and also reduces unnecessary driveways. Finally, the amendments provide for up to fifty percent of required off-street parking spaces in a plan development district to be located in common parking areas. This not only provides for increased opportunity for "dual usage" (visitor parking at times when residents are not utilizing the parking), but also recognizes the City's goal to encourage more homeowners to use transit, bike or walk rather than having two-cars to meet their transportation needs. The City retains sufficient discretion through its approval process in TCDC Chapter 18.80.120 PDX.169780.1 99999 0006 15 f • • (the planned development district) to prohibit those common parking areas where inappropriate. 8. TCP Policy 6.2.1, "Housing," Implementation Strategy (3): 'The City shall seek ways to minimize the cost of housing by encouraging a variety of home ownership alternatives, such as, but not limited to, townhouses and condominiums. Response: The proposed amendments will encourage the development of attached single-family housing. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments meet the applicable TCP goals and policies. C. TCDC 18.30.120, 'The Standards for the Decision" An application for a legislative amendment to the TCDC is required to demonstrate compliance with the standards in TCDC 18.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(4). These standards are shown below with responses following. 1. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(1): 'The recommendation by the commission and the decision by the council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: *** the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adapted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197;" Response: The application satisfies the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. See Part DI(A), above. PDX1-169180.1 99999 0006 16 • • 1. 2. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(2): "Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable;' Response: The applicant has determined that there are no additional applicable federal or state statutes or guidelines. 3. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(3): "Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; Response: The applicant has determined that there are no applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District ("Metro"). 4. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(4): 'The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Maps; Response: The applicant has addressed the applicable TCP Goals and Policies. See Part III(B), above. 5. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(5): 'The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances." Response: The implementing ordinances are contained in the TCDC. The only applicable TCDC provisions are found in TCDC Chapter 18.30. These are addressed in Part II(C), above. 6. TCDC 18.30.120(B)(1): "Consideration may also be given to *** • (1) proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 17 • r Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Ordinance which is the subject of the application" Response: The TCDC contains a mistake by failing to provide for single-family attached dwellings on contiguous fee-ownership lots. This type of ownership is quite common throughout the Portland metropolitan region. It does not increase densities above what is already permitted by the base and planned development districts. The amendment encourages the use of the single-family attached dwelling district with furthers compact development, more efficient energy usage, and increases the ability of the City to meet the density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule on appropriately zoned sites. This is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10, Guideline (A)(2), which calls for appropriate types and amounts of land to be provided for housing that meets the housing needs of households at all income levels. Moreover, Statewide Planning Goal 10, Implementation Measure (B)(1), provides that comprehensive plans should provide for a "continuing review of housing need projections it should establish a process for accommodating needed revision." This amendment is part of that ongoing process because it is an identified and needed housing type that is not currently allowed. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments satisfy TCDC 18.30.120. D. OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 1. OAR 660-12-060 This state administrative rule applies to amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations. OAR PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 18 • i . 660-12-060(1). The rule is applicable to this application because it requests an amendment to the City's land use regulations. OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) provide as follows: "(1) Amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the plan functions, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; (b) amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; (c) altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. "(2) A land use regulation amendment significantly affects the transportation facility if it (a) changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) changes a standard implementing a functional classification system; (c) allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or (d) would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in TSP." Response: The proposed amendments will not significantly affect a transportation facility. Therefore, OAR 660-12-060 is inapplicable to these amendments. 2. OAR 660-12-055(3) This part of the Transportation Planning Rule requires the City to have amended its land use and subdivision ordinances to implement OAR 660-12-045(3), (4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) by May 8, 1994. The City has not met this PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 19 • deadline except for OAR 660-12-045(3). ORS 197.646(3) and OAR 660-12-055(3) provide that the sections above are directly applicable to land use decisions when the May 8, 1994 deadline has,not been met. OAR 660-12-045(4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) are, therefore, directly applicable to this application. a. OAR 660-12-045(4)(a)-(e). This part of the Rule applies to transit-supportive measures for new retail, office and institutional developments. This section is inapplicable to these amendments because they application only to residential subdivisions. b. OAR 660-12-045(d). This part of the Rule requires local governments to adopt land use regulation measures encouraging reduced reliance on the automobile for all major industrial, institutional, retail and office developments. These amendments are inapplicable to these types of development. IV. CONCLUSION This application satisfies the applicable criteria for amendments to the TCDC. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 20 • • LIST OF EXHIBITS . EXHIBIT 1 Illustrative drawings showing off-street parking EXHIBIT 2 City of Tigard Application Form 21 PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 • . 1 • . Z! ' 1 .... Q 1 a Esnr----.? 1 I-`--r- `l\ ...., (1__._1 , ETT--1 . . r-Li- \ r mk, In E-7 _ MIN. 14 y SETBACK h 4 —_71 /1_, . . . FT , II ' J ; Er-ii- i ., 1 \ ;i - I ?; f, 1 , I 1 .-->a <-- ; , fin!' I .� 1 1 u J � Y - I . � r - - I e,.m' 1 20.-m' . .I ,MIN. .1 PRIVATE I SET- AC-C:77.56 5 BACK DRIVE EXAMPLES — SET84CK AT GARAGE FACING STREET Exhibit 1 04/19/94 14:24 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD _ 41002/003 • • 1u_ 111 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON qaleitERENS1VE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHAA(GE/ZONE ORDINANCZ A KENT APPLICATION i CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 • Tigard, Oregon 97223'- (503) 639-4171 FOR. STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. OTHER CASE NO'S: RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION not applicable (A) Application form (1) (B) Owner's signature/written TAX HAP AND TAX LOT NO. not applicable T authorization I 1 (C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE not applicable (pre-app check list) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER.* not applicable (D) Filing fee (t_ _ ') ADDRESS PHONE - Additional information for Compre- CITY ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes APFLICAHT= Bowen Development Company; contact: Jim (E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS 111 SW 5th Ave. , Ste. 3850PHONE hkberg location (pre-app check list) CITY Portland, OR ZIP 97204 (F) List of property owners and *When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization (H) Title transfer instrument (1) from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from to and a Zone Change from to N.P.O. Number: OR. The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code See application narrative. City Council Approval Date: 0737P/23P Rev'd: 5/87 Exhibit 2 04, 14, y4 14:r0 •Q.JUJ 004 74.44 l.11l QC' liV•u ' `iihj V V■ / �VJ • f • 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. • 5. TEE APPLICANT(S)• SBALL CERTIFY TEAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants - so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. DATED this 17th day of February 1995 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. iuL1 c. Michael C. Robinson, Attorney for Applicant, Bowen Development Company (KSL:pm/0737P) • I:P t REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TO: Per Attached - To the File DATE: April 12, 1995 FROM: Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Will D'Andrea (x315) Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 95-0001 BOWEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-ROBINSON/BOWEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS • A request by Bowen Development Company to amend the following Tigard Community Development Code Sections in order to permit attached, common wall town homes on "fee" simple ownership lots: 18.26.030(B)(4), 18.26.030(B)(5), 18.26.030(C)(3), 18.26.030-Compatibility Matrix, 18.56.050(A)(1)(B), 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), 18.80.120(3)(j) and 18.164.060(B). LOCATION: CITYWIDE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.26, 18.32, 18.56, 18.80 and 18.164; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10 and 12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2 and 6. �The=Applicant_has=provided_a:Narraif e-that_is-available_for=your_i�eview=ifnecessary:—Please call`Patty(z320)Ityou=would=like=to review-it. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: tAprit 16 1995 You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: — (Please provide the following information) Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: ZOA 95-0001 BOWEN DEVELOPMENT CO. April 12, 1995 4INI) REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Ili - NOTIFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIONS ...... ' >`...,.. .:'....... .:.,.::..: p E t)1: 1:t�Nt':TfA1v! JJ::-:q;.:-;:-: for review in.Libra C� k: CP;:-:;;: C� Area. �..... (� aced O N ..♦...,.::}:.v::.:�::-w::-w:::::::::v::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::w:}:::,:_:::.�::.�.:�::.• }:•:i'%':-.'-Till<iii:::i:::i<%:%;:>ji. : v::::.:::::r:ri:..h,...............r.r:....::. .....:. ? }:::{::::m.....:'..n:ry:..}::::::::::::.::::::::..:.::•.:v.:'v:rv..n..........:..v.;• ::i%jiiiiiiiiiiii%::�:t%:'}:ii>:i:�iii}ii`v.:r.,v:.v.::..�.?,?•.:l-n'.. ............ .....:.x{.J i8 'f.?q...w::::nvv::.::v::::::::::.::::}v}:-}}i:?-}:-j } ::: ::}:::}::•:::.v:::nv:::::}Till:%iirii%i: L/1luildtng Official/Dave Scott _Police/Kelly Jennings _Reid Operations/John Acker City Recorder/Cathy Wheatley —[ngineering/Michael Anderson Permits Facilitator/Jerree Gaynor f d vF an ced Planning/Card Landsman Wi ater Department/Michael}:M%Jille}.%r. . r.: : ' 'x{J;S-- ••:{:::....::::::::::}..}:.:t-.J.x :.c.:::}:.:::::::':::: �{.} :, :',r...:....,. } : ,.,,,...:frJ .:-•;,.!t•%%:• n{F:.��F i ,, r:.:{ , : ,I : n : .+ ::.:::.1 :,:.:R .A... . . ..: :.}:-}}.:•::•}}}.}J::.:.J}:-}:-J.:.a.J:-}:-J:•}:-}:-J.:•,::-}:-:-}:-::-::.::.:.:.:.i:-}-}.:.:,:,:;..-}.--...-x.-..-..-....-..}.•.J}::::::::.,. .: ......:::::. .:,:.. .r...:...:..... ........,.. .L-3i...:-.r...i.i.i.S.:.:.i.?.i.:::..:-.i.i::{...v:::::::..i.i.i.i.i.iiii.i.:.vii.i.i.i.i.:.i.:.+:ii.i...:.i...iii.ii.i.i.iJ:iiiiiiiiii}:iiiiiii};:}}iiiii::::iiiii}iiiii::%i:iiiiiiii}ii}jii i:J:vi}}i'ii:::iiiiiiiii iiiiii } ivv :i:: —Are District _Unified Sewerage Agency _Tualatin Valley Water District (pick-up box) SWM Program/Lee Walker PO Box 745 155 N. First Street Beaverton,OR 97075 Hillsboro.OR 97124 }J%{?fi::i.t:.:};•:y.J':{ i'•:^C•}h:v}:i•:fix::•:xti•}:i ?::: -Y+:v::F:+ .v. v r}'F.}.}vF•.v'•.JY{•i:%JY:.}J•}::}::J'F•........yv::::.v:::n�:::::::... .............:.........v::::::::.vv::::::::::::::::.vnv::::::.v:::::::::::::::.::::F•}ii}:•}J•:::...:•.?v:.v:. ,..{. .•StL} ':•:.++• ..'7:S-}:::}{•}i}Y{,vfivw:J+r:.+':v:J:6::::::.v.BJ'?4}:4}J}:L:::.:::.,. .......,...,.........................................,.vv.r. }�nrr...�: .... .........'---•"---.......-'-----'--.....-----............:•:::.,..:;{.:.:.:..:.:::...:#AFB.'�.Y.•:M.Y.��-Y�4�::•J:::•J:•}:•i}i:•}:�}'•}}}:}:::•}•}i:•J:?�:}xi:•}:•}:•i:•�::a:•;�:•J}::}.•J}}x::•}J:•}<:a:::J'•:-'•:{tv+}}:•k-.'-'x--:::._::::::}<}:x;: {{:{:Fr• :•!.4, ?t{:.:::.•:::-:.+.-:::-.,-::.,-::::-.,.....,-::::::::::}.,:•::::::.,•:::::::::J:•J:•::•J:•}:•:?•:;{•}:•J:•J:••:::::�:•::::: : : •:;:::•:::::•::::::::}::r:::::.;...,...........................:•.,•::::::.�:::::::::::.�:::._:•.-._..,.•.r..::. ........ �•',•,� ice, v.v:... ..:.:.............. __ Washington Co.Land Use&Transportation _Boundar'y Commission . _METRO-GREENSPACES PROGRAM 150 N.First Avenue 800 NE Oregon St.#16,Suite 540 Mel Huse (CPA's/ZOA's) Hillsboro.OR 97124 Portland.OR 97232-2109 600 NE Grand Avenue . Portland,OR 97232-2736 • • _Brent Curtis(CPA's) _State Highway Division _Jim lice(IGA'S) Sam Hunaldi _ODOT/Region 1 _Mike Borreson(Engineer) PO Box 25412 Laurie Nicholson/Transportation Planning Scott King(CPA's) Portland.OR 97225-0412 123 N.W. Randers _Tom Harry(Current Planning App's) / Portland,OR 97209-4307 Lynn Bailey(Current Planning App's) (/Oregon DLCD(CPA's/ZOA's) _ 1175 Court Street.N.E. _Other _City of Beaverton Salem,OR 97310-0590 Jim Hendryx-Principal Planner City of Portland ' PO Box 4755 City of Durham Planning Director Beaverton.OR 97076 City Manager 1120 SW 5th PO Box 23483-3483 Portland,OR 97204 _City of King City • Tigard.OR 97281 CMy Manager / City of Lake Oswego 15300 SW 116th City of Tualatin City Manager King City.OR 97724 PO Box 369 • - PO Box 369 Tualatin,OR 97062 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 ...u.:..:. .J.v... r......x::v:::nv::w:::::::::r:::::::::nv;};:Y•}:•}}•:.}.<.`.....5{SiSiSi iii-SSSSSSSj :. -}: � � :{?}} :::::}:. .:......:....:•- .. .\+l•:.{v.-v,v::\v}:: :+:::--.•:::rv.• : :: ^.: :•:.�.-�. f-:��v:-}JJ}JJ}}:??-J :-}:-JJ}'�{•iy4i iii i':'%iiii:?i�};:i{i_,,,,f,,,,,.,,...,,,.,,, v?n\•{4:::?{i::v'ti;:??{;:tii;:vr:;:j;:$:�;:;i:�i:%fi%ii �?%;:;:ji;:i;_i;:;�:;i:;:;:};iii:+:i>(::}%iiii::?<'v ...}.v —General Telephone _Portland General Electric _Columbia Cable Engineering Office Brion Moore Craig Eyestone PO Box 23416 14655 SW Oid Scholls Ferry Road 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Tigard,OR 97281-3416 Beaverton,OR 97007 Beaverton,OR 97005 —NW Natural Gas _Metro Area Communications/Jason Hewitt _Tri-Met Transit Dev. Scott Palmer Twin Oaks Technology Center Kim Knox 220 NW Second Avenue 1815 NW 169th Place S-6020 710 NE Holladay Street Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 Portland,OR 97232 _TCI Cablevisiori of Oregon _US West ltnda Peterson Pete Nelson 3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street Portland.OR 97201 Portland,OR 97204 %Siff%'i<J•i'•JJ i'•}ti;:?F.}C:?%i: ` v- :iJti::i::fiiiiiii Till:?Till::??i} •J:i}JJ}`:?-}J}}JJ}:fi}}}}}{•i}}J:t{?+O}J:}:?.J:i:.}JJ:4:i-}?JJi}}}}i:-J J}i}i?JJ:.}JJJJ}}:G:fi}}:i-:i:ri%i0}}X:ti??ti'• ..Y.n:..........:;}iiiiii:%i'- {.}.-h:.:,r. r.. ij:..n....v....;}px:::x::nfi::fiJ}}}{4:•J:?i;^}:•}:{:.ii;;'G??ivi%:SS':t t?•v'•.: ............................................ .. .... .. ................. ... ................... .. ....... ...:. Aeronautics Division(ODOT) _Division of State Lands _US Postal Service _Commerce Dept.-M.H.Park Ash&Wildlife Randy Hammock.Growth Coordinator PUC —DOGAMI Cedar MW Station Dept.of Environ.Quality Portland.OR 97229-9998 i::iii:`::iii::i:ii:%%ii:%%i:%i:%ii:%:.'•r :................. ::::::.. :y;:;:y,'iS:?i$:,i.%?iSi}iSii iiiiii�iii:•':::-iiiiiiiii"r'i?i .......... .................... _Corps.of Engineers _Other +}:fi::F::r:J,::fi:}:•:t'r.;•}}:•}:::'•}:•;:•}:•}:.:?•}J}:.},.::•fi.:,;• :.:f•v::•}}}>:-}} }}:.}}:•}}:•:fi:•J}:•:t•JJ:•JJ•::::::r::::.J:??•}:?••::?•: . fi ..:. ..... ,iMi§§:....A.. -..n:....n..:.A. :......:F:r::.?%.};.}. :::.,:.v-:.v�:..fi:.:r:.}v:.::::.....;..•:ig•ii::.....le.:::.......n•.}-:;F::.r:::::::::,:.J:.:g:}:-}J::: fi. v.N...vr.::v:::?:•:•F•::.rw::::•J}}:ti?:::i:.::i:-J:{?4JiiiiiiJ}J:4::-i:!:.iii:::-i:::.::::n_::::::::_::::.:::::.::::::.:::.:.::':::.:::{::::::::::<:.::<::.i}Ji}i}J::•S:<::::::>�ili::Y:•J:•:?:X.:..: :1iiiY::':'::::. v>�::>:iJ:.i::l.: ::?ii ih:r�}:{.:iS? JLi::;J:;:;:i .,::.:.vn::::....},v::::...............:::iiiiiiiiiiiiJJJ}JJJJii}iiiii::LJi::•JJ:JiiJ}iJ}JJJ:i:Ji..�.:.:.::..:::;;;:}.:J:i:::::._::::. :::i.:v.::..:. _Southern Pacific Transportation Company Duane M. Forney,PLS-Project Engineer 800 NW 6th Avenue,R.324,Union Station Portland,OR 97209 n:ucpMpattyWC wlicnw AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) City of Tigard ) I, Crti-hRA;(14,2_ (A.) , hereby certify: Please Print That I am agry Co c.JYC+ for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council .N0+; 01 lei no U rte. 2 )R acs • 0001 CE, N.� l n-,p m..e C of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the 1c-1- day of ■ _ , 19 Q 5 , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto 1st- attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the day of ALA-"--e_. , 19 6/5— , postage prepaid. ( 4)711--eA--(--;,-c (A)jk- --°(--"-)-6 Prepared Notice ,. f. Subscribed and 9 sworn to before me this -° - mot day of .- , 19 5') f OFFICIAL SEAL �Jr M JO ANN HAYES v t: ' .... " NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON No Public of Oregon .':;.. _ . �, COMMISSION N0.042,48 g . MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 05.1999 My Commission Expires:.' - 5; 4 1'9_ 1,- t h:\login\cathy\afofmail - 3 • CITY OF TIGARD • Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER a BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Concerning Case Number(s): ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 95-0001 Name of Owner: Bowen Development Company Name of Applicant: Same as Owner Address of Applicant: 111 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3850 City: Portland State: Oregon Zip: 97204 Address of Property: CITY WIDE City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: Request ► A proposal to amend Tigard Community Development Code Sections 18.26.030, 18.26.030(B)(4), 18.26.030(B)(5), 18.26.030(c)(3), 18.80.080(A)(4)(c)(i), 18.80.120(3)(j) and 18.164.060(B) to allow fee simple townhomes in the planned development district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning goals 1, 2, 9, 10 and 12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2 and 6; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30.120 Action ► ❑ Approval as requested © Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: O The applicant and owner(s) 0 Owners of record within the required distance O The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator 0 Affected governmental agencies Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED. ON S 3 , 1995;.:AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE:ON. 1-P 3 b ,.:1995. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at (503) 639.4171. ZOA 95-0001 ROBINSON/BOWEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL • • . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 95- 1/ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 18 . 26, 18 . 56, 18 . 80 AND 18 . 164 TO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED COMMON WALL TOWN HOMES ON FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP LOTS WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS,. The City of Tigard finds that the proposed amendments provide flexibility to allow an alternative type of housing and home ownership; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that the proposed amendments assist in meeting the requirements of the Metropolitan Housing Rule and the needs relating to the 2040 plan; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments at a public hearing on April 17, 1995 and voted to recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on May 30, 1995 to consider the amendment . THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 : The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A" according to the findings submitted by the applicant dated February 17, 1995 . This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By Llilat"WmOLtS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 3 '^ day of • 0.1 , 1995 . Ca erine Wheatley, Ci Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thi 3o day of 1995 . / jai(Nicoll, '-yor Approved as to form: ORDINANCE No. 95- /I Page 1 ItAAA.1 • •.417 :64,447 City Atto me 5/0hC Date ORDINANCE No. 95- 1/ Page 2 • • "EXHIBIT A" • Language to be added is underlinedfredlfned Language to be deleted is [strike-out/bracketedl 9 = = = = = = = = = = = a = = = = a o 0 I 7 9 J = = = j a -J =7 = = = = =I = SO -3 = = = = = = = J = 1. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling: "Single-Family Attached D fling. Two i r'€ o e dwelling units attached side by side on iwp or re >co'ff guaus separate lots [or development sites] with some structural parts in v. common at a common property line." 2. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(5), Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: "Multiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units and any vertical or horizontal arrangement, located on a single lot or development site''btt exclu�f€n• sin•P-: mElv::attacl e ::: u�:l i:n• .tv :ititti::t iit:Qr.m�.r .:e�rz ::_u�us;lot 1 3. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(4) and (5): Move illustration under definition of "single-family attached dwelling" to definition of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling" to definition of "single-family attached dwelling." 4. TCDC 18.26.030(0)(3), Definition of "Townhouse": story units)."] 5. TCDC 18.26.030, Compatibility Matrix: Change "single-family attached" to: "No-over 2r ��essfi� plane eve�t�pnlent::...:�stn�. EXISTING USE S.F. DETACHED S.F. DETACHED MOBILE HOME PK DUPLEX S.F. ATTACHED MULTI-FAMILY (zero Lot Line) S.F. Detached YES YES COI(0(T)ONAL YES YES-2 UNITS NO (NO-over 2, imbue fn to rigid dere(o eeitf S.F. Detached (zero Lot Line) YES YES CONDITIONAL YES YES NO Mobile Home Park CONDITIONAL CONDITIONAL YES YES YES YES Duplex YES YES YES YES YES YES S.F. Attached YES YES YES YES YES YES (No-over 2) Multi-family YES YES YES YES YES YES • • 6.' TCDC 18.80.120(3)(j))arking Requirement in the PD Itrict: F)> ': to<::fi r?:f5 :><:percent of i'ea irred`off-'street aarkibg<sua s�::>for»sr> e-faMi.h attached' dwe.tlmg ma beprov>ded r.::::one:><or:::rvore:: ommon •ark:r• rF lannec ::deuelo ment::as.>lan as:<'each><sr ii' Vie= it`:<:toclicon ains>t n ' <i">'off:stre. et.. r�tr�c .parr.. 7. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(4)(c) Structure Setback Provisions: Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (i) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street. ' : <::A:::m: r s oria:::frantvacd>setl�ac . ecru red fo . a y.ga ;e ope >r g:>:for attached'>singl fam:Ely>:c :well:ing>facing::a private:»street:::as:<to g::as:>the>::re u red a......sired:.... ....,.....,...,.......a .: ... .......:...°::::. ' 8. TCDC 18.164.060(B) Lot Frontage: Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land partition it which case subsection 18.162.050(C) applies, a purr ess t e tot• is fa art attaehed singre-fame ; dvi elflr g<unit >;€r :;:which case>:the;:Tot::.frontage::::sf al:i: e:<at<:>least•9. TCDC 18.26.030 Building Type - (B)(4): Add illustration of new single-family attached housing type. 1 ' 1 1 I unit I I , unit ' unit .unit 1 .1 L 1 ' 10. TCDC 18.56.050(A)(1)(b): For each attached single-family unit, [3,050]0480 square feet; • ................ ................. h:\login\will\z9501 exa.merr May 2, 1995 4 • (Page 1 of 1) DOA 95-0001 BOWEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY MICHAEL ROBINSON ROBERT BLEDSOE ROBERT MORELAND 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 2300 11800 SW WALNUT STREET 1022 SW SALMON STREET PORTLAND OR 97209 TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97201 BOWEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY JACK POLANS 111 SW 5TH AVENUE, SUITE 3850 16000 SW QUEEN VICTORIA PL PORTLAND OR 97204 TIGARD OR 97224 411 67. 3 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission FROM: William D'Andrea, Assistant Planner DATE : April 4 , 1995 SUBJECT: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 95-0001 SUMMARY The Bowen Development Company, represented by Michael C. Robinson, has proposed to amend the following Tigard Community Development Code ( "TCDC" ) Sections in order to permit attached, common wall, town homes on "fee" ownership lots and to have this type of attached housing treated as single family dwellings : 1 . TCDC 18 . 26 . 030 (B) (4) , amend definition of single-family attached dwelling; 2 . TCDC 18 . 26 . 030 (B) (5) , amend definition of multiple-family dwelling; 3 . TCDC 18 . 26 . 030 (C) (3) , delete definition of townhouse; 4 . TCDC 18 . 26 . 030 , amend compatibility matrix to allow more than two attached single-family dwellings in a planned development district next to single-family detached dwellings; 5 . TCDC 18 . 80 . 080 (A) (4) (c) (i) , reduce the front yard setback for garage openings adjacent to a private street ; and 6 . TCDC 18 . 80 . 120 (3) (j ) , permit up to fifty (50) percent of required off-street parking spaces in a planned development district to be provided in common parking lots as long as at least one off-street parking space is provided on each single-family lot . PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The following are the proposed text amendments as taken from the applicant' s statement related to allowing townhouses on "fee" ownership lots . The new language proposed is "highlighted" and the deleted language is "lined out" . The applicants reason for the change is stated below each proposed amendment . 411 1. TCDC 18.26.030 (B) (4) , Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling: "Single-Family Attached Dwe Vita. Two ditiiidit4. dwelling units attached side by side on two twoogooftgo#10:4040#g separate lots e development sitco• with some structural parts-in common at a common property line ***" . Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings include common-wall structures on two or more contiguous lots . Effect of amendment is to permit townhomes on fee-ownership lots . 2 . TCDC 18 .26. 030 (B) (5) , Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: "Multiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units and any vertical or horizontal ' arrangement, located on a single lot or development site i''b ex:cluthng>::s: n.<7::*>-: :a 4;.;:>:a:t:: ache :::bu4:::.thng:;ty: e:s::»axz:>:: :uo:::c ::::410: Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that townhomes on fee-ownership lots are excluded from the definition of multiple-family dwelling. 3 . TCDC 18 .26. 030 (B) (4) and (5) : Move illustration under definition of "single-family attached dwelling" to definition of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling" to definition of "single-family attached dwelling. " Reason for Change: a. Illustrations are reversed. 4 . TCDC 18 .26.030 (C) (3) , Definition of "Townhouse" : "3 . Townhouoc. More thaia tare attached unito with fir3t floor accc3s (typically 2 Story unit3) . " Reason for Change: a. Not necessary to have "townhouse" in the TCDC because the type of dwelling unit is allowed under the definition of "single-family attached dwelling unit . " This amendment was suggested by the staff . 5 . TCDC 18 .26. 030, Compatibility Matrix. Change "single-family attached" to : "No-over ,::.:un3.ess....4n..:.gI44iiod.::doel.bpiiie,n�:>:dr.ttt:. • 1 EXISTING USE S a=ACHED 3.F. DETACHED MOBILE ROME DUPLEX S.F. ATTACHED MULTI-FAMILY • II (zero Lot Line) • - S.F. Detached t YES YES camtt'oiw YES YES-2 UNITS NO (Ito-over 2. fitnal e nom!►1 S.F. Detached (zero Lot Line) YES YES eaotTtauL YES YES NO Mobile Home Park mwtrtaNL cmmueu YES YES YES YES Duplex YES YES YES YES YES YES S.F. Attached YES YES YES YES YES YES (Me-over 2) Multi-family YES YES YES YES YES YES Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings, including townhomes on contiguous lots in planned development districts, are compatible with single- family detached homes because of the characteristics of the planned development district . 6 . TCDC 18.80.080 (A) (4) (c) (i) , Garage Opening Setback Requirement in the PD District: • "A minimum frontyard setback of 8: feet is required for any garage opening otructu_c which oper-a facing a p :sate street as to g as. the requ recl off s reef park .rzg spaces are ouded• Reason for Change: a. Each dwelling will have at least one parking space and, possible, two garage parking spaces . A 20-foot setback behind the garage opening is unnecessary. An 8-foot setback is the minimum required to permit a car to back out of a garage. An 8-foot setback discourages driveway parking. b. Planned developments should be encouraged to handle of f- street parking more efficiently. • c. Reduces amount of impervious surfaces . d. Other requirements still exist for minimum right-of-way width and obstruction-free roads within planned development . 7 . TCDC 18 . 80 .120 (3) (j ) , Parking Requirement in the PD District: ...........:............................................................................................................................................................... one: or<more :co ?<:'a n :;:lots;.;within.:the.; l.arned:.;de elo merit ma 3:v:>:la:t:;:; Qnt:a�rns::<:o e:<::::;(:]:):.,... f f:s-:street _�arkzig<�pacer�� Reason for Change: 411 • a. Encourages affordability of housing by allowing "clustered" parking spaces and reduces development costs . ANALYSIS The City would benefit from the proposed text amendments in that : 1) a new definition of single-family attached would allow for greater flexibility and diversity of housing types, while not increasing density beyond that allowed by the underlying zoning district; 2) create the potential for reduced costs in development which may result in more affordable housing development; 3) allows greater homeownership; 4) staff is proposing the 15 foot frontage requirement (the same allowed under the Minor Land partition process) since many townhouse designs have less than the standard 25 foot frontage required under the subdivision process; and 5) the proposed 1, 480 minimum lot size requirement in the R-25 zone (Residential, 25 units per acre) would allow the same density as would a multi-family development in the R-25 zone. This would help maintain Tigard' s compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule by encouraging single-family homeownership at multi-family densities in a planned development that is single-family in character. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions related to changing the definitions of single family attached residential and allowing fee simple townhomes in Planned Development Districts . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 95-0001) as submitted by the applicant including the applicant' s findings, except as modified by the additions noted below: 6 . TCDC 18 . 80 . 080 (A) (4) (c) , Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (i) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street. (ii) A minimum frontyard setback of 44 a feet is required for any garage 40 4#/g c t_act urc s...i...n...qle;:. fa;.........l ; :.:wel g facing ac in..g a.n ' -;s�z?sa.t z street a:s 1 o�g 8 . TCDC 18 . 164 . 060 (B) Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land Partition in which case subsection 18 . 162 . 050 (C) : . ..::::::..:....::.......................... ........applies...or 9 . TCDC 18 .26 . 030 (3) (4) , add illustration of new single family attached housing type . - I 1 1 I ' 1 I unit 1 1 1 unit unit 1 i unit 1 . . 10 . TCDC 18 . 56 . 050 (A) (1) (b) For each attached single-family unit, 3 , 050 ixi:MSY, square feet; • LC,: AFT APPLICATION BY BOWEN DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT FEE SIMPLE TOWNHOMES IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON FEBRUARY 17, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY 1 H. PROPOSAL 2 A. Need for the Amendments 2 B. Proposed Text Amendments 3 C. Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC 6 III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 7 A. Statewide Planning Goals 7 B. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 12 C. TCDC 18.30.120, "The Standards for the Decision" 16 D. • OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 18 IV. CONCLUSION 20 EXHIBITS PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 1 I. SUMMARY APPLICANT: Jim Ekberg Bowen Development Company 3850 US Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 274-8400 Fax: 274-4685 APPLICANTS ATTORNEY: Michael C. Robinson Stoel Rives Boley Jones & Grey 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 Telephone: 294-9194 Fax: 220-2480 APPLICANTS PLANNING Bob Moreland CONSULTANT: Julie Morales MCM Architects 1022 SW Salmon, Suite 360 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: 222-5757 Fax: 241-1514 PROPOSAL: To amend the following Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") Sections in order to permit attached, common wall town homes on "fee" ownership lots as single-family dwellings: 1. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4), d efinition of single-family attached dwelling; 2. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(5), definition of multiple-family dwelling; 3. TCDC 18.26.030(C)(3), delete definition of townhouse; 4. TCDC 18.26.030, amend compatibility matrix to allow more than two attached single-family dwellings in a planned development district next to single- family detached dwellings; • PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 1 5. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), reduce the front yard set-back for garage openings adjacent to a private street; and 6. TCDC 18.80.120(3)(j), permit up to 50 percent of required off-street parking spaces in a planned development district be provided in common parking lots as long as at least one off-street parking space is provided on each single-family lot. IL PROPOSAL A. Need for the Amendments This package of legislative amendments to the TCDC text will permit construction of attached single-family dwellings (townhomes) on?"fee" ownership lots to be treated as single-family dwellings in base and planned development districts. The TCDC currently treats more than two contiguous lots containing attached single-family dwellings as multiple-family dwellings. See TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4) and (B)(5). Attached single-family dwellings are treated as single- family homes only if in a "condominium" form of ownership. Id. The fee ownership lot is distinguished from a condominium in that the homeowner owns the land beneath the dwelling in.common with other homeowners. The difference in lot ownership type will not cause attached single- family dwellings to look any differently nor result in increased density. The amendments will offer an additional housing type not currently allowed by the TCDC. The benefit from this amendment package is that it addresses a need in the market and fills a gap in the current TCDC. It will also assist the City of Tigard in providing for attractive, well-planned, attached single-family dwelling PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 2 developments where multiple-family developments would otherwise be required. In addition, by permitting attached single-family dwellings on fee-owned lots, the City of Tigard will have another device enabling it to meet the density requirement imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. See OAR 660-07-035(2). The proposed text amendments to the TCDC are shown below. New language is "redlined" and deleted language is "lined out". The amendments were reviewed by the City's Senior Planner prior to submittal. A short explanation for the reason for each amendment is provided below the amended language. B. Proposed Text Amendments 1. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling: "Single-Family Attached . Two or dwelling units attached side by side on tfatettge :0 se arate lots with some structural parts in common at a common property line * * * Reason for Change: - a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings include common wall structures on two or more contiguous lots. Effect of amendment is to permit townhomes on fee-ownership lots. 2. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(5), Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: "Multiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units and any vertical or horizontal arrangement, located on a single lot or development site g t ; d '" it 4. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 3 - . Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that townhomes on fee ownership lots are excluded from the definition of multiple-family dwelling. 3. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4) and (5): Move illustration under definition of "single-family attached dwelling" to definition of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling" to definition of "single-family attached dwelling." Reason for Change: a. Illustrations are reversed. 4. TCDC 18.26.030(C)(3), Definition of 'Townhouse": • . • .1 ' . r - • Of II •• 11 .. .' • • Reason for Change: a. Not necessary to have "townhouse" in the TCDC because the type of dwelling unit is allowed under the definition of "single-family attached dwelling unit." 5. TCDC 18.26.030, Compatibility Matrix. Change "single-family attached" to: "No-over < SSi*P1141-hed Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings, including townhomes on contiguous lots in planned development districts, are compatible with single-family detached homes because of the characteristics of the planned development district. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 4 6. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), Garage.Opening Setback Requirement in the PD District • "A minimum frontyard setback of O 1 feet is required for any sgtraereat ge o1 gas .:r .;c.:..::.:::.::... . .: yen facin te r t : : : et Reasons for Change: a. Each dwelling will have at least one parking space and, possibly, two garage parking spaces. A 20-foot setback behind the garage is unnecessary. b. Planned developments should be encouraged to handle off- street parking more efficiently. c. Reduces impervious surfaces. d. Other requirements still exist for minimum right-of-way and obstruction-free roads within planned development. 7. TCDC 18.80.120(3)(j), Parking Requirement in the PD District t .. :'••:. t rrt'ea s tt a . : :: '.`:`;::::<.<::::::i;:«<::::::;::;.:;•;:..y.:: o::'::{ :.. ;::v,..:<::: 63.":.................. Reasons for Change: a. Encourages affordability of housing by allowing "clustered" parking spaces and reduces development costs. b. Improves ability to increase densities within planned developments. • • PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 5 • c. Promotes "dual usage" of off-street parking spaces. Provides for visitor parking spaces where visitors might otherwise block sidewalks by parking on driveways and parking within streets. C. Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC Legislative amendments to the TCDC text may be initiated by any person. TCDC 18.30.020(A)(5). A preapplication conference is required by TCDC 18.30.020(B). The applicant's attorney met with city staff in a preapplication meeting on December 8, 1994. The applicant's planning consultant previously met with city staff to discuss the need for the amendments. The TCDC provides for a limited "window" in which to submit legislative amendments. One such window is no more than 75 days and no less than 45 days before the first Planning Commission Meeting in April. TCDC 18.30.030(A). April 3, 1995 is the first Planning Commission Meeting in that month. This application was submitted prior to February 17, 1995, 45 days before the first Planning Commission meeting. The application must be complete, including an application with an application form, the required fee and 18 copies of a narrative addressing the standards contained in TCDC 18.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(1)-(4). The director is not permitted to accept an incomplete application. TCDC 18.30.030(G). The director has previously determined that this application was a complete submittal. See Exhibit _. No meeting with a CIT or neighborhood group is required prior to submittal but the applicant intends to meet with interested neighborhood groups at their request prior to the April 3, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 6 III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA The applicable criteria for the TCDC amendments include the Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals"), applicable policies in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") [(see TCDC 18.10:010(A)), TCDC 18.30.120 and OAR 660-12-055(3) and 660-12-060 (The Transportation Planning Rule). A_ Statewide Planning Goals 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement 'To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Response: This Goal is satisfied through provisions in the acknowledged TCP and TCDC which provide for citizen participation. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning: 'To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for decisions and actions." Response: This Goal is met because the acknowledged TCP and TCDC contain provisions implementing the planning process. The City will coordinate this application with affected governmental agencies (ODOT, Metro, Washington County, Tri-Met, the Tualatin Valley Parks and Recreation District and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District) by providing notice and an opportunity to comment to the agencies. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 7 3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands: 'To preserve and maintain agricultural lands." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the preservation of agricultural land. 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands: - 'To conserve forest land by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by • making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the conservation of forest lands or the protection of the state's forest economy. 5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources: 'To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the conservation of open space or the protection of natural resources. 6. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: 'To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect air, water or land resources quality. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 8 7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: 'To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not have an affect on the protection of life and property from natural disasters. 8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs: "Satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, where appropriate, to provide for • the siting of necessary recreational facilities, including destination resorts." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the state's recreational needs. 9. Goal 9, Economic Development 'To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon citizens." Response: This Goal is satisfied because the proposed amendments will increase opportunities for economic development in Tigard. The amendments will permit expanded use of attached single-family dwellings, thereby encouraging development of existing, appropriately zoned sites. This activity will benefit the City's economy. 10. Goal 10, Housing: 'To provide for housing needs of citizens of the state." Response: The proposed amendments. further this Goal because they encourage two of its central purposes: the availability of needed housing units and PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 9 the efficient use of buildable land within the urban growth boundary ("UGB"). See OAR 660-08-000(1). The proposed amendments will also further the city's compliance with minimum residential density requirements. See OAR 660-07-035(3). Attached single-family housing is "needed housing" under the administrative rules implementing Goal 10. OAR 660-08-005(11)(a). As defined by OAR 660-08-005(1), attached,single-family housing means."common-wall dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot." There are no restrictions on the number of attached dwellings under the regulatory definition. The proposed amendments will make the TCDC's definition of single-family housing consistent with the state's and promote the availability of this type of housing. In addition, because the proposed amendments will make it easier.to increase densities within planned developments, the proposed amendments will encourage the efficient use of land within the UGB and further compliance with the minimum residential density allocation requirements of OAR 660-07-035(3), (the Metropolitan Housing Rule). 11. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services: 'To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development" Response: This Goal is not applicable because the amendments will not affect the current levels of police and fire services, sanitary facilities, water, storm drainage facilities, and energy and communications services. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 10 12. Goal 12, Transportation: 'To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." Response: This Goal is satisfied because the proposed amendments will not cause congestion on nearby streets. The amendments will not increase density in any development because attached dwellings can presently be constructed as multiple-family dwellings. 13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation:. 'To conserve energy." Response: The proposed amendments will further this goal because common-wall housing units have fewer external walls than free-standing housing units, and are therefore more energy efficient. 14. Goal 14, Urbanization: 'To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." Response: This Goal is inapplicable because the proposed amendments will not affect urban land use outside of the urban growth boundary. 15. Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway; Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes; and Goal 19, Ocean Resources. Response: These Goals are inapplicable because none of the listed natural resources are affected by the amendments. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments to the TCDC conform to the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 11 B. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. TCP Policy 1.1.1(a), Legislative Changes Consistent with Statewide Goals and Regional Plan: 'This comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the land conservation and development commission, the regional plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District" Response: The applicant hereby incorporates Part III(A) and (C) of this application in response to this policy. 2. TCP Policy 1.1.1(c), Current Needs of Community: 'The Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code are kept current with the needs of the community ***". Response: The proposed amendments will allow townhomes on fee- owned lots to be excluded from the zoning restrictions applicable to multi-family housing units. As a result, the proposed amendments will make it easier to develop alternative housing types consistent with the housing needs of the community. 3. TCP Policy 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement: 'The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Response: Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be provided as required by the TCDC. 4. TCP Policy 6.1.1, Housing. 'The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various price and rent levels." PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 12 Response: These amendments accomplish this TCP policy in a number of ways. First, they encourage the use of single-family attached dwellings in planned development districts. Because fee ownership townhomes on more than two contiguous lots are currently prohibited according, to city staff interpretation, this type of housing is discouraged in the planned development district. Single-family attached dwellings provide an opportunity for more affordable owner-occupied homes. These amendments, therefore, increase the variety of residential types, densities and price levels. Second, by reducing the garage door set-back onto private streets, the development cost of single-family attached homes is reduced and their affordability increased. The application includes drawings demonstrating how a plan development district with a 10-foot set-back to the garage door opening on a private street will nevertheless be able to satisfy off-street parking requirements. See Exhibit . A one-car garage with an additional off-street space (either on the lot or in a common lot as proposed under these amendments) or a two-car garage will satisfy off-street parking spaces for single family dwellings. See TCDC 18.106.030(A)(1)(2) off-street spaces for each single-family attached dwelling are required). A twenty-foot separation between the garage door opening and a private street is not required where the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces are provide. Finally, a reduced garage door opening set-back to the private street will reduce the amount of driveway where it is unnecessary and will discourage the parking of cars in front of garages. PDX7-769780.7 99999 0006 13 5. TCP Policy 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy: * * * 'The Tigard Community Development Code shall list a broad range of zoning districts which allow for a variety of housing types, and complies with the adopted Metropolitan Housing Rule (50-50 mixture of single family and attached or multiple family at 10 units to the net acre on buildable vacant land). * * * Response: The City provides increased opportunity to continue to meet the Metropolitan Housing Rule on existing appropriately zoned sites by providing increased opportunities for developing single-family attached dwellings. 6. TCP Policy 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3: "In addition, the City shall encourage developers to use the planned development process in all developing areas." Response: Because single-family attached dwellings on more than two contiguous lots are treated as multiple-family dwellings under the current interpretation of the TCDC, there is less incentive to use the planned development district to its fullest potential. These amendments encourage the use of the planned development process as it was intended; that is, an innovative design process providing development superior to traditional lot-by-lot development. 7. TCP Policy 6.2.1, Streamlining Development Regulations: 'The city shall develop clear and concise development regulations and standards to facilitate the streamlining of development proposals, and will eliminate unnecessary provisions which could increase housing costs without corresponding benefit" PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 14 • Response: These amendments facilitate the streamlining and development proposals by making it easier to develop single-family attached dwellings on fee ownership lots. They also eliminate unnecessary.provisions adding to housing costs without corresponding benefit in three ways. First, the amendments encourage the use of fee ownership attached single-family dwellings. As noted above, this makes housing more affordable by reducing its cost. Second, the proposed amendments include reductions and set-backs where appropriate. This reduces the amount of land necessary to develop a single-family attached dwelling and also reduces unnecessary driveways. Finally, the amendments provide for up to fifty percent of required off-street parking spaces in a plan development district to be located in common parking areas. This not only provides for increased opportunity for "dual usage" (visitor parking at times when residents are not utilizing the parking), but also recognizes the City's goal to encourage more homeowners to use transit, bike or • walk rather than having two-cars to meet their transportation needs. The City retains sufficient discretion through its approval process in TCDC Chapter 18.80.120 (The Plan Development District) to prohibit those common parking areas where inappropriate. 8. TCP Policy 6.21 Implementation Strategy: *** 'The City shall seek ways to minimize the cost of housing by encouraging a variety of home ownership alternatives, such as, but not limited to, townhouses and condominiums. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 15 Response: The proposed amendments will encourage the development of attached single-family housing. C. TCDC 18.30.120, 'The Standards for the Decision" An application for a legislative amendment to the TCDC is required to demonstrate compliance with the standards in TCDC 18.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(4). These standards are shown below with responses following. 1. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(1): 'The recommendation by the commission and the decision by the council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: *** the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adapted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197;" Response: The application satisfies the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. See Part Di(A), above. 2. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(2): "Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable;" Response: The applicant has determined that there are no additional federal or additional state statutes or guidelines applicable to this application. 3. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(3): "Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; Response: The applicant has, determined that there are no applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District ("Metro") relevant to this application. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 16 4. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(4): 'The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Maps; Response: The applicant has addressed applicable TCP Policies. See III(B), above. 5. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(5): 'The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances." Response: The implementing ordinances are contained in the TCDC. The only relevant TCDC provisions are found in TCDC Chapter 18.30. 6. TCDC 18.30.120(6)(1): "Consideration may also be given to *** (1) proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Ordinance which is the subject of the application" Response: The TCDC contains a mistake by failing to allow single- family attached dwellings on contiguous fee ownership lots. This type of ownership is quite common throughout the metropolitan region. It does not increase densities above what is already permitted by the base and planned development districts. The amendment does encourage use of the single-family attached dwelling district with furthers compact development, more efficient energy usage, and increases the ability of the City to meet the density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule on currently appropriately zoned sites. This is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10, PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 17 Guideline (A)(2) which calls for appropriate types and amounts of land to be provided for housing that meets the housing needs of households at all income levels. Moreover, Statewide Planning Goal 10, Implementation Measure (B)(1), provides that comprehensive plans should provide for a "continuing review of housing need projections it should establish a process for accommodating needed revision.!! This amendment is part of that ongoing process because it is an identified and needed housing type that is not currently allowed. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments satisfy TCDC 18.30.120. D. OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 1. OAR 660-12-060 This state administrative rule.applies to amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations. OAR 660-12-060(1). The rule is applicable to this application because it requests an amendment to the City's land use regulations. OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2):provide as follows: "(1) Amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either. (a) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the plan functions, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; (b) amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; (c) altering land use designations, densities, or design PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 18 requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. "(2) A land use regulation amendment significantly affects the transportation facility if it (a) changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) changes a standard implementing a functional classification system; (c) allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional'classification of a transportation facility; or (d) would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in TSP." Response: The proposed amendments will not significantly affect a transportation facility. Therefore, OAR 660-12-060 is inapplicable to these amendments. 2. OAR 660-12-055(3) This part of the Transportation Planning Rule requires the City to have amended its'land use and.subdivision ordinances to implement OAR 660-12-045(3), (4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) by May 8, 1994. The City has not met this deadline except for OAR 660-12-045(3). ORS 197.646(3) and OAR 660-12-055(3) provide that the sections above are directly applicable to land use decisions when the May 8, 1994 deadline has not been met. OAR 660-12-045(4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) are, therefore, directly applicable to this application. a. OAR 660-12-045(4)(a)-(e). This part of the Rule applies to transit-supportive measures for new retail, office and institutional developments. This section is inapplicable to these amendments because they application only to residential subdivisions. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 19 b. OAR. 660-12-045(d). This part of the Rule requires local governments to adopt land use regulation measures encouraging reduced reliance on the automobile for all major industrial, institutional, retail and office developments. These amendments are inapplicable to these types of development. W. CONCLUSION This application satisfies the applicable criteria for amendments to the TCDC. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 20 111TOEL RIVES BOLEY • RE JONES &GREY cEIVE® ATTORNEYS AT LAW FEB 1 41995 SUITE 2300 STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER COMIVIU(EIf TV p£VELOPMEfVT 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Telephone(503)224-3380 Telecopier(503)220-2480 Cable Lawport Telex 703455 Writer's Direct Dial Number (503) 294-9194 February 13 , 1995 VIA MESSENGER Mr. Dick Bewersdorff Senior Planner City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re : Proposed Legislative Amendments to Tigard Community Development Code Dear Dick: Please find enclosed a draft application proposing seven amendments to the Tigard Community Development Code . You have previously reviewed the draft amendments . I would appreciate your review of this application to determine whether, in your opinion, it is complete . If I do not hear from you by Wednesday, I will submit it no later than Friday. Thank you for your assistance . Very truly yours, t&LQ a. Pis“,, Michael C. Robinson MCR:cfz Enclosure cc : Mr. Jim Ekberg (w/encl .,) Ms . Julie Morales (w/encl . ) PDX1-170444.1 15966 0009 PORTLAND, SEATTLE, VANCOUVER, BOISE, SALT LAKE CITY, WASHINGTON, OREGON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON IDAHO UTAH DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAX TRANSMITTAL - PLAC UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: TO: Sue Curran, Legals (fax) 620-3433 FROM: Patricia Lunsford, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday April 17, 1995 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 95-0001 ROBINSON/BOWEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS • A proposal to amend Tigard Community Development Code Sections 18.26.030, 18.26.030(B)(4), 18.26.030(BX5), 18.26.030(cX3), 18.180.080(AX ) and 18.80.120(3)(j) to allow fee simple townhomes in the planned development district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning goals 1, 2, 9, 10 and 12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 6 and-2;Community Development Code Chapter 18.030. TT PUBLISH DATE: 4/6/95 ZOA 95-0001 BOWEN DEVELOPMENT CO. April 12. 1995 • S V . Council Agenda Item Z. 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 • Meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m. by Mayor Nicoli. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohif, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; John Acker, Property Manager;Will D'Andrea,Assistant Planner; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Senior Planner Bewersdorff; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Ray Valone, Associate Planner; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Planning Commissioners present: Carolyn DeFrang, James Griffith, and Ron Holland. • Tigard Triangle Traffic Study Senior Planner Landsman introduced this topic. Council met with consultants who recently completed the Traffic Study for the Tigard Triangle. Several months ago, Council directed staff to begin the work necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan by changing area in the Triangle presently designated low density and public facilities to general commercial. The first step was to conduct a transportation study to see if the street network could support these changes. The report reviewed by Council indicates that without making any changes to the transportation network, the proposed land use changes will lead to a service level of "F" at almost all intersections in the Triangle area. The consultant reviewed potential transportation strategies which were offered in the report. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 1 • • There will be a "Town Hall" type of meeting with the residents and commercial property owners in the area on June 6 at 7 p.m. to discuss options. ODOT has concerns with a rezone of the area. The Mayor asked that a representative from ODOT also be at this Town Hall meeting to tell the persons attending what these concerns are. Randy McCourt of DQS Associates reviewed the consultant report. Robin McArthur Phillips of the Oregon Department of Transportation was present, and advised that with regard to traffic impacts and resulting needs for transportation improvements, there is no available funding. Any transportation improvements would have to be submitted in the six year transportation program; it would be ten to fifteen years before any improvements would be realized. Council discussed the various alternatives offered, including the 1-5/217 study, which may offer some benefit to the area by identification of transportation improvements. • USA EFFLUENT WATER FOR COOK PARK IRRIGATION Property Manager John Acker reviewed his memorandum, which is on file in the Council packet material. After discussion, Council consensus was to approve that staff pursue the concept of cooperating with the Tualatin Country Club and the City of Tualatin in a project to build an effluent water distribution system for irrigation. • SELECTION OF CONSULTANT FOR WATER RATE STUDY Councilor Hunt noted the recent Intergovernmental Water Board review of consultants for the water rate study. After brief discussion, City Council members decided to consider this matter on June 13, 1995. BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: • Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, Oregon, 97224, questioned whether the effluent water project as referred to in Mr. Acker's report to Council during the Study Session would have any effect on the Intergovernmental Water Board. Mayor Nicoli advised this was independent of the IWB; the agreement would be among the City of Tigard, City of Tualatin and Tualatin Country Club. City Administrator Monahan pointed out this would represent a water conservation measure by using effluent water, rather than potable water, to irrigate Cook Park. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 2 • • Mr. Polans questioned the status of the Dolan case. Mayor Nicoli noted some of the information Mr. Polans was requesting was privileged (potential and pending litigation), and he could not respond, as those issues are under negotiation. He advised Mr. Polans that a public hearing on the matter was tentatively scheduled for June 27, 1995; a staff report would be available one week in advance. Councilor Scheckla added that the Dolans and their attorneys have asked for the extra time on this matter. • Martha Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, spoke with regard to Music in the Park. She noted the purpose of the effort by Music in the Park supporters was to provide a facility for musical and cultural programs for the public. She noted that people have approached her and indicated they are interested in the concept. She said she would appreciate unanimous support by City Council of the Music in the Park concept. • Mary Payne, 16277 SW 130th Terrace, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised she was a member of the Music in the Park committee. She noted this effort had begun about twenty years ago; however, funding was transferred to provide for soccer fields. The original plan has been resurrected. Cook Park is the park of choice because of the ability to provide police protection. They would like to have a permanent stage of treated wood on concrete, similar to other improvements already in place at Cook Park. In the past, stage presentations were conducted on flatbed trucks; however, there are concerns about liability (safety issues) with this type of structure. Ms. Payne thanked Council in advance for their support. There was discussion about when Council would consider funding for this proposal. When discussed at the last Council meeting, the plan was to have Council consider funding once the committee had put together a proposal with consideration of funding scheduled for June 13, 1995. • Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany Drive, Tigard, Oregon, distributed information to Council which supported his assertion that the 130th/Winterlake connection has been part of the planned connection in the area as it has developed over the years. He recommended that Council remember, when setting capital improvement project priorities, that 130th/Winterlake is a collector street. (Handouts distributed by Mr. McAdams are on file with the Council meeting packet.) Mr. McAdams noted the Planning. Commission approved the Capital Improvement Project list by a six-to-one vote at their last meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 3 • • 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 City Council Minutes: May 16, 1995 3.2 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Janitorial Contract to Pony Express and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Contract b. Accept Quote from Kerr Contractors Inc. for Installing 1,000 Lineal Feet of 12-inch Ductile Iron Water Main on S.W. Beef Bend Road Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohif, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 95-0001/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 95-0002 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT ► A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from C-P (Commercial Professional)and Low-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, and to change the zoning from C-P and R-4.5 to R-25. LOCATION: South of SW Pfaffie Street at SW 83rd Avenue (WCTM 1S1 36CC, tax lots 200, 300, 400 and 2200). APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2, 6, 8 and 12; and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.56. ZONE: Currently, two parcels (3.44 acres) are C-P and two parcels (2.07 acres) are R-4.5. The C-P zone allows groups of businesses and offices in centers to provide opportunities for employment and for business and professional services. The R-4.5 district allows single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, family day care, and home occupations among other uses. a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations or Challenges. Mayor Nicoli read the following statement: Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? (None were reported.) Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? (All indicated they had familiarized themselves with the application.) - Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 4 • the participation of any member of the Council? (There were none.) c. Staff Report. Associate Planner Ray Valone summarized the staff report. Mr. Valone referred to a map indicating location of the proposal. He referred to comments from the Oregon Department of Transportation. (See letter from ODOT on file with the Council packet material.) In general, ODOT does not oppose this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and re-zone. Mr. Valone advised that staff agrees that a mistake has been made and this would warrant that the request of the applicant be granted... • The portion of the subject site now zoned C-P has no direct access to SW Pacific Highway and does not have good visibility from the highway. Trips to any commercial business activity would be required to use SW Pfaff le to get to the site. This would draw commercial traffic through a predominantly residential area. • The portion of the subject site now zoned R-4.5, low density residential, no longer meets locational criteria. It abuts Pacific Highway on the south and the commercially zoned lot on the SW corner of SW Hall and Pfaff le. • New apartment development has occurred on the corner of SW Hall and Pfaffle. This is not indicative of an area "committed to low density development." Based on the above, a mistake can be said to have been made in the original plan designation for these properties. There are terrain differences and access problems which separate these lots from the other commercial zones and business activities fronting on SW Pacific Highway. Surrounding features such as Hall Blvd. and Pacific Highway, as well as being adjacent to commercial zones, takes the R-4.5 lots out of an area committed to low density development. Council then asked several questions to clarify issues on this property and • about the uses of adjacent properties. It was noted there are single-family homes in the area which will remain. There were some questions with regard to traffic patterns/concerns. Associate Planner Valone advised those issues would be addressed during the pre-application meeting at the time a development project is proposed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 5 • • d. Public Testimony. Mayor Nicoli read the following statement: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals, on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. Spencer Vale, 4505 NE 24th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97211, testified on behalf of the applicant. He said they concurred with staff findings and asked that Council approve the request. Mr. Vale noted there are four properties included in the application and authorization was received from all property owners named in the application. He noted the reason the properties were put together as a package is because it appeared this would create a logical re-zone of the area and could be completed in one process. He referred to the traffic analysis which is contained in the Council packet. Mr. Vale advised there was a neighborhood meeting plus a hearing before the Planning Commission. No objections have been raised by property owners. Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, Oregon, 97224, stated that this property represented more development and more traffic. He recommended that ODOT be aware of and do something about increased traffic which resulted in more auto-exhaust pollutants. He noted the traffic auto exhaust emissions contribute to a higher risk of cancer. e. Council Questions Associate Planner Valone clarified for Councilor Scheckla the urban planning area agreement and its effect on zoning of the property at the time of annexation in 1987. The property when viewed in relationship to the surrounding properties, advised Mr. Valone, appears to be zoned erroneously. f. Public Hearing was closed. g. Staff Recommendation. Associate Planner Valone advised the staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed application. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 6 • • i. ORDINANCE NO. 95-10 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY ANDREWS MANAGEMENT (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002). j. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-10. k. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohif, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) -ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(ZOA) 95-0001 ROBINSON/BOWEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ■ A proposal to amend Tigard Community Development Code Sections 18.26.030, 18.26.030(B)(4), 18.26.030(B)(5), 18.26.030(c)(3), 18.180.080(A) and 18.80.120(3)a) to allow fee simple townhomes in the planned development district. APPUCABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning goals 1, 2, 9, 10 and 12; Comprehensive Plan • Policies 1, 2 and 6; Community Development Code Chapter 18.030. a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Staff Report. Senior Planner Bewersdorff introduced Associate Planner Will D'Andrea who summarized the staff report for Council. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the current and proposed language in the Community Development Code with regard to single-family attached, common wall town homes. Mr. D'Andrea advised the Planning Commission recommended approval. There was clarification of the cluster parking concept which would allow some parking to be elsewhere on the site rather than directly in front of the residence. c. Public Testimony. Applicant: Mike Robinson, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2300, Portland, Oregon, 97204, testified on behalf of the applicant. He noted he agreed with the staff and Planning Commission recommendation. He advised the architect, Mr. Bob Moreland, was also present and available to answer any questions. Mr. Robinson asked Council to approve the ordinance with an emergency clause in order to make the ordinance effective immediately. Mr. Robinson advised he would be glad to draft findings to support the emergency clause. - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 7 i • Opponent: Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, Fling City, Oregon, 97224, requested clarification of the type of dwellings proposed. Mr. Polans noted concerns with this type of housing and that it would bring down the value of other housing. d. Council Questions. Council discussed the requested emergency clause for the proposed ordinance. Legal Counsel Beery advised that emergency clauses are granted in those instances where there is a need for the ordinance immediately to provide for the public welfare and good. In absence of compelling evidence, an emergency clause should not be used. With regard to timing concerns of the applicant, it was noted the applicant could begin processing their development application, with the final approvals to be delayed until after the thirty-day waiting period for the effective date of the ordinance. There was Council discussion on this type of housing and its acceptance by existing residents. Senior Planner Bewersdorff noted that, generally, residents already in an area would prefer to have a development with this type of housing over multi-family housing. There were also questions with regard to driveway set-backs and private streets usually within such developments. Private streets would be maintained by the developer. e. Public Hearing closed. f. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended approval of the application as presented. g. Council Consideration: Councilors noted in general they had no problems with the proposed application; however, Councilors did note they could not see any value or reasoning to add an emergency clause to the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 95-11 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 18.26, 18.56, 18.80, AND 18.164 TO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED COMMON WALL TOWN HOMES ON FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP LOTS. h. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Ordinance No. 95-11. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 8 • • • • Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS. a. Music in the Park Council discussed this issue at length. They considered possible funding options and the number of events which might be held. Councilor Hunt advised he wanted to make funding available so the committee sponsoring this program could make plans for the summer. After some discussion, Councilor Hunt withdrew a motion he had made (seconded by Councilor Scheckla) to allocate $5,000 to the City Administrator to provide temporary facilities for the summer. Mayor Nicoli and individual Councilors noted they were in agreement with the concept of the Music in the Park program. It was decided that Council would delay action until June 13, 1995. In the interim, staff will be meeting with the committee members, at which time details and a proposal will be prepared for Council review. b. Tualatin River Watershed Council Council considered membership on the newly formed Tualatin River Watershed Council at the May 23, 1995, Council meeting. At that meeting, Councilors Hunt and Scheckla advised they were not in support. Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Hawley had advised they would support membership. Councilor Rohlf was not present at the May 23 meeting; therefore, Council decided to delay final consideration of this item until the May 30 meeting in order to obtain comments from Councilor Rohlf. City Administrator Monahan summarized this agenda item and advised he supported membership on the Watershed Council. This Council will provide a central source of information on current research and activities related to the health and management of the Watershed. It also would provide a forum for coordinating the research and activities of the large number of agencies and organizations involved in watershed protection. Councilor Rohlf advised he saw no reason not to be involved. He noted that if dollars would be requested at a later time, then Council could discuss future participation at that point. The majority consensus of Council was to approve membership on the Tualatin River Watershed Council. (Note: Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley and Rohlf supported membership; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla were against membership.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 9 ti • • c. MPAC Membership Council nominated Mayor Nicoli as a candidate to serve as the alternate Washington County cities delegate to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee. d. 1-5/217 Interchange Mayor Nicoli updated the work to date on the 1-5/217 interchange. He advised four to five new designs for the intersection have been identified. Funding will be a problem. The proposals identified will take approximately $11 million dollars more than what funds are available. Mayor Nicoli noted the proposed improvements could probably be built in two phases. In addition, fees for the consultant will be more than originally anticipated; Tigard has paid $12,500, so far, as their share. It may be necessary for the different agencies involved to provide in-house assistance; (i.e., printing and mailings); in order to avoid paying more dollars in consultant fees. Mayor Nicoli noted that within two to three weeks maps identifying options will be available. These options address the problems that the Cities of Lake Oswego and Tigard had with the previous "Phoenix Plan" offered by the Oregon Department of Transportation. It was noted that the East CIT will be getting an update on this issue at their next meeting. City Administrator Monahan noted that, to date, residents from the Lake Oswego area have dominated the attendance at open house sessions offered by the planners of the project. He advised he would like to see more Tigard people attend these meetings. e. Tigard Triangle Transportation Plan Review A meeting will take place next week as was announced by Mayor Nicoli at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Nicoli noted he did not think the State Highway Department will oppose what Tigard plans to do in the Triangle. In looking at the incremental change between what is currently zoned in the proposed Comprehensive Plan and what the changes would offer, Mayor Nicoli reported that Mr. Warner, Region 1 Director of ODOT, appeared to be willing to acknowledge that this was an incremental change they could live with. In addition, Mayor Nicoli noted Tigard would not have to find funding for everything. Council briefly discussed what would occur at the meeting on June 6. Single-family homeowners and other property owners need to be advised of the Oregon Department of Transportation's role as Tigard considers zone changes. It may be that if Tigard proceeds with zone changes, then CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 10 • • • additional time Will be needed to put those changes in place. Council discussed the need to give this information to the residents so they are aware of why the process is moving slower now. The benefits to derive at the June 6 meeting would include identification of options available in the Triangle, assist the property owners and residents to understand what the problems are, and to ask the Oregon Department of Transportation to give a presentation to the meeting participants. In addition, the possibility of forming a committee or task force for this area comprised of interested persons was briefly considered. It was noted the meeting on June 6 would be conducted as an informational meeting, with no Council deliberation scheduled. f. Tigard Feed and Seed Store A meeting of interested parties will occur on May 31, 1995 at Tigard City Hall at 5:30 p.m. g. Council discussed the possibility of receiving transportation impact fee funds (TIF) from the City of Durham. Durham may be willing to contribute some funds toward the traffic signal at 79th and Durham. The City of Durham has few projects they can identify to utilize their TIF funds, and because the school is adjacent to the City and serves children from their City, it may be possible that these TIF funds can be used to help put in the traffic signal. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled 8. ADJOURNMENT: 10:14 p.m. l.� Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde Ma . , City of Tigard Date: L#(a? 14.5' ccmo53O.95 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 11 • kfi) AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of N' x = -= CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Hearing - Consideration of Development Code Amendment to Allow Single Family _Attached Townhouses IZOA 95-00011 PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK RI/5 CITY ADMIN OK fithil ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council Amend the Community Development Code to allow single family attached, common wall town homes on fee simple ownership lots? STAFF RECOMMENDATION, It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments by adopting the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Bowen Company represented by Michael Robinson has proposed amendments to the Community Development Code that would allow attached single family townhouses on "fee" ownership lots. Presently, the code allows only two single family attached units and precludes townhouse development. Staff believes this is a major weakness in the City's development code. Addition of townhouses on "fee" simple lots adds flexibility to the code and addresses a need in the housing market. It will also assist the City in meeting housing density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule and the needs relating to the 2040 plan. This will bridge a gap between apartment dwellings and standard lot by lot single family units. The proposed amendments do not come without protection for existing development. Development of more than two attached units would require a proposed development to be processed as a Planned Development. This requires a special hearing and notification of neighbors of the proposed development project. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendments after its public hearing on April 17 . One person testified about his concern regarding opportunity for townhouses to be built in the R-4.5 Zone. Attached single family units are allowed as a conditional use in the R-4.5 Zone and outright in R-7 Zone (5 units max. ) , the R-12 Zone, the R-25 Zone and the R-40 Zone. As proposed, townhouse development must follow the density of the underlying zone. In the case of the R-4.5 Zone this would mean the same one dwelling unit per 7,500 square feet as the traditional single family unit development. Townhouses might be able to be built in the R-4.5 zone, but with the density requirements the units would have to be clustered with considerably more common open space than with traditional single family development. Attached is an ordinance, Exhibit A indicating amended code provisions, the Planning Commission staff report and the applicant's submittal. III • OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None FISCAL NOTES Not Applicable III CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON• • ORDINANCE NO. 95- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 18 .26, 18 . 56, 18 . 80 AND 18 . 164 TO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED COMMON WALL TOWN HOMES ON FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP LOTS WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that the proposed amendments provide flexibility to allow an alternative type of housing and home ownership; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that the proposed amendments assist in meeting the requirements of the Metropolitan Housing Rule and the needs relating to the 2040 plan; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments at a public hearing on April 17, 1995 and voted to recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on May 30, 1995 to consider the amendment . THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 : The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A" according to the findings submitted by the applicant dated February 17, 1995 . This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the . Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1995 . Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED : By Tigard City Council this day of 1995 . James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: ORDINANCE No. 95- Page 1 v • • City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 95- Page 2 • • • "EXHIBIT A" • • • Language to be added is underftnediteditned Language to be deleted Is tstpike-autlbradcetedl 1. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached •Dwellir "Single-Family Attached re . Two o e dwelling units attached side by sid€ p " rcf , fors separate lots [ 1 with some structural part! common at a common property line." • 2. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (BX3), Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: "Multiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units . any vertical or horizontal arrangement, located on a single lot or development site 3. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(4) and (5): Move illustration under definition of "single-family attached dwelling" to definit . of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling' definition of "single-family attached dwelling." • 4. TCDC 1826.030(0(3), Definition of "Townhouse": • `."] 5. TCDC 18.26.030, Compatibility Matrix: Change "single-family attached" to: "No-over ? =u E o i iin� ' oanr ct. EXISTING USE $.'. orracato si Lot =Cat= eo. ? DM= s.a. at".aau I xutT:-FAMILY S.F. Detached YES 1 YES 1 a m uzeu. 1 YES 1 YES-2 UNITS NO - oitw 2. devatgarratt S.F. Detached t:«e wt t.ino YES I YES I ilmommumm. I YES I YES NO Mobile Home Park caotrtaut. I =outdo!. I YES I YES I YES I YES Duplex YES I YES I .YES YES I YES I YES S.F. Attached YES I YES I YES I YES I YES I YES • • ('s-•.K Z) !t i ![ult?-tami_y YES i YES I YES I YES I YES I YES • • . • 6. TCDC 18.80.120(3)(j), Parking Requirement in the PO District: �,•�- .,[... �tx;�ey. _.:xs➢:'. x-«srra�:a5afx •s�:waahm:...a,,,c�r,..vo.�4��w�x r,..� .a� sav,.as- iftli edwd4ifen ry iraSi4 '0Vitior�' iiic ci'crne' O k61"G Wd e o ? IW cis€nele i ito ontaic one °ofr €n , 7. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(4Xc) Structure Setback Provisions: Front yard and rear- yard setbz requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the proj. except that (i) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure whi opens facing a street. • .ted attarg r .,, ii �ala `ccng vatav b 8. TCDC 18.164.060(8) Lot Frontage: Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other th an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land partition which case subsection 18.162.050(C applies, v: €.._a atta e sr _ -:?!MIh um i € "rrfet a " t lesi w... 9. TCDC 18.26.030 Building Type - (B)(4): Add illustration of new single-family attached housi type. t • r I a >< � 1 ' j a 1 enit r 1 r unit , I• I knit i _unit r i i ▪ - - . . . .r . - - L - - -r- - - - - -i 10. TCDC 18.56.050(A)(1Xb): For each attached single-family unit, (3,05011W0 square feet; SeAoginiwNiV9501 exa May 2. • • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes April 17, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Fyre; Commissioners DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Moore, Scolar, and Wilson Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Collson and Saxton Staff Present: Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff; Assistant Planner Will D'Andrea; Assistant Planner Ray Valone; Planning Commission Secretary Jerree Gaynor 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner DeFrang seconded a motion to approve the April 3, 1995, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None at this time 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from C-P (Commercial Professional) and Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and change the zoning from C-P and R-4.5 to R-25. LOCATION: South of SW Pfaffle Street at SW 83rd Avenue (WCTM 1S1 36CC, lots 200, 300, 400 and 2200). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1 , 8.1.1, 8.2.2, and 12.1.3; and Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.56. STAFF REPORT Assistant Planner Ray Valone reported to the commission on this proposal to amend the comprehensive plan map and rezone 5.51 acres to medium- high density residential. He stated that 4 parcels of land were involved; 2 parcels are currently zoned low density residential 4.5 with single family PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 17, 1995 -Page 1 • • houses on them. The other 2 parcels are zoned commercial professional and are both vacant. Valone stated that responses received from Engineering, Building, Police, and Unified Sewerage Agency contained no objections to the proposal. He said that ODOT had sent a letter stating they did not oppose the zone change, but did have some concerns about traffic. ODOT did acknowledge that at buildout under the proposal, there will be fewer trips generated than under the current zoning. Valone stated that the proposal meets all applicable comprehensive plan and development code criteria. He said that the proposal will generate fewer traffic trips and will contribute to the city's housing opportunity goal. He said that staff recommends the planning commission forward a recommendation for approval to city council. In response to a question from Commissioner Holland, Valone stated that Pfaff le Street is a minor collector. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Spencer Vail,4505 NE 24th Ave., Portland,OR 97211,representing Andrews Management spoke to the commission. He stated that the applicant agreed with the staff conclusions and findings of this proposal. He referred to a transportation impact analysis prepared by Kittleson &Associates. The report indicated that, at full buildout, the traffic would be less than if it would be if the property were to remain at its present zoning designation. Commissioner Griffith asked Mr. Vail about the timeline for buildout on and which streets would be impacted by traffic. Commissioner DeFrang commented on the bad intersection at corner of Hall and Pfaffle. Commissioner Moore asked who would determine and who would be responsible for a traffic signal at this intersection. Dick Bewersdorff said that it is possible a traffic signal could become a condition of the development. CITIZEN INPUT Paul Brossia, 11260 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, stated that he was not opposed to the zone change and he is in favor of increased density, but he is concerned about the increase in traffic on Pfaffle Street and possible accidents at the intersection of Pfaff le and Hall. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith moved to recommend to council that they accept the proposal. Commissioner Holland seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 17, 1995 -Page 2 • • 5.2 TUP 95-0001 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPING REQUEST: Applicant requests Temporary Use approval for the placement and temporary use of three modular offices. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.140, 18.70. LOCATION: 16075 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 13AB,tax lots 300,400 and 500), (WCTM 2S1 12DC,tax lots 1100 and 1200). North of SW Durham Road, south of 72nd Avenue, and east of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. ZONE: I-L (Light Industrial) The Light Industrial zoning allows public support facilities, parking facilities, financial, insurance; and real estate services, business support services, manufacturing of finished products, packaging and processing,wholesale, storage, and distribution, among other uses. STAFF REPORT Assistant Planner Will D'Andrea reported that, due to the temporary nature of the application versus the permanent status of the easement and that there will be no new employees, the Planning Division is willing to drop the condition of requiring an easement. In response to Commissioner Griffith, Dick Bewersdorff stated that the temporary use, in this case, is for one year. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Steve Morasch from Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt, Pacwest Center, Suites 1600-1800, 1211 SW Fifth Ave., Portland, OR 97204-3795, spoke for the applicant. He said that he agrees with staff. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Holland moved to uphold the applicant's appeal of TUP 95- 0001. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. ZOA 95-0001 BOWEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUEST: A request by Bowen Development Company to amend the following Tigard Community Development Code Sections in order to permit attached, common wall town homes on 'fee' simple ownership lots: 18.26.030(B)(4), 18.26.030(B)(5), 18.26.030(C)(3), 18.26.030-Compatibility Matrix, 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), 18.80.120(3)(j). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.32.120. LOCATION: City wide.5.1 STAFF REPORT Assistant Planner Will D'Andrea explained that this request was to modify sections of the community development code to allow attached common wall town homes. The current code allows for two single family, common wall attached units on two separate properties. The proposed amendments would allow for more than two units. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 17, 1995 -Page 3 • • D'Andrea said that the minimum lot sizes and density would be the same as the underlying zone. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Mike Robinson, 900 SW Fifth, suite 2300, Portland, OR 97209, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He outlined the proposal and what the applicant hoped to accomplish. He pointed out that it would not increase the density or change any of the uses; it would primarily affect districts with planned development overlays. Robert Moreland, 1022 SW Salmon, Portland, OR 97201, responded to a question from Commissioner Wilson about reduced garage setbacks. He emphasized the importance of not reducing the density that could be achieved and not diminishing the flexibility of grouping the houses. He stated that extra parking could possibly be obtained in a common parking lot. President Fyre remarked that the 8' setback would apply to a private drive, not a public street. The setback from a public street would be 20 feet. Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff said that when the development was submitted for site design review, the parking could be evaluated. OPPOSITION Robert Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut,Tigard,OR 97223,expressed his concerns about allowing this type of development in an R-4.5 area. He suggested using the 'townhouse' definition of the code to allow row houses in higher density zoned areas. Discussion followed on density transfers and the clustering of houses in an R-4.5 zone. Assistant Planner D'Andrea explained that the houses would be closer together, but the overall density would not changed. Senior Planner Bewersdorff said that in this case there would be more open space. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Mike Robinson maintained that people would not be able to do this type of development in any zone without a planned development overlay. He also remarked that applicants for duplexes or single family attached houses must seek conditional use approval from the planning commission. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED After some discussion, Commissioner Moore moved to forward a recommendation to city council to approve ZOA 95-0001. Commissioner Holland seconded the motion. The motion was carried by majority vote. Commissioner Wilson abstained. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 17, 1995 -Page 4 I • 6. OTHER BUSINESS None at this time 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. • Jeye Gaynor, PianliingCommission Secretary i✓ —JAZ/I!:AINerY.■ i1 A : Pres j�%= 'it•: Fyre • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 17, 1995 -Page 5 PO Z • u 1i 0 -.1-1 >, >1 (1) 'd 'd Y. 11-I 'CS U) in N = a.► a) — c c, r-I 0 r-I -I S1 a) (1) U c) a) I, •,1 ,C.: al .t.: t.: 0 N r-i In ((f r 1 E r; 0 r_1, ,I: N i U RS 'd 11 •r'1 1 C: I.) c .� N • ii a) 1-1 .1_1 41 *,1 - 1. (], 3 N (IS r(S U nI nS i i (it c: (if S 1 U Er = 'U Si ,� •rl 0 �' 'LI II-1 ,::1 3 r-I LI (1) al ,-I ((S RS p 1:, U '� .Q r1 c1 ' I I 0 0 n, N U) U n, 1), n, S I , rtf 11-I ,1 , 0 N U 1J N N .r, rI 'd 11 S1 O II-I [. • [Y > Ei H H c: r-1 111 '11 a) N , U = , V�"I (U U) tP C), 3 uS s I N n, c' U) �; 'd �, • U Q C) •rI ii -,-1 0 c1 >, -' S i «f - i.' a) 0 U c.: •r-i 1J . JJ O r) r-1 . , I.) 1' r t v (inU 1 N Hr>, JJ U) r1 JJ -,.1 I.1 in O O �� (t• U) "tip t' a) U . : 11-1 (; , in II S I N •,.{ r U) 11a 0 �' to N c. a) --I U to IJ .,_i S I d r 11 O p G N v b► 0 • I tP i_ I .L1 n, UI .c: .c, 11 () > I-I 0 h c, 1 1 (6 ,>, L. , .r, (n U 5 'U i S -d G O o .1..) •,-t as I-I y 1J in .,I 1A iU ' u).1 j H .I tlf 'CI ,-1 O Si rl of r'I N •.-1 '1'1 n) a) (O 0 •,'1 C, . • S 1 0 5 O J) I •rl p JJ v t71 C; )-1 11 1 U 'Cf �I .IJ JJ .c, U 1 i N O yr U Li 0 W JJ ,{ r1 r'1, 3 c{ 1.1 n, rd f) 1J I-, -r-1 c, 7 of u 3 rt JJ G n,' f u i N q c: I Q �j tj c: { •r 1 JJ 'U I) a) (Is Q rn ...1 to Q (1) t)) in o ci SI 1J r •rl 0-/ i1..1 -ri U 1J y I rl ,r ii -r-I n"U W rUI a, N id -, d j' v (1-1 'b r{ rte 0 'U 0 n, S1 I1:I `, Ili . 'Cf 'fl c; O n, FC G .tr' F nt .r{ 'd v - -d SI .E 1.1 i� :) U1 n, 0 ,-1, . p p Ui F■ N H N !r 'd N J.l ni .0 i.) .r.i a) •rl (1S r I U N «S A Li N (n U, to II 'd JJ R/�f 4-1 4-1 . c: . .i M (1) , E. '( n'i9 C7 I�if W p O 4a rd a I X -- a) (✓ f1 .(1 O irt1 J.1 i(f () E 1 rtS Cll a 1J ii tQ, 3 .1_) r-I b N E; N v ••-1 U $1 its '-i �, N rl c1 --r—r.) t� N n, U u a o nl to C7 N of d U tll r n, 1.) In a' J))'))1):::.'J N = U, p ► ' rN1) ,� Sa O A, ,U cl U nS 1.1 11 r1 �ti) 't U' I. 0— Ea 5 0 ti4 G (1) >1 0 U) d' to rl v to •.-I t, to r, (U U r 1 �.� (I) a) i� j nl . o .0 E 0 ILI 0 N to ^ .. p 'C1 1.) Ui = L I f( 1.) in 0 I i t)) , y, U) of rf, QI v Fttf cll I; U N a; jn r1. -ri r.) I) IJ r11 1: (J I nS Q i1 E, U) A) E .C: •r , 'I --Torn -1+ . ._ I; to In )11 t) 1. nl r-I ., of )_i •rt Si N p Li t 3 'd a ,-I , 0 o U rV N C� �' ..r'('I of (IS SSi i i v U 'd to U U t) N Cr) r-i rl rl r°4 n1 n, f l ,I'' f n) °' '1 E: m c., rn U 0 v O O JJ C-) Q r°1 1.1 Ul a) '>O . a1 (tS 'd [, _ nS . 3 1J .Ii . U 1, f. c: a) t I c: - ()U Cl r-I cI c: tll U a) N 'd In B G; U JN al (rl• Ul 'r� E L) ,(i u c4 U 1`i t1) N O b) rr) U) rn rCf ( I 'Cf E ,c.; •r l ,iG E d, S1 p,• ttl U _ co N c', oo 3 n, c; ro S I cn al I), in a) 7 aal ,-rl (il O p N Ul r I .t� •r 1 rl JJ p •r 1 (il r I 11 ft(III 't 1 1,.1 f ''J n) rt3 r1 r { 0 Ul F. U H r-1 r-I r1 i 1 01 -'-I r'I •,1 5' (If t(f 01 a) H •ri v v JJ G •r l U 111 U H U U ui N 4-1 U U ") N In , Cl/ in rn riS 1J al rl St G y . -- O Ui f IJ s v A n ct1 y v C) S I Cl E)' '' a c) 7. U► 1) ' ns r-I •r1 Q, 0 v d = j U U U 3 U U .c: N 3 O 0 0 n) co Q $I 1.1.1 1: O YI ii a, �z e: N la N U to O H td E-, 'd H H iJ 'd 'd E-I 4 1 E-, S.1 '(f ri n, $� -,a if) ,_) c, to ton .c: re, 3 --• us O O U v O I) I),r..l In v 0.H U 'd Ga ,-I c: •,-I •.1 H y1 3 0 - c1 N . . . (,:I r-1 ❑f . .: 'U U (Y 0 1-1 • ,~ H (-V r) -i 1( (0 U) O U n (1) N EIl rill m n, [yam U O III -,I SI L1 t)1 Ill sD a)O 0 E 6. N (n 'U 3 0 0 r-1 a) N nt F.J F-+ 0 N n, f l ,...i nt .r1 nS O 0 a ,ii n, 3 a) .t: H U. C) U) v) H Si U 0 n1 n, E-, (if () '11 U • t., • • I. TCDC 13.26.030 (3) (4) , Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling: "Single-Familv Attached DweninCt. Two or more dwelling units attached side by side on tvt< c0 :**0:::'0ontiguo s::ti separate lots e. development oitoo with some structural-parts` n`common at a common property line ***" . Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings include common-wall structures on two or more contiguous lots . Effect of amendment is to. permit townhomes on fee-ownership lots . 2 . TCDC 13 . 26 .030 (3) (5) , Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: "Multiple-Family Dwellinc. A structure containing at least three dwelling units and any vertical or horizontal arrangement, located on a single lot or development site:;.?:hut ex tzdI g sxzzs�le-family attached.b .l. ng types as t�,vo:or:: ore cord. u pus s<U i s. "...... Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that townhcmes on fee-ownership lots are excluded from the definition of multiple-family dwelling. 3 . TCDC 13 .25 . 030 (3) (4) and (5) : Move illustration under definition of "single-family attached dweliinc" to definition of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling" to definition of "sicle-family attached dwelling. " Reason for Change: a. Illustrations are reversed. 4 . TCDC 13 . 25 . 030 (C) (3) , Definition of "Townhouse" : Reason for Change: Ncc necessary to have "townhouse" __. :he TCDC because :he type of dwelling unit* is allowed under the -e __?__or of "single-family attached dwelling unit . " This amendment was suggested by the staff . 5 . TCDC 18 .25. 030, Compatibility Matrix. Chance "single-family tt "Ncrover ,..:..�,--ess_'_�=z::;:�_:. re ..;de•�e_c:v«:e: ia; __:c:.�. N o y w 14 -'d I al !., u 1.1:d)'"ti ,v u y, >, , ',,•U •• 'ia;:a:0::::i.L.:-.: UUC. (n N 11 s1 C� C: Ar:13: 11:i 'U U O U td 4 1 nJ Al a :di (�.:G;`Ul b� [�' r 1 u N W i! fd:.ltf< t' N O td 3 II.1 :? r' U Ai::c<:.>;;:tU;:dl;: -r•i r+ t7► C E't 1: ' : n1 .ct 't!.n ar 0 t 1.':..1 1 E,:: N 1 r-I .%I •.i ), 4/1 y,,I-j / u , > ,,.I II 11 : .fli:(ti�I.' E1.WAY: Al A) co 0 •rl A) O ,-1 !J . '(.1 :Vl.:. ..rs:fii: N i r') P,N ,0 r-1 .'i N:Di U..., U m a 11 •-I , o, N ;:I...i:q;-1;:::1':: N rip A) �, is itt1:':: CO 1 'U 11 I.) •r1 'I. ....::iidl.f.1,1 �j' tyo oyf vyl r .`� rd.0i. no U 1I r� .C, II '•i f;d.:: 11 ro Cs 61 W W w w 'U .+ u N y tri :tn; rn U ro to ro t)) ia.:�' { b to 3 r., :tii to W bi t! n, .. M { s; O ti U Al ,� U <' r 0 ,ro ro 1J I, N N't :`N !' U r-1 •C1 ro m " 1., ,I ri 31i;''::C:''•;.:::.:.: m 'q m °l ,� �ii 'I.I 'i 31 N II*"'� ) U :J i' -'r<?>?>) '`•. - u to U rt rd: rd rn U N 1 I :r�<:: I.r....4)::, .''. u y I : b, ,I : �:.-:"....•:::::...!::t.1.: or�f oyf oyf N vtn, u N (1 :/�',i 1;4 n' N Ito of la �i al:;:;r is U; W W W W W 1., m O (%)1'ri-t r d) N..1 11 Ar , to t(:U):Ai 1n >4 >4 >4 y, >I >, 1J; A) U P,•U U p: •(1 a, •:,. co >, , P, c ),:QI: q to N ') n1 ro ;;;:.t>t: .:.:.,: rl .rl o b r I ) al: o al r• o ..y, •o •,., t t, ri !1 `I,:r.;>r;:r t u u , j{:; U u p '; • 1! (, tl to :d:"''ri,):id: E 0 a) N a) 'W •'1 :4 Jf r, n1 ;� R) r• >, -•• 't 1 Ei ::;R„1:;:;, 1): ? i g U rl Pt N N n, .0 st r-1 to i 1►".1: C. 1 ro U U / Y, . i :I::; (n L N u Ai •rl �'`' „O;. y y Vi N Al rl 11 y .r) ri N m al..�` :�t':;t)' ►- 4i W w W ti �' ..d N U 44::: , I tJ) rl In AI ;.1 •'I f �' el:;ti:e .: >4 >• r > - O N bt n1 I :p:' 1� ,9 •r 1 O YI ,,., a► '.t r: :'t ..... ►� . l) t, td n 1 :>:;: rl ..1 iJ) u ,-1 U ..I al :.Q)`i..; `� U,: e r. to 0 p 11 >) I�� ro .5 N 0 J .11.i `� I, r*: : !r)::(11.>r'I N•rl ro N t1•r, it O O tt •-I 1.1 <:: j b 1►::at 11 I to •:;.. w 043 > P, al F. , In •.I •,I L O tJ -1 In �N:•, ro P,J to A i,, a 1) ,{ r ;y;1::; f:;<{: fl, In a O t1 I .'J 111.::::.';::::>:::- : .Ci a) O In In u :; p t .. r m.,1 .I !1 :Et:. tJ) 1 r, A) .I ) t( ;;:.N<:�!rti; u 'U U , ;Q�>•.•, ) it m ;i..,;i ;:!:t i H y •y to S I 1'i'' 11 Ri 6, �, 0 L) N A ,'�, l;i rI {1 °1 r1 , a) 0 'I.1 t.1 u n, :>.ai �r'.:'�.: (T 4. � U U u:.t71.::,1I .1 ro 1 O :l'. ,• y+" >., >4 >4 >4 >• q ill G;<�;:;. (1: .:;:.j 1::•b nl tr N CI O:;r1::: 3 bt ►1 N PI b) 1, N .y .��;Iyr.l ni:i'r,: 4 B .-1 CZ E al j ; .. C1.`.. .:' ld N bl U • , E: O ►' V:1.;:<.;:>��I:t,• g th:::... ,i' V u•r1 n, 11 U JJ ,la 1d ;.;, .. b)O U►.d n1 1 r/ r m -- >::;tj?"' •:•$•' .. In 'U O >,U -,I ar ri • u l .J ^ �, r1 1) 1-I �► ,J it � .m:. Itr - O tn al 1 !1 1.1 1 ,. 11 p O n:% q i I [; '.I To 1 1, r, l:1<q:.j'i. '•:.. `- 11 N td Q) t rya V U > 5 n1 ►n o u P N (jl ,- ,-t `.1:J.. b) O m m `)' 1t °1 y '(i'::': m •, fl ri a) m .r; •.1 co to .,-I b,:14:> 1'1 N a) ' • I), AI Fs (,°1 ini'dl:(.,;.b:'tl1: ti ^• 5 ,I'U u! U U �•, V U ,--1 ., t)I C1 to it U, .-1 ' 't):V:r11:u.. v 'C y y y o ° A M H (1 .0 't1 u ,,, r� N u ar a > i :::;:.:.nr:N .11 41 W a W G1 w N n1 p tl a) u 11 .t"1 ,-.I o :.�5i;gl:<'':::':t] 11• >' >. >• >. m ° 5 m 11 ° •r; to'1 d1 •/• r AI '1 al U P) 7, ti'':A> re n1 °': ,, b)>M 'Gl`3 w U to .c; u u t I a� i I C7 t 7 t1 > m gi 1 ul.>f):::01:::$1.1:::': ,i i ro O 41 N 1 m .-I I) m L) I N ,n d1 m °) a) - JI a a):• t4 n,dl to O U, n, In n: 1) , (7 _ '`:.... 1 1-I 1 I Q. ro n 1 s,O);:::;:::1:4: © ri : a1 U U i;{�' a) U :it i 13..fi `:ifl1::: A) H •r1 'I-) I/1'-:0.i.:. RS m .0 U '13 Es I,i 0.:-:x41:•0, n: J I. O 44 -, gto V- U v Id vs Li 4 u I ►i y fl L M 1 ti 1 51 e m 4) • w o o I K R I .4 ID •••I s: -4 •-/ • a,: .0 0. r. .•I V d 0 Cl to• E to 0 id 11 >,N 01 114 N r, v N v f E7]b .--1 O 71 N N •• v O $1 f 1 'b.'t)1: • 11 I) v: `:::' �,G r NUS; 14 41 Ji n) C r r-1'.1 ri N •rl 1) 1 U .t: 3 U 1) 0 () N'0:'C1:; O rn 0:'O.:44:i; r1 •rl y U•r-1 U O rtf L.r', n1 O `i nt •r1 1 U 111 ii ,) O (If 114 41 ,[i'..or:n).; rtt of :1t[�%::?i' • 1 3 E r1 fd 1n E U iJ t, O u tJ) al 1 .[) > v'' 1''.ti" 1) m rl u) 4i r: 0 01 01 r, Q) to 3' " • [i nl 9'1, . r'. N In to n) r1 t i U1 N U rt '0 't.l fa .::r:,a: .--1 QI s, :>.a)<>. nI 1 O ., t1 N U r; In 1 )1 r-4 () ,) n1 ..1 r U y p, .. N • Ill,1 o' v.<: .' •rr:::<::';N 4.1 I r1 ,J tT'd el ..-{ v t o m 44 N b 0 O, U U.,.' ' I n ,) 1 1 u S i: . 1 11 0) N Ol , RI 0 M ••r1 1-1 I •V [h td , :ii.ro, O [ IJ O r-I;:;�Vf:i N -' L 't1 • ro al .,1<Id': t1i fn 1 pi C :?>#•.',: al r1 v)tt tJ r-1 U N. U to 0 01 r; 0) '3`::.:,1 �); f, r), !:lil.` ,_.1 'll L r' U p, ° >1 r],0° nl t>,'71; [1 !) U '0 U �'11 �-lf i (I) :: .:: r ,41 *0 r't:; :: r1 11 N U rl 11 U ,J roiN,.;i�, Vl >.Ti 44'N •r1 y > 01 y ,1 rl N '() 1 N -1 O ro Q) n) Art') :i11 U r1 .v .r1 Id t'�I to.N 3 ro ci, 'N C �._ U to ••.I I., t; q 1: >, 0 U I i N l l 'l l :ti: III , >:t /:f; ,-I to N N O.r.' G 'u > N In 0 .r1 OI a :rtf;` t, ro u ul;: rn N r. n ■ t; 1J to al m ro In :O:In •..:::. , IJ :i:::: •>; a) (n 30 11 1, y-,-1 N .o al•t1 •-1 O Q) to D) r.; 1l .-1 U •rl •,I I)-' :1/ 1 i 'U , o::.>E:AI: 3 ETU U O tI v .r N to .,1 la-r1 U O ro r-1 Y U1 O): (' ii)::fr.7 r'r.1 Q) ..1 r-I. U > ro V �j ' r{ o rl rd N 1 I I.�U.':u rI1 ;2 'EJ)n?:i;`i;;" r, r, � � C ,• r1 � N rn [� N N u r, 1 1 . . , v a) •.1 b O N•r) > al O ''1 U•r'v 'y 1) 11 .0 a) •r) n) •:�i�.,.( n1 :1 •J i., :: V) 01 .6roU11ENE (n .r.1UEn; L > m 1 0O •r1 V) 4) n) U .4$ 0:•, ;.['J' "I () N';0'1tJ. 4_I 1 'ti cot [' r It :n3 : .:: 1 O ,t j O u r; O vroi ti d m to m N 11 'u N 01,-� v 't1 U '-t ,m ►'t l:Vin:: 1., t 1 •.r; to:itl;;:;,;; U .r, v to,.-1 r, VI U .C: E { 0 ci ro ro E c),p,It/ Irti y r/ ° iq• .Cji;Efi. (� r) ,) rl ;'#N::: • E V N r •-1 y N a► N .t1. a O, ro no U ro In ,, 1 f1 'l, 1 . . . . �+ ro v 11 J. N to t, rl .d q rd O , 1{ n) m'r=� r`.#ro O r1 .0 11 . 1 H N 14, t l-.f ro' • !:j IL, 3 N U U y -•.{ U 11 U ro ,-1 C.1 11 ) y ; Sr: 1 .1_ 1 0 to u U) ' O ' 3 O >,N fl-I O N 0 N j p iN [1 U O1 '1-1 . b1:f•I: .-1 >' 1• r: ;:� . . ft , r- C Y r1umU • ,t,r1u [),>, > t1 N 0 O ' r: 1,.!,,,,:: Nn10: r ; 11 _.) ' 01 al 't1 1 ; ' N O N .r1 N to •U >, > V) t i '✓• , ► .,.I [)i ro r l f� i >,U 1) a) . r. N 11 r, 11 1, r1 q E.'r) r0t 11•.1 r-) In .q U U .t, •i� ;1 O I:1 `'I S I .).)::*;.:.::::,)/1:::::`1 U) 1 1... . r,) ro .r1 rn O tTy O fll r-1 O ro tt •r1 > U N n1 U „t . nt •rl p1 b U y 11 p, m E u v N ro 11 U It., rd to r$1 E .� ,•0 0 C; 94 .9 •rl 1d ,, ,I., .q); u U: :J 1 / rl N N M , N 1 .c, n ,ro y 5 .q al O U L, r) ► N U r, fu ,::;. , t ►_ N >J �.bt° 0t1 >' �1Utn','�(.,{ V •r1y1lr n .0 1if1O 3 r.t)i'.. I) nlm n {' •--'C O U U r; rl C1' r1 tV Ei .0 f U 'd ,. Pi rn N 1. 1 r •rt .[ f».j f:E .I 1 N 1J 1 1 l l r r.l , pIJ �E , 1 „9 ET p,rd •r 1 N rl ro 'd , 0 r l E: U 14 N. N In I 1: I!). t-, 1j)::34:;:!0::: r{ 1 E N r1 n) "] r{ N O 't 1 / ': r, O ET>. ''� Q fTi. p, rl O r1 rl lJ s t 1► .i..11:114::: ' 11, ( '(1 1 �. J 71 N ro y 11 u O a (J U1 '(1 to •rl 11 •(1 .t. ,(;, :. -._. 1,•.I p r-,rl N . 3 u U► r1 O RI 11 ro r1 rt �..� I :..)r>: S/ O,>''r' 11 v ., 11 r1 O N t 1 E >' , .1 U i) t)] " u U I., O N> :• RI 1 1 O ,--1 (; rl .� U EJl O r1 1' E . .4 n) >, al:(:; - • • • 10 . TCDC 19 . 56 . 050 (A) (1) (b) For each attached single-fa.mily uni- , .7„ 353 ',ASO square feet 1. Single-Family 'etached. One. dwelling uni" freestanding and structurally .-eparated from any other '-dwelling unit or buildings, located on a lot or • development. site. See definitions for "mobile home" and "dwelling unit;" unit 1 Duplex. TWO dwelling units placed so that some structural parts are in common and are located on a single lot or development site;�� 1 • 1 1 . unit unit Single-Family Attached. Two dwelling units attached side by side on separate lots or development sites with some structural parts in 'common at a common property line;-I 7 1 t unit l' 1 unit TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling: "Single-Family Attached C-e . % . Two o:: toe dwelling units attached side by side gtie � ® �@1: separate lots [or-:dcvclopmcn.t si{c 1 with some structural parts common at a common property line." ' ; s _ —= ,j. —'i•3':: - is •r. -_ . • `.•J•cit:':2r::ybs.:...c�zs,�t��'i�c:+ .a:�i. . `y•y _ 1' - rt=e.':Y:�'r+:`�- - :'1y'.' •� • r' APPLICATION BY • • _ �J� .�. .. .. Ala,. - °lam Y.: M, 1 :' c viii s. BOWEN DEVELOPMENT,: ;d• 7 1 - J.:` .v, — l 1./'' fit.' ..+7''•,t"�"F !,1.`'. r4:'y:�:•' )).i:':.-. x, : ' ;t, 3 �k .K s '7 _ •� Ty :YVG3 �lfp:• 4FOR APPROVA OF-AMENDMENTS • - . • =f TO :THE GARD;CO DEVELOPMENT. • '):',;�oaf�:. .. •CODE O: PERMIT FEE'SIMPLE TOWNHOMES • IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT • • =t:J ,rte a1, {.,- •,I',•�.. +i� 'fr;'4'�." t �.!'Y1 ":�l� A>��r Y,'' Vin:"/'".:i. ,,. r 4.A:.Y. .Yi ' .,.r..r. AY.•4 r , 'R 7_ OF GARD • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • ON • FEBRUARY 17, 1995 • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION 1 II. PROPOSAL 2 A. Need for the Amendments 2 B. Proposed Text Amendments 3 C. Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC 6 III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 7 A. Statewide Planning Goals B. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 12 C. TCDC 18.30.120, 'The Standards for the Decision" 16 D. OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 18 IV. CONCLUSION 20 LIST OF EXHIBITS 21 PDX1-169760.1 90999 0006 1 • I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION APPLICANT: Jim Ekberg Bowen Development Company 3850 US Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 274-8400 Fax: 274-4685 APPLICANT'S Michael C. Robinson REPRESENTATIVE: Stoel Rives Boley Jones & Grey 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 Telephone: 294-9194 Fax: 220-2480 APPLICANT'S PLANNING Bob Moreland CONSULTANT: Julie Morales MCM Architects 1022 SW Salmon, Suite 360 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: 222-5757 Fax: 241-1514 PROPOSAL: To amend the following Tigard Community Development Code ('"TCDC") Sections in order to permit attached, common wall town homes on "fee" ownership lots to be treated as single-family dwellings: 1. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4), amend definition of single-family attached dwelling; 2. TCDC 18.26.030(8)(5), amend definition of multiple-family dwelling; 3. TCDC 18.26.030(C)(3), delete definition of townhouse; 4. TCDC 18.26.030, amend compatibility matrix to allow more than two attached single-family dwellings in a planned development district next to single- family detached dwellings; PDX1-164780.1 90999 0006 1 • 5. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), reduce the front yard set-back for garage openings adjacent to a private street; and 6. TCDC 18.80.120(3)6), permit up to 50 percent of required off-street parking spaces in a planned development district be provided in common parking lots as long as at least one off-street parking space is provided on each single-family lot. II. PROPOSAL A_ Need for the Amendments This package of legislative amendments to the TCDC text will permit construction of attached single-family dwellings (townhomes) on "fee" ownership lots to be treated as single-family dwellings in base and planned development districts. The TCDC currently treats more than two contiguous lots containing attached single-family dwellings as multiple-family dwellings. See TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4) and (B)(5). Attached single-family dwellings are treated as single- family homes only if in a "condominium" form of ownership. Id. A fee ownership lot is distinguished from a condominium in that the homeowner owns the land beneath the dwelling in common with other homeowners. The difference in lot ownership type will not cause attached single- . family dwellings to look any different from other attached single-family dwellings nor result in increased density. The amendments will offer an additional housing type not currently allowed by the TCDC. The benefit of adopting this amendment package is that it addresses a need in the housing market and fills a gap in the current TCDC. The amendments will also assist the City of Tigard in providing for attractive, well-planned, attached MX1-16978411 99999 0000 2 • • single-family dwelling developments where multiple-family developments would otherwise be required. In addition, by permitting attached single-family dwellings on fee-owned lots, the City of Tigard will have another device enabling it to meet the density requirement imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. See OAR 660-07-035(2). The proposed text amendments to the TCDC are shown below. New language is "redlined" and deleted language is "lined out". The amendments were reviewed by the City's Senior Planner prior to submittal. A short explanation for the reason for each amendment is provided below the amended language. B. Proposed Text Amendments 1. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling- "Single-Family Attached Dwelling Two of more dwelling units attached side by side on 00101.04.05.to contiguous,Separate lots or-deretopmerrt-siterwith some structural parts in common at a common property line * * * Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings include common-wall structures on two or more contiguous lots. Effect of amendment is to permit townhomes on fee-ownership lots. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(5), Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: "Multiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units and any vertical or horizontal arrangement, located on a single lot or development sitegggc•wooriggrigRotiggfogto bialistitittP000:100iittioottgoMi&gwilots." PDXI-169780.1 99999 COOS 3 • • Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that townhomes on fee-ownership lots are excluded from the definition of multiple-family dwelling. 3. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4) and (5): Move illustration under definition of "single-family attached dwelling" to definition of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling" to definition of "single-family attached dwelling." Reason for Change: a. Illustrations are reversed. 4. TCDC 18.26.030(C)(3), Definition of 'Townhouse": it • • • • • • • all •• • • r • •• • w with acss (typically 2-stvry snits)." Reason for Change: a. Not necessary to have "townhouse" in the TCDC because the type of dwelling unit is allowed under the definition of "single-family attached dwelling unit" This amendment was suggested by the staff. 5. TCDC 18.26.030, Compatibility Matrix. Change "single-family attached" to: "No-over 2i ulss>i > ' an `dve>o'inept diet. Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings, including townhomes on contiguous lots in planned development districts, are compatible with single-family detached homes because of the characteristics of the planned development district. PDX1-764160.1 99999 0006 4 a 6. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), Garage Opening Setback Requirement in the PD District "A minimum frontyard setback of 288 feet is required ..........: .f r any s garage .:ape ags`.....:e.>.:<:._.eba ur .f..f.�.'.`....opens facin a . vate treetas lo;'g> E... 11 Reasons for Change: a. Each dwelling will have at least one parking space and, possibly, two garage parking spaces. A 20-foot setback behind the garage opening is unnecessary. An 8-foot setback is the minimum required to permit a car to back out of a garage. See, Exhibit 1. An 8-foot setback discourages driveway parking. b. Planned developments should be encouraged to handle off- street parking more efficiently. • c. Reduces amount of impervious surfaces. d. Other requirements still exist for minimum right-of-way width and obstruction-free roads within planned development. 7. TCDC 18.80.120(3)0), Parking Requirement in the PD District provided..: o one a #.001::00.00fit ttte ;:, ed develo;,ment;as;1:::,:, ::as::each sin: e-fan ; Reasons for Change: a. Encourages affordability of housing by allowing 11clustered1l parking spaces and reduces development costs. b. Improves ability to increase densities within planned developments. PDXI-169780.1 99999 0006 5 • • c. Promotes "dual usage" of off-street parking spaces. Provides for visitor parking spaces where visitors might otherwise block sidewalks by parking on driveways and parking within streets. C. Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC Legislative amendments to the TCDC text may be initiated by any person. TCDC 18.30.020(A)(5). A preapplication conference is required by TCDC 18.30.020(B). The applicant's representative met with city staff in a preapplication meeting on December 8, 1994. The applicant's planning consultant previously met with city staff to discuss the need for the amendments. The TCDC provides for a limited "window" in which to submit legislative amendments. An application must be submitted no more than 75 days and no less than 45 days before the first Planning Commission Meeting in April. TCDC 18.30.030(A). The first Planning Commission Meeting is April 3, 1995. This application was submitted on February 17, 1995, 45 days before the first Planning Commission meeting in April. The submitted application must be complete, including an application with an application form, the required fee and 18 copies of a narrative addressing the standards contained in TCDC 18.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(1)-(4). The director is not permitted to accept an incomplete application. TCDC 18.30.030(G). The director has previously determined that this application was a complete submittal. No meeting with a CIT or neighborhood group is required prior to submittal but the applicant intends to meet with interested neighborhood groups at their request prior to the April 3, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. MX1-169730.1 60990 0036 6 • - • III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA The applicable criteria for the TCDC amendments include the Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals"), applicable policies in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") [(see TCDC 18.10:010(A)J, TCDC 18.30.120 and OAR 660-12-055(3) and 660-12-060 (The Transportation Planning Rule). A. Statewide Plannin g Goals 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement 'To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Response: This Goal is satisfied through provisions in the acknowledged TCP and TCDC which provide for citizen participation. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. `To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions - related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for decisions and actions." Response: This Goal is met because the acknowledged TCP and TCDC contain provisions implementing the planning process. The City will coordinate this application with affected governmental agencies (ODOT, Metro, Washington County, Tri-Met, the Tualatin Valley Parks and Recreation District and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District) by providing notice and an opportunity to comment to the agencies. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 7 3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands: 'To preserve and maintain agricultural lands." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the preservation of agricultural land. 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands: "To conserve forest land by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the conservation of forest lands or the protection of the state's forest economy. 5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources: 'To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the conservation of open space or the protection of natural resources. 6. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: 'To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed • amendments will not affect air, water or land resources quality. PDX3-169760.1 99999 0006 8 S 7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: 'To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not have an affect on the protection of life and property from natural disasters. 8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs: "Satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities, including destination resorts." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the state's recreational needs. 9. Goal 9, Economic Development 'To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon citizens." Response: This Goal is satisfied because the proposed amendments will increase opportunities for economic development in Tigard. The proposed amendments will permit expanded use of attached single-family dwellings, thereby encouraging development of existing, appropriately zoned sites. This activity will benefit the City's economy. 10. Goal 10, Housing: 'To provide for housing needs of citizens of the state." Response: The proposed amendments further this Goal because they encourage two of its central purposes: the availability of needed housing units and PDx1a69780.1 99999 0006 9 • • the efficient use of buildable land within the urban growth boundary ("UGB"). See OAR 660-08-000(1). The proposed amendments will also further the city's compliance with minimum residential density requirements. See OAR 660-07-035(3). Attached single-family housing is "needed housing" under the administrative rules implementing Goal 10. OAR 660-08-005(11)(a). As defined by OAR 660-08-005(1), attached single-family housing means "common-wall dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot." There are no restrictions on the number of attached dwellings under the regulatory definition. The proposed amendments will make the TCDC's definition of single-family housing consistent with the state's and promote the availability of this type of housing. In addition, because the proposed amendments will make it easier to increase densities within planned developments, the proposed amendments will encourage the efficient use of land within the UGB and further compliance with the minimum residential density allocation requirements of OAR 660-07-035(3), (the Metropolitan Housing Rule). 11. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services: 'To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the amendments will not affect the current levels of police and fire services, sanitary facilities, water facilities, storm drainage facilities, or energy and communications services. PDX1-164780.1 99999 0006 10 12. Goal 12, Transportation: 'To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." Response: This Goal is satisfied because the proposed amendments will not cause congestion on nearby streets. The amendments will not increase density in any district where attached dwellings are presently allowed as multiple- family dwellings. 13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation: 'To conserve energy." Response: The proposed amendments will further this goal because common-wall housing units have fewer external walls than free-standing housing units and are, therefore, more energy efficient. 14. Goal 14, Urbanization: "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." Response: This Goal is inapplicable because the proposed amendments will not affect urban land use outside of the urban growth boundary. 15. Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway; Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes; and Goal 19, Ocean Resources. Response: These Goals are inapplicable because none of the listed natural resources are affected by the amendments. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments to the TCDC conform to the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. PDXIa69780.1 99999 0006 11 • • B. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies TCDC 18.10.010(A) requires that any procedure initiated pursuant to the TCDC "shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the City of Tigard as implemented by this title. ***" TCDC 18.30.120(A)(4) makes legislative amendments such as this subject to "the applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. ***I Finally, amendments to acknowledged land use regulations, such as the TCDC, require a showing of compliance with the acknowledged comprehensive plan. ORS 197.175(2)(d). This section explains why the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable TCP goals and policies. 1. TCP Policy 1.1.1(a), "General Policies": 'This comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the land conservation and development commission, the regional plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District" Response: The applicant hereby incorporates Part III(A) and (C) of this application in response to this policy. 2. TCP Policy 1.1.1(c), "General Policies": 'The Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code are kept current with the needs of the community ***". Response: The proposed amendments will allow townhomes on fee- owned lots to be excluded from the zoning restrictions applicable to multi-family housing units. As a result, the proposed amendments will make it easier to develop alternative housing types consistent with the housing needs of the community. PDXI-169760.1 99999 0006 12 • • 3. TCP Policy 21.1, "Citizen Involvement": "The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Response: Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be provided as required by the TCDC. 4. TCP Policy 6.1.1, "Housing": 'The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various price and rent levels." Response: These amendments accomplish this TCP policy in a number of ways. First, they encourage the use of single-family attached dwellings in planned development districts. Because fee ownership townhomes on more than two contiguous lots are currently not treated as single-family dwellings, according to city staff, this type of housing is discouraged in the planned development district. Single-family attached dwellings provide an opportunity for more affordable owner-occupied homes. These amendments, therefore, increase the variety of residential types, densities and price levels. Second, by reducing the garage door setback onto private streets, the development cost of single-family attached homes is reduced and their affordability increased. The application includes drawings demonstrating how a planned development district with an 8-foot setback to the garage door opening on a private street will nevertheless be able to satisfy off-street parking requirements. See Exhibit 1. A one-car garage with an additional off-street space (either on the lot or in a common lot as proposed in the amendments) or a two-car garage will PDX1-164160.1 99999 0006 13 • • satisfy off-street parking spaces for single family dwellings. See TCDC 18.106.030(A)(1) (2 off-street spaces for each single-family attached dwelling are required). A twenty-foot separation between the garage door opening and a private street is not necessary where the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces are provided. Finally, a reduced garage door opening set-back to the private street will reduce the amount of driveway where it is unnecessary and will discourage the parking of cars in front of garages. 5. TCP Policy 6.1.1, "Housing," Implementation Strategy (2): "The Tigard Community Development Code shall list a broad range of zoning districts which allow for a variety of housing types, and complies with the adopted Metropolitan Housing Rule (50-50 mixture of single family and attached or multiple-family at 10 units to the net acre on buildable vacant land). * * * Response: The City provides increased opportunity to continue to meet the Metropolitan Housing Rule on existing appropriately zoned sites by providing increased opportunities for developing single-family attached dwellings. 6. TCP Policy 6.1.1, "Housing," Implementation Strategy (3): "In addition, the City shall encourage developers to use the planned development process in all developing areas." Response: Because single-family attached dwellings on more than two contiguous lots are treated as multiple-family dwellings under the current interpretation of the TCDC, there is less incentive to use the planned development PDX1-164780.1 99999 0006 14 S • district to its fullest potential. These amendments encourage the use of the planned development process as it was intended; that is, an innovative design process providing development superior to traditional lot-by-lot development. 7. TCP Policy 6.2.1, "Housing": 'The city shall develop dear and concise development regulations and standards to facilitate the streamlining of development proposals, and will eliminate unnecessary provisions which could increase housing costs without corresponding benefit" Response: These amendments facilitate the streamlining and development proposals by making it easier to develop single-family attached dwellings on fee ownership lots. They also eliminate unnecessary provisions adding to housing costs without corresponding benefit in three ways. First, the amendments encourage the use of fee ownership attached single-family dwellings. As noted above, this makes housing more affordable by reducing its cost. Second, the proposed amendments include reductions and set-backs where appropriate. This reduces the amount of land necessary to develop a single-family attached dwelling and also reduces unnecessary driveways. Finally, the amendments provide for up to fifty percent of required off-street parking spaces in a plan development district to be located in common parking areas. This not only provides for increased opportunity for "dual usage" (visitor parking at times when residents are not utilizing the parking), but also recognizes the City's goal to encourage more homeowners to use transit, bike or walk rather than having two-cars to meet their transportation needs. The City retains sufficient discretion through its approval process in TCDC Chapter 18.80.120 PDX1-169150.1 99999 0006 15 • • (the planned development district) to prohibit those common parking areas where inappropriate. 8. TCP Policy 6.2.1, 'Housing," Implementation Strategy (3): 'The City shall seek ways to minimize the cost of housing by encouraging a variety of home ownership alternatives, such as, but not limited to, townhouses and condominiums. Response: The proposed amendments will encourage the development of attached single-family housing. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments meet the applicable TCP goals and policies. C. TCDC 18.30.120, 'The Standards for the Decision" An application for a legislative amendment to the TCDC is required to demonstrate compliance with the standards in TCDC 18.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(4). These standards are shown below with responses following. 1. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(1): 'The recommendation by the commission and the decision by the council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: *** the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adapted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197;" Response: The application satisfies the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. See Part III(A), above. PDX1-164180.1 99999 0006 16 • • 2. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(2): "Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable;" Response: The applicant has determined that there are no additional applicable federal or state statutes or guidelines. 3. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(3): "Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District Response: The applicant has determined that there are no applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District ("Metro"). 4. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(4): 'The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Maps; Response: The applicant has addressed the applicable TCP Goals and Policies. See Part 111(B), above. 5. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(5): 'The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances." Response: The implementing ordinances are contained in the TCDC. The only applicable TCDC provisions are found in TCDC Chapter 18.30. These are addressed in Part 11(C), above. 6. TCDC 18.30.120(B)(1): "Consideration may also be given to (1) proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 17 • • Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Ordinance which is the subject of the application" Response: The TCDC contains a mistake by failing to provide for single-family attached dwellings on contiguous fee-ownership lots. This type of ownership is quite common throughout the Portland metropolitan region. It does not increase densities above what is already permitted by the base and planned development districts. The amendment encourages the use of the single-family attached dwelling district with furthers compact development, more efficient energy usage, and increases the ability of the City to meet the density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule on appropriately zoned sites. This is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10, Guideline (A)(2), which calls for appropriate types and amounts of land to be provided for housing that meets the housing needs of households at all income levels. Moreover, Statewide Planning Goal 10, Implementation Measure (B)(1), provides that comprehensive plans should provide for a "continuing review of housing need projections it should establish a process for accommodating needed revision." This amendment is part of that ongoing process because it is an identified and needed housing type that is not currently allowed. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments satisfy TCDC 18.30.120. D. OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 1. OAR 660-12-060 This state administrative rule applies to amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations. OAR PDXI-1697110.1 99999 0006 18 • • 660-12-060(1). The rule is applicable to this application because it requests an amendment to the City's land use regulations. OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) provide as follows: "(1) Amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the plan functions, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; (b) amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; (c) altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. "(2) • A land use regulation amendment significantly affects the transportation facility if it (a) changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) changes a standard implementing a functional classification system; (c) allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or (d) would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in TSP." Response: The proposed amendments will not significantly affect a transportation facility. Therefore, OAR 660-12-060 is inapplicable to these amendments. 2. OAR 660-12-055(3) This part of the Transportation Planning Rule requires the City to have amended its land use and subdivision ordinances to implement OAR 660-12-045(3), (4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) by May 8, 1994. The City has not met this PDX7-169780.1 99599 0006 19 a • deadline except for OAR 660-12-045(3). ORS 197.646(3) and OAR 660-12-055(3) provide that the sections above are directly applicable to land use decisions when the May 8, 1994 deadline has not been met. OAR 660-12-045(4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) are, therefore, directly applicable to this application. a. OAR 660-12-045(4)(a)-Ce'. This part of the Rule applies to transit-supportive measures for new retail, office and institutional developments. This section is inapplicable to these amendments because they application only to residential subdivisions. b. OAR 660-12-045(d). This part of the Rule requires local governments to adopt land use regulation measures encouraging reduced reliance on the automobile for all major industrial, institutional, retail and office developments. These amendments are inapplicable to these types of development. IV. CONCLUSION This application satisfies the applicable criteria for amendments to the TCDC. PDX1-169780.1 99999 0006 20 • s LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 Illustrative drawings showing off-street parking EXHIBIT 2 City of Tigard Application Form PDx1.6me0.1 99999 0036 21 1 • i n �� H 1 it li �° --c: L 1 !i - s §.":, -.. - 1 7 .". ■ F11-7117:1 ET—'7-1 tz . m I I � J-. % te 8-m , a "1IN. SET9ACK A . ___71 / i1-:j ,\ �l°°" _`, 1 7, r_ ---i I °1 _ _s,. 1' i r.••■••,==a--.' ....., / I I L! �,4 A I\ I I 1 { ., ' 't.' r- 1 .1 of , PRIVATE e S=T- A;CH55 • SA:K DR1VE EXAMPLES - SETBACK AT GARAGE FACING STREET Exhibit 1 P 431 229 389 Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided C' IV Do not use for International Mail (See Reverse) Sent to Dept. of Land Conservation & Street and No. _Development. _175 Court St. , b . ro S„1 P.O.,State and ZIP Code o Salem, OR 97310-0590 W Postage r,,,1 - Certified Fee r .ro, Specie!Delivery Fee U Li • Restricted Delivery- - O rq ac Return$ecei.Ifs`ring _/j T `. O) to Whom& i._t •eliveredtU4' ,r a Return Rec., owing t•Wyom, c Date,and A. ee' i drtrss f f? ,u —1 TOTAL Posta••: �y�� (� <4 &Fees Gs� �. , dam 7,5 ( Postmark or Date th" E `o LL U, a Oil NOT IC's OF. ADOPTION . This form must be mailed to DLCD not later than 5 working days after adoption - .. - ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Local File# ZOA 95-0001 Date of Adoption 5/30/95 Date Mailed 6/01/95 Date the Proposed Notice was mailed to DLCD Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment x Land Use Regulation Amendment _ Zoning Map Amendment New Land Use Regulation •- Summarize the adopted amendment Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached." Amendment to the Tigard Community Development Code to allow townhouse development of "fee simple" ownership lots. • Describe how the adopted amendment differs from the proposed amendment. If it is the same, write "Same." If you did not give notice of the proposed amendment,write "N/A." Additional Changes: 18.80.080(A)(4)(c) (ii), 18.164.060(B), 18.26.030(B) (4) , 18.56.050(A)(1)(b). Plan Map Change From Not Applicable to Zone Map Change From Not Applicable to Location: CITY WIDE Acres Involved: Not Applicable Specify Density: Previous Density Not Applicable New DensityNot Applicable Applicable Goals: i, 2 and 6 Was an Exception adopted? _ Yes No STATE: 1, 2, 9, 10 and 12. DLCD File# DLCD Appeal Deadline .»tic.a• ,.a ..,.. : . _. „r.> r_., .:.. - - .7L'•=,:.s:Yi,*;4-jiv.: • • Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment 45 days prior to the final-hearing?,. .x. Yes _ No _ The Statewide Planning Goals do not apply ". = Emergency Circumstances Required Expedited Review.„ , -Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: • Local Contact: William D'Andrea Phone: (503) 639-4171 x315 - ,,- , _Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 = 1. Send this Form and One (1) Copy of the Adopted Amendment to:- ' - - - Department of Land Conservation and Development ' - 1175 Court Street, N.E. - Salem, Oregon 97310-0590 2. ,Submit three (3) copies of bound documents and maps larger than 81/2 by 11 inches. 3. Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than five (5) working days - following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings and supplementary information. 5. The deadline to appeal will be extended if you do not submit this Notice of Adoption within five working days of the fmal decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within 21 days of the date Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 6. In addition to sending Notice of Adoption to DLCD, you must notify persons who participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. If you need more copies of this form, please call the DLCD at 503-373-0050 or this form may be duplicated on green paper. • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 95- I- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 18 . 26, 18 . 56, 18 . 80 AND 18 . 164 TO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED COMMON WALL TOWN HOMES ON FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP LOTS WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that the proposed amendments provide flexibility to allow an alternative type of housing and home ownership; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that the proposed amendments assist in meeting the requirements of the Metropolitan Housing Rule and the needs relating to the 2040 plan; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments at a public hearing on April 17, 1995 and voted to recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on May 30 , 1995 to consider the amendment . THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 : The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A" according to the findings submitted by the applicant dated February 17, 1995 . This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED : By 1.106-11.1 ."01-4 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 30 :" day of 0-AL-7 , 1995 . .47,1:41x4Lrui. Ck);1_2L:t24-,4, Ca'17.iferine Wheatley, Ci6r Recorder D�" APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thi i 3 day of 1995 . • d 411te Jam= A.Nicoli, -yor Approved as to form: ORDINANCE No . 95- /1 Page 1 4,64,ki • • City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No . 95- Page 2 • ' "EXHIBIT A" • •Language to be added is undertinedfredlfned Language to be deleted is (strike-out/bracketed] • 1. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling: "Single-Family Attached .DiAi link. Two arcr►ore dwelling units attached side by side c two o >' ore ca ous separate lots [or development situ] with some structural parts i common at a common property line." 2. . TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(5), Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: "Multiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units an any vertical or horizontal arrangement, located on a single lot or development sitebE excl: rf�r� ::s ngfe- rnEly attached u�.1di: .... s. 3. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(4) and (5): Move illustration under definition of "single-family attached dwelling" to definitio of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling" t definition of "single-family attached dwelling." 4. TCDC 18.26.030(0)(3), Definition of "Townhouse": ["n. T: - - z - •_ . _ •4. • C• i 7 = ■ ;tor/ units)."] 5. TCDC 18.26.030, Compatibility Matrix: Change "single-family attached" to: "No-over Bis nles`s«fi <'i lar is ed dievelc o ent:::dtstnc. • EXISTING USE i S.?. DETACHED S.F. DETACHED ( MOBILE ROME ?K DUPLEX S.?. ATTACHED MULTI-FAMILY (Zero Lot line) t S.F. Detached YES YES camotttaul YES YES-2 UNITS NO ...over ., ... he'PI:snits! S.F. Detached (Zero Lac Line) ! YES YES I craotrtwu YES YES NO Mobile Home ?ark GCMOhTlauL CCSDITICWAl YES YES I YES YES Duplex YES YES YES YES YES YES S.F. Attached YES YES YES YES YES YES (MO-aver 2) Multi-family YES I YES YES YES I YES YES 6. TCDC 18.80.120(3)(j) Parking Requirement in the PD 'strict: "�tF��?. >to fii�u��0�~"gercerir afce erred aff-°sue rfci'd��`s�ac��"far�s�,.r1g��farrEil ttaehe dwe aye be p a c€ed :v v e mo `cc > pcfcfn 'Tots>: vEhtn<:tf• g anned development as_ long as<ea •• n�re•-fami iy lot contarns one>(1)>`of - t eet>' arfc n 7. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(4)(c) Structure Setback Provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbac requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the projet except that: (i) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure whic opens facing a street. FC :: ><mini um>fran.ward<:setbairlc<o Erfeet cis~reawred:»for:an.v>:garage>:ooenir_r ::for a_ a s g � � c g p to �treet<as<_Ta� g��a�'>�the>�eq`t�i�ted streetti>pa l sT s aces r prc� ed< 8. TCDC 18.164.060(B) Lot Frontage: Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other tha. an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land partition i. which case subsection 8 62.050(C) app ies, o u ess the lot is far are-.attached..sin.gle-famil well ng:>unit €n t�hich ease<th`e Tot<:.frontage shall : :at least::::1.:5>>feet 9. TCDC 18.26.030 Building Type - (B)(4): Add illustration of new single-family attached housin type. , , ; unit I 1 unit unit 1 _unit I t i i a - - - - - J — a a L ' ' ',' ' ' ' ' 10. TCDC 18.56.050(A)(1)(b): For each attached single-family unit, [3,0 5 001480 square feet; h:Uogin\will\z9501 exa.mer May 2, 199