City Council Packet - 08/27/1990TIGARD!CITY COUNCIL
BUSINESS MEETING
AUGUST 27, 1390 5:3Q3 PIIA
TIGARD`'CIVIC CENTER
13125 SIN HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
STUDY SESSION (5:30 p.m.)
A G E N® A
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda Item
should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet Is
available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of
that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two
minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda
by contacting either the Mayor or the Clty Administrator.
Discussion with Dick Townsend of League of Oregon Cities
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.)
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one
motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion
for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: July 16, 1990
3.2 Approve Reappointments to Boards and Committees - Resolution No. 90-
3.3 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Authorize City Administrator to Enter into an Agreement with METRO for a Tigard Area
Database - Resolution No. 90-~
b. Authorize City Administrator to Sign a Contract for Right-of-Way Services for Greenburg
Road Project
c. Authorize Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County Consolidated
Communications Agency - Resolution No. 90-
3.4 Call for a Public Hearing on October 8, 1990, to Consider vacation of a Portion of S.W.
74th Avenue - Resolution No. 90- S
COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 27, 1990 -PAGE 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: A HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT AND THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS
The City Council has reviewed its Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code
against periodic review factors as required in OAR 660.19. Proposed amendments were
identified to bring Tiigard's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code into compliance with
state statutes and present circumstances. Amendments proposed at this time pertain to
wetlands, residential care facilities, manufactured and mobile homes and mobile home park
notification. In addition, a discussion of solar access and a review of the model ordinance is
necessary to full fulfill a periodic review requirement.
• Public Hearing Opened
• Declarations or Challenges
• Summation by Community Development Staff
• NPO and/or CPO Testimony
• Public Testimony
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
• Public Hearing Closed
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 90--i
5. PUBLIC HEARING -ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT; ZOA 90-0002 -ORDINANCE NO.
90-
Consideration of a proposed ordinance which would amend the Community Development Code
to allow larger above-ground fuel storage tanks in industrial zones and residential zones for
home-heating oil or propane.
• Public Hearing Opened
• Declarations or Challenges
• Summation by Community Development Staff
• NPO and/or CPO Testimony
• Public Testimony
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
Public Hearing Closed
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 90--
6. CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF MAP AMENDMENTS TO THE TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN -Resolution Nos. 90-5,2,90-5 , 90-50. and
90- (Hwy 99W/Tigard Street Loop; Tigard Burnham Connection; Refined Alignment
of Collector Streets Between Gaarde/121st & Walnut/135th; Ash Avenue)
Community Development Staff Report
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,
current and pending litigation issues.
8. ADJOURNMENT
cca827
COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 27, 1990 -PAGE 2
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Council President Valerie Johnson;
Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff
Present: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; John Acker,
Assistant Planner; Ron Bunch, Senior Planner; Laura Freeman, GIS
Technician; Tim Ramis, City Attorney; Wayne Lowry, Finance
Officer (present for Executive Session only); Janice Deardorff
(present for Executive Session only).
s EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive
Session at 5:41 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)
(d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
Open Session Reconvened: 6:55 p.m.
2. STUDY SESSION:
• League of Oregon Cities (LOC) Discussion
Dick Townsend of LOC was present to discuss with council
the benefits of city membership to the League. League
membership dues are based on population size; Tigard's dues
are about $9,000 per year. Major service areas of the
League include:
- State Legislative Affairs: Representation at
Legislative Sessions (lobbyists/city representatives)
- Policy Development: A means for member cities to
identify and study common concerns and problems.
(committee process)
- Intergovernmental Relations: Monitoring of state
agency rule adoption
- Federal Relations: Monitoring of Federal impacts
including shift from commitment for municipal
assistance (in conjunction with the National League
of Cities)
- Training and Development (compliance with new laws,
workshops for city officials)
- Annual Conference (training programs, information on
current issues)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 1
Research and Technical Assistance: Inquiry service;
y ordinance services; city administrator recruitment;
legal advocacy; publications; field visits; group
purchase of citations; youth and government; statewide
associations; energy program.
Employee benefits service: Pooled rates which are
negotiated annually (Mr. Townsend advised savings to
Tigard pay for annual League dues).
City/County Insurance Services: Insurance and risk
management services
Council President Johnson advised Mr. Townsend that the
Council would be discussing continued membership in the
near future.
Y Review of Agenda Items:
- Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review: Five elements
were presented for Council consideration: 1)
Wetlands, 2) Residential Care; Manufactured Dwellings;
Mobile Home Park Notice; 5) Solar Access
- Geographic Information Systems: Consent Agenda Item
requested Council approval of Tigard/Metro Database
Agreement. Staff advised this agreement would save
considerable time and money in the development of a
parcel-level data base. After discussion, council
consensus was to remove this item from the Consent
Agenda to allow more time for review of the agreement;
Council will consider on the September 10 Consent
Agenda.
Review of S.W. North Dakota Traffic Issues: City Engineer
submitted two options for extending traffic islands on
North Dakota Street with the goal of reducing traffic
speeds. Option 1 would extend the extruded cubs and rock
backfill of the existing, temporary islands (Cost:
$25,000). Option 2 would be to cut the existing pavement,
install pavement standard curbs for islands and backfill
with material suitable for landscaping (Cost: With
landscaping $80,000; without landscaping $65,000).
A number of the residents were present who asked to comment
on the proposals. Council decided to ask for comments
during the Visitor's Agenda and then place the topic on
Non-Agenda for further Council discussion.
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 2
• The following individuals testified on the traffic issues on
S.W. North Dakota Street: Jane Hunt, Mariann Bither, and Kathy
Gibbs. Issues included:
- Phase II development is reported to be imminent which will
further impact the problems with volume of traffic on S.W.
North Dakota. Concerns over ability to require developer
to assist with mitigation efforts were expressed. City
Engineer reported he had talked to developer concerning the
alternate route suggested by the neighborhood and proposed
by a consultant (Carl Springer). The developer indicated
to the City Engineer he would not consider Mr. Springer's
proposal when submitting his plat.
City Engineer outlined process:
a. Preapplication conference with developer.
b. Development proposal submittal - Review by Planning
commission and opportunity for neighborhood input
(public testimony).
- NPO process has not been effective for residents. Council
requested staff forward membership list to Jane Hunt along
with meeting schedule.
Concerns with options proposed with regard to accessibility
to resident's driveways because of continuous island.
- Circular islands at intersections were suggested.
Residents' desires are to slow traffic and to send message
to motorists that this is a residential street.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to
approve the consent Agenda with Item .3A removed for
consideration at a future date:
4.1 Approve City Council Minutes: July 16, 1990
4.2 Approve Reappointments to Boards and Committees--Resolution
No. 90-53
4.3 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Authorize City Administrator to Enter into an Agreement
with METRO for a Tigard Area Database - Resolution No.
90- Removed from Consent Agenda - Set over to the
9/10/90 Consent Agenda
b. Authorize City Administrator to Sign a Contract for
Right-of-Way Services for Greenburg Road Project
c. Authorize Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington
County Consolidated Communications Agency - Resolution
No. 90-54
t
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 3
4.4 Call for a Public Hearing on October 8, 1990, to Consider
Vacation of a Portion of S.W. 74th Avenue - Resolution
No. 90-55
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
5. NON AGENDA:
a. S.W. North Dakota: There was lengthy discussion on issues
brought out during the Visitor's Agenda. Points
considered were street closure; efforts to slow traffic;
status of street on the Transportation Map; and impending
development of Phase II.
Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten,
to direct staff to meet again with the Anton Park neighbors
to attempt a negotiated solution to the transportation
issues in this neighborhood.
The motion carried by a majority vote, 3 - 1 (Councilor
Johnson voted "No.")
Staff was asked to have a report back to Council within 60
days.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: A HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT AND THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS
The City Council has reviewed its Comprehensive Plan and
Community Development Code against periodic review factors as
required in OAR 660.19. Proposed amendments were identified to
bring Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code into
compliance with state statutes and present circumstances.
Amendments proposed at this time pertain to wetlands,
residential care facilities, manufactured and mobile homes and
mobile home park notification. In addition, a discussion of
solar access and a review of the model ordinance is necessary to
full fulfill a periodic review requirement.
a. Public hearing opened. Councilor Johnson advised on
process of public hearing.
b. Declarations or challenges: None.
C. Summation by Community Development Staff:
Community Development Director reviewed that issues before
Council included Community Development code provisions for
wetlands, residential care facilities, manufactured
dwellings, mobile home park notice and solar access.
d. Wetlands:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 4
Senior Planner Bunch reviewed the staff report on the
proposed amendments for wetland provisions:
The last legislature authorized changes concerning wetland
regulations; such action was intended to simplify current
wetland regulations throughout the state. The Federal
Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency,
the Oregon Division of State Lands, and local government
agencies all are concerned with wetland areas. The
proposed action before Council would adopt the legislation
designed to minimize conflict among the jurisdictions.
The City of Tigard ordinance would acknowledge the state
and federal agencies as the primary permitting agencies.
Senior Planner Bunch presented language suggested by
Councilor Schwartz. This language was intended to make
sure that wetlands really exist on a site before a permit
process is started and states:
"If uncertainty exists in regards to the location or
configuration of wetland areas, staff shall make an on-
site inspection prior to an application being initiated
to determine the nature and extent of the resource. If
necessary, assistance from state and federal agencies
shall be sought to provide the applicant additional
information."
Public Testimony - Wetlands
o John W. Broome, Wetlands Conservancy, P. O. box 1195,
Tualatin, Oregon raised concerns about buffering. He
noted the importance of providing an area of transition
between wetlands and other uses and advised 25 feet would
be an absolute minimum with 40 feet being most desirable.
Mr. Broome commented on the importance of wetlands and
advised of the value of open space in terms of quality
of life as well as adding to the resale value of property
within the vicinity of a wetland area.
• Douglas Pollock, 218 Franklin Street, Astoria, Oregon
97103 asked how wetland area would be determined. For
example, he questioned if the developer or City would
have to hire a consultant to make a final determination
of wetland areas.
There was lengthy discussion on this issue. Community
Development Director advised no process on wetland
determination had been worked out. He added that it
would most likely be the responsibility of the developer
r'
L CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 5
(applicant) to perform the necessary biologist/ geologist
testing for determination of wetland area.
Councilor Schwartz referred to the language (see comments
above) he proposed for insertion with regard to the
preapplication conference with staff. If all parties
agree about location of wetlands, it was expected that
no testing would be necessary.
a Carl Johnson, 8973 S.W. Burnham, Tigard, Oregon testified
with regard to concerns on floodplain. He advised he
questioned the requirement of donation of land for the
building of a bicycle pathway or other constraints
limiting the use of floodplain property. He referred to
a Supreme Court Case (Nolan) ruling concerning the
unconstitutionality of the taking of land in certain
instances. Discussion followed; City Attorney advised
his office would be willing to talk to Mr. Johnson and/or
his Counsel on this issue further.
• Mary Skelton, 10355 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon,
described the configuration of her property and noted
there has been a change in the floodplain area. She said
area has developed with no provisions concerning drainage
and how it would affect existing floodplain. She raised
concerns over protection of wetland areas.
Discussion followed. Community Development Director
acknowledged that Ms. Skelton's concerns were important
and the care of wetlands should be considered. Councilor
Johnson advised Ms. Skelton on the Surface Water
Management issues which are region wide. Councilor
Schwartz gave a brief update on the efforts in the
Tualatin Valley Basin and the Surface Water Management
Program.
Council Discussion on Wetlands:
There was discussion on process. Council consensus was
that additional information on the buffering issue would be
necessary prior to a final determination on the proposed
amendment. Further, it was the consensus of Council to
include the language sponsored by Councilor Schwartz
concerning the preapplication phase and the determination
of wetland area.
e. Manufactured Dwellings
Senior Planner Liden advised the new proposed Exhibit A to
the draft ordinance would provide consistency with State
law and address concerns expressed about placement of
manufactured homes on individual lots.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 6
Public testimony - Manufactured Dwellings
• Martha Bishop, 10590 S.W. Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon, read
a prepared statement into the record concerning a "Needs"
analysis for siting of manufactured housing. (Mrs.
Bishop's statement has been filed with the meeting
material.)
Senior Planner Liden advised that a Needs Analysis would
be necessary if the city was proposing restricting the
placement of mobile homes in certain zoning districts.
City Attorney also advised on the requirements
surrounding a "Needs Assessment."
There was discussion on Conditions, Covenants, and
Restrictions (CC & R's) and whether or not the City would
enforce them. City Attorney advised CC & R's would not
be enforced by cities and referred to case law which
supported this statement.
Mrs. Bishop noted concerns over NPO #3 and appointment
of new members. She advised of quorum difficulties in
recent weeks. Staff will contact Mrs. Bishop regarding
her concerns.
Council discussed the standards proposed for mobile homes.
Among the changes was the proposal that the slope of the
roof be not less than 3:121.
f. Solar Access
Senior Planner Liden reviewed the staff report on solar
access and the proposed model ordinance.
Public Testimony - Solar Access:
e Dave Yaden, Oregon Department of Energy, 625 Marion,
N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 reviewed the importance or
preserving solar access. Mr. Yaden testified within the
context of energy conservation and renewable energy
resources. He urged the Council to consider the model
ordinance favorably saying that solar energy is cheap,
reliable, simple, proven and flexible.
e Forrest Soth, President of Beaverton City Council and
Chair of the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Solar Access
Project was accompanied by Mike McKeever of
McKeever/Morris Consultants. Mr. Soth advised of the
local government participation in solar access
preservation. Twenty-two local jurisdictions have agreed
on the model ordinance provisions. Mr. Soth advised of
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 7
h.~
his support of preserving solar access as an investment
in the future. He cautioned of lost opportunity if
building orientation was not considered at the outset of
development projects. In addition, the Homebuilders
Association supports the solar access model ordinance.
Council President Johnson advised there would be no final
decision on this issue made at this meeting.
Council meeting recessed: 10:10 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened: 10:20 p.m.
Council Discussion - Solar Access
There was lengthy discussion on whether or not to pursue a
solar access ordinance. Council consensus was to keep the
record open and receive information from Mr. Mike McKeever
on the merits of solar access and consider a model
ordinance or elements of the proposed ordinance at a later
date.
g. Residential Care
Senior Planner Bunch presented the staff report on the
proposed recommendations. The Community Development Code
E definitions are proposed to be amended to be consistent
with those of the State.
Council President Johnson noted concerns about the
definitions as presented in the proposed ordinance. She
did not want the City to be placed in the position of
regulating residential care facilities.
Senior Planner Liden elaborated on the intent of the
staff's proposal. He advised the City would not regulate
the use; rather, the definitions were included so that
terms were consistent with the State's definition. For
example, if there was an application for a children's
daycare facility within a certain zone, then the City of
Tigard's definition would be the same as the State's
definition.
City Attorney advised he would work with staff to clarify
wording and suggested one alternative would be to simply
list the items the City would not regulate and those which
would be regulated by the State.
A new draft will be prepared for Council consideration at
a future date.
h. Mobile Home Park Notice
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 8
Senior Planner Liden reviewed staff report. The proposed
revision would comply with State requirements for
notification of tenants of a mobile home park when there is
a proposed zone change for that park.
i. Review of Council Conclusions by Community Development
Director:
• Recommendation of adoption of Mobile Home Park Notice
language as presented.
• Recommendation of adoption of Manufactured Dwelling
language with the following changes:
1. Adopt errata which defines mobile homes, manufactured
homes and trailer homes.
2.Adopt language which says the pitch of roof for a
manufactured home should be not less than 3:12' pitch.
3.Strike the word "color" in Criteria No. 4.
• Residential Care Facility language to be revised and
presented to Council at a future date.
• Wetland language to be reviewed. Staff will coordinate
with Wetlands Conservancy on buffering issue. Revised
language to be presented to Council at a future date.
• Solar Access additional information to be prepared for
Council review. Whether or not to adopt all or portions
of the Model Ordinance will be considered by Council at
a future date.
Consideration of Ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-24 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR PERIODIC REVIEW.
Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to
adopt Ordinance No. 90-24 with the amended Exhibit A;
further the council directs that Sections 2, 3 and 4 be
struck from the ordinance and Sections 5, 6, and 7 would be
adopted.
Discussion on motion: Councilor Eadon received
clarification that the errata sheet as presented by staff
on manufactured housing was approved; the pitch to roof
(3:121) was added, and the reference to color selection
would be struck.
` CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 9
3
Y
S
i
S
The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present.
The public hearing was continued to a date uncertain.
7. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: ZOA 90-0002
Consideration of a proposed ordinance which would amend the
Community Development Code to allow larger above-ground fuel
storage tanks in industrial zones and residential zones for
home-heating oil or propane.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Senior Planner Liden presented the staff report. Mr. Gene
Burchill of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District
was present for possible questions. There was brief
discussion and note of support for the proposed ordinance.
d. There was no public testimony.
e. Public hearing was closed.
f. ORDINANCE NO. 90-25 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA 90-
0002) INITIATED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD
g. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to
adopt Ordinance No. 90-25.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
8. CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF MAP AMENDMENTS TO THE TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN: Council reviewed and acted
as follows on the following resolutions:
a. RESOLUTION NO. 90-56 A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT
TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP TO ADD
A "LOOP" FROM HIGHWAY 99W TO TIGARD STREET.
Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten
to adopt Resolution No. 90-56.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 90-57 A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT
TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP TO
DELETE THE TIGARD/BURNHAM STREET CONNECTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 10
Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten,
to adopt Resolution No. 90-57.
The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 90-58 A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT
TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP TO
DELETE THE EXTENSION OF ASH AVENUE FROM BURNHAM TO WALNUT
AND HIGHWAY 99w AND FROM HUNZIKER AND HALL STREETS AND
EXTEND ASH AVENUE FROM BURNHAM TO HILL STREET.
Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten,
to adopt Resolution No. 90-58.
d. The proposed resolution for refined alignment of collector
streets between Gaarde/121st & Walnut/135th will not be
considered at this time. Staff will calendar again in
approximately two months.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:26 p.m.
Catherine Wheatley, City Rec der
ATTEST:
Ge-ld R. Ed*ard/s, Mayor
Date:
ccm827
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1990 - PAGE 11
f
n
to
t0
n
I ~
00
J Z
9
WI k+t~Ute
O
to
0
D
o
Z
Q
00
®
m
(D
m
co
U
^
r 9
y
v 0
`
cc
w
d
p
~~yy
2
~
W
13
13
o
-
Q
p
~
die O
d
co
O
6i®iI o
_j x
z
m
~ ~ m
D
8
CL O
co
'J
0 o
u a
M
N
'O n
rO I*l Ol
M d1
•r= M S.-
F- M O
N
4-
o X -v
m°O0)
r O •r
V a F-
6
6 6 6
Z
O
H
Q
U
J
a
O m
H Z
0
Q
Z
LL Oco
Q Q
W W3
OLL
LL 0
O~
1-- Z
p
~U
Of
' O m
m •D
c
'y
r r
O
rL
c
W
e
Cj
c
0)
>
^
clJ
(n
m
L
y
N
U
a:
O
>
>
C
a
m
~
m
co
~o
-
c
3
_
~r
m
O
C
wF-
O
XO
cis
W
m
c
N rLU+
C
m
=C:
C
co
e .
W O ly
a 1
O
a
O
m
o
c
r
=
n
co
N
V U
r
w
a
C
W
W
y
O
C ~•(D m N
V
m
C m CO C.
3
o
w
3 •C cm= c
m
fq CL_ o r
O
co
1C..
of O d c
7L
'
a
O
o
mc
yOWO-0
O
H
7
0 co
3
CD
m
r
Ol U
c m m m
c 'O
C
m
W
e
p
m
CL
OW~ a
w
m
V
I
t!t
E.
i
o.. k...
0
rn
Ol
rl
L
m
E
m
m
L
3
W
v
e
W
V
m
•UL
0
co
e
O
Im
m
O
O
U
CL
W
Z
y a'
E Q
O
U LL
LL
2 Q'.
a~a
07
x O
Vic
.o•. t -f ~y v cA a ,a U ~n
AS
N ~.c ca y`n
04
t- N F rs c f-
2 oz
i0 V.~ o a > 0:' O . . y
Imr 04 I [Jr a> :~.~5
52
J z 3 - ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~y q Q:,.
Zgw>
Cl)
° Z a
IM
m w
® m = ca
N N co
~ tm - O_ d m 'O
V N 7 y O
Z Z
0 (D ~ C C >
Z S .0 13 13 > r y •N
d¢ a 'O U) L m
Q N
o a> cc
Z y s • • = CD 41 0
o z .,.s CL
LU Z 0 w
m
~ H - c 3
Cl)
m U v m
m
m J m W m c
D. ca W
u a CL p
LL ai O O c0 w 7
0 S.
O m a M
F- t/
Ow y c c
rn ^`t O mvV O
Yi~E Z O O L
C71 M
r- 'b M N Q 'O (G W t
L M n ~ Z CF G y~G1 U mo O
W co Na, rj==*0 s c O
O LL ZS O C m_m c 3 r-
03 S- LL 0 w + 3: cm: cc
LLJ to oa
`F' Q c nT o
OO'C O U. p`Q1OO O m
cara LL O «OWOV O >
41' 0) m v Q •m
.r C] •r h p o o) W r U
UO_F- WZ 3r c m N
Q~ m m o m e
C O G
0
rn
rn
C
O
m
0
0
CL
o
Z
m
r
m V\
E `
O . 1
O .Q
0
e o
O O
O o >
co U U.
i-.
CITY OF TIGARD, ORDGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
vrdC Itc oCe Afos. qo - aL4 J Div- a s
STATE OF ORDGON )
County of Washington ) ss
City of Tigard )
I, begin first duly sworn, on
oath, depose and say.
That I posted in the following Public and conspicuous places, a copy of
ordinance Number (s) - a 4 q0 -Qt;-
which were adopted at the council meeting dated _8 0--? l0
copy(s) of said ordinance(S) be' hereto attached and by reference made a part
hereof, on the _ date of l i 1990.
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. US National'Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, corner of pacific Hwy. ( State Hwy. 99) and
SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this - date of , 19a.
Notary Public for Oregon,/
My Commission Expires:
ke/CWPOST
C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 90-c2~
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR PERIODIC REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a review of its Comprehensive Plan and land use
regulations as required by OAR 660-19; and
WHEREAS, the periodic review final order contains findings pertaining to the
status of the comprehensive plan and land use ordinance as related to current
statutes and circumstances; and
WHEREAS, in order to bring the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development
Code into compliance with state statutes and community circumstances it is
necessary to amend certain sections of the plan and code; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning commission recommends adoption of amendments
identified as exhibits "A" through "F"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that amendments are necessary to bring the
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code into compliance with state
statutes and current circumstances
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: 191 Chapter 18.26 of the Tigard Municipal code shall be amended as
shown in exh+b1 --4&" ~~1 5 { I~h ~e 2 d. P j(i n i j, IMS cc m o~vtd e
-Seet&ep-fie Chapter 18.42 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended as
shown in exhibit "B".
: Chapters 18.46, 18.48, 18.50, 18.52, 18.54, 18.56, 18.58,
18.60, 18.62, 18.64, 18.66, 18.68 and 18.142 of the Community
Development Code shall be amended as shown in exhibit "C".
Section-4: Chapter 18.84 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended as
shown in exhibit "D".
Section 5: Chapter 18.94 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended as
shown in exhibit "E".
Section 6: Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended as
shown in exhibit "F".
Section 7: In all exhibits added portions are underlined deleted
portions are in [brackets).
ORDINANCE No. 90-,7
Page 1
~ G'-~~- CvLCnci 1 Gc~►~n
81a~l~rv
PASSED: By (I j1(A R't WIUTAS vote of all Council me Mere present afte
being read by number and ti a only, thisa ~ day of alllCis
therine Wheatley City Record r
APPROVED: This c !t+, day
of,44-tefuz 1988.
Approved as to form:
Ci y Attorney
91a-? /moto
Date
ORDINANCE No. 90-P
Page 2
G d vOed 91a -~1 ceo
'EXHIBIT 66A"
18.26.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms
(to be inserted in alphabetical order)
"Manufactured home[s]" - [a factory-fabricated transportable building
designed to meet the Uniform Building Code to be used by itself or
incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site as a
dwelling unit. The term is intended to apply to major assemblies and does
not include buildings constructed at a site from prefabricated panels,
trusses and other prefabricated supplements.] a structure constructed for
movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbina
facilities that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used for
residential purposes and that was constructed in accordance with federal
manufactured housing construction and safety standards regulations in effect
at the time of construction.
"Mobile home" - [a structure transportable in one or more sections, each
built on a permanent chassis, which is designed to be used for permanent
occupancy as a dwelling and which is constructed on a site other than its
place of permanent use.] a structure constructed for movement on the public
highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities that is
intended for human occupancy that is being used for residential purposes and
that was constructed between January 1 1962 and June 15, 1976, and met the
construction requirements of Oregon mobile home law in effect at the time of
construction.
"Residential trailer" - a structure contructed for movement on the public
highways that has sleeping cooking and plumbing facilities that is
intended for human occupancy, that is being used for residential purposes and
that was constructed before January 1 1962
"Wetland" - lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where
the water table is usually at or near (within 24 inches of) the surface, or
the land is covered by shallow water. for purposes of this classification,
wetlands must have one or all of the following three attributes] often called
swamp, marsh, or boa, that exhibits all of the following characteristics:
A. [At least periodically the land supports predominantly hydrophytesl] The
land supports hydrophytic vegetation. This occurs when more than 50
percent of the dominant plant species from all strata are classified as
wetland species;
B. [The substrate is predominantly hydric2 soil]The land has hvdric soils.
Hydric soils are soils that are saturated flooded or ponded long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part of the soil profile;
C. [The substrate is non-soil3 and is saturated with water or covered by
shallow water at some time during the growing of each year] The land has
wetland hydrology. Wetland hydrology is permanent or periodic
inundation,_ or soil saturation for a significant period (at least one
week) during the growing season.
The technical basis for defining where wetlands are located can be found in
the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands-.
An-area of privately owned land which otherwise satisfies the definition of a
wetland is not defined as a wetland if it was created by human activity after
October 11, 1984 as part of an approved development Project This exclusion
does not apply to wetland mitigation areas.
1Hydrophytes - a plant growing in water or soil too water logged for most
plants to survive. A list of hydrophytes is maintained in the community
Development files.)
[2Hydric - containing acid hydrogen.]
13Non-Soil - lacking the qualities of soil - not firm, unable to sustain plant
life.)
Chapter 18.94
MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.94.010 Purpose
18.94.020 Mobile Home Subdivision Standards
18.94.030 Manufactured/Mobile Home Park Standards
18.94.040 Manufactured Homes on Individual Building Lots
18.94.050 Nonconforming Mobile Homes
18.94.010 Purpose
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria for the placement
of manufactured/mobile homes in mobile home subdivisions and park
developments and manufactured homes [and] on individual building lots
within the city of Tigard. (ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-15)
18.94.020 Mobile Home Subdivision Standards
A. In addition to the standards of the zoning district in which the
project is located and other standards of this title, a mobile home
subdivision proposal shall:
1. Comply with all applicable state standards and other City
l standards for the subdivision (See Chapter 18.160);
2. Satisfy all the standards of the applicable zoning district, and
the provisions of Chapter 18.92; and
3. Be limited to manufactured/mobile home housing types. All other
types of residential units shall not be permitted. (Ord. 89-06;
Ord. 83-52)
18.94.030 Manufactured/Mobile Home Park Standards
A. The design of the proposed manufactured/mobile home park shall be
submitted to the Planning Division for review in accordance with
Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review, and Chapter 18.130,
Conditional Use, where applicable.
B. The design for the manufactured/mobile home park shall conform to all
applicable state standards established by the State of Oregon,
Department of Commerce mobile home park standards.
C. The manufactured/mobile home park shall:
1. Have a minimum lot gross area of one acre;
2. Have a minimum frontage of 100 feet;
Page 1
3. Have a minimum depth of 150 feet;
4. Have a front and rear yard setback of 25 feet;
5. Have a side yard setback of 10 feet, except on a corner lot the
side yards shall be 25 feet;
6. Have a minimum of 60 square feet of outdoor recreation area,
suitably improved for recreational use, provided for each unit
exclusive of required yards. Each recreation area shall have a
minimum size of 2,500 square feet;
7. Have landscaping equivalent to 20 percent of the 4
manufactured/mobile home park area; and
8. Be partially screened from the public right-of-way and adjacent
residential areas by a combination of a sight obscuring fence,
'vegetation, berm, or any combination of the above as approved by
the approval authority, except that within the required front yard,
any fence shall not exceed three feet in height.
D. Evidence shall be provided that the park will be eligible for a
certificate of sanitation required by state law.
E. Each site shall be adequately serviced by public facilities such as
water supply, sewers, sidewalks, and improved streets.
F. Each unit shall be provided with a water, sewer, and electrical
connection. The electrical connection shall provide for 110 and 220
volt service.
G. No manufactured/mobile home, accessory building, or other structure
shall be closer than 10 feet from another mobile home, accessory
building, or other structure.
H. No structure shall exceed 25 feet in height.
I. Each manufactured/mobile home placed in a manufactured/mobile home park
or subdivision shall be inspected by the Building official and shall
meet the following standards:
1. A state insignia indicating compliance with Oregon State Mobile
Home Construction Standards in effect at the time of manufacture
and including compliance for reconstruction of equipment
installation made after manufacture shall be displayed on each
manufactured/mobile home;
2. Each manufactured/mobile home shall be in good repair,
notwithstanding deterioration which may have occurred due to
misuse, neglect, accident, or other cause;
Page 2
3. Each manufactured/mobile home shall contain a water closet,
lavatory, shower or tub, and a sink in a kitchen or other food
preparation space; and
4. Each manufactured/mobile home shall be installed under the
provisions of the administrative rules adopted by the Director of
Commerce and administered by the State Building Code Division.
J. Each vehicular way in a manufactured/mobile home park shall be named and
marked with signs which are similar in appearance to those used to
identify public streets, and:
1. A map of the named vehicular ways shall be provided to the
applicable fire district, the Police Department, and the Public
Works Division.
K. If a manufactured mobile home space or permanent structure in the park
is more than 500 feet from a public fire hydrant, the park shall
provide:
1. Water supply lines designed with fire hydrants which shall. be
provided within 500 feet of such space or structure; and
2. Each hydrant within the park shall be located on a vehicular way
and shall conform in design and capacity to City and the
applicable water district standards.
L. Each manufactured/mobile home in a manufactured/mobile home park or
subdivision shall have a continuous perimeter skirting installed
pursuant to state regulations, which shall be of the same material and
finish as the exterior of the manufactured/mobile home.
M. The wheels, tongue, and traveling lights of each manufactured/ mobile
home in a manufactured bile home park or subdivision shall be removed
upon installation of unit.
N. There shall be no outdoor storage of furniture, tools, equipment,
building materials, or supplies belonging to the occupants or
management of the park.
0. Accessways or driveways shall be lighted in accordance with City
standards.
P. Primary access to the manufactured/mobile home park shall be from a
public street and shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.108, Access,
Egress, and Circulation, and:
1. Where necessary, additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated
to the city to maintain adequate traffic circulation;
Page 3
2. Access driveways connecting unite to a public street shall have a
width of not less than 36 feet, of which not less than 20 feet
shall be paved; and
3. Driveways shall be designed to provide for all maneuvering and
parking of units without encroaching on a public street.
Q. The maximum number of manufactured/mobile homes in the park or
subdivision shall not exceed the amount calculated in Chapter 18.92.
R. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the
100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient
open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This
area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction
of a pedestrian/ bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with
the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66;
Ord. 84-61; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52)
18.94.040 manufactured Homes on Individual Building Lots
A. The establishment, location, and use of manufactured homes as scattered
site residences shall be permitted [in the absence of covenants,
conditions and restrictions] in any zone permitting installation of a
dwelling unit subject to requirements and limitations applying generally
to such residential uses in the district, and provided such homes shall
meet the following requirements and limitations:
[1. The home shall meet all requirements applicable to single-family
dwellings and possess all necessary improvement, location,
building, and occupancy permits and other certifications required
by the title;]
[2. The home shall be larger than 950 square feet of occupied space or
meet the minimum square footage requirements for the appropriate
zone;]
[3. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved shall
be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of
the manufactured home is at or above the base flood elevation and
shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation
system in accordance with the regulations adopted by the Oregon
Department of Commerce, and with the manufacturer's installation
specifications;]
[4. The home shall be covered with an exterior material customarily
used on site built residential dwellings, and such material shall
extend over the top of the foundation (or meet the community's site
built residential home standards); and]
Page 4
[5.
The homes shall have a roof composed of a material customarily used
on site built residential dwellings such as asbestos, fiberglass,
shake, asphalt, or tile, which shall be installed onto a surface
appropriately pitched for the materials used. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.
87-32; Ord. 85-15)]
1.
The manufactured home shall be multisectional and enclose a space
of not less than 1,000 square feet;
21
The manufactured home shall be placed on an excavated and back
filled foundation and enclosed at the perimeter such that the
finished first floor of the manufactured home is located not more
than 12 inches above grade.
31
The manufactured home shall be securely anchored to the foundation
system in accordance with the requirements of the State Building
Codes Agency for Manufactured Structures
31
The manufactured home shall have a pitched roof with a alone of 3
feet in height for each 12 feet in width
4.
The manufactured home shall have exterior siding and roofing which
in -ee+e_, material, and appearance is similar to the exterior
siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellings
~~,y10►~
within the city as determined by the Building Division This
requirement shall not be interpreted to mean that the City is
responsible for enforcing codes, covenants and restrictions of any
olO~~~
U
homeowner's or other association.
5.
The manufactured home shall have a garage or carport constructed of
like materials. An attached or detached garage may be required in
lieu of a carport where a garage is consistent with the predominant
construction of immediately surrounding dwellings (Ord. 89-06,
Ord.87-32, Ord. 85-15)
18.94.050 Nonconforming Mobile Homes
A. Mobile home parks existing at the adoption of the ordinance codified in
this title not meeting the standards set forth in this title shall be
considered nonconforming and are subject to the standards set forth in
Subsection 18.132.040.B.
[B. Nonconforming mobile homes in such parks may be replaced with like
mobile homes that meet the standards of Section 18.94.030 when they are
moved or destroyed. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-15)]
B. When nonconforming mobile homes in such parks are moved or destroyed
they may be replaced with mobile homes that meet the standards of
Section 18.94.030. (Ord. 89-06. Ord 85-15)
\ Page 5
KMIBIT
18.32.130 Notice of Hearinas Officer Commission and City Council
Proceedings
A. Notice of an impending action pursuant to Subsections 18.32.090.B, C,
and D shall be given by the Director in the following manner:
1. At least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, notice shall
be sent by mail to:
a. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record
of the property which is the subject of the application;
b. All property owners of record within 250 feet of the property
for the following types of applications:
(i) Subdivisions;
(ii) Sign Code Exceptions;
(iii) Administrative Sign Variances;
(iv) Sensitive Lands Permits (100-year floodplain);
(v) Conditional Use Permits; and
(vi) Planned Developments;
(vii) Comprehensive Plan Amendments;
(viii) Zone Changes;
(ix) Zone Ordinance Amendments;
C. Any affected governmental agency which has entered into an
intergovernmental agreement with the City which includes
provision for such notice;
d. The affected neighborhood planning organization, if active;
e. Any person who requests, in writing, and pays a fee
established by the Council; and
f. The appellant and all parties to an appeal or petition for
review; and
2. Notice of a hearing on a Proposed zone change for a mobile home
park shall be given to tenants of that mobile home park at least 20
days but no more than 40 davs prior to the hearing; and
[2)3. The Director shall cause an affidavit of mailing of notice to be
filed and made a part of the administrative record.
B. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be given in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City. An affidavit of
publication shall be made part of the administrative record. (Ord. 89-
06; Ord. 83-52)
CITY OF TIGARDI OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 90- ~?5
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT (ZOA 90-0002) INITIATED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard initiated the review of Chapter 18.108 of the
Community Development Coderegarding above ground fuel tanks; and
WHEREAS, the City solicited comments from the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
and Beaverton Fire Department; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission at a public hearing on August
7, 1990 reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the proposed changes
on August 27, 1990 to review the Planning commission recommendations as well as
public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Community Development Code is amended as shown in Exhibit "A"
with the deleted language in [brackets] and the new language
underlined.
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after
its passage by Council, and approval by the Mayor.
7
PASSED: By U n d 1/n UL(S vote of all Council~Anembers present after
being read by number and title only, this r7~-day of August, 1990.
Catherine Wheatley, City Record r
7 ~~1
APPROVED: This 22~ day of.August, 1990.
~'r' C o, Ilk I
Ger d R. Edwards, VMa
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Vo-)IqU
Date
1 ZOA90-02.ORD/kl
ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 1
EXHIBIT A
Chatter 18.104
FUEL TANK INSTALLATIONS
Sections-
18.104.010 Purpose
18.104.020 Definitions
18.104.030 Applicability of Provisions
18.104.040 Requirements
18.104.010 Purpose
A. the purpose of these regulations is to guide the installation of
stationary fuel tanks within the City limits in residential, =mriercial
and dial zones. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-08)
18.104.020 Definitions
A. "Container" - any 60 ggllon or less Capacity can, bucket, barrel, drum,
or portable tank (except stationary tanks), tank vehicle[s], or [and]
tank can[s] used for transporting or storing flammable or combustible
I
B. "Fuel" -
Petroleum gas (LPG and propane)[Kerosene or - any - hydrocarbon ~i
liquefied petroleum gas confo~n3 to nationally r recognized edstaroil lardsor
.
Hydrocarbon oils shall have a flashpoint of not less than 100°
Fahrenheit.]
C. "Tank" - a vessel containing more than 60 U.S. gallons. (Ord. 89-06;
Ord. 86-08)
18.104.030 licahilif-u of Provisions
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all new and existing
development in all zoning districts. These provisions shall not apply
to nonstationary fuel containers. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-08)
18.104 040 Requirements
A. All stationary containers, tanks, equipment, and apparatus used or
intended to be used for the storage, handling, use, or sale of
flammable or combustible liquids or fuels shall be of an approved type
as per the Uniform Fire Code.
B. Small tanks of 300 gallons or less or containers with capacities of 60
( U.S. gallons or less; used or intended to be used for the above-ground
storage of residential or home heating fuels (combustible liguids-
Class II and III and liquified petroleum gas) are permitted in all
districts when they conform to the standards and requiremmts of the
Uniform Fire Code and local fire district requirements.
C. Installation of all fuel tanks with capacities greater than 60 U.S.
gallons for the storage of flammable liquids (Class I) shall be
prohibited above-ground in -all commercial and residential zoni_W
districts.
D.
[D.] E. Specific concerns of tank placement on a site with respect to
topographical conditions, barricades, walls, building exits, proximity
to buildings or adjacent properties, tank construction, and storage
permits for Class I, II and III liquids shall be addressed prior to
the time of Building Code permit approval and site clevelcpment review
(where applicable), and shall conform to all requirements of the
Uniform Fire Lode and the applicable fire district.
[E.] F. All undergmund fuel tank and aboveground stationary fuel storage
containers may be installed in all districts provided:
1. All fuel tank installations must be reviewed and approved by the F,
Building Official; and
i
2. Application for the necessary permits from the City Building
Official shall be acccupanied by a signed, approved document frcm
the applicable fire district. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-08)
nm/jdo18104
is.uuv gallons aggregate in total volume Fuel tanks shall be related
to and clearly incidental to an amroved use of the site
DATE 8/27/90
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS.
Item Description: AG MA ITEM NO. 4
PUBLIC HEARING - TO RECEIVE INPUT & PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & COMMUNITY CODE REVISIONS
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
rte`
povg /
C Fl'\ D C)n r
SrQtft)t\- - O'Rftl
(Zi (jam
DATE 8/27/90
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS.
Item Description: AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
PUBLIC EF.ARM - ZONE ORDINANCE AHM2MMU: ZOA 90-0002
Proponent (For Issue)
Name, Address and Affiliation
Opponent (Against Issue)
Name, Address and Affiliation
/ea's
/Lj f-
August 27, 1990
ESTIMATED COST OF
EXTENDING TRAFFIC ISLANDS
IN ANTON PARR SUBDIVISION
Proiect•
5~~~ S~essiw1 -
In July, the Council requested staff to develop a proposal for extending the
traffic islands on North Dakota Street in Anton Park Subdivision. The goal was
to reduce traffic speeds.
If the islands are extended, it is proposed that the islands would extend from
Springwood Drive to 121st Avenue. The islands would be continuous except for
breaks at side street intersections. In addition, it is proposed that a
continuous white edge stripe be painted on the pavement on each side of North
Dakota Street to define a shoulder. The shoulder stripe would further restrict
the apparent traffic lane width, encouraging slower traffic speeds. In
addition, the shoulder area would provide a refuge for bicycles and, on one
side of the street, an area for parking.
Attached is a sketch showing the proposed configuration of lanes and islands.
tf Option #1•
The existing temporary islands were constructed of extruded curbs cemented to
the existing asphalt pavement. Crushed rock fill was placed in the areas
between the curbs.
Option #1 would be to extend the extruded curbs and crushed rock backfill.
These islands are not suitable for landscaping. The extruded curbs would
require occasional maintenance, as they do break up under severe traffic
impacts.
The estimated cost is $25,000.
Option #2•
Option #2 would be to cut the existing pavement, install permanent standard
curbs for the islands, and backfill with material suitable for landscaping.
Without landscaping, the estimated cost is $65,000.
If landscaping and irrigation is included, the estimated cost is $80,000.
rw/ant-isl
i
• fi.
i
IN
M
ti•
. Y
a
♦y. • 1
y~
s
0
Q
Q.
0
C
~9P/avys Par/y/ 'Pl ys
I:Q
n
Q
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3,0-.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: August 27. 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Reavnointmenta_
DEPT HEAD OX CITY ADMIN OR
DATE SUBMITTED: August 18, 1990
PREVIOUS ACTION:None
PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton
REQUESTED BY: Mayor
-__x---------------------
=xc===xx==x=x==x==xs=a===s=x===xx======x=x==m=x==x==a=c========x=====__=====c==
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, would approve the reappointment of
individuals. to the Budget Committee, the Library Board, and the Planning
Commission.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
C 1. Adopt the proposed resolution.
2. Deny action at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the attached resolution on the consent agenda.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
t
AGENDA OF: A_uoust 27. 1990 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorize PREVIOUS ACTION:
for Greenbur d. project % /r PREPARED BY; City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
Authorization of a professional services contract for right-of-way acquisition
services for the Greenburg Road project.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On the various street bond projects, the firm of Right of Way Associates have
been providing services for the negotiation of all needed right of way and
easements. The firm works with property owners to negotiate a purchase
agreement. They also assure that all of the necessary legal steps and
paperwork are completed. The process of using an independent firm for the
negotiations works well and assures that experienced personnel will complete
these complex procedures without unnecessarily burdening the City Attorney's
office.
Most of the projects have involved acquisitions on only a small number of
properties. The costs of right-of-way services have been rather small on each
project and have not required review by the Local Contract Review Board.
Originally, it was thought that the Greenburg Road project would also involve
only a few parcels. However, now that design is completed, we find that right
of way or easements must be obtained from 76 properties. This large number is
due to the need for utility easements and for additional right of way for bus
turnouts. The costs related to bus turnouts will be paid by Tri-Met under the
agreement previously approved by Council.
Due to the increased scope of the Greenburg project, staff requested Right of
Way Associates to submit a formal proposal for services on the project. They
propose to furnish all necessary services at an hourly rate of $50, not to
exceed a total fee of $35,000.
Staff feels that the proposal is reasonable and appropriate. Further, staff
feels that Right of Way Associates is the best firm to complete this work due
to their previous experience with City bond projects and their satisfactory
past performance for the City and for the City Attorney's office.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Authorize a contract with Right of Way Associates.
2. Negotiate a contract with another firm.
3. Have staff and City Attorney provide these services as time permits.
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs under this contract will be funded from the street bond and Tri-Met.
Tri-Met will pay approximately 208 of the costs.
SUGGESTED ACTION
That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, authorize the City
Administrator to sign a contract with Right of Way Services as described above.
rw/s-gr-row
i
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.i1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: AuCFUSt 27, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: August 16, 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Intergovernmental PREVIOUS ACTION: Previous discussions
REPARED BY: R. GoodDaster
REQUESTED BY: R. Goodpaster
INFORMATION SUMMARY
We have been working cooperatively with WCCCA over the past year to receive our
police dispatching services from them on a contract basis. The
intergovernmental agreement is the framework for the contract, and the elements
of the IGA are what we've discussed on numerous occasions. The passage of the
county-wide emergency communications levy was the last remaining action prior
to this request being made.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Retain emergency police dispatching.
2. Sign agreement and contract emergency police dispatch services from WCCCA.
FISCAL IMPACT
Service enhancements, costs savings, faster emergency services response, and
better coordination between emergency services providers. The contract cost
after transition later this year is estimated at 86,000 and costs for FY 91/92
of 175,000. It will also result in the laying off of 7 full-time dispatchers
and 3 part-time dispatchers. To maintain 24-hour records service we will be
hiring an additional 4 clerks.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Sign Intergovernmental Agreement and Resolution.
Should the Council sign the attached Intergovernmental Agreement and contract
emergency police dispatching services from Washington County Consolidated
Communications Agency (WCCCA).
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 08/27/90 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/18/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Vacation of SW PREVIOUS ACTION: Fox Street Vacation
74th Ave. south of SW Cherry Dr,. just south of the vacation under
1,4 consideration, aA»roved in 1986.
PREPARED BY: Vi Goodwin
DEPT BEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Wayne and Joyce Jolly
Should the City vacate an undeveloped portion of the SW 74th Avenue right-of-
way located south of SW Cherry Drive that appears to no longer serve any public
purpose?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Wayne and Joyce Jolly are :requesting the City initiate vacation proceedings for
an unimproved portion of SW 74th Avenue which adjoins their property. They
are requesting the vacation because this portion of 74th Avenue will not be
used to provide access through the residential district in which they reside
from the industrial property located to the south. The industrial properties
to the south have access from either Tech Center Drive or SW 72nd Avenue.
Neither will the right-of-way be used to provide access to abutting residential
properties. The residential properties have adequate access to SW Cherry
Street.
The City's Field Operations Division has commented that it will be necessary to
create an easement for sanitary and storm sewer lines and manholes located in
the portion of SW 74th Avenue proposed to be vacated.
The previous "Fox Street" Vacation (approved in 1986) permitted an approximate
2941 square foot area to be vacated immediately south of the subject area.
Attached are a resolution, a vicinity map (Exhibit A) showing the portion of SW
74th Avenue to be vacated, and a legal description (EXHIBIT B) prepared by the
Engineering Division.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached resolution calling for a public hearing on October
8, 1990.
2. Take no action at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
All fees and staff costs will be paid by Wayne and Joyce Jolly.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the attached resolution.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: August 27, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: August 15, 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Periodic Review PREVIOUS ACTION: None
PREPARED BY: John Acker
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Should the City make comprehensive plan and community development code
revisions called for in the findings and conclusions of the proposed periodic
review order? Further, should the City Council direct staff to draft a solar
access ordinance for further review and adoption?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City has reviewed its Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code
against periodic review factors as required in OAR 660.19. The amendments
proposed now are a portion of those that were identified as necessary to bring
Tigard•s Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code into compliance with
state statutes and present circumstances. Amendments proposed at this time
pertain to wetlands, residential care facilities, manufactured and mobile
homes, and mobile home park notification. In addition, a discussion of solar
access and a review of the model ordinance is necessary to fulfill a periodic
review requirement. Staff can prepare a solar access ordinance for future
review and adoption Other amendments required by periodic review such as a
public facilities plan as well as the periodic review final order will be
submitted at a later date.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments as
submitted.
2. Adopt the proposed Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan
amendments with revisions.
3. Do not adopt the proposed Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan
amendments and direct staff to revise the periodic review final order directed.
4. Direct staff to prepare a solar access ordinance to be considered for
adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
SUGGESTED ACTION
1. Adopt the proposed revisions.
2. Direct staff to prepare a solar access ordinance .
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Edwards and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director
DATE: August 16, 1990
RE: Periodic Review/Code and Plan Amendments
During Planning Commission meetings of July 23 and August 7, the staff has
presented a number of proposed Comprehensive Plan and Community Development
Code amendments that are necessary as part of the Periodic Review requirements
of LCDC or are desired by the City to improve the Plan and the Code. For the
August 27th agenda, the following amendments are proposed for Council
consideration to satisfy a portion of the City's Periodic Review obligations:
1. Goal 5 - Wetlands
The wetlands inventory and related Code provisions are inadequate and
need revision to meet the intent of the state goal and to better serve
the City. A complete inventory of wetland areas in the City has been
provided by a consultant which clearly identifies all wetlands, as
defined by State and Federal guidelines. In addition, the Sensitive
Lands section of the code should be amended to clarify procedural
requirements.
Amendments: Chapter 18.84 Sensitive Lands - EXHIBIT "D"
o Specifies that wetlands within the jurisdiction of
federal, state of regional agencies (Corps, DSL) will be
subject to standards of those agencies. (page 3)
o Better identifies what constitutes a wetland (page 8)
o Sets criteria for wetland development in those few areas
that are not within the jurisdiction of wetland j
regulatory agencies (page 12)
o Housekeeping changes
Chapter 18.26 Definitions - EXHIBIT "A"
o The Definition is made more specific to criteria used by
regulatory agencies to identify wetlands
2. Residential Care Facilities
~a
The Community Development Code definitions are proposed to be amended to
be consistent with those of the State.
i
Amendments: Chapter 18.42 Use Classifications - EXHIBIT "B"
y.
o Definitions for group care type facilities have been
revised to be consistent with those used by the state.
0
Chapter 18.46 - 18.68 and 18.142 - EXHIBIT "C" I
f
o zoning chapters are revised to be consistent with the new i
definitions r
3. Manufactured and Mobile Homes
The Code chapter which applies to this topic is proposed for amendment
to be consistent with State law and to address concerns expressed
regarding the placement of manufactured on individual lots.
Amendments: Chapter 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations - EXHIBIT
"E"
o Mobile home park standards are extended to include
( manufactured homes(pages 1-4)
o Standards for siting a manufactured home on and
individual lot are revised (pages 4-5)
Chapter 18.26 Definitions - EXHIBIT "A"
o Definitions for manufactured home and mobile home are
revised to conform with definitions used by the state
Chapter 18.42 Use Classifications - EXHIBIT "B"
o Mobile home and manufactured home use classifications are
deleted
4. Procedural Code Amendments
Statutory changes require that our notification procedures for proposed
zone changes of mobile home parks be changed for tenants of that park.
Amendments: Chapter 18.32 Procedures for Decision Making - EXHIBIT "F"
o Revision to comply with state requirements for
notification of tenants of a mobile home park when there
is a proposed zone change for that park
l
S. Solar Access Ordinance
The City participated in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Solar
Access Project and the Periodic Review order from LCDC requires that the
City hold public hearings to consider adoption of the model ordinance.
The proposed ordinance and the solar access principles will be presented
and Mike McKeever, manager of the project, will be on hand to answer any
questions. Staff will return at a later date with a specific proposal
as directed by City Council.
Informational Material : Follows Code and Plan revisions
Other Plan and Code amendments required by periodic review as well as the
periodic review final order will be submitted for City Council consideration a
later date.
C__
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Edwards and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director
RE: Solar Access Code Amendment
DATE: August 14, 1990
Purpose of the Hearing
A hearing to consider a model solar access ordinance is required by Periodic
review. The purpose of this segment of the agenda is to review the model
Solar Access Ordinance and determine whether all or a portion of the ordinance
should be considered for adoption as part of the Community Development Code.
If the Council elects to consider adoption, the staff will prepare the
appropriate ordinance for review at a future hearing.
Packet Contents
The attached packet includes the following:
1. "Sunlines", First Quarter, 1988 which contains an excellent summary of
the three major components of the model Solar Access ordinance for 1)
new residential subdivisions (New Development), 2) single family
construction on existing lots (Solar Balance Point Standard), and 3)
protection of solar access from future tree shade (Solar Access
Permit).
2. "Sunlines", First Quarter, 1990 which features several articles
regarding the current status of the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area
Solar Access Project as well as a few recommended amendments to fine
tune the original model ordinance.
3. Solar Subdivision Re-design Case Studies which evaluate nine subdivision
plats and illustrate how the solar access ordinance can be met with
little difficulty and a negligible impact upon development costs.
4. The Solar Access ordinance
a. Solar Access Ordinance for New Development
b. Solar Balance Point Ordinance
C. Solar Access Permit Ordinance
d. Solar Access Ordinance Definitions and Illustrations
5. A letter presented to the Planning Commission from Charles Hales of the
Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland.
6. A letter from Linda Davis, Director of the Department of Planning and
Building, regarding the City of Beaverton•s experience with
implementation of the solar Access Ordinance.
Recommendation
On July 24, 1990, the Planning Commission received a presentation regarding the
model ordinance and the associated design principles. A public hearing was
held on August 7, 1990 and the Commission voted unanimously to recommend
adoption of the ordinance.
The staff recommends adoption of the model ordinance as chapter 18.88 of the
Community Development Code. If approved by the Council, the staff will prepare
an ordinance with minor revisions so that it corresponds with the format of the
Community Development Code. The positive recommendation by the Commission and
the staff is supported by two major considerations:
1. Consistency with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan
The Plan contains two policies that support the use of energy
conservation techniques, including solar energy.
Policy 9.1.1 THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE A REDUCTION IN ENERGY
CONSUMPTION BY INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY
CONSERVATION AND THE PRODUCTION OF ENERGY FROM
ALTERNATIVE SOURCES.
. Policy 9.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT WHICH
EMPHASIZES SOUND ENERGY CONSERVATION, DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION.
The Implementation Strategies 1, 4, 5, and 6 which support these
policies elaborate upon possible methods for implementation.
1. The City shall encourage public and private programs that offer
weatherization and energy conservation programs, e.g. tax credits,
low-interest loans, etc..
4. The City shall, in the Tigard Community Development Code, allow for
more flexibility in structure siting to provide for maximum solar
exposure.
5. The city shall review the feasibility of implementing a solar
access ordinance and wind generation provisions.
6. The City shall cooperate with both public and private agencies that
make use of site development and architectural techniques using
natural elements for heating and cooling in all developments.
Polices 2.1.1 and 6.2.1 are also relevant in the evaluation of the
proposed solar access ordinance.
Policy 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
C. PROGRAM AND SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE
PLANNING PROCESS.
The model solar access ordinance was presented to the Neighborhood
Planning Organizations (NPO) two years ago soon after the project
commenced. A presentation was made to a joint meeting of all the NPOs
on July 18, 1990 which included the rationale behind the ordinance, the
regulatory provisions, and the public hearing schedule before the
Planning Commission and the City Council. Although the general response
has been positive, formal comments have not been received from the NPOs.
Policy 6.2.1 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.
The solar access ordinance package represents new Community Development
Code provisions that have been thoroughly critiqued by local government
officials, development industry representatives, and the public. The
model ordinance has been endorsed by the Home Builders Association of
Metropolitan Portland, the League of Oregon Cities, the Oregon chapters
of the American Institute of Architects and the American Society of
Landscape Architects, the Solar Energy Association of Oregon, and the
Oregon Remodelers Association. in addition, the ordinance has been in
effect for as long as two years in several Portland area communities
and it has been found to operate efficiently for the administering
governments and developers as verified by the letters from the Home
Builders and the City of Beaverton.
Studies related to the implementation of the ordinance have shown that a
minimal amount of time is necessary for administration and that
additional costs for design and public improvements have been
negligible. As illustrated by the nine subdivision examples in the
packet, a departure from customary subdivision designs is not necessary
to provide solar access to residences. Proper solar orientation of
conventional homes without solar devices has been proven to result in
significant cost savings for the life of the structure and that those
savings increase with the use of solar equipment or design.
2. Consistency with State and Regional Energy Policy
The Oregon Department of Energy and the Northwest Power Planning Council
have identified the importance of creating low-cost and environmentally
sound sources of energy. The proposed ordinance is consistent with this
strategy by siting conventional homes to take advantage of proper solar
orientation and the subsequent reduction in energy demand for heating
and cooling. In addition, proper siting of residences allows present
and future options for the efficient use of solar devices such as
additional south-facing glass or hot water heaters.
8-27-90.CCJkl
1
COMMITTEE
RELEASES DRAFT
SOLAR ACCESS
RECOMMEW
DATIONS
Three draft solar access protection
ordinances have been prepared by the
project's Ordinance Committee for
public review and comment. The pro-
visions provide comprehensive pro-
tection for both new and existing resi-
dences in the metro area. A New
Development Standard maxi-
mizes solar access in new residential
subdivisions and PUD's by requiring
that 80% of all lots have proper solar
orientation. A Solar Balance
Point Standard minimizes build-
ing-to-building shade and limits a
new building from casting shade
greater than IT to 20' high at the
northern lot line depending on the
north-south lot dimension. The stan-
dard also provides a calculation that
encourages siting the proposed
structure with its south windows in
the sun. The third ordinance, called a
Solar Access Permit, provid :s
existing single-family residences
protection against shade from future
non-solar friendly trees on adjoining
properties within 159. The details
and illustrations of each ordinance are
discussed below.
SOLAR ACCESS
STANDARD FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of the new development
standard is to design lots so that
nomes will be oriented to maximize
solar access and minimize shade on
adjoining properties. The standard
would apply to applications for a
subdivision or planned unit develop-
ment in all urban single family
residential zones and single family
developments in other zones.
cowbu ed on page 2-
PRE-TEST UNDERWAY:
STEERING
COMMITTEE SETS
JANUARY 28 MEETIN(
FOR FINAL ACTION
ON ORDINANCES
A pre-test of the draft solar access
ordinances began in late November
with twelve of the participating local
governments. The pre-test, which is
designed to identify any modifica-
tions to the ordinances which are
necessary, will end in early January.
Participating governments include:
Washington County, Beaverton,
Tigard, Lake Oswego, Clackamas
County, West Linn, Wilsonville,
Gresham, Troutdale, Scappoose,
Vancouver and Clark County.
The Steering Committee has
scheduled its regular meeting on
January 28 to take final action on
the proposed solar access ordinances
developed by the project's Ordinance
Committee. The Steering Commit-
tee will adopt final changes to the
ordinances and decide whether to
recommend implementing the ordi-
nances as development regulations
or through a voluntary program. The
meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m. at
BPA headquarters, 1500 NE Irving,
Room 444 East.
Local governments are scheduling
public hearings to consider the
Steering Committee's recommenda-
tions beginning in February, 1988.
The public hearings process is
expected to last through May, 1988.
THIS ISSUE OF
SUNLINES
This issue of Sunlines describes the
three solar access ordinances which
have been prepared by the Portland-
Vancouver Metropolitan Area Solar
Access Project's Ordinance Commit-
tee. Summaries of two important
project research products are also
provided. The fast, prepared by the
project's Research Committee,
estimates the economic benefits of
providing solar access protection in the
metropolitan area. The second, pre-
pared by the Ordinance Committee in
draft form, estimates the costs of im-
plementing the solar access ordinances
it has developed. Now is the time to
provide comments to the project on the
proposed recommendations. If you
would like copies of the ordinances or
research reports complete the form on
the back page of this newsletter and
mail it to the address on the form.
22 GOVERNMENTS PARTICIPATE IN SOUR ACCESS PROJECT
Mdwaukie. llcavcrum, Cornelius, Forest Gmve. Tigard, Gresham, Fai-k-. Troutdale. Vaneouver, Clark County. Cladcasnas County. Canby.
Happy Valley. L-ke Oswego, Portland, Washington County, Oregon City. Wen Lasso, Wilsonville, St Helens, Scappoose and Multrumnah Co.
2 Sunlines, First Quarter, 1988
From-,
Durham, Chairnian, Steering Committee, and City Councilor, Lake Oswego
Beginning in February, 1988, planning commissioners and elected officials from the twenty-two.-local governments
participating in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area Solar Access Project will deliberate.on whether.or not
their committees should adopt the model solar. access ordinances developed by the Project Before the local'detno-
cratic process begins, I believe it is valuable; to reflect on
'Communication,. understanding and consensus have
411
e- progress which .we have made.togther
'
doting the paSCyear Representatives from22 govern- become the hallmarks of this public-private partnership.
ten . ts - large and small, cities and counties;' in Washington and Oregon - have succeeded in working together to
develop a solar access land use program that will work for all, The home buildug. industry has Wodi:ed with.the local
governments 5rde:by side. day in and day out fri)m the fir.-,t [tav of ttiP nmif+rt rinmm-;P tine •r. iP.r~o. i:::. i
f'
officrals.thoughout the.rr
NEW DEVELOPMENT
&-timmd front page
Lot Design Standard
The Ordinance requires that
eighty (80) percent of the lots
in a proposed development
comply with one of the follow-
ing three solar design options:
1. Basic Requirement: The
lot depth must be at least 130
feet measured north to south.
The front lot line must be
oriented within 30 degrees of a
true east-west axis (see figure 1
on page 2); or
.2. Solar Building Line
Option: The developer must
designate a precise location on
each lot where sun will be
protected. This option adds
design flexibility to the standard.
The protected solar building line
must be designated on the plat
and be oriented within 30
degrees of a true east-west axis
(see figure 2 on page 3); or
3. Performance Option: At
least eighty (80) percent of the
south wall or glass area of habit-
able Structures must be protected
from future shade by develop-
ment or non-solar friendly trees
and the long axis of habitable
structures must be within thirty
(30) degrees of a true east-west
reen built and I amj of
7-
-Siting of Structures and Trees
The solar lot design standard will
provide proper solar orientation for
lots and homes. The recommenda-
tions also include a method to
provide legal protection from
building and tree shade as develop-
'inent occurs on each lot. The pro-
posed standard would permit 12 feet
of shade from buildings or non-solar
friendly trees at the north property
line between 10:30 a.m. and 1:30
pm. January 21 (see Figure 4 on
page 4). This will result in a shadow
25 feet into a lot with a north-south
depth of 100 feet. Adjustments to the
standard are made when a protected
solar building line is used.
This shade standard would protect
Project has much to accomplish' this
planning commissions and elected
ippoct the.work of this project
south wall passive solar uses as well
as future rooftop uses. Development
on all lots meeting the 80% solar
design standard, or any lot which
might shade one of these lots, must
meet the shade standard. The
proposed standard preserves
and guarantees construction of
at least a two story (30') home
on every lot.
Exemptions from the Design
Standard
An entire development, or portion of
the development, shall be exempted
from the solar design standard for the
following reasons:
1. Slopes over 20% in the
north, west or east direction; or
Figure 1
SOLAR LOT OPTION 1: BASIC REQUIREMENTS
t
N
Minimum of 100'
north-south lot
dimension required
C
C1,
Front lot line is within
30 degrees of
an east-west axis I cm
H.
Figure 2
SOLAR LOT OPTION 2: PROTECTED SOLAR BUILDING LINE
Protected Solar Building
Line within 30 degrees
of east-west axi
t
At least 70' between solar
building line and middle
of lot to the south. This w
ensure ability to build two
story house.
,
(continued from page 2-)
2. Off-site shade, from
existing or allowed permanent
off-site features which precludes
solar uses; or
3. On-site shade. The
applicant documents existing
trees and agrees to preserve
most of the trees after develop-
ment occurs.
Adjustments to Design
Standard
The jurisdiction shall reduce the
percent of lots that must comply with
the solar design standard below the
80% standard to the minimum extent
necessary if the applicant has shown
one or more of the following
conditions exist:
1. Meeting the standard would
result either in reduced
density or significant
infrastructure cost ir-
creases. Development
constraints which have been
t
N
to the north, east or west
between 10% and 20%; sig.
nificant natural features;
pre-existing road or lotting
patterns; and public ease-
ments or rights-of-way; or
2. Significant development
amenities would be lost or im-
paired which could significantly
reduce the market value of the
property if the solar design
principle were applied; or
3. Existing shade precludes
solar uses.
SOLAR BALANCE POINT
STANDARD FOR EXISTING
LOTS
The purpose of this standard is to
minimize building-to-building shade
and to promote solar access and its
utilization in residences. The
standard would apply to applications
for new houses and remodeling
projects on existing lots in urban
single family residential zones and
Sunlines, First Quarter, 1988 3
single family uses in other zones.
The standard requires that both a
"shade reduction line" and a "solar
gain line" be calculated with each
permit application (see figure 3 on
page 4). The shade reduction line
standard protects sun to the northern
property owner. The solar gain line
helps the appL'cant determine
whether his south windows will be
located in the sun. The goal is to
place the new house where both of
these standards can be met.
Shade Reduction Line
The standard establishes a maximum
shade standard for each lot. The
shade standard, which is measured at
the north lot line, varies depending
on the north-south dimension of the
lot. The standard guarantees
the ability to construct - at a
minimum - a 30 foot house in
the middle of the lot being
affected by the standard. The
variable shade standard means that in
some cases full south wall solar
access protection will be provided, in
other cases partial south wall
protection will be provided, and in
still other cases only south roof
protection will be provided.
The effects of the variable solar
height standard on three different lot
conditions are explained below.
Shade Reduction Line Case
1: Full South Wall Protection
A house on a lot which has at least
100 feet of north-south dimension
(e.g. SO' by 100' or 70' by 100' lots
fronting east-west streets) must be
designed and sited so that it does not
cast more than 12 feet of shade at the
north property line in the winter.
The proposed sun angle in the
standard is 10:30 am. to 1:30 p.m.
on January 21, which results in a
setback from the northern lot line of
2S feet for every 1 foot of building
height over the allowed shade height
at the northern lot line. In most
continued on care 4.
4
First Quarter, 1988
Figure 3
A SOLAR BALANCE POINT APPROACH TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT:
LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN
N
SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS IF NEC-
ESSARY TO MEET SOLAR STANDARDS
(eonli-d from page X)
cases buildings which meet this solar
standard will protect full south wall
. solar access to a typical house on the
lot to the north (see figure 4 on this
page). The standard for these lots is
identical to the one for new develop-
ment lots.
Shade Reduction Line Case 2:
Partial South wall/south Roof
Protection
A house on a lot with at least 70' of
north-south dimension (e.g. 70' x
100' lot fronting a north-south street)
must be designed and sited so that it
does not cast more than 16 of shade
at the northern lot line. In most
cases this standard will protect either
south wall solar access to the second
story of a two story house or the roof
of a single story house on the lot to
the north (see figure 5 on page 5).
Shade Reduction Line 3:
South Roof Protection
A house on a lot with at least 50' of
north-south dimension (e.Q. 50' x
SHADE REDUCTION POINT
Protecting your northern
neighbor's sun
16• of shade allowed '
at property line
0'-~ 41 od
Standard Side Setbacks
is
Reduced Side Setbacks
SOLAR GAIN POINT
Locating your house
to receive sun on
16' of shade allowed
at property line
I00' lot fronting on north-south
street) must be sited so that it does
not cast more than 20' of shade at the
northern lot line. This will typically
protect the south roof of a two story
house (see figure 6 on page 5).
Performance Option
The applicant may meet the standard
by showing that at least 80% of the
south facing glazing area of the
house to the north is protected from
shade, regardless of the height of the
shadow at the northern lot line. This
will provide design flexibility to the
building community.
Exemptions from the Shade
Reduction.Line Standard
If any of the following conditions
exist an exemption from the standard
shall be granted.
eo ubtued on pare 5-
Figure 4
NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR SITING
BUILDINGS AND TREES
sun angle rising
at 2.5 to 1
ratio from
a-- N
SOUTH WALL
- 100' - - - - - - - - - -100'' ..0-
12' of shade allowed
at property line
C.
14
Figure 5
SOLAR BALANCE POINT STANDARD FOR LOTS
WITH 70' NORTH-SOUTH DIMENSION
All~ it sun angle rising
at 2.5 to 1 ratio
from SECOND STORY
SOUTH WINDOWS
N
70•------
C
(eoedinued from page 4 )
1. The shade from the building falls
within pre-existing shade from trees,
other buildings or topography; &
2. The lot has a north, west or east
facing slope of greater than 20%; or
3. Difficult lot conditions exist such
as public easements, drainageways,
etc; or
7 0 30-1
30• of height guaranteed
In middle of lot
% 16' of shade allowed
at property line
4. The shade from the building
strikes only an unbuildable area; or
5. The shade from the building
strikes an unheated area such as a
garage, or a south wall with minimal
glazing.
Solar Gain Line
In addition to analyzing the shade a
new structure casts on its northern
Figure 6
SOLAR BALANCE POINT STANDARD FOR LOTS
WITH 50' NORTH-SOUTH DIMENSION
sun angle rising
at 2.5 to 1 ratio
from SOUTH
30' of height guaranteed
in middle of lot
20' of shade allowed
at property line
Sunlines, First Quarter, 1988 5
neighbor, the standard requires that
the application show the potential
shade on its south windows that
could be cast by its neighbor to the
south. However, any action by the
applicant to modify a house design to
provide greater levels of sun would
be voluntary. If the applicant finds
his home will be pushed south into
shade from the adjoining property,
he can request that the difference
between the two calculations be split.
This is called the Solar Balance Point
for the lot. The neighbor to the north
must agree with this request.
SOLAR ACCESS
PERMIT FOR TREE SHADE
The purpose of the solar access
permit standard is to minimize shade
from future trees. A solar access
permit applies on a lot-by-lot basis.
A property owner must apply for a
solar access permit to receive the
protection it offers. Eligible proper-
ties include lots in a single family
residential zone and single family
lots in other zones which existed
before the adoption of a solar access
program
Solar access permit
A solar access permit is a document
issued by the local planning agency
pursuant to appropriate review
procedures. The document describes
the maximum height that trees can
grow on lots generally south of and
within 150 feet of the lot benefrued
by the permit It prohibits the owners
of property to which it applies from
allowing non-solar friendly trees
planted after the date a permit is
issued to grow above that maximum
height limit. The maximum height
limit is a line extending up at an
angle of 2S tol south from the area
to be protected. It can be represented
by a series of contour lines extending
east to west across a lot to which the
permit applies for easy administra-
tion. eoruiirnee on dare 6-
i..
PERMIT
(continued from page 5-)
The planning agency shall grant a
solar access permit if the application
accurately describes existing struc-
tures and trees on the applicant's
property and adjoining properties.
and if trees on the applicant's
property do not shade the area to be
protected by the permit
Exempt Vegetation
Research has identified more than
250 varieties of trees that are "solar
friendly" (ie. they do not block
much winter sunlight). A solar
access permit does not apply to solar
friendly trees. Therefore a solar
friendly tree can exceed the maxi-
mum height permitted for trees
subject to a solar access permit A
solar access permit does not
apply to existing trees in the
ground on the date a permit is
issued.
Enforcement of a solar
access permit
Once the solar access permit is
granted, notices are sent to affected
properties, and an opportunity to
challenge the accuracy of the
information contained in the applica-
tion provided. If granted, the permit
is recorded in the chain of title of
affected properties, giving future
owners of time properties notice of
its existence. If a tree is allowed to
grow above the maximum height
permitted by the permit, the owner of
property benefitted by the permit
may petition the local planning
agency to enforce the permit The
local agency considers the facts and,
if it finds a violation exists, notifies
the owner of the property on which
the offending trees are situated and
provides an opportunity for a hearing
to contest the issue. If a violation is
proven, enforcement follows as with
other land use law violations.
RESEARCH
COMMITTEE
ESTIMATES ECO-
NOMIC BENEFITS
OF SOLAR AC-
CESS
The project's Research Committee
released the final draft in October of
its report on the projected benefits of
providing solar access protection.
The report,"Potential Benefits of
Solar Access", identified four main
benefits of solar access. Solar access
may:
• save energy and lower heating
bills;
• preserve future options to use
solar,
• encourage the use of solar
energy; and
• establish a minimum solar
right.
1. Solar access saves energy and
lowers heating hills. The
committee estimated a range of
space heat savings from solar
access, solar orientation and
solar design. Savings were
adjusted for inflation and listed
in 1987 dollars. 'Ihe savings
were calculated over 30 years
with a 2 percent energy price
increase per year and discounted
at 3 percent yearly. Savings
over seven years, the average
length of home ownership, are in
parentheses.
The savings estimates are for
passive solar heat gains only.
They do not include savings
from lower cooling bills on east-
west streets, solar water heating,
or photovoltaics. Some mem-
bers felt that savings should be
increased 10 percent to account
for intangible benefits of solar
energy to the environment and
society.
Area-wide ravings It is esti-
mated that solar access will save
$150 million in heating costs for
new homes built in the next 20
years in the project area (exclud-
ing the City of Portland). If all
new homes were passive solar
designed to use to the fullest the
solar access provided, the
potential is $325 million. These
estimates do not include cooling,
solar water heating, or pho-
tovoltaics.
Average savings per home. It is
estimated that solar access will
save an average of $1,160 ($300)
in heating costs over the life of
each new home. If all homes
were solar designed, the average
savings per home would be
$2500 ($630). Savings for any
given home can be as much as
$4150 ($1075). These estimates
do not include cooling, solar
water heating, or photovoltaics.
Incremental savings, The
greatest savings are in preventing
worst case shading, running
streets east west rather than
north-south, and encouraging
sun-tempered or solar design.
2.
options to use solar. Solar
access is a lost opportunity
resource. The option to use solar
may be lost for good if it is not
provided when a home is built.
These options include the use of
solar for space heating, water
heating, and so produce electric-
ity.
Solar technologies are recent,
spurred by the energy crises of
the 1970's. They are expected to
mature and improve in coming
years. Passive solar design and
matey solar water heaters are
cost-effective today. Photovolta-
ics should become cost-effective
in the 1990's. With other energy
prices expected to increase, solar
is expected to be a long-term
growth industry.
eomtinued on page 7-
C
CR~
dr!
H
RESEARCH COMMITTEE
(Continued from page 6.)
3. Solar access encourages the
use of solar energy. A review of
state of Oregon solar tax credits
shows that homes on east-west
streets were four times more
likely than homes on north-south
streets to use passive solar. They
also were three times more likely
to use solar water heaters. Three
times more tax credits were
granted in communities with
solar access standards than in
those without
4. Solar access creates a mini-
mum solar right. Solar access
protection creates a new property
right. It provides certainty to
people wanting to use solar
energy, and protects investments
in solar. It balances the current
right to cast shade.
ORDINANCE
COMMITTEE
ESTIMATES
POTENTIAL
COSTS OF
SOLAR ACCESS
STANDARDS
The Ordinance Committee has
ieleased the drafts of two reports on
the potential costs of the Solar
Balance Point Standard ('refill
situations) and the New Develop-
ment Standard (subdivisions and
planned unit developments). Both
reports examine the full array of
potential costs to both the local
government and development
community from implementing the
ordinances, including those for
public hearings, education and
training, builder/developer project
design time, permit processing,
construction costs, and market
impacts. The cost reports are
companions to the "Potential
Benefits" to Solar Access study
recently Pmlaiedd by the project's
Research Committee. Combined, the
studies Provide a basis for determin-
ing me cost-ettecuveness
proposed ordinances.
Cost Reducing Features
In keeping with the Metro project's
design goals, the Ordinance Commit-
tee expressly designed the two
standards to effectively provide and
protect solar access at the least cost
possible. Therefore, both standards
contain many cost-reducing features
which distinguish them from solar
access standards currently enforced
by other communities.
Methodology
Cost estimates were based on
evaluations of existing solar access
ordinances, the Metro project's own
research and interviews with
members of the building/develop-
ment community.
Typical cost cases were developed
for both building and subdivision
permit applications. For the Solar
Balance Point Standard the following
categories of costs were identified:
• Minimum Impact Cases consist
of straightforward building permit
applications and exemptions which
would entail little or no additional
costs to the applicant. Aproximately
85% of the applications would fall
within this category.
• Moderate Impact Cases possess
lot and/or building design constraints
which would require some additional
design time and, perhaps, moderate
construction costs in order to comply
with the standard. About 15% of the
building permit applications are
expected to be such cases.
• I-Egh Impact Cases would entail
additional design and construction
costs resulting from difficult site
conditions and an applicant's
unfamiliarity with the solar access
standard. Although the Solar
Balance Point Standard is designed
to eliminate such cases, the Ordi-
nance Committee a_4Snmad that cnm
Sunlines, First Quarter, 1988 7
cases (1%) may occur during the first
year of implementation.
The cost report for the New Devel-
opment Standard identified the
following cost categories:
• Immediate Approval Cases will
require little or no additional costs
and are estimated to constitute 85%
of the future subdivisons submitted.
• Exemption Cases are sub-
divisions (estimated at 4%) that are
expected to be exempted outright
due to very steep slopes and existing
heavy shade conditions. .
• Partial Adjustment cases are
subdivisions that are expected to
involve partial adjustments to the
standard due to various site con-
straints (10% of the cases).
• Re-Design Cases include
subdivision designs which totally
"fail" the solar design standard,
necessitating substantial redesign
and processing time. The Committee
estimated that 1% of the subdivision
applicants may be of this nature.
Findings
Using the above information, a base
case was developed which estimated
the average fast year implementation
costs for both builders/developers
and local governments. The major
conclusions of the studies were:
1. Solar Balance Point Standard
• Local Government Staff Costs:
Fast year implementation costs are
estimated at an average of $6 per
building permit application with
declining costs thereafter.
• Builder Costs: First year
implementation costs are estimated
at an average of $55 per building
permit application with declining
costs thereafter.
coetiwAed on pore 8-
Ago.
ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
(continued from page 7-)
2. New Development Standard
• I.ooal Government Staff Costs: For a typical 40 lot subdi-
vision, first year implementation costs are estimated at an
average of $4 per lot with declining costs thereafter.
• Builder Costs: For a typical 40 lot subdivision, first year
implementation costs are estimated at an average of $20 per lot
with declining costs thereafter.
The Metro pre-test that is currently underway will be used to
finalize these estimates.
M your would like more information:
Copy of ordinances
Research Committee's economic benefits report
Ord nattce Committees cost analysis reports
If you would like to have a presentation of the
draft ordinances in January or February
Please mail to the address below:
If you have questions. or wish additional information. Please
can Mince McKeever, Project Manager. Conservation
Management Services, (503) 227-4100
PEOPLE TO CALL IF YOU HAVE QUES77ONS
The Metro Project is administered by the Oregon Departaim of
Energy and the Washington State Energy Office. The Oregon
Department of Energy also has lead responsibility for conduct-
ing many of the project's research activities. You can reach the
project's contact people for these agencies at the following
numbers:
John Kaufmann, Oregon Department of Energy.
503-373-78M
Karat Messmer. Washington State Energy Office.
206-5865013
Conservation Managemen Services. Inc.. is the consulting firm
which has been hired to mange the project. CMS is working
with two Local Representatives. The Benkendorf Associates
and Larry Epstein, P.C., to provide services to the 21 local
governments. The key contact people for these firms ate fisted
below, along with the names of the jurisdictions working with
each meal Representative.
CMS,M ikeMcKeever,ProjectManager, 503-227-
0400
CMS, Carole Cannel[. Local Representative for
Washington Canty. Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove.
Tigard. Faitvicw. Troutdale, Gresham and Vancouver, 503-
226-0068
CMS, Les Ttmtidaj, Local Representative for
Canby. Happy Valley. Milwaukie. Oregon City. and Wilson-
ville. 503-2260068
Larry Epstein, P.C. Local Representative for Clads
Canty and Multnomah Canty. 503-2234855
The Proju Liaison Bulletin is puUithed nwnddy byConseroa-
tion Management Service. Inc., a division of The BeLkendarf
Associates Corporatear. project manager for the P-d-d-
Vaneose er Metropolitan Area Solar Aetesr Project. CMSs
offices are located at 522 S.W. Filth Avenge. Suite 1406.
Ponkuid Oregon, 97201. Ifyouhava questionsorsuggestions.
CMS's phone aurnber is 503,227-WW.
The Portland- VancouverMetropofitan Area SolarAcrssrProj-
ea stfunded by L4eBonnnUk PowerA&nbds&atkwN andad-
nnb&WeredbytheOreg-Dep-ono tofEnergyandthe W-h-
ington StauEnergp Qfflce wW-the aatpieesoftheN-Mwest
PowerAct.
Funding for this publication is prodded by the
Bonneville Power Administration
Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area
Solar Access Project
522 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1406
Portland, Oregon 97204
BULK RATE
US POSTAGE
PAID
PORTLAND. OR
PERMIT NO. 1682
C:
O
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
ACTIONS
I
~VS
Clackamas County Adopts
Ordinances
Since the Steering Committee's
release of the model ordinance
package, thirteen of the participating
local governments have adopted and
implemented the ordinances. Clacka-
mas County, which began implement-
ing the ordinances January 2. 1990, is
the latest government to adopt the
ordinances. Other implementing local
governments include Multnomah
County, Portland, Gresham, Forest
Grove, Cornelius, Beaverton, St.
Helens, West Linn, Lake Oswego,
Scappoose, Troutdale and Fairview.
All of the other participating local
governments are expected to take
action on the ordinances sometime
later this winter or spring. These
include Oregon City, Washington
County, Tigard, Canby. Happy
Valley, Clark County, Vancouver,
Milwaukee and Wilsonville. The
Clark County Planning Commission
has scheduled a public hearing on the
ordinances for January 18. The
Vancouver Planning Commission had
recommended adoption of the
ordinances in the fall of 1988 and the
City is expected to resume its consid-
eration of the ordinances along with
Clark County.
FIRST-YEAR
ORDINANCE EVALU-
ATION COMPLETED
(Following are excerpts from the
"Evaluation Report for the Portland-
PO(7ftANo-"
VANCOWER
METRO AREA
SOLAR ACCESS
p
Vancouver Metropolitan Area Solar
Access Project" prepared by Conser-
vation Management Services in the
summer of 1989.1
Twelve of the twenty-two jurisdic-
tions that participated in the Portland-
Vancouver Metipolitan Area Solar
Access Project have adopted and aie
administering the model solar access
ordinances. As a means of determin-
ing if there are problems with the
administration of the Solar Balance
Point and New Development ordi-
nances, the Project staff in coopera-
tion with the administering jurisdic-
tions, have completed an evaluation
of these ordinances.
The ordinance evaluation focused on
the potential problems with the
adequacy of the information and any
other potential complications which
"The ordinances are providing a
high percentage of homes and
homesites with access to the sun
and administration of the ordi-
nances appears to be economical."
would make administration of the
ordinances costly and time consum-
ing. The evaluation forms were
completed by plan reviewers in the
different jurisdictions as they worked
through their reviews of building
permit and land division applications.
The information contained in the
evaluation forms received from the
participating jurisdictions indicates
that there are no significant problems
with the ordinances.
Solar Balance Point Standard
The Plan Review Time for the Solar
Balance Point Standard was predicted
continued on vai¢e 4-
mow. F• • -iiv
REGIONAL SOLAR
ACCESS LAND USE
PLANNING PROJECT
CONTINUES
The Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan
Area Solar Access Project is a
cooperative project of 22 local
governments in rave counties and two
states and the private development
community. The purpose of the
project is to develop and implement a
uniform set of land use standards to
provide and protect solar access to
residential properties.
In the spring of 1988 the Steering
Committee for the project adopted a
package of solar access ordinances
and recommended their adoption to
the participating local governments.
This issue of Sunlines provides a
status report on local government
ordinance adoption actions, summa-
rizes the results of a one-year evalu-
ation of the model ordinances,
explains the roe-tuning ordinance
amendments adopted by the Steering
Committee, provides commentary
from those on the front-lines working
with the ordinances, a sample solar
subdivision design completed under
the ordinances, and looks south to
Eugene and north to Tacoma to see
continued on page 2
INSIDE:
Ordinance Evaluation
>ReA tts, p 1
View from the Front. p 2'
Steering Committee F ne-Tunes
Ordinance Package, p 3
Ordinance Summaries, p 3
Around the Region, p 4
Project Recetms APA Planning
Award, p 8
Z Sunlines, First Quarter, 1990
Forrest Soth, City of Beaverton City Councilor
"The ordinances promote an important public purpose at very little cost There is little doubt that solar must be an
increasingly important part of our energy future. I have been very impressed with how efficiently the ordinances have
been applied." THE: VIEW FROM THE FRONT
Charlie Hales, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, Director of Governmental Affairs
.We endorsed the ordinances because we were.satisf ed they. would work in the field, and the evidence indicates that they
do: My phone rings when local government actions create problems' for builders, and these ordinances do not generate
phone calls."
John Andersen, City of Gresham Community Development Director
"One of the best ordinances I have seen for benefrtung the community with the least inconvenience and cost."
Richard Durham, Lake Oswego City Councilor
"Efficient energy use helps society as well as homeowners. , With current concerns about electricity shortages, the
greenhouse effect, and worldwide environmental degradation, these ordinances demonstrate an important local commit-
mentto be apart of the solution, not a part of the problem."
Tim BoatuTight, City of Beaverton Building Inspector Plans Examiner
"1 work with the Solar Balance Point ordinance. Through our process in Beaverton I have found it reasonably easy to
implement, with very few problems. The average case takes approximately three minutes to check."
Dave Prescott, Multnouah County Planner
' I work with the solar subdivision design standard. The response from the developers has been supportive. 1 haven't
encountered` any surprise~or resistance. I can't think of any cases where the development didn't either meet the solar
standard or qualify for one of the exceptions "
PLANNING CONTINUES
(continued from page 1)
how the model ordinances are
beginning to have an effect through-
out the region.
The ordinance package requires new
subdivision and planned unit develop-
ments to be designed to maximize
solar access to houses, and provides
standards for siting houses and
landscaping to minimize shade on
adjoining properties.
The package of ordinances was
developed after the most comprehen-
sive solar land use research program
in the country and extensive work
with members of the home building
industry who would be affected by the
new standards. Representatives from
local governments and private
industry served on two 15 to 20
person technical committees, the
Research and Ordinance Committees,
to guide all aspects of project research
and ordinance development.
The Steering Committee is comprised
of 11 elected officials, planning
commissioners and planners ap-
pointed by the participating govern-
ments. Forrest Soth, Beaverton City
Councilor, chairs the Committee.
Richard Leonard, Multnomah County
Planning Commissioner, is Vice-
Chair and Linda Davis, Beaverton
Planning Director, is Secretary. Other
members of the Committee include
William Holstein, Lake Oswego City
Councilor, John Andersen, Gresham
Community Development Director,
Karen Scott, Vancouver Planning
Director, Glen Gross, Clark County
Planning Director, Linda Kruegei,
Portland Energy Director, Gerald
Taylor, Cornelius City Manager, Len
Waldemar, Clackamas County
Planning Commissioner, and Marga-
ret Schumacher, Scappoose Planning
Commissioner. Dick.Durham, Lake
Oswego City Councilor and former
chair of the Steering Committee,
currently serves as special advisor to
the Committee.
Technical Assistance Services
Available to Local Govern-
ments and Builders
The project offers technical assistance
services at no cost to local govern-
ments and the private development
industry through the summer of 1990.
These services are available through
McKeever/Monis, Inc., Portland land
use consulting firm, through contracts
with the Oregon Department of
Energy and the Washington State
Energy Office. For governments
which have not yet adopted the
ordinances these services include
training for staff and briefings for
Planning Commissions, City Councils
and County Commissions. For
governments implementing the
ordinances and members of the
private development industry these
services include troubleshooting on
projects which are having difficulties
complying with the solar standards.
ORDINANCE FINE-
TUNING COMPLETED
The Steering Committee reviewed the
results of the ordinance evaluation
(see story on page 1) and information
provided to it by the project consult-
ant, staff from the implementing
local governments, and the private
building industry. Following this
review the Steering Committee
adopted a series of fine-tuning
amendments to the ordinances. The
Committee recommends that the
thirteen local governments which are
implementing the model ordinances
adopt the fine-tuning amendments
sometime during the next year. The
nine local governments expected to
act on the ordinances later this winter
are spring are encouraged to take
advantage of the experience of the
other governments and adopt the
amended version of the ordinances.
The ordinance amendments are
summarized below.
standard to more specifically
indicate that an exception to the
standard shall be granted if the
developer cannot create 80 percent
solar lots through use of the
"basic", and simplest, solar
standard. This change makes it
clear that the developer has the
option whether or not to use
performance options which are
included in the ordinance.
- Simplification of some of the
procedures for documenting shade
from existing trees when a
developer chooses to use this
condition as a reason to apply for
an exception to the solar design
standard.
- Replace a requirement for a
topographic survey by a licensed
surveyor in certain exceptions
cases with a more lenient require-
ment for reliable topographic
information.
Solar Balance Point Ordinance I Solar Access Permit Ordinance
l
-Additional exemption in cases
where there is a vacant adjacent lot
to the applicant's north and the
prevailing development pattern in
the neighborhood is to place insig-
nificant areas of glass on the south
walls of houses.
- Extension of the standard to
apply to all lots in new sub-
divisions, not just the 80 percent
of the lots meeting the solar New
Development Standard. This
provides consistency in the
standard's application in infill and
new development areas.
- Replace a requirement for
a topographic survey by a licensed
surveyor in certain exceptions
cases with a more lenient require-
ment for reliable topographic
information.
New Development Standard
- Clarifying the solar design
- No amendments are recom-
mended.
Solar Access Definitions
- Minor amendments to the
definitions for "front lot line" and
"solar feature" were made to
better handle irregular lot shapes
and provide more flexible design.
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDED
SOLAR ACCESS
ORDINANCES
The Steering Committee of the Port-
land-Vancouver Metro Area Solar
Access Project has recommended for
adoption by local governments three
solar access protection ordinances.
The provisions provide comprehen-
sive protection for both new and
existing residences in the metro area.
A New Development Standard
maximizes solar access in new resi-
Sunlines. First Quarter, 1990 3
"It is my great pleasure to en-
dorse the recommendations of
the Metro Area Solar' Access
Project. This unique, coopers-
flue:: project 'should stand as a
benchmark: to government eve=
rywhere "
Neil Goldsclunidt
Governor, State of Oregon
.February 24 1988
dential subdivisions and PUDs by
requiring that 800 of all lots have
proper solar orientation. A Solar
Balance Point Standard minimizes
building-to-building shade and
limits a new building from casting
shade greater than 12' to Mat the
northern lot fine depending on the
north-south lot dimension. The
third ordinance, called a Solar Ac-
cess Permit, provides existing
single-family residences protec-
tion against shade from future
non-solar friendly trees on
adjoining properties within 150'.
The primary features and illustra-
tions of each ordinance are
discussed below.
This article summarizes the essen-
tial features of the proposed solar
access ordinances. A separate in-
formation packet contains the ordi-
nances themselves, the Steering
Committee's resolution recom-
mending adoption by local govem-
ments, and Findings in support of
the ordinances.
cominuM on page 6-
"Assuring access to the sun is a
part of providing' available and
affordable energy for the future.
The use of solar energy can
protect our environment--and
our economy-by reducing the
need for additional and more
expensive energy resources.
Booth Gardner, Governor
State of Washington
April 22, 1988
4 Sunlines, First Quarter, 1990
EVALUATION COMPLETED
(continued from page 1)
by the project's Research Committee
to be approximately 10 minutes for 85
percent of the applications received.
The average staff time for all of the
158 Solar Balance Point applications
evaluated was 9-minutes 40-seconds.
Of the 158 cases, six took between 15
and 20 minutes to complete; and two
took 90 minutes each to review. The
evaluation illustrates that less than
two-percent of the permit applications
evaluated could be classified as "high
impact cases", as defined in the
Ordinance Committee's research
report Only four percent could be
classified as "medium impact cases",
which is significantly lower than the
expected ten-percent rate of oc-
curance.
The data gathered from the evaluation
process illustrates that the Solar
Balance Point Ordinance is relatively
easy to apply in most cases. Only 5
of the 158 cases evaluated, or 7
percent, did not meet the standard.
Only 11 cases, or 3 percent, required
a modification to the original building
plan submitted to meet the standard.
Therefore, 90 percent of all evaluated
cases met the standard without the
need for modications or an exemption
from the standard.
The average Plan Review Cost for the
Solar Balance Point Standard is
approximately $3.50. The projected
cost per building permit application in
the Ordinance Committee's research
report was $6.00.
New Development Standard
Eighteen subdivisions or partitions
which created a total of 527 residen-
tial lots were evaluated. Of the 527
lots created, 322 were lots meeting
the ordinance's basic solar require-
ments. An additional 25 lots met the
New Development Standard through
the use of one of the solar perform-
ance options provided in the ordi-
nance. Overall 68 percent of the lots
met a solar standard.
The evaluation illustrates that the
New Development Ordinance
provides adequate flexibility for
unusual site characteristics or
amenities. It also illustrates that the
minimum 80-percent standard for lots
unaffected by development limita-
tions can consistently be met
The time necessary to review these
development applications was also
evaluated. The longest time recorded
for a subdivision review was 3-hours
for a 17-lot subdivision. The case
required a longer period of time
because the original submittal
contained several errors and an
adjustment request which was
subsequently denied. The shortest
review period was 1-minute for a 2-
lot minor partition. Overall, the
average review time per lot was 33-
minutes.
The Ordinance Committee's research
report estimated the average staff
review time per lot would be 12-
minutes, or $4.00 per lot. The
evaluation sample illustrates that local
government costs were only approxi-
mately $1.00 per lot
Conclusions
Based on the information derived
from the evaluation process, both the
Solar Balance Point Standard and the
New Development Standard appear to
be functioning efficiently. They are
providing a high percentage of homes
and homesites with access to the sun,
flexibility to accommodate for those
development situations which cannot
meet the basic standards of the
ordinances, and administration of the
ordinances appears to be economical.
SOLAR ACCESS
AROUND THE REGION
TACOMA ADOPTS SOLAR ORDINANCES. ..On December 12, 1989 the Tacoma City Council by unanimous
vote adopted a comprehensive package of solar access protection ordinances. The ordinances are patterned after the
model ordinances developed for the metro area project, with modifications to suit local conditions Deputy Alayor
Hyde, before casting his favorable vote for the ordinances, said "I'd just like to note that this is an example of how
things'should be done les just an excellent example of good legislation." With the action Tacoma becomes the
first local government in the state of Washington to implement comprehensive solar access protection: Other local
governments have implemented solar protection for.either new development or existing development areas, btitnot
both.
EUGENE EYES METRO SOLAR ORDINANCE....The City of Eugene is considering implementing the metro
model solar access ordinances in place of its existing solar access land use ordinances. Glenn Havener, Energy
Codes Director for the Oregon State Home Builders Association (OSHBA), said the state organization, in coopera-
tion with the local builders association, is encouraging the City to make the change because of OSHBA's long-
standing commitment to uniform statewide codes. Havener indicated that he was hopeful that all interests in the
City, including environmentalists and local utilities; would be supportive of the change. He praised the metro model
ordinances for being based on state-of-the-art technical research and real world building practice.
SOLAR ACCESS PLAT
IN ACTION
by Gregg Everhart, Landscape Designer
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
I FOREST HEIGHTS - PHASE 3 "T
CITY OF PORTLAND. MULTNOMAI-I COUNTY. OREGON V3
1/e~* p 19D°• l
W
The recent platting of Forest Heights -
Phase III provides this issue of
SUNLJNES with a good application of i
the Metro Solar Access New Develop-
ment standard in the City of Portland.
Sunlines, First Quarter, 1990 5
For The plat prepared by David Evans and _
Associate, Inc. (DEA), utilizes all of the innovative time saving tool for map-
three available options for creating so- ping solar access on steep sites.
lar lots while taking into account sev-
eral areas of exemption due to non- Using GIS (geographic information
solar vegetation and severe (>20%) systems) technology, DEA created a
slope. DEA has worked with solar "Slope and Aspect" digital terrain
access on several sites, but the issues model which, incorporating over
and opportunities provided by Forest 5,000 survey points, calculated the
Heights prompted the firm to create an areas qualifying for exemption due to
Legend
Non-Exempt
Eligible for
Adjustment
Exempt for Slope
Forest Heights HE CIS "Slope & Aspect" Overlay (portion)
severe slope.
The sample illustration below provides
a graphic depiction of the "Slope and
Aspect" overlay for a portion of the
tentative plan. Next to the overlay is the
final plat of the same area showing the
methods used to classify lots for solar
compliance.
Solar Key
s...
EX.
<
2DL
~
e
PD =~Crc\^.~ C°•'O.• _O•
.
s
ID.•Se.
i
L.aee5
IDeeS.
EX
r_•se
DR '13:G lleox. ~""E+: -T•
'
a
»-W 1
a
W °
33
a
J
d
~ 4 3~1
•
%
J
aM
CO-)
~
8~0
eJJS. "1Z DR O n eElt o (r~. e.0•
Y DAL.SA
0
~ •
z f .t.
IZ
J
:
n73 3
C Thu
DR C
~
1
°
_ ,1..31
30
70 n
I F
C16
.1.00 10p0 116 •)i<J
S
^
-L.31
•20:3
1 I
~I
a3oo
35
3a
u O0
GSM
.
f
C)~
33.5
3
I
L•3i I
" O 3
- 'O
i• •
ER ;
•s..DR
eR
n ODR. Oln
'O'r0. VIi
C30'r ~
- i.l -
OR
de
horest Heights Ill: Final Plat (portion)
r
6 Sunlines, First Quarter, 1490
ORDINANCES
RECOMMENDED
(consh-dhose page 3-)
SOLAR ACCESS STANDARD
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of the new development
standard is to design lots so that
homes will be oriented to maximize
solar access and minimize shade on
adjoining properties. The standard
applies to applications for a subdivi-
sion or planned unit development in
all single family residential zones and
single family developments in other
zones.
Lot Design Standard
The Ordinance requires that eighty
(80) percent of the lots in a proposed
development must comply with one
of three solar design options:
1. The Basic Requirement: (see fig
ure 1), or
2. A Solar Building Line Option; or
3. A Performance Option.
The plat on page 5 is an example of a
subdivision which meets the solar de-
sign standard. The development was
designed by David Evans & Associ-
ates and was approved in the City of
Figure 2
NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR SITING
BUILDINGS AND TREES
sun angle rising
at 2.5 to 1
ratio from
SOUTH WALL
-4 N
Portland.
1-----100--------D►<----=`a~ ---100'-!
12' of shade allowed
at property line
Siting of Structures and Trees
The Solar Balance Point Standard
provides legal protection from
building and tree shade as develop-
ment occurs on each lot in a new
development (see figure 2).
Exemptions from the Design
Standard
An entire development, or portion of
the development, shall be exempted
from the solar design standard for
steep slopes or significant pre-existing
Figure 1
SOLAR LOT OPTION 1: BASIC REQUIREMENTS
t
N
Minimum of 90'
north-south 101
dimension required
Tront lot line Is whhln
30 d"rees of
an east-west ads
shade.
Adjustments to Design Standard
The jurisdiction shall reduce the
percent of lots that must comply with
the solar design standard below the
80% standard to the minimum extent
necessary if the applicatn has shown
one or more of the following condi-
tions exist:
1. Meeting the standard would
result either in reduced density or
significant infrastructure cost in-
creases (that is, 5% or more); or
2. Significant development ameni-
ties would be lost or impaired which
could significantly reduce the market
value of the property if the solar
design principle applied; or
3. Existing shade precludes solar
uses.
SOLAR BALANCE POINT
STANDARD FOR EXISTING
LOTS OF
RECORD
The purpose of the standard is to
minimize building-to-building shade
and promote solar access and utiliza-
tion in residences. The standard
implies to applications for new house
and remodeling projects on existing
lots of record in urban single family
residential zones and single family
uses in other zones.
Maximum Shade Point Height
The standard extablishes a maximum
shade point height for each IOL The
shade standard varies depending on
the north-south dimension of the IoL
The standard guarantees the ability to
construct - at a minimum - a 30 foot
house in the middle of the lot being
affected by the standards. The
variable shade standard means that in
some cases full south wall solar
access protection will be provided, in
other cases partial south wall protec-
tion will be provided, and in still other
cases only south roof protection will
be provided. Figures 2 and 3 provide
examples of how the standard works
on a lot with 100 feet and 70 feet of
north-south lot depth, respectively.
Pedormonce Option
The applicant may meet the standard
4 by showing that at least 80% of the
south facing glazing area of the house
to the north is protected from shade,
regardless of the height of the shadow
at the northern lot line.
Exemptions from the Maximum
Shade Point Height Standard
If any of the following conditions
exist an administrative exemption
from the standard shall be granted.
1. The shade from the building falls
within pre-existing shade from trees,
other buildings or topography; or
2. The lot has a north, west or east
facing slope of greater than 20%; or
3. Difficult lot conditions exist such
as public easements, drainageways,
etc; or
4. The shade from the building
strikes only an unbuildable area, or
5. The shade from the building
strikes an unheated area such as a
garage, a south wall with minimal
glazing, or a vacant lot where
neighboring structures have minimum
south glass.
Figure 3
SOLAR BALANCE POINT STANDARD
Sunlines, Fust Quarter, 1990 7
SOLAR ACCESS PERMIT
FOR TREE SHADE
The purpose of the solar access permit'
standard is to minimize shade from
future trees in existing arras. A solar
access permit applies on a lot-by-lot
basis. A property owner must apply
for a solar access permit to receive the
protection it offers. Eligible proper-
ties include lots in a single family
residential zone which existed before
the adoption of a solar access program
and single family lots in other zones.
Exempt Vegetation
Research has identified more than 260
varieties of trees that are "solar
friendly" (i.e. they do not block much
winter sunlight). A solar access
permit does not apply to solar friendly
trees. Therefore a solar friendly tree
can exceed the maximum height
permitted for trees subject to a solar
access permit. A solar access permit
does not apply to existing trees in the
ground on the date a permit is issued.
continued on page 8
MAXIMUM SHADE POINT HEIGHT ALLOWED SHADE ON SOLAR FEATURE
Protecting your northern Localug your house
neighbor's sun to receive sun on
south windows
N
GUARANTEED
307 HEIGHT
IN LOT CENTER
--------70--- -------70 0-
FIe'-~ ►1ro 1
Standard Side Setbacks f
--------------3D~5 1
Reduced Side Setbacks
( SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS IF NEEDED
TO MEET SOLAR STANDARDS
f
L.
8 Sunlines, First Quarter, 1990
PROJECT RECEIVES PROFES-
SIONAL ACHIEVEMENT
AWARD FROM OREGON APA
In May, 1989, the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area
Solar Access Project was given the Professional Achieve-
ment Award by the Oregon Chapter of the American
Planning Association. The Professional Achievement
Award recognizes planning projects of unusual merit; en-
courages innovative and effective techniques for solving
problems at local, regional, and state levels; and publicizes
plans or projects of special significance.
In presenting the award the APA noted that "The project's
merit is recognized in the endorsements of the governors
of Oregon and Washington, the Solar Energy Association
of Oregon, the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, the
Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland, the
Portland Chapter of the American Institute of Architects,
and the Oregon Remodelers Association. The adoption of
the implementation ordinances by every local government
that has considered them also attests to the high quality of
the project".
Receiving the award on behalf of the project were Dick
Durham, then the chair of the Steering Committee, John
Kaufmann, Oregon Department of Energy, and Mike
McKeever, then of Conservation Management Services.
The Oregon "A has nominated the project for this year's
national APA awards.
PEOPLE TO CALL IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS
The Metro Project is administered by the Oregon Department of
Energy and the Washington State Energy Office. The Oregon
Department of Energy also has lead responsibility for conducting
many of the projects research activities. You can reach the project s
contact people for these agencies at the following numbers:
John Kaufmann, Oregon Department of Energy. 503 373-
79M
Scou Merriman, Washington State Energy Office, 206 586-
5mi
McKeeverJMorris, Inc., is the consulting firm which has been
hired to manage the project McKeever/Morris is working with
I.Arry Epstein, P.C., to provide services to the 22 local govem-
mems. The key contact people for these firms are listed below.
McKeevedMorris, Inc: Mike McKeever, Project Manager,
and Paul Morris, 503 228-7352.
Larry Epstein, P.C., 503 223-4855
continued from page 7-
Recording
Once the solar access permit is granted, notices are sent to
affected properties, and an opportunity to challenge the
accuracy of the information contained in the application
provided. If granted, the permit is recorded in the chain of
title of affected properties, giving future owners of those
propeties notice of its existence.
Sunlines is published by McKeeverlMorrit, Inc., Project Manager
for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area Solar Access Proj-
ect. McKeeverhMorrit, Ine.'s offices are located at 812 S.W. Wash-
ington St., Suite 1110, Portland, Oregon 97205. If you have
questions or suggestions, the telephone nwnber is 503 228-7352.
The Pordand-Vancouver Metropolitan Area Solar Access Project it
funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, and administered
by the Oregon Department of Energy and the Washington State
Energy Offices under the auspices of the Northwest Power Act.
Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area
Solar Access Project
812 SW Washington SL. Suite 1110
Portland, Oregon 97205
tz
CPS
W
e
W
Vu 1
u~u
1""1
Ip~
r~
~ J
~ l
uo
W
uo
V
,o
U
0
Q
0
b
c
s
c
co
m
0
o^
4
~ N
U O
G
rj)
C
E
Oi
C
O
m
N
O
• v
•o
b
m
4
C
k-
t•
:I I I-, un x
l, In,
U>t m
o
0
.
NQ
9 v' ZZp
\
S
n n 2 b
a N
d
'
11
O
ro ro y 0
7
O
L
m
s to
O O ~
N
N
[i
fi
s:: ` op
f: ` `a76
~
IF./e~l
~Y
m k' N
tl
ill
-~,s•~~
r
~ .
lot
N
N
} ~
N
.I ~ ~
~
•
~5
t L
1~ ~ a°%\ \
f Ate" I
-
►
y
L~
~rye~
ALrYoj
e~
=t
I
> C f)
m O
m
r
r
POPTLAND-VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA
{ SOLAR ACCESS PROJECT
g~N Benkendorfp q- Associates 0
I I COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR PLAT RE-DESIGN Wniena Ong ghOq
rso~ ?26.0068
I I
ORIGINAL PLAN
BEFORE
SOLAR PLAN
AFTER
-1
KEY
BASK SOLAR PARCELS
OPTION 12 SOLAR PARCELS
C3I OPTION 03 SOLAR PARCELS
C~~~ NON SOLAR PARCELS
L.'_ N PARCELS LOST TO VEGETATION
ED PARCELS LOST TO SLOPE
L-J Y CONTOUR wmvAL
ANALYSIS
LAM
ORIGMAL PLAN
30
100
4.0
10.630
T•700
15.300
M
36
1,400
SOLAR PLAN
30
101
4.0
10.700
0.000
13.300
36
42
4.100
SOLAR
_
_
ORIGINAL PLAN
30
3876
0
O
39
39%
42
la
l00
IW%
soua ILA"
83
6276
0
0
a3
ezs
o
/a
101
loot
SHEET IDAHO SOLAR ACCESS PROGRAM ® D
2 $1.1. a. WW. c.•rrr• tlWIr n••a.e•. Er•y J:em The Benkendorf Associates
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOLAR RE-DESIGN sa Sw Rt~6, NORTH
PLAT M. 2: CALOWELL R- 22 qfi~
(dell®
m
0
m
go
'
U2
o
S
;
M
O
a
v v z m
~
O
co
Hw
N,VERA
✓
lel
>
d 0
r v
7
9
7
~
~
(
6
(Vi-11
A
O O A
fY W
r
m
m (
N
y.
4
~
Mks
y y ~
W
O O o
~
vx
• \
m
o c `O
v
w'
~
~
'°O
o
V m
-
o
-t
6
M y
/
s
.
hry
=
m
w
a
o ,+F
O
ms
:
5.
V
w~
m -
~ ait -S+.i
(a m
L
0 0 _
O
§
0
co jj w
i
T
F
y
z
NW ,o~~
n V1
m
9
r
l
ow 1 -
PORTLAND-VANCOUVER. METROPOLITAN AREA
SOLAR ACCESS PROJECT Benkendorf - Associates f
sn swm ate.,.
COMPARATtVF ANALYSIS FOR PLAT RE-DESIGN
~ 226-006
K K
5 z
I
O
X
o'
i
a
§.E
F
x
E:
1:
8
e
7
X13
~
9
i3
C
3
S
o
s
f
7
f
wu:LT
I
a,=
Ilwrrr T.Itif
LACEY SOLAR ACCESS PROJECT
Comparative Analysis of Solar Ro-Desigm Lake Forest lS
min
Conservation Manage ntServices
F-kb~ .t.lelaft
~a..
.w.atr....,mt
IataII70100
f' y m o p U. a z 1 m
0f . % n
o \ \1 \ + \ O ►yy
pl y \ \ \ \ N 1W , SlVEI#AOO M 4^.ti
j \
N to
O y
o
m
g
~ ~ Y
.Q
d
o
s
o S
n
o ~
7
o
g•ai
2i _
a
A
a l
o e
£ =
A
p
A
p
t{~
a
o.
o ~
V
m
i 3
01
V7
N
m
(O
0
O
p
•
O
C
0
o
g
m
a
°o
g
O
N
O
O
O
t
Nw
t PORTLAND-VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA ConservationManagement Services
SOLAR ACCESS PROJECT
SS2 Sauh.weFlrthAva, V!.1406.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR PLAT RE-DESIGN 15=227-0400
e .1d
.
g
b
-..s
(tl R
R0H0
0
~
gps
a
~ ffi
5 y
z
a
3
Z
L
~
y~y
6
sag
x
~
r!
~
3
4~~
a
-
rd
i1
e
e
§ys
~
~
t~
s
SLdAVENUENS
m
b
518
i TACOMA SOLAR. ACCESS PROJECT c°°"
1Z1lrIFwa.INA.~t ~.1.a.
A..na nr Co pa liw Aailyaia of Solar Ra-Dam=n: Centennial Park•1f0.
c
rl fi p.?!
L°I L: Li
r 111 N
X
m
1
1 ~
0 1 ; ; 1 y 1 1
• ~ 1 i l`
1 1 1 ~ j C 1
_ 1 , ~ • N 1
1
t
co
m
I O
m
1 ~
1 1
1 1
I ~
1
S
Ap
t
!g
p3
I .
f
If,
F
i N i •
i ~ 1
~
Z
-
Ip
-
H .
F
N
F ;
1
`
\fD
1
1 i
t
1
j
m
~
ti 3•
F
~ 1 If- '
v
. I
1
1 ~
V
pV.~
L
1
k K its , T
m 0
to-Mr'-t V
t 1 I 1 ^_r l ttt
lsat ~ ~i -/r~ \ I~ 1 I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~11 ~:\~.~}I'll.
tw 1 .
p ~ f u ' I I
t i ; 1 1
lit
PORTLAND-VANCOUVER 1bIL•I'ROrOLITAN AREA (ID
SOI AR ACCESS PRC r
J•Ec Benkendorf • Associates
5T2 SW FfiA henr
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR PLAT RE-DESIGN 4~p. amoa E
ORIGINAL PLAIN
BEFORE
PW Pointe
SOLAR PLAIN
AFTER
Solar
ORIGINAL PLAN
t 1
30%
O
0
11
30%
t
12
24
67%
l
SOLAR PLAN
2e
72%
O
O
20
72%
2
e
30 1
100%
IDAHO SOLAR ACCESS PROGRAM ® D
a o........ w w.......,a.. e~...
The Bertkendorf Associates Nolm+
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOLAR REDESIGN S22 SW FMk A.. Sw... k„
9T~M1
gocon6
PLAT NM 3: BOISE F b
B
BASIC SOLAR PARCELS
KEY ANALYSIS
Land
=
-a-
I
ORKW"L PLAN
11
3e
3.3
10.283
6.270
13.775
23
13
1900
SOLAR PLAN
11
38
3.3
10.285
8.000
14.000
23
11
1900
r
-J NON-SOLAR PARCELS
r
L EJ PARCELS LOST TO VEGETATION
PARCELS LOST TO SLOPE
2' CONTOUR INTERVAL
L?] OPTION -2 SOLAR PARCELS
r
i_3J, OPTION -3 SOLAR PARCELS
i
t
>8
xo X
W
W-
8
J
81
`1
s
Q,
z
FiV O
O 'w
~ qr
41;.- g
s, aTArsoao_.
~i
e
F
rI
If~ m
{!i
s s
!i
xx
H <
J
Z ~ <
a g
S2
N Z
a
Q o z
LU U-
0 Z
Q t
M c
0
U
Q 9
001
c u
0
d
Cl)
Q W u
C) E
Q
0
~ g
Q s°
J
Om
co N
a g
a _j~ 6 xc g ~ o o
•1~~. 0 65~:
N N ; ; Y IJiLJL.ILJLJU
STANFORD AVE. W
S
N
3
44
i
f
N
d
w
A
V
O
N
N C~
SOLAR ACCESS ORDINANCE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
Steering Committee Final ]Draft Revisions
Adopted November 2, 1989
Section 1. Purpose. The purposes of the solar access ordinance for new development are to
ensure that land is divided so that structures can be oriented to maximize solar access and to
minimize shade on adjoining properties from structures and trees.
Section 2. Applicability. The solar design standard in Section 3 shall apply to applications
for a development to create lots in [list urban single family zones] zones and for single family
detached dwellings in any zone, except to the extent the approval authority finds that the applicant
has shown one or more of the conditions listed in Sections 4 and 5 exist, and exemptions or
adjustments provided for therein are warranted.
At least 80 percent of the lots in a development subject to this
1. Has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more; and
2. Has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis.
B. Protected Solar Building Line Option (see Figure 10). In the alternative, a lot
complies with Section 3 if a solar building line is used to protect solar access as follows:
1. A protected solar building line is designated on the plat or'-
documents recorded with the plat; and
2. The protected solar building line is oriented within 30 degrees of
a true east-west axis; and
3. There is at least 70 feet between the protected solar building line and the middle of the
north-south dimension of the lot to the south, measured along a line perpendicular to the
protected solar building line; and
4. There is at least 45 feet between the protected solar building line and the- northern edge of
the buildable area of the lot, or habitable structures are situated so that at least 80 per cent of
their south-facing wall will not be shaded by structures or non-exbmpt vegetation.
C. Performance Option. In the alternative, a lot complies with Section 3 if:
1. Habitable structures built on that lot will have their long axis oriented within 30 degrees
of a true east-west axis, and at least 80% of their ground floor south wall will protected
from shade by structures and non-exempt trees us* - - - g- iate deed restrictions: or
2. Habitable structures built on that lot will have orient at least 32% of their glazing and Al
least 500 square feet of their roof area IQ *49G 1.-faces within 30 degrees east or west of true
south, and that lazing and roof area are is protected from shade by structures and non-
exempt trees using appropriate deed restrictions.
Page 1 - Solar Access Ordinance for New Development
Steering Commee Final Draft Revisions (11/1/89)
A. Basic Requirement (see Figure 9). A lot complies with Section 3 if it:
Section 4. Exemptions from Design Standard. A development is exempt from Section 3
if the [approval authority] finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following
conditions apply to the site. A development is partially exempt from Section 3 to the extent the
[approval authority] finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions
apply to a corresponding portion of the site. If a partial exemption is granted for a given
development, the remainder of the development shall comply with Section 3.
A. Slopes. The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is sloped 20
per cent or more in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south,based on a
topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor or USGS or other officially
recognized topographic informaggn.
B. Off-site shade. The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is
within the shadow pattern of off-site features, such as but not limited to structures,
topography, or non-exempt vegetation, which will remain after development occurs on the
site from which the shade is originating.
1. Shade from an existing or approved off-site dwelling in a single family residential zone
and from topographic features is assumed to remain after development of the site.
2. Shade from an off-site structure in a zone other than a single family residential zone is
assumed to be the shadow pattern of the existing or approved development.thereon or the
shadow pattern that would result from the largest structure allowed at the closest setback on
adjoining land, whether or not that structure now exists.
3. Shade from off-site vegetation is assumed to remain after development of the site if.- the
trees that cause it are situated in a required setback; or they are part of a developed area,
public park, or legally reserved open space; or they are in or separated from the developable
remainder of a parcel by an undevelopable area or feature; or they are part of landscaping
required pursuant to local law.
4. Shade from other off-site sources is assumed to be shade that exists or that will be cast
by development for which applicable local permits have been approved on the date a
complete application for the development is filed.
C. On-site shade. The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is requested, is:
1. Within the shadow pattern of on-site features such as, but not limited to structures and
topography which will remain after the development occurs; or
2. Contains non-exempt trees at least 30 feet tall and more than 6 inches in diameter
measured 4 feet above the ground which have a crown cover over at least 80% of the site,
or the relevant portion. The applicant can show such crown cover exists using a scaled
survey or an aerial photograph. If granted, the exemption shall be approved subject to the
condition that the applicant preserve at least 50% of the tees crown cover that cause.1 the
shade that warrants the exemption. The applicant shall file a note on the plat or other
documents in the Office of the County Recorder binding the applicant to comply with this
requirement The (city/county) shall be made a party to any covenant or restriction created
to enforce any provision of this ordinance. The covenant or restriction shall not be
amended without written (city/county) approval.
Page 2 - Solar Access Ordinance for New Development
Steering Comm'ee Final Draft Revisions (1]/1/89)
Section 5. -Adjustments to Design Standard. The [approval authority] shall reduce the
percentage of lots that must comply with Section 3 to the minimum extent necessary if it finds the
site GhamGte
applicant has shown it would cause or is subject to one or more of the following
conditions.
apply
A. Adverse impacts on density and cost or amenities.
_L If the design standard in Section 3A is applied, either the resulting density is less than
that proposed, or on-site site development costs (e.g. grading, water, storm drainage and
sanitary systems, and road) and solar related off-site site development costs are at least 5%
more per lot than if the standard is not applied The following conditions, among others,
could constrain the design of a development in such a way that compliance with Section 3A
would reduce density or increase per lot costs in this manner. The applicant shall show
which if any of these or other similar site characteristics apply in an application for a
development.
a. The portion of the site for which the adjustment is sought has a natural grade that is
sloped 10 per cent or more and is oriented greater than 45 degrees east or west of true
south based on a topographic survey of the site by a professional land surv..jor gr
USGS or other officially recognized topog=hic information.
b. There is a significant natural feature on the site, identified as such in the
comprehensive plan or development ordinance, that prevents given streets or lots from
being oriented for solar access, and it will exist after the site is developed.
c. Existing road patterns must be continued through the site or must terminate on-site
to comply with applicable road standards or public road plans in a way that prevents
given streets or lots in the development from being oriented for solar access.
d An existing public easement or right-of-way prevents given streets or lots in the
development from being oriented for solar access.
2 If the design standard in Section 3A applies to a given lot
or lots, significant development amenities that would otherwise benefit the lot(s) will be
lost or impaired Evidence that a significant dimunition in the market value of the lot(s)
would result from having the lot(s) comply with Section 3A is relevant to whether a
significant development amenity is lost or impaired.
[Refer to amenities that qualify or to relevant comprehensive plan provisions or
inventories.]
Q-B. Impacts of existing shade. The shadow pail ram tenon-exempt trees--least 39
cover over at least 80% of the lot and at least 50% of the GFGVM rsoves shadow pattern will
remain after development of the lot. The applicant can show Lhg
shadow pattern using a scaled survey of non-exempt trees on the site or using an aerial
photograph.
Page 3 - Solar Access Ordinance for New Development
Steering Comm'ee Final Draft Revisions (1111/84)
1. Shade from non-exempt trees is assumed to remain if. the trees are situated in a required
setback; or they are part of an existing or proposed park, open space, or recreational
amenity, or they are separated from the developable remainder of their parcel by an
C _ undevelopable area or feature; or they are part of landscaping required pursuant to local
law; and they do not need to be removed for a driveway or other development.
The applicant shall file a note on the plat or other documents in the office of the County Recorder
binding the applicant and subsequent purchasers to comply with the future shade protection
standards in Section 6. The (city/county) shall be made a party of any covenant or restriction
created to enforce any provision of this ordinance. The covenant or restriction shall not be
amended without written (city1county) approval.
Section 7. Application. An application for approval of a development subject to this
ordinance shall include:
A. Maps and text sufficient to show the development complies with the solar design standard
of Section 3, except for lots for which an exemption or adjustment from Section 3 is requested,
including at least:
1. The north-south lot dimension and front lot line orientation of each proposed lot.
2. Protected solar building lines and relevant building site restrictions, if applicable.
3. For the purpose of identifying trees exempt fiom Section 6, a map showing existing
trees at least 30 feet tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 feet above grade, indicating
their height, diameter and species, and stating that they are to be retained and are exempt.
4. Copies of all private restrictions relating to solar access. %
B. If an exemption or adjustment to Section 3 is requested, maps and text sufficient to show
that given lots or areas in the development comply with the standards for such an exemption or
adjustment in Section 4 or 5, respectively.
Section 8. Process.
(Note. Local Governments should provide a cross-reference to their appropriate code sections that
describe the procedure to be used to review compliance with the solar access ordinance for new
development. Also identify whether an applicant and/or other aggrieved propeny owner can appeal
a decision regarding the ordinance, and, if so, what appeal process applies and who is the approval
authonryfor the appeal.)
Page 4 - Solar Access Ordinance for New Development
Steering Commee Final Draft Revisions (11/1/89)
2. Also, to the extent the shade is caused by on-site trees or off-site trees on land owned
by the applicant, it is assumed to remain if the applicant files in the office of the County
Recorder a covenant binding the applicant to retain the trees causing the shade on the
affected lots.
SOLAR BALANCE POINT ORDINANCE
Steering Committee Final Draft Amendments
Adopted November 2, 1989
Section 1. Purpose. The purposes of this ordinance are to promote the use of solar energy,
to minimize shading of structures by structures and accessory structures, and, where applicable, to
minimize shading of structures by trees. Decisions related to this ordinance are intended to be
ministerial.
Section 2. Applicability. This ordinance applies to an application for a building permit for all
structures in [list urban single family zones] and all single family detached structures in any zone,
except to the extent the approval authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the
conditions listed in sections 5 or 6 exists, and exemptions or adjustments provided for there are
warranted. In addition, non-exempt vegetation planted on lots subject to the provisions of Section
6 of the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development shall comply with the shade point height
standards as provided in sections 4 and 5 of this ordinance.
Section 3. Solar Site Plan Required. An applicant for a building permit for a structure
subject to this ordinance shall submit a site plan that shows;.
A. T1he maximum, shade point height allowed under section 4; the aRewed shade en the
B If the maximum shad6 int height is adjusted pursuant to section 4.A.2, the averagg
elevation of the rear p=CM line : and
applicable,
solar balance point for the structure as provided in section
8.
Section 4. Maximum Shade Point Height Standard. The height of the shade point shall
comply with either subsection A or B below.
A. Basic Requirement.
1. The height of the shade point shall be less than or equal to the height specified in Table
A or computed using the following formula. The height of the shade point shall be
elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line If necessary interpolate between the 5 foot
dimensions listed in Table A.
H= (2 x SRL) - N + 150
5
Where: H = the maximum allowed height of the shade point (see Figures 4 and 5);
SRL = shade reduction line (the distance between the shade point and the
northern lot line, see Figure 6); and
N = the north-south lot dimension, provided that a north-south lot dimension
more than 90 feet shall use a value of 90 feet for this section.
Page 1 - Solar Balance Point Ordinance
Steering Comm'ee Fatal Draft Revisions (11/1/89)
2. Provided, the maximum allowed height of the shade point may be increased one foot
above the amount calculated using the formula or Table A for each foot that the average
grade at the rear property line exceeds the average grade at the front property line
Distance to North-south lot dimension (in feet)
Shade 100+ 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40
Reduction Lane
from northern
lot line (in feet)
70
40
40
40
41
42
43
44
65
38
38
38
39
40
41
42
43
60
36
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
55
34
34
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
50
32
32
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
45
30
30
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
48
40
28
28
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
35
26
26
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
30
24
24
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
25
22
22
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
21
32
20
20
20
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
15
18
18
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
16
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
14
14
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
B. Performance Option. The proposed structure, or applicable non-exempt vegetation, will
shade not more than 20 per cent of the south-facing glazing of existing habitable structure(s), or,
where applicable, the proposed structure or non-exempt vegetation comply with section 3B or 3C
of the Solar Access Ordinance for New Developement. If section 3B, Protected Solar Building
Line, is used, non-exempt trees and the shade point of structures shall be set back from the
protected solar building line 2-5 feet for every 1 foot of height of the structure or of the mature
height of non-exempt vegetation over 2 feet.
Section S. Exemption from the Maximum Shade Point Heieht Standard. The
[approval ~diority] shall exempt a pry stnacl m or non-exempt vegetation from sections 3
and 4 of this ordinance if the applicant shows that one or more of the conditions in this section
exist, based on plot plans or plats, comer elevations or other topographical data, shadow patterns,
suncharts or photographs, or other substantial evidence submitted by the applicant.
A. Exempt LoL When created the lot was subject to the Solaf Access Ordinance for New
Development and was not subject to the provisions of section 6 of that ordinance.
B. Pre-existing shade. The structure or applicable non-exempt vegetation will shade an
area that is shaded by one or more of the following.
1. An existing or approved building or structure;
2. A topographic feature; or
l
Page 2 - Solar Balance Point Ordinance
Stewing Comm'ee Final Draft Revisions (II/l/89)
3. A non-exempt tree that will remain after development of the site. It is assumed a tree
will remain after development if it: is situated in a building setback required by local law;
is part of a developed area or landscaping required by local law, a public park or landscape
strip, or legally reserved open space; is in or separated from the developable remainder of a
parcel by an undevelopable area or feature; or is on the applicant's property and not
affected by the development. A duly executed covenant also can be used to preserve trees
causing such shade.
C. Slope. The site has an average slope that exceeds 20 percent in a direction greater than
45 degrees east or west of true south based on a topographic survey by a licensed professional
land surveyor or USGS or other officially recognized topographic information.
D. Insignificant benefit. The proposed structure or non-exempt vegetation shades one or
more of the following:
1. An undevelopable area;
2. The wall of an unheated space, such as a typical garage; eF
3. Less than 20 square feet of south-facing glazing; or
4 An undeveloped lot other than a lot that was subject to the Solar Access Ordinance for
New Development. where.
a. There are at least four single family detached or attached homes within 250 feet of
the lot within the same subdivision or a phase of the subdivision: and
b. A maiority of the homes identified in subsection 4.a. above have an average of less
than 20 square-feet of south-facing_ lazing=
using section 4 to the extent it finds the applicant has shown one or more of the following
conditions exist, based on plot plans or plats, corner elevations or other topographical data,
shadow patterns, suncharts or photographs, or other substantial evidence submitted by the
applicant.
A. Physical conditions.. Physical conditions preclude development of the site in a manner
that complies with section 4, due to such things as a lot size less than 3000 square feet,
unstable or wet soils, or a drainage way, public or private easement, or right of way.
B. Conflict between the Maximum Shade Point Height and Allowed Shade on
the Solar Feature Standards. A proposed structure may be sited to meet the solar
balance point standard described in section 8 or be sited as near to the solar balance point as
allowed by section 8, if:
1. When the proposed structure is sited to meet the maximum shade point height standard
determined using section 4, its solar feature will potentially be shaded as determined using
section 7; and
Page 3 - Solar Balance Point Ordinance
Steering Comm'ee Final Draft Revisions (11/l/89)
E. Public Improvement. The proposed structure is a publicly owned improvement.
2. The application includes a form provided for that purpose by the (city/county] that:
l a. Releases the applicant from complying with section 4 and agrees that the proposed
structure may shade an area otherwise protected by section 4.
b. Releases the (citylcounryl from liability for damages resulting from the adjustment;
and
c. Is signed by the owner(s) of the properties that would be shaded by the proposed
structure more than allowed by the provisions of section 4.
3. Before the (city/county) issues a pemiit for a proposed structure for which an
adjustment has been granted pursuant to section 6(B), the applicant shall file the form
provided for in subsection B.2 above in the office of the county recorder with the deeds to
the affected properties.
Section 7. Analysis of Allowed Shade on Solar Feature
A.
B. Applicants shame are encouraged to design and site a proposed habitable structure so that
the lowest height of any solar feature(s) will not be shaded by buildings or non-exempt trees on
lot(s) to the south The applicant should complete the following calculation procedt#e to
determine if solar feature(s) of the proposed structure will be shaded. To start, the applicant
should choose which of the following sources of shade originating from adjacent lot(s) to the
south to use to calculate the maximum shade height at the north property line:
1. Existing structure(s) or non-exempt trees; or
2. The maximum shade that can be cast from future buildings or non-exempt trees, based
on Table G If the lot(s) to the south can be further divided, then the north-south dimension
ja 6heuld-be assumed to be the minimum lot width required for a new lot in that zone.
C. The height of the lowest point of any solar feature of the proposed structure is slle331d he
calculated with respect to either the average elevation or the elevation at the midpoint of the
front lot line of the lot to the south
D. The applicant can should determine the height of the shadow that may be cast upon the
applicant's solar feature by the source of shade selected in subsection B by using the following
formula or Table B.
SFSH = SH - (SGQM5)
Where:
SFSH = the allowed shadow height on the solar feature (see Figure 8)
SH = the height of the shade at the northern lot line of lot(s) to the south as
determined in Section 7B
SGL = the solar gain line (the distance from the solar feature to the northern
lot line of adjacent lot(s) to the south, see Figure 7)
Page 4 - Solar Balance Point Ordinance
Steering Cornm'ee Final Draft Revisions (11/1/89)
TABLE B MAXIM
UM
PERMI
TTED HEIGHT OF SHADOW AT SOLAR FEA
TURE
(feed
Distance from
Al
lowed Shade Height at Northern Lot Line
Solar Gain Line
of Adjacent Lot(s) to the South (feet)
to lot line (feet)
18 17 16 15
14
13
1
2
22
21
20
19
50
2
1
45
4
3
2
1
40
6
5
4
3 2 1
35
8
7
6
5 4 3 2 1
30
25
10
12
9
11
8
10
7 6 5 4 3
9 8 7 6 5
2
4
1
3
2
20
14
13
12
11 10 9 8 7
6
5
4
6
15
16
15
14
13 12 11 10 9
8
7
9
8
10
5
18
20
17
19
16
18.
15 14 13 12 11
17 16 15 14 13
10
12
11
10
Table C may be used to determine (SH) in the above formula.
North-south lot
dimension of adjacent 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40
lots to the south
Allowed shade
height at the north 12 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
property line of
adjacent lot(s) to south
_ E. If the allowed shade height on the solar feature calculated in subsection D is higher than the
lowest height of the solar feature calculated in subsection C, the applicant shall be encouraged
to consider changes to the house design or location which would make it practical to locate the
solar feature so that it will not be shaded in the future.
Section 8. Solar Balance Point. If a structure does not comply with maximum shade
point height standard in section 4 an d the allowed shade on a solar feature standard in Section 7,
then the solar balance point of the lot shall be calculated (see Figure 8). The solar balance point is
the point on the lot where a structure would be the same from complying with both of these
standards. `
Section 9. Yard Setback Adjustment. The [city/county] shall grant an adjustment to the
side, front and/or rear yard setback requirement(s) by up to 50%5 if necessary to build a proposed
structure so it complies with either the shade point height standard in section 4, the allowed shade
on a solar feature standard in section 7, or the solar balance point standard in section 8 as provided
herein (see Figure 8). This adjustment is not intended to encourage reductions in available solar
access or unnecessary modification of setback requirements, and shall apply only if necessary for a
structure to comply with the applicable provisions of this chapter. [The following list illustrates
yard adjustments permitted under this section:]
A. [R51 Zone(s):
1. A front yard setback may be reduced to not less than [10] feet.
2. A rear yard setback may be reduced to not less than [101 feet.
3. A side yard setback may be reduced to not less than [31 feet.
Page 5 - Solar Balance Point Ordinance
Steering Comm'ee Final Draft Revisions (11/1/89)
B. [R71 Zone(s):
1. A front yard setback may be reduced to not less than [101 feet.
2. A rear yard setback-may be reduced to not less than 1101 feet.
3. A side yard setback may be reduced to not less than 13] feet.
C. [RIO] Zone(s):
1. A front yard setback may be reduced to not less than 1151 feet.
2. A rear yard setback may be reduced to not less than 1151 feet.
3. A side yard setback may be reduced to not less than 151 feet.
Section 10. Review process. [Cross-reference to existing processes for reviewing zoning
code compliancel
Page 6 - Solar Balance Point Ordinance
Steering Comm'ee Final Draft Revisions (11/1/89)
SOLAR ACCESS PERMIT ORDINANCE
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect solar access to solar features
on lots. designated or used for a single family detached dwelling under some circumstances. It
authorzes owners of such lots to apply for a permit that, if granted, prohibits solar features from
being shaded by certain future vegetation on and off the permittee's site.
Section 2. Applicability. An owner or contract purchaser of property may apply for
and/or be subject to a solar access permit for a solar feature if that property is in a (lisr
urban single family residential ronesl, or is or will be developed with a single family
dwelling. The (city'slcounry's j decision whether or not to grant a solar access permit is
intended to be ministerial
Approval standards for a solar access permit. The (responsible
approve an application for a solar access permit if the applicant shows:
A. The application is complete;
B. The information it contains is accurate; and
C. Non-exempt vegetation on the applicant's property does not shade the solar feature.
Section 4. Duties created by solar acceis permit.
A. A parry to whom the /citv/counryJ grants a solar access permit shall:
L Record the permit. legal descriptions of the properties affected by the permit,
the solar access height limit, and the site plan required in section 5.C with such
modifications as requited by the (responsible qfficialJ in the office of the county
recorder with the deeds to the properties affected by it, indexed by the names of the
owners of the affected properties, and pay the fees for such filing,
2. Install the solar feature in a timely manner as provided in Section 8; and
3. Maintain non-exempt vegetation on the site so it does not shade the solar feature.
B. An owner of property burdened by a solar access permit shall be responsible and
pay all costs fctr keeping non-exempt vegetation from exceeding the solar access
height limit. However, vegetation identified as exempt on the site plan required in
section 5.C, vegetation an owner shows was in the ground on the date an
application for a solar access permit is filed, and solar friendly vegetation are
exempt from the solar access permit.
Section S. Application contents. An application for a solar access permit shall
contain the following information:
A. A legal description of the applicant's lot and a legal description, owners' names,
and owners' addresses for lots all or a portion of which are within 150 feet of the
applicant's lot and 54 degrees east and west of true south measured from the east and
west comers of the applicant's south lot line. The records of the (responsible agency)
shall be used to determine who owns property for purposes of an application. The
failure of a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate the action if a good faith
attempt was made to notify all persons who may be affected.
Page r Solar Access Permit Ordinance
B. A scaled plan of the applicant's property showing:
1. Vegetation in the ground as of the date of the application if, when mature, that
vegetation could shade the solar feature.
2. The approximate height above grade of the solar feature. its location, and its
orientation relative to true south.
C. A scaled plan of the properties on the list required in subsection A above showing:
1. Their approximate dimensions; and
2. The approximate location of all existing vegetation on each property that could
shade the solar feature(s) on the applicant's property.
D. For each affected lot, the requested solar access height limit. The solar access
height limit is a series of contour lines establishing the maximum permitted height for
non-exempt vegetation on lots affected by a Solar Access Permit (see Figure 11). The
contour lines begin at the bottom edge of a solar feature for which a permit is requested
and rise in five foot increments at an angle to the south not less that 21.3 degrees from
the horizon and extend not more than 54 degrees east and west of true south.
Notwithstanding the preceeding, the solar access height limit at the northern lot line of
any lot burdened by a solar access permit shall allow non-exempt vegetation on that lot
whose height causes not more shade on the benefitted property than could be caused by
a structure that complies with the Solar Balance Point Ordinance for existing lots.
lw A fee as required by [appropriare reference].
` F. If available, a statement signed by the owner(s) of some or all of the property(ics) to
which the permit will apply if granted verifying that the vegetation shown on the plan
submitted pursuant to section 5.C above accu=dy represents vegetation in the ground
on the date of the application. The [city/coumyj shall provide a form for that purpose.
The signed statements provided for herein are permitted but not required for a complete
application.
Section 6. Application review process.
A. Unless waived by the [responsible official j, prior to filing an application for a solar
access permit, an applicant or applicant's representative shall pay the fee required in
section (appropriate reference m fee schedule) and meet with the [responsible fikkd j
or his or her designate to discuss the proposal and the requirements for an application.
If a meeting is held, the [responsible offlciW j shall convey a written summary of the
meeting to the applicant by mail within 5 calendar days of the meeting.
B. After the pre-application meeting is held or waived, the applicant may file an
application containing the information required in section 5 above.
C. Within 7 calendar days after an application is filed, the [responsible offl all or his
or her designate shall determine whether the application is complete and if it is not
complete notify the applicant in writing, and specify what is required to make it
complete.
Page 2 Solar Access Permit Ordinance
D. Within 14 calendar davs after the [responsible official] decides an application for a
solar access permit is complete. the [responsible official) or his or her desimiate shall
issue a written decision tentatively approving or denying the request, together with
reasons therefore, based on the standards of section 3.
1. If the tentative decision is to deny the permit, the [responsible official] shall mail
a copy of the decision to the applicant.
2. If the tentative decision is to approve the permit, and the owners of all affected
properties did verify the accuracy of the plot plan as permitted under section 5.F,
the [responsible official) shall mail a copy of the decision to the applicant and
affected patties by certified mail. return receipt requested.
3. If the tentative decision is to approve the permit, and the owners of all affected
properties did not verify the accuracy of the plot plan as permitted under section
5.F, the [responsible effiial] shall send a copy of the tentative decision to the
applicant and to the owners of affected properties who did not sign the verification
statement pursuant to section 5.F by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the
[responsible official] determines that the owners of a given property affected by the
permit are not the occupants of that property, then the [responsible offickdi also
shall send a copy of the notice to the occupants of such property.
a. The notice sent to the applicant shall include a sign that says a solar access
permit for the property has been tentatively approved, and that informs readers
where to obtain more information about it. The applicant shall be instructed to
conspicuously post the sign.so it is visible from right-of-way adjoining the
property, and to sign and return a form provided by the [responsible official]
certifying that the sign was posted as provided herein not more than 14 days
after the tentative decision was mailed.
b. The notice shall include the plot plans required in sections 5.B and C above,
the proposed solar access height limits, and duties created by the permit.
c. The notice shall request recipients to verify that the plot plan shows all non-
exempt vegetation on the recipient's property, and to send the [responsible
offlCClal7 comments in writing within 14 calendar days after the tentative
decision is mailed if the recipient believes the applicant's plot plan is inaccurate.
4. within 28 days after notice of a tentative decision is trailed to affected parties,
the [responsible official] shall consider responses received from affected parties
and/or ap inspection of the site, modify the plot plan and the permit to be consistent
with the accurate information, and issue a final decision. The [responsible official]
shall send a copy of the permit and solar access height limits to the owners of each
property affected by the permit by certified mail, return receipt requested.
E. If the application is approved, the applicant shall record the permit, associated solar
access height limits, legal descriptions for the affected properties, and the site plan
required in section 5.C with such modifications as required by the [responsible official/
in the office of the county recorder with the deeds to the properties affected by it before
the permit is effective.
Page 3 Solar Access Permit Ordiaawe
Section 7. Permit enforcement process.
A. Enforcement request. A solar access perminee may request the (city/coungj to
enforce the solar access permit by providing the following information to the
(responsible q f iciall:
1. A copy of the solar access permit and the plot plans submitted with the permit:
and
2. The legal description of the lot(s) on which alleged non-exempt vegetation is
situated. the address of the owner(s) of that property, and a scaled site plan of the
lot(s) showing the non-exempt vegetation; and
3. Evidence the vegetation violates the solar access permit, such as a sunchart
photograph, shadow pattern. and/or photographs.
B. Enforcement process. If the (responsible official] determines the request for
enforcement is complete, he or she shall initiate an enforcement action pursuant to
(insert the appropriate reference to the jurisdiction's existing zoning enforcement
process). Provided the (responsible official) shall not enforce the permit against
vegetation the owner of which shows was in the ground on the date the permit
application was filed with the (citylcounty].
Section 8.:)xpiration and extension of a solar access permit.
A. Expiration. Every permit issued by the (responsible offtciall under the
4 provisions of this ordinance shall expire if the construction of the solar feature protected
by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit, or if
the construction of the solar feature protected by such permit is suspended or
abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days. Before
such work can be nxammenced, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so, and the
fee therefor shall be one half the amount requited for a new permit for such work,
provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and
specifications for such work; and provided further that such suspension or
abandonment has not exceeded one year. If the pemtittee does not show construction
of the solar feature will be started within 180 days of the date of the permit or the
extension, or if the solar feature is removed, the (responsible official j shall terminate
the permit by recording a notice of expiration in the office of the county recorder with
the deeds w the affected properties.
B. Extension. Any permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an
extension of the tithe within which he or she may commen= work under that permit
when he or she is unable to commence work within the time required by this section for
good and samsf1actory reasons. The (responsible o icfall may extend the time for
action by the permittee for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the
pernittee showing that . beyond the control of the permiuee have
prevented action from being taken. No permit shall be extended amore than once.
Page 4 Solar Access Permit Ordinance
SOLAR ACCESS ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS
Steering Committee Final Draft Revisions
Adopted November 2, 1989
Crown Cover: The area within the drip line or perimeter of the foliage of a tree.
Development: Any short plat, partition, subdivision or planned unit development that is created
under the (city's/county's) land division or zoning regulations.
Exempt tree or vegetation: The full height and breadth of vegetation that the [responsible
official J has identified as "solar friendly" and listed in [appropriate reference]; and any vegetation
listed on a plat map, a document recorded with the plat, or a solar access permit as exempt.
Front lot ling, For purposes of the solar access regulations, a lot line abutting a street. For
comer lots the front lot line is that with the narrowest frontage. When the lot line abutting a street
is curved, the front lot line is the chord or straight line connecting the ends of the curve. For a flag
lot, the front lot line is the shortest lot line adjoining
the pole portion of the lot, excluding the pole unbuildable portion of the let pole (see Figure 1).
Non-exempt tree or vegetation: Vegetation that is not exempt.
Northern lot line: The lot line that is the smallest angle from a line drawn east-west and
intersecting the northernmost point of the lot, excluding the pole portion of a flag lot. If the north
line adjoins an undevelopable area other than a required yard area, the northern lot line shall be at
the north edge of such undevelopable area. If two lot lines have an identical angle relative to a line
drawn east-west. or if the northern lot line is less than 35 feet, then the northern lot line shall be a
line 40 35 feet in length within the lot parallel with and at a maximum distance from the front lot
. line (see Figure 2).
North-south dimension: The length of a line beginning at the mid-point of the northern lot line
and extending in a southerly direction perpendicular to the northern lot line until it reaches a
property boundary (see Figure 3).
Protected solar building line: A line on a plat or map recorded with the plat that identifies the
location on a lot where a point two feet above may not be shaded by structures or non-exempt trees
(see Figure 10).
Shade: A shadow cast by the shade point of a structure or vegetation when the sun is.at an
altitude of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranging from 22.7 degrees east and west of true south.
Shade point: The part of a structure or non-exempt tree that casts the longest shadow onto the
adjacent northern lot(s) when the sun is at an altitude of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranging from
22.7 degrees east and west of true south; except a shadow caused by a narrow object such as a
mast or whip antenna, a dish antenna with a diameter of 3 feet or less, a chimney, utility pole, or
wire. The height of the shade point shall be measured from the shade point to either the average
elevation at the front lot line or the elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line. If the shade point
is located at the north end of a ridgeline of a structure oriented within 45 degrees of awe north-
south line, the shade point height computed according to the preceding sentence may be reduced by
3 feet. If a structure has a roof oriented within 45 degrees of awe east-west line with a pitch that
is flatter than 5 feet (vertical) in 12 feet (horizontal) the shade point will be the eave of the roof. If
such a roof has a pitch that is 5 feet in 12 feet or steeper, the shade point will be the peak of the
roof (see Figures 4 and 5).
Page 1 - Solar Access Ordinance Definitions
Steering Comm'ce Final Draft Revisions (11/1/89)
Shade reduction line: A line drawn parallel to the northern lot line that intersects the shade
point (see Figure 6).
Shadow o_ r A graphic representation of an area that would be shaded by the shade point of
a structure or vegetation when the sun is at an altitude of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranging
between 22.7 degrees east and west of true south (see Figure 12).
Solar access height limit: A series of contour lines establishing the maximum permitted height
for non-exempt vegetation on lots affected by a Solar Access Permit (see Figure 11).
Solar access permit: A document issued by the [city/county] that describes the maximum height
that non-exempt vegetation is allowed to grow on lots to which a solar access permit applies.
Solar feature: A device or combination of devices or elements that does or will'use direct
sunlight as a source of energy for such purposes as heating or cooling of a structure, heating or
pumping of water, and generating electricity. Examples of a solar feature include a window or
windows that contain(s) at least 20 square feet of glazing oriented within 45 degrees east and west
of true south, a solar greenhouse, or a solar hot water heater. A solar feature may be used for
purposes in addition to collecting solar energy, including but not limited to serving as a structural
member or part of a roof, wall, or window. A south-facing wall without windows and without
other features that use solar energy is not a solar feature for purposes of this ordinance.
Solar gain line: A line parallel to the northern property line(s) of the lot(s) south of and
adjoining a given lot, including lots separated only by a street, that intersects the solar feature on
that lot (see Figure 7).
South or South Facing: True south, or 20 degrees east of magnetic south.
n h r : One or more photographs that plot the position of the sun between 10:30 am and 1:30
pm on January 21, prepared pursuant to guidelines issued by the [responsible official]. The
sunchart shall show the southern skyline through a transparent grid on which is imposed solar
altitude for a 45-degree and 30 minute northern latitude in 10-degree increments and solar azimuth
from true south in 15-degree increments.
Undevelonable area: An area that cannot be used practicably for a habitable structure, because
of natural conditions, such as slopes exceeding 20% in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or
west of true south, severe topographic relief, water bodies, or conditions that isolate one portion of
a property from another portion so that access is not practicable to the unbuildable portion; or man-
made conditions, such as existing development which isolates a portion of the site and prevents its
further development; setbacks or development restrictions that prohibit development of a given
area of a lot by law or private agreement or existence or absence of easements or access rights that
prevent development of a given area.
Page 2 - Solar Access Ordinance Definitions
Steering Comm'ee Final Draft Revisions (1111189)
f Figure 1
RAG FPCNT FRONT LOT LINE
LOT UNE
Figure 2
NORTHERN LOT LINE
4 < 45 degrees ` 1
1 t
I
NORTHERN
LOT LINE N E
LOT LINE
Figure 4
HEIGHT OF THE SHADE POINT OF THE STRUCTURE
If the ridgel-ute runs EAST-WEST
and the pitch is or flatter than 5 in 12:
SHADE POW - SAVE
If the ridgeline runs EAST-WEST
and the pitch is 5 in 12 or steeper.
SHADE POINT. RIDGE
i
Lossthan
5 in 12 Roof Pitch
SHADE POW -
EAVE
5 in 12 Roof Pitch
or more
SHADE POINT
RIDGE
ORTH-SOUTH RI SHADE
If the ridgeline runs NORTH-SOUTH POINT
` measure from the northernmost
point of the ridge, but reduce the
height measurement by three (3)
feet.
NORTH -0-
t
Figure 5
SHADE POINT HEIGHT
Measure to average grade at the front lot line.
SHADE POINT HEIGHT
Front lot line .
Figure 6
SHADE REDUCTION LINE
Shade Reduction Line
measured to Shade Point
from Northern Lot Line
f
Figure 8
SOLAR BALANCE POINT STANDARD
MAXIMUM SHADE POINT HEIGHT ALLOWED SHADE ON SOLAR FEATURE
Protecting your northern Locating your house
neighbor's sun to receive sun on
south windows
~ v .
v
i
v
v
N
c~.tnRANTEED
XY HEIGHT iv
W LOT CENTER
________T0•_______~
C,.
0•-~ 0-11011
Standard Side Setbacks
~5 Reduced Side Setbacks
SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS IF NEEDED
TO MEET SOLAR STANDARDS
C.
Figure 10
SOLAR LOT OPTION 2: PROTECTED SOLAR BUILDING LINE
t
N
Protected Solar Buildutg
Une within 30 degrees
of east west
At least 70' between solar
buffing One and middle
lot to the south. This vdp
ensure aWly to build two
t story house.
t
t
t
h
Figure 11
SOLAR ACCESS HEIGHT LIMIT
938 Scotts Avenue
ti Parcel A Parcel B Parcel C
944 938 932
`O -t 5' 1
---'2-25' North
V ----------30"----------
--Scotts Ave: 35'----------
---------------40'--------------
45'
---55'-
-60'------------
65*---------
-70'---
-75'------------
80. --Parcel D Parcel E Parcel F
aas 937 933
SCALE V s 100'
22.7* EAST & WEST OF
NORTH SOUTH AxIS
Figure 12
SHADOW PATTERN
Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland
503/684-1880 503/245-0530
15555 S.W. Bangy Rd., Suite 301 • Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Fax # 503/684-0588
August 7, 1990
Tigard Planning Commission
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Commissioners:
I regret that due to a scheduling conflict I will be unable
to attend your public hearing Tuesday evening on the model
solar access ordinances. I am writing to comment on the
Home Builders Association of Metroplitan Portland's (HBAMP)
experience with these ordinances.
The HBAMP participated thoroughly in the development of the
model ordinances, including the research effort, which
provided the foundation for the standards on which the
ordinances are based. We believe this level of
✓ participation from the development industry is critical to
the development of workable land use ordinances. Further,
we support the approach of developing regionally-uniform
development standards wherever feasible as a means of
reducing the costs of development to the private sector and
improving administrative efficiencies for local governments.
As you know, we are strong supporters of uniform road
standards for Washington County local governments for
precisely this reason.
While never anxious to increase the amount of regulation
imposed on new housing, we endorsed the model solar
ordinances because we were satisfied they would work in the
field. After nearly two years of implementation in several
jurisdictions, and some relatively minor finetuning
amendments, the evidence indicates that the ordinances work
as expected. The project has conducted an evaluation study,
which indicates that the ordinances require, on average,
very little administrative processing time. With due
respect to the project's evaluation study, however, I place
more credibility in my own evaluation system. My system is
based on the number of phone calls I get from angry
builders. My phone rings when local government actions
create nroblems for b"i liar--= T-Af, r,,r,,,=", --4-
generate phone calls. Should Tigard make t e policy
ci solar access protection program we
would encourage you to use these ordinances.
One final note: The State of Oregon is in the process of
updating its residential energy conversation code. A
proposed code developed by the Energy Conservation Board
(ECB) provides for energy savings credits for "sun tempered"
houses. The proposed code has been drafted so that these
energy savings credits would be relatively easy for a house
to achieve on a solar lot as defined in the model
ordinance's new development standard. The ECB's reaearch
indicates that these sun temgered_ houses would realize up-
front cost savings of between to
re uce i_nsu a ion requirements. We support integrating the
Spa an use ordinances and building codes in this
manner. Should the final code proposal, which the State
adopts include ECB's sun tempered paths the high percentages
of solar lots called for in the solar new development
ordinance could help to minimize cost impacts to builders of
higher insulation requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
arles Hales
Director of Governmental Affairs
CH/sb
r
Aug. 7, 1990 City of Beaverton
Ed Murphy, Director RECEIVED
Community Development Department n UG O 9
City of Tigard 199
P.O. Box 23397 OOMMUNITY
Tigard, OR 97223 OEyELOPMENt
RE.: Metro Solar Access Ordinances
Dear Ed:
As a member of the Steering Committee of the Portland-Vancouver Metro Solar
Access Project, I am pleased to hear that Tigard is now considering adoption of
the ordinances.
You asked me for information concerning administration of these ordinances
which I am happy to provide.
1. New Development - During the past two years that these ordinances have been
in effect in Beaverton, we have processed about 30 subdivisions. There was an
initial learning curve, but we have become more proficient in reviewing them,
cutting down our processing time. A report prepared by Benkendorf Assoc. in
June 1989 reported that, for the jurisdictions which had adopted the
ordinances, it took an average of 3.3 minutes/lot to review a subdivision under
the new development standard. We have bettered this average to about 1 minute
or less per lot with the use of a "solar protractor", or about one hour per
average subdivision. At times, we will have to spend more time on the solar
issue if a developer is asking for exemptions from the standards. In no case
has the solar review resulted in a delay by staff nor have we had to hire
additional staff to handle the workload.
2. Solar Balance Point (Infill) - The exact number of lots we have reviewed is
not available, but probably approaches 1,000 or more. This review is done by
our single family plans examiners and takes less than one minute per lot.
Initially, a few lots required major modifications to plans to meet the
requirements. Over time, however, designers and builders have become familiar
with the requirement and very few plans require more than very minor
modifications to a roof line or pitch or minor setback to achieve the
standard. Given that a single family plan review takes 2 - 4 hours overall,
the solar balance point review is insignificant.
3. Solar Access Permit - To date, only one permit has been processed in the
City under this ordinance, and it was successful. I believe it is only one of
two processed in the region so far, so it is difficult to determine its impact.
I
All in all, we have found the ordinances fairly easy to administer, getting
easier over time as both staff and the development community get used to the
standards and process. Since a lot of the builders in Tigard are the same as
those in Beaverton, and they have become familiar with the ordinance, your job
should be much easier.
4755 S.W. Griffith Drive, P.O. Box 4755, Beaverton, OR 97076, General Information: (503) 526-2222
An Equal Opportunity Employer
I hope this information is useful. If we can provide anything additional,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
Linda L. Davis, AICP
Director, Dept. of Planning & Building
c: Forrest Soth, Council President
Chair, Metro Solar Access Steering Committee
yn 18.42.020 Listing of Use Classifications
A. Residential Use Types:
5. Group Residential:
IW1MBIBIT 043"
Refers to the residential occupancy of living units by groups of
more than five persons who are not related by blood, marriage or
adoption, and where communal kitchen/dining facilities are
provided. Typical uses include occupancy of retirement homes,
boarding houses, cooperatives and halfway houses, but excluding
group care facilities as specified in Subsection 6 of this section;
6. [Group Care Residential:]
[Refers to services provided in facilities authorized, certified or
licensed by the state to provide board, room, and care to six or
more physically disabled, mentally disordered, mentally retarded,
handicapped persons, dependents or neglected children, but
excluding those uses classified under hospitals. Typical uses
include intermediate care facilities and institutions for the
mentally retarded and physically handicapped;]
Residential Care Facility:
Refers to services Provided in facilities licensed by the state to
provide board, room, and care to six or more mentally retarded;
developmentally disabled; mentally, emotionally, or behaviorly
disturbed; physically disabled or socially dependent residents;
alcohol or drug dependent persons or any combination of such
residents totaling six or more in one or more buildings on
contiguous properties. Excluded are those uses classified under
hospitals. Typical uses include intermediate care facilities and
institutions for the mentally retarded and Physically handicapped;
7. [Residential Care Facility:] Residential Treatment Home:
[A residence of five or fewer mentally or physically handicapped
with staff (need not be related);] A facility that provides for
five or fewer mentally emotionallv or behaviorally disturbed
individuals or alcohol or drug dependent Persons residential care
and treatment in one or more buildings on contiguous Properties
Supervisory staff are required for the operation of the facility.
8. Children's Day Care:
[Refers to services or facilities authorized, certified or licensed
by the state for children's day care of 13 or more children at any
one time for a period not to exceed 12 hours per day with or
without compensation. See Subsection it of this section;]
A day care facility operated with or without compensation that is
certified by the state to care for 13 or more children, or a
facility that is certified to care for 12 or fewer children and
located in a buildina constructed as other than a single family
dwelling Typical uses include nursery schools, preschools,_
kindergartens, child play schools, before or afterschool care
facilities or child development centers.
[9. Mobile Home:
Refers to a structure transportable in one or more sections, each
built on a permanent chassis and which is designed to be used for
permanent occupancy as a residential dwelling;]
[10. Manufactured Home:
Refers to a factory-fabricated transportable building which meets
the Uniform Building Code which is incorporated with similar
structures or units at a building site and used as a dwelling
unit;]
[11. Babysitting Service:]
[Refers to day care services for children if the compensation
therefor is paid directly by the parent or legal guardian or if the
service is provided without any compensation in either the home of
the parent or guardian or the home of the babysitter. A
babysitting service provides for care for not more than six
children for eight or more hours in a 24-hour period and the
service may be provided for not more than four other (part-time)
children for not more than three consecutive hours in a 24-hour
period. No more than a total of 10 children including the
babysitter's children can be present at any one time. Variation
from the above constitutes a day care facility. See Subsection 8
of this section;]
Includes two tunes of child care service: Family Day Care and
Group Day Care Home as defined by Oregon State Statute Family
Day Care refers to the provision of day care services for children
with or without compensation in the home of the caregiver. Family
Day Care may provide care for six or fewer children full-time, with
an additional four or fewer full-time or Dart-time children
During the school year, a family day care provider may care for
four additional day car children on days and during the hours
school is not in session. Such children must be at least an age
eligible for first grade During summer vacation a family day
care provider may care for four additional day care children of any
_age uP to a maximum of four hours per day. No more than a total
of 10 children including the Drovider•s own children may be
present at any one time.
A Day Care Group Home is care Provided in the home of the care
diver, with or without compensation for seven through 12 children
It is subiect to certification by the Children' Services Division
Variation from the above constitutes a Child Day Care Center. See
Subsection 8 of this section. For the purposes of this section
"full-time" is defined as eights or more hours in a 24 hour period
"Part-time" is defined as four or fewer hours in a 24-hour riod.
18.46.030 A.3
[Residential care facility] Residential Treatment Home
18.46.040 A.3
[Group care residential] Residential care facility
18.48.030 A.3
[Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home
18.48.040 A.3
[Group care residential] Residential care facility
18.50.030 A.3
[Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home
18.50.040 A.4
[Group care residential] Residential care facility
18.52.030 A.6
[Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home
18.52.040 A.4
[Group care residential] Residential care facility
18.54.030 A.5
[Group care residential] Residential care facility
18.54.030 A.8
[Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home
18.56.030 A.5
[Group care facilities] Residential treatment home
18.56.030 A.8
[Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home
18.58.030 A.6
[Group care residential] Residential care facility
18.58.030 A.9
[Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home
18.60.030 A.2.c
[Day care facilities] Children's day care
18.62.030 A.2.g
[Day care facilities] Children's day care
EXWBIT "C"
18.64.030 A.2.f
_ [Day care facilities] Children's day care
18.66.040 A.3
[Day care facilities] Children's day care
18.66.040 A.8
[Group care residential] Residential care facility
18.68.030 A.2.o(ii)
[Day care facilities] Children's day care
18.142.020 A.4.
[Babysitters] Family Day Care as defined in Subsection 18.42.020.A.[11]9 of
this title; and
DR/Resident
NT "Wr
C Chapter 18.84
SENSITIVE LANDS
Sections:
18.84.010 Purpose
18.84.015 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited, and
Nonconforming
18.84.020 Administration and Approval Process
18.84.025 Maintenance of Records
18.84.026 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas
18.84.028 General Provisions for Wetlands
18.84.030 Expiration of Approval: Standards of Extension of Time
18.84.040 Approval Standards
18.84.045 Exception for Development in the 108th/113th Ravine
[Significant Wetlands Areas] below the 140 Feet Elevation
[18.84.048 Significant Wetlands]
18.84.050 Application Submission Requirements
18.84.060 Additional Information Required and Waiver of Requirements
18.84.070 Site Conditions
18.84.080 The Site Plan
18.84.090 Grading Plan
18.84.100 Landscaping Plan
18.84.010 Purpose
C A. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development
because of their location within the 100-year floodplain, within
natural drainageway, within a wetland area, on steep slopes, or
on unstable ground.
8. Sensitive land areas are designated as such to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare of the community through the
regulation of these sensitive land areas.
C. Sensitive land regulations contained in this chapter are intended
to maintain the integrity of the rivers, streams, and creeks in
Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability,
maintaining and enhancing water quality, and fish and wildlife
habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreational
potentials.
D. The regulations of this chapter are intended to implement the
comprehensive plan and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
flood insurance program, and help to preserve natural sensitive
land areas from encroaching use and to maintain the September
1981 zero-foot rise floodway elevation.
1
E. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal
Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report
entitled "The Flood Insurance Study of the City of Tigard," dated
September 1, 1981, with accompanying Flood Insurance Maps
(updated February, 1984) is hereby adopted by reference and
declared to be a part of this chapter. This Flood Insurance
Study is on file at the Tigard Civic Center.
F. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in
accordance with Subsection 18.84.010.[H]E, the Director shall
obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation
and floodway data available from a federal, state or other
source, in order to administer Subsections 18.84.026.1 and J).
G. Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood
Insurance Study or from another authoritative source,
applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure
that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding.
The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use
of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past
flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two
feet above grade in these sensitive land areas may result in
higher insurance rates.
H. City actions under this chapter will recognize the rights of
C riparian owners to be free to act on the part of the City, its
Commissions, representatives and agents, and land owners and
occupiers.
1. For the purposes of this chapter, the word "structure" shall
exclude: children's play equipment, picnic tables, sand boxes,
shelters, grills, [and] basketball hoops and similar recreational
eauipment. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18_.84.015 Applicability of Uses: Permitted Prohibited and Nonconforming
A. Except as provided by Subsection 18.84.015.5, the following uses
are outright permitted uses within sensitive land areas:
1. Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens, or play areas, except
in wetlands:
2. Agricultural uses conducted without locating a structure
within the sensitive land area, except in wetlands;
3. Community recreation uses such as bicycle and pedestrian
paths or athletic fields or parks, excluding structures
except in wetlands;
2
4. Public and private conservation areas for water, soil, open
space, forest, and wildlife resources;
5. Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, blackberry, or other
noxious vegetation;
6. Maintenance of floodway excluding rechanneling; and
7. Fences, except in the [floodplain] floodwav area.
B. Separate permits shall be obtained from the appropriate community
development division for the following:
1. Installation of underground utilities and construction of
roadway improvements including sidewalks, curbs,
streetlights, and driveway aprons;
2. Minimal ground disturbance(s) but no landform alterations;
and
3. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing
structure or utility, the cost of which is less than 50
percent of the market value of the structure prior to the
improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided
no development occurs in the floodway.
C. Landform alterations or developments within wetland areas that
meet the iurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, Unified
Sewage Agency, and/or other federal state or regional agencies
do not require a sensitive lands permit All other applicable
City requirements must be satisfied including sensitive land
permits for areas meeting non-wetland sensitive land criteria
[C The Hearings officer shall grant a sensitive lands permit upon
review of requests for a land form alteration or development
within the 100-year floodplain.]
[D The following uses and activities are permitted only by a
sensitive lands permit granted by the Director: f°
1. A landform alteration or development on slopes of 25 percent
or greater and unstable ground;
2. Land form alteration or development of areas outside of the
100-year floodplain within a drainageway where there is
year-round water flow, unless:
t
3
a. The drainageway is proposed to be incorporated into a
public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum
water flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master
Drainage Plan.]
(E]D. A sensitive lands permit approval shall be obtained before
construction or development begins within any area of special
flood hazard or drainageway as established in Section 18.84.015.B
and C. The permit shall apply to all structures including
manufactured homes.
[F]E. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this
chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land areas.
[G]F. A use established prior to the adoption of this title, which
would be prohibited by this Chapter or which would be subject to
the limitations and controls imposed by this Chapter, shall be
considered a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses shall be
subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.132. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.
87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 84-36; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.020 Administration and Approval Process
A. The applicant for a sensitive lands permit shall be the recorded
owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the
owner.
B. A preapplication conference with City staff is required. (See
Section 18.32.040.)
C. Due to possible changes in state statutes, or regional or local
policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the
preapplication conference is valid for not more than six months:
1. Another preapplication conference is required if any
variance application is submitted more than six months after
the preapplication conference; and
2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information
required by this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of
the standard, criteria or requirements of the application.
D. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny an application for a sensitive lands permit [as set forth in
Section 18.84.015.C] within the 100 Year floodplain. The
Hearings officer's decision may be reviewed by the Council as
provided by Subsection 18.32.310.B.
4
C
E. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
application for a sensitive lands permit (as set forth in section
18.84.015.D.)for the following:
1. A landform alteration or development on slopes of 25 percent
or greater and unstable ground;
2. Landform alteration or development of areas outside the 100
year floodplain within a drainageway where there is year-
round water flow, unless the drainageway is proposed to be
incorporated into a public facility of adequate size to
accommodate maximum water flow in accordance with the
adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan;
3. Landform alteration or development on wetland areas that do
not meet the provisions of 18.84.015 C.
The decision made by the Director may be appealed to the
Commission as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.A.
F. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive
lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits
shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local
governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required.
G. The Director shall notify communities adjacent to the affected
area and the State Department of Land Conservation and
Development prior to any alteration or relocation of a
watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the
Federal Insurance Administration.
H. The Director shall require that maintenance is provided within
the altered and relocated portion of said watercourse so that the
flood-carrying capacity is not diminished.
1. The Hearings Officer and the Director shall apply the standards
set forth in Section 18.84.040 when reviewing an application for
a sensitive lands permit.
J. The Director shall give notice of applications to be heard by the
Hearings officer as provided by Section 18.32.130.
R. The Director shall mail notice of any sensitive lands application
decision to the persons entitled to notice under Section
18.32.120. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
5
18.84.025 Maintenance of Records
C A. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood
Insurance Study, the Building official shall obtain and record
the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the
lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially
improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a
basement.
B. For all new or substantially floodproofed structures, the
Building official shall:
1. Verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean
sea level); and
2. Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in this
chapter.
C. For all new or substantially floodproofed structures, the
Director shall:
1. Maintain for public inspection all other records pertaining
to the provisions in this chapter. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66;
Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.026 General Provisions for Floodvlain Areas
A. The appropriate approval authority shall review all permit
applications to determine whether proposed building sites will be
safe from flooding.
B. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be
constructed with materials and utilize equipment resistant to
flood damage.
C. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be
constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood
damage.
D. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning
equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or
otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from
entering or accumulating within the components during conditions
of flooding.
E. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system
in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Plumbing
Code.
6
F. All new construction, all manufactured homes and substantial
improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or
lateral movement of the structure.
G. New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be designed
to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the
systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters.
F
H. On-site water disposal systems shall be located to avoid
impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.
I. Residential Construction
1. New construction and substantial improvement of any
residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including
basement, elevated to or above base flood elevation; and
2. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject
to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to I
automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior R
walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters.
Designs for meeting this requirement must either be
certified by a registered professional engineer or
architect, or must meet or exceed the following minimum r
criteria:
a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of
not less than one square inch for every square foot of
enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided;
b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one
foot above grade; and
c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or
other coverings or devices, provided that they permit
the automatic entry and exit of flood waters.
J. Nonresidential Construction
}
1. New construction and substantial improvement of any
commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure
shall either have the lowest floor, including basement,
elevated to the level of the base flood elevation, or
together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities,
shall:
a. Be floodproofed so that below the base flood level the
structure is watertight with walls substantially
impermeable to the passage of water;
7
i
b. Have structural components capable of resisting
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of
buoyancy;
C. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or
architect that the design and methods of construction
are in accordance with accepted standards of practice
for meeting provisions of this subsection based on
their development and/or review of the structural
design, specifications and plans. Such certifications
shall be provided to the Building Official as set forth
in Subsection 18.84.025.B; and
d. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not
floodproofed, must meet the same standards for space
below the lowest floor as described in 18.84.026.1.2.
Applicants floodproofing nonresidential buildings shall
be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based
on rates that are one foot below the floodproofed level
(e.g., a building constructed to the base flood level
will be rated as one foot below that level). (Ord. 89-
06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32)
18.84.028 General Provisions for Wetlands
A. Wetland regulations apply to those areas meeting the definition
of wetland in Chapter 18.26 of the Community Development Code,
areas meeting Division of State Lands wetland criteria and to
land adiacent to and within 25 feet of a wetland. Wetland
locations may include but are not limited to those areas
identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for
the City of Tigard, Oregon", Scientific Resources Incorporated,
1990.
B. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps;
specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary._
18.84.030 Expiration of Approval: Standards of Extension of Time
A. Approval of a sensitive lands permit shall be void after one-and-
one-half years:
1. Unless substantial construction of the approved plan has
begun within a two-year period; or
2. If construction on the site is a departure from the approved
plan.
8
B. The original approval authority shall, upon written request by
the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension
of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that:
1. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by the
approval authority;
2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction of
the site within the one year extension period; and
3. There have been no changes in the facts or the applicable
policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was
based.
C. The decision of the approval authority may be reviewed by the
council as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.8. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.
87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.040 Approval Standards
A. The Hearings Officer shall [make findings that all of the
following criteria are satisfied when] approve[ing,] or
approve[ing] with conditions[, or denying] an application
request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that
all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the
floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot
rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the
floodway boundary;
2. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year
floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as
commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use
map, except that alterations or developments associated
with community recreation uses such as athletic fields,
children's play areas, or parks shall be allowed in areas
designated residential;
3. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to
occur within the floodplain it will not result in any
increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year
flood;
4. The land form alteration or development plan includes a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted
pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of
said pathway is deemed by the Hearings officer as untimely;
9
5. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that
no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual
flood;
6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of
Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall
be obtained; and
7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed
within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City
shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area
within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the
comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a
suitable elevation for the construction of a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in
accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan.
B. The Director shall [make findings that all of the following
criteria are satisfied when] approve[ing,] or approve[ing] with
conditions[, or denying] an application request for a sensitive
lands permit on slopes of 25 percent or greater or unstable
ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria
have been satisfied:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration x
or development will not create site disturbances to an
extent greater than that required for the use;
- 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability,
or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to
life or property;
3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to
ensure structural stability and proper drainage of
foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of
the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high
shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow
depth-to-bedrock; and
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form
alteration or development, the areas not covered by
structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to
prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100,
Landscaping and Screening.
10
C. The Director shall [make findings that all of the following
criteria are satisfied when] approve[ing], or approve[ing] with
- conditions[, or denying] an application request for a sensitive
lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of
the following criteria have been satisfied:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration
or development will not create site disturbances to the
extent greater than that required for the use;
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability,
or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to
life or property;
3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased;
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form
alteration or development, the areas not covered by
structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to
prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100,
Landscaping and Screening;
5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of
adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with
the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan.
C 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of
Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall
be obtained.
7. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed
within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City
shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area
within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a
suitable elevation for the construction of a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in
accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan.
(Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 86-08; Ord. 84-29;
Ord. 83-52)
11
D. The Director shall approve or approve with conditions an
• application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands
based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been
satisfied;
1. The proposed landform alteration or development is neither
on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on
the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is the
within 25 feet of such a wetland;
2. The wetland is not within the iuriediction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Oregon Division of State Lands, Unified
Sewage Agency or other federal, state of regional agency
that has regulatory iurisdiction over the wetland;
3. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or
development will not create site disturbances to an extent
greater than the minimum required for the use;
4. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage
which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have
been mitigated;
5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform
alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the
Surface Water Management program of Washington County must
be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious
surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in
accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening;
6. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have
been met;
7. The provisions of Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal, shall be
met. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
8. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and
Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open
Space policies of the comprehensive plan have been
satisfied.
18.84.048 Exception for Development of the 108th/113th Ravine (Significant
Wetlands Areal below the 140 Feet Elevation
12
1-
A. Under the sensitive lands permit process, the Director may allow
portions of the ravine at 108th and 113th, designated as a
significant wetlands area, to develop provided that all of the
following criteria are met:
1. All of the land (within the ravine) being considered for
development is less than 25 percent slope;
2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being
considered for development; and
[3. The provisions of Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal, shall be
met. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)]
3. Applicable provisions of Section 1S.84.040, Sensitive Lands
Approval Criteria shall be met
[18.84.048 Significant Wetlands]
[A. Development is prohibited within all areas designated as
significant wetlands on the Floodplain and Wetlands Map.
Development on property adjacent to significant wetlands shall be
done under the planned development section of the Community
Development Code. In addition, no development shall occur on
property adjacent to areas designated as significant wetlands on
the Floodplain and Wetlands Map within 25 feet of the designated
C wetlands area.]
18.84.050 Application Submission Requirements
A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director
and shall be accompanied by:
1. [Five] [c]Copies of the sensitive lands permit proposal and
necessary data or narrative which explains how the proposal
conforms to the standards, (number to be determined at the
preapplication conference) and:
[a. The site plan(s) and required drawings shall be on
sheets not exceeding 18 inches by 24 inches unless a
larger scale is approved by the Director;]
MR. The scale for the site plan(s) shall be a standard
engineering scale; and
13
[c)b. All drawings or structure elevations or floor plans
shall be a standard architectural scale, being 1/4 inch
by 1/8 inch to the foot;
2. A list of the names and addresses of all persons who are
property owners of record within 250 feet of the site; and
i
3. The required fee.
B. The required information may be combined on one map.
C. The site plan(s), data and narrative shall include the following:
1. An existing site conditions analysis, Section 18.84.070;
2. A site plan, Section 18.84.080;
3. A grading plan, Section 18.84.090; and
4. A landscaping plan, Section 18.84.100. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.
87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18_.84.060 Additional Information Required and Waiver of Requirements
A. The Director may require information in addition to that
required by this chapter in accordance with Subsection
18.32.080.A.
B. The Director may waive a specific requirement for information in
accordance with Subsections 18.32.080.B and C. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.
87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.070 Site Conditions
A. The site analysis drawings shall include:
1. A vicinity map showing streets and access points, pedestrian
and bicycle pathways, and utility locations;
2. The site size and its dimensions;
3. Contour lines at two-foot intervals for grades zero to ten
percent and five-foot intervals for grades over ten percent;
4. The location of drainage patterns and drainage courses;
5. The location of natural hazard areas including:
a. Floodplains areas (100-year floodplain and floodway);
14
C
t
f
b. Slopes in excess of 25 percent;
C. Unstable ground (areas subject to slumping, earth
slides or movement);
d. Areas having a high seasonal water table within 24
inches of the surface for three or more weeks of the
year;
e. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential, or as
defined by the Soil Conservation Service; and
f. Areas having severe weak foundation soils;
6. The location of resource areas as shown on the comprehensive
plan inventory map and as required in Section 18.84.035
including:
a. Wildlife habitat; and
b. Wetlands;
7. The location of site features including:
a. Rock outcroppings; and
b. Trees with six inches caliper or greater measured four
feet from ground level;
8. The location of existing structures on the site and proposed
use of those structures. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-
32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.080 The Site Plan
A. The proposed site development plan shall be at the same scale as
the site analysis plan and shall include the following
information:
1. The proposed site and surrounding properties;
2. Contour line intervals (see Section 18.84.070.A.3);
3. The location, dimensions, and names of all:
a. Existing and platted streets and other public ways and
easements on the site and on adjoining properties; and
15
b. Proposed streets or other public ways and easements on
the site;
4. The location and dimension of:
a. Entrances and exits on the site;
b. Parking and traffic circulation areas;
C. Loading and services areas;
d. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities;
e. Outdoor common areas; and
f. Utilities;
5. The location, dimensions, and setback distances of all:
'r
a. Existing structures, improvements, and utilities which
are located on adjacent property within 25 feet of the
site and are permanent in nature; and
e
b. Proposed structures, improvements, and utilities on the
site;
6. The location of areas to be landscaped;
7. The concept locations of proposed utility lines; and
8. The method for mitigating any adverse impacts upon wetland,
riparian, or wildfire habitat areas. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-
66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.090 Grading Plan
A. The site plan shall include a grading plan which contains the
following information:
1. Requirements in Sections 18.84.070 and 18.84.080;
2. The identification and location of the benchmark and
corresponding datum;
3. Location and extent to which grading will take place
indicating contour lines, slope ratios, and slope
stabilization proposals; and
16
C_
r
4. A statement from a registered engineer supported by factual
data substantiating:
a. The validity of the slope stabilization proposals;
b. That other off-site impacts will not be created;
i
C. Stream flow calculations;
G
d. Cut and fill calculations; and
e. Channelization measures proposed. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.
87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.100 Landscape Plan
A. The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale as the site
analysis plan, or a larger scale if necessary, and shall
indicate:
1. Location and height of fences, buffers, and screenings;
2. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and
common open spaces where applicable; and
3. Location, type, and size of existing and proposed plant
materials.
B. The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses:
1. Soil conditions; and
2. Erosion control measures that will be used. (Ord. 89-06;
Ord. 87-66; ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
17
0
1
2
3
4
s
6
e7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
18
19
20
21
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
H B 2863 D1.4 ~ L
,3&<z
sufliuent buildable land to satisfy that need.
(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not be construed as an infringement on a local govern.
ment's prerogative to:
(a) Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright;
(b) Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal; or
(c) Establish approval procedures.
(5) In the areas identified by the needs analysis conducted under subsection (3) of this
section, a jurisdiction nu►y adopt any or all of the following placement standards, or any less
restrictive standard, for the approval of manufactured homes located outside mobile home
parks:
~(~a)) The manufactured home shall be multisectional and inclose a space of not less thou
1,000 square feet.
(b) The manufactured home shall be placed on an excavated and back-filled foundation
and inclosed at the perimeter such that the manufactured home is located not more than
la inches above grade.
(c) The manufactured home shall have a pitched roof, except that no standard shall re-
quire a slope of greater than three feet in height for each 12 feet in width.
(d) The manufactured home shall have exterior siding and roofing which in color, mate-
rial and appearance is similar to the exterior aiding and roofing material commonly used on
residential dwellings within the community or which is comparable to the predominant ma-
terials used on surrounding dwellings as determined by the local permit approval authority.;
(e) The manufactured home shall I en t4fied- 4o have an exterior thermal envelope
meeting performance standards which reduce levels equivalent to the performance standards
required of single-family dwellings constructed under the state building code as defined in '
ORS 453.010
M The manufactured home shall have a garage or carport constructed of like materials.
A Jurisdiction may require an attached or detached garage in lieu of a carport where such
is consistent with the predondnant construction of immediately surrounding dwellings.
(g) In addition to the provisions in paragraphs (a) to (t) of this subsection, a city or
county may subject a manufactured home and the lot upon which it is sited to any develop-
ment standard, architectural requirement and minimum size requirement to which a con-
ventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject.
((5)) (6) Any approval standards, special conditions and the procedures for approval adopted by
a local government shall be clear and objective and shall not have the effect, either in themselves
or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay.
SECTION 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 197.303 (1) relating to periodic review, the
requirements of ORS 197.303 (1)(d) apply on January 1, , or a jurisdiction's next periodic
review, whichever comes first.
.AZ/
i
r
Proposed New Language: Sensitive Lands Wetlands G
18.84.020 Administration and Approval Process:
B. A preapplication conference with City Staff is required. If uncertainty
exists in regards to the location or configuration of wetland areas,
staff shall make an on-site inspection prior to an application being
initiated to determine the nature and extent of the resource. If
necessary, assistance from state and federal agencies shall be sought to
provide the applicant additional information.
C
August 27, 1990
Tigard City Council
~-F Cc~ Ala 7 /mod
The city of Tigard Planning staff has not conducted or presented
a "Needs" analysis for siting Manufactured housing on individual
lots. HB # 2863 ORS 197-307..."When a need has been shown for
housing at a particular price range and rent levels needed housing
shall be permitted in one or more zone districts with sufficient
buildpable land"
gy assumed a needs analysis was not done.
Housing from 1990-2010:
20 years = 2,000 additional Single Family lots
100 SF and ManH lots per year
According to the Technical Bulletin published by LCDC May 1990,forl,'10,111
Manufactured homes on individual lots 'Ahm;y LCDC used the following
standard methodobgy for Manufactured housing O;n lots. This
me t hodab
Since January 1990, Tigard has probably approved approximately 400-
500 New Single Family lots, subdivisions, infills,etc. Assuming
these will be included 36% is the Standard methodology without a
Needs analysis. If my math is correct this will be 144
Manufactured home lots. Just in the first 8 months of 1990.
Placing MH on ALL residential lots without regard to CC&R's will
place Benchview II, Bull Mt Estates, Summerlake, and others into
the same position I 36% Single Family lots to be Manufactured
Homes.
It appears that without a projected Needs ( which I believe
included both economic and land availablity), WHEN and HOW will the
City (Tigard) know we are above 36% below 36% QUOTA? Or it this
36% of what is NOT existing in the "Needs" analysis? This assumed
methodkgy from LCDC also assumes local municipalities have 50%
Multi-Family in Comp Plan. This 36% does not include Manv.Home Parks
and Subdivisions. The technical manual,t]Weused a top building
Lot price of $ 9,000. Can anyone find aA of in Tigard (4n Sewer for
$9.000.
The ONLY sited MHPark in Tigard is located in high rise development
plans without zoning district for mobile homes contrary to HB 2863
Who made the decision to site ManH, on any lot without a "Needs"
analysis?
In my opinion rushing
1/1/91 enforcement in
order to address the
should be forthcoming
or more districts not
thru the Mandate cf HB 2863 tonight to meet
unnessary when I feel a needed review is in
intent of this Bill. An Analysi,s~ of "Need"
from City of Tigard and also zon; ing for one
just ALL Single Family zone densities.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 {
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: August 27, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: 8116/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordinance PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
Amendment ZOA 90-0002 recommendation for approval !
PREPARED BY: Jerry Offer
DEPT HEAD CITY ADMIN OX&ZML REQUESTED BY:
Should the City amend the community Development Code to allow larger above
ground fuel storage tanks in industrial zones and in residential zones for home
heating oil or propane?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
i
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at a public hearing on August 7,
1990 recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The explanation of the
purpose of the amendment is described in the attached memo. In addition to the
memo, this packet includes a proposed ordinance with an exhibit illustrating
the amended wording of Chapter 18.108 of the Community Development Code.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
f
1. Approve the attached ordinance 1
i
2. Modify and approve the attached ordinance
3. Reject the amendment and direct staff to prepare a corresponding
resolution.
i;
FISCAL IMPACT
f.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the attached ordinance
i
ZOA90-02.SUM/kl
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Mayor Edwards and City Council Members
FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Dept. Director
DATE: August 17, 1990
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 90-0002
Staff has been contacted by several existing Tigard businesses and prospective
industrial developers regarding the possibility of installing above-ground fuel
storage tanks for the needs of their vehicle fleets. Chapter 18.104 of the
Community Development Code prohibits the installation of above-ground fuel
storage tanks with capacities greater than 60 gallons in all zoning districts.
Businesses seeking to install fuel storage tanks are caught between the City's
prohibition of above ground fuel storage tanks and increasingly strict federal
and state regulations on underground storage tanks. In addition, these
businesses face substantial difficulties relative to insuring underground
storage tanks. The increased concern with regard to underground fuel storage
tanks relates to the potential for groundwater contamination due to undetected
leakage.
After discussions with a representative of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
District regarding the District's
position on above-ground fuel storage tanks,
staff has decided to propose an amendment to allow above-ground fuel storage;
tanks of 6,000 gallons or less individually or 18,000 gallons in aggregate in i
all industrial zones in the City subject to Uniform Fire Code construction,
siting, and permit requirements. The proposed amendments would also allow
above-ground heating oil tanks as large as 300 gallons in all zoning districts
whereas the Code previously limited the size these tanks to a maximum of 60
gallons. The attached ordinance contains the proposed revisions for Code
Chapter 18.104. All additions are underlined and deletions are bracketed. The
revisions are intended to make the City's regulations consistent with the
Uniform Fire Code provisions for above-ground storage tanks.
br/JO:ZOA
o
Commissioner S, Jrta asked applicant why this i;^.e of sign size was not
addressed during design review. Applicant explained that he missed the
_
to have staff grant exception during design review.
o
Commiss r Boone stated he was inclined to accept staff's
recommends . n and vote against the sign code exception.
o
Commissioner Fess asked the applicant several questions about the
proposed dimensions. he discussed using the wall signs, and she
suggested they are more 'sible by motorists driving by.
o
Commissioner Barber stated she uld not have a problem granting the
exception and was not opposed to one-foot increase in height.
o
Commissioner Moen agreed with Commissio Fessler's comments and he
suggested using the freestanding sign to i tify the businesses located
in the center and using the wall signs to ide 'fy the end businesses.
*
Commissioner Moen moved, and Commissioner Leverett s nded to grant
Sign Code Exception (SCE 90-0003) to allow a 50% increa in sign area,
to reject the sign height variance, and to include the co 'tions
suggested by staff in Section C of the Staff Report.
*
Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Commissioners present.
5.4
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 90-0002 FUEL TANKS (ALL NPO'S)
A request for Zone Ordinance Amendment approval to allow above-ground
fuel storage tanks of 4,000 gallons or less in industrial zoning
districts. Above-ground fuel storage tanks are currently limited to
less than 60 gallons. ZONES: I-P (Industrial Park), I-L (Light
Industrial), H-L (Heavy Industrial)
o
Senior Planner Liden advised that these revisions would bring Tigard's
regulations into compliance with the Fire District's code. He said
there were changes to definitions, some allowances for above-ground home
heating fuel tanks, and an allowance for above-ground tanks in
industrial areas. He explained the DEQ regulations for in-ground fuel
storage tanks have been implemented to address the problems with leakage
and ground contamination. He said it is easier to monitor leakage in
above-ground tanks.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
i
There was none.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Moen expressed opposition to above-ground tanks of 6,000
gallons for safety reasons.
o Commissioner Saporta was concerned about containment in the event of an
accidental spill.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1990 PAGE 9
o Commissioner Leverett commented that small business operators cannot
afford to carry the expensive insurance required to cover possible
_ contamination clean up operations. He said tanks are now designed to be
safer and to limit potential fire hazard.
o Commissioner Moen commented that fire safety is addressed, but
aesthetics should be addressed.
o Commissioner Saporta discussed the need to look at the DEQ's and EPA's
regulations pertaining to this issue. There was discussion of these
regulations and application process.
o Commissioner Boone commented that the trend is to protect the ground
from contamination by removing leaking tanks.
o Commissioner Fessler agreed with Commissioner Boone, but she questioned
what the maximum tank size should be.
o Commissioner Barber reported that NPO #3 suggested including definitions
of Class I, II, and III flammable liquids as part of the ordinance. She
said NPO i#3 also suggested that adequate screening to be required in all
zones. She said she disagreed with the NPO about defining flammable
liquid classifications, because those working with flammable liquids and
with the ordinance are familiar with the standard classifications.
o Commissioner Fyre discussed the safety issue and said he was generally
t in favor of the amendment.
* Commissioner Leverett moved, and Commissioner Boone seconded to
recommend to Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 90-0002.
* There was discussion with Commissioner Moen suggesting that if this
amendment failed, he would be in favor of treating above-ground tanks as
conditional use, or having the request heard before the hearings officer.
* Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
o A letter dated July 30, 1990, was received from Beverly Hawley
concerning Fyrestone development. Senior Planner Liden reported that
Community Development Code, Fire District requirements, and utilities
dictated that more trees be cut than developer wanted. He said there
was a tree cutting permit granted to the developer, but the file copy
had been misplaced. He said he walked the property with the developer;
and an arborist was retained who recommended removing some alders which
were in declining condition.
11:10 Commissioner Leverett left.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1990 PAGE 10
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. U/
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
DEPT HEAD OX
PREPARED BY: Ron Bunch, Sr.Planner
REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, Community
Development Director
POLICY ISSUE
Should the City Council resolve to initiate map amendments to the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map to:
a) Add a loop off of Highway 99 W to Tigard Street to enhance access to
the downtown area.
b) Delete the Tigard/Burnham Connection.
C) Further refine alignment of collector streets in the area between
Gaarde Street and 121st Avenue and Walnut Street and 135th Avenue.
d) Delete the proposed extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham to Walnut and
Highway 99W and from Hunziker and Hall Streets and extend Ash Avenue
from Burnham to Hill Street
INFORMATION SU141ARY
Highway 99W/Tigard Street Loop.- This improvement will improve access to the
downtown. It is important for the City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map
to show this improvement in order for ODOT to consider it as part of the
99 W/Main to Pfaffle Street Project. The Plan amendment process needs to begin
now since ODOT plans to complete the environmental impact statement for the 99W
project by Spring, 1991.
Tigard Burnham Connection: The failure of the downtown renewal district casts
doubt on the feasibility of this project.
Refined Alignment of Collector Streets Between Gaarde/121st and Walnut /135th:
The adoption of alignment concepts in this area will require an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map.
Ash Avenue: Conditions which have arose since voter disapproval of tax
increment financing for the downtown renewal district have made it necessary to
reconsider alignment plans for Ash Avenue.
It is anticipated to take the above Transportation Plan amendments to the
Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO's) in September and October, 1990, and
then take them to the Planning Commission in November, 1990. The City Council
would then receive them in either December, 1990 or January, 1991.
AGENDA OF: August 27, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: Auoust 16, 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolutions to ini- PREVIOUS ACTION: These issues were
tiate man amendments to the Tigard considered by the Council at a July 2
-
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1) Not to initiate amendments to the Transportation Map for any of the above
four roadways and not take any other action. 2) Decide to prioritize the above
roadways for map amendment, do the most important now, and do others, in order
of priority, at a later date. 3) Initiate the amendments at a later date after
conducting preliminary studies and evaluating community concerns.
maasaaaaaaaasaaasaxaaaamoaaasasaaaaaxaooxasaamaaoaxaasax
sxaxr aaaaaaasaaaacaaaxaa
FISCAL IMPACT
Substantial staff time will be required.
_ aoacaaaaox~aaaaxaaaaoxxa_~aaaax---
--~aoaaoxaaaaxxaaaoa~axxa~xaxaaxxa~aaaxcxcxxcxxx
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the resolutions to initiate Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map
amendments for the above four projects. The City Council may wish to consider
providing staff additional direction by prioritizing the above amendments.
rb/ccroad6.rb9
tl
e
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -e eLs4
RESOLUTION NO
i
A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION MAP TO FURTHER REFINE ALIGNMENT OF COLLECTOR STREET(S) IN THE
AREA BETWEEN GAARDE STREET AND 121ST AVENUE AND WALNUT STREET AND 135TH AVENUE.
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City of Tigard to amend its Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Map to address the need for more refined alignment concepts for
collector(s) in the area between Gaarde Street and 121st Avenue and Walnut
Street and 135th Avenue.-
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council to:
Initiate an amendment to further refine the alignment of collector street(s) in
the area between Gaarde Street and 121st Avenue and Walnut Street and 135th
Avenue.
PASSED: This day of , 1990
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
rb/resgards.rb