10/04/2004 - Packet • Completeness
Review for Boards,
Commissions and
Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
Planned Unit Development Committee
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
October 4,2004
Date of Meeting
To the best of my knowledge these documents are a complete copy of the official record.
C.L. W lcy
Print Name
Signature
2/19/20113
Date
PD REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
October 4, 2004
Tigard Town Hall
7:00-9:00 p.m.
Agenda
1. Roll Call 7:00-7:05
2 Adoption of September 7, 2004 Minutes 7:05-7:20
3. Discussion: Proposed Code Changes 7:20-8:45
4. Additional Agenda Items 8:45-9:00
Planned Development Review Committee
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COUNM-ME MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7,2004
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
1. Roll Call
Staff Liaison, Morgan Tracy welcomed the group and opened the meeting at 7:10
p.m. Mr. Tracy called roll.
2. Adoption of May 3 Minutes
The committee reviewed the May 3, 2004 minutes. John Frewing moved to adopt
the minutes, Alice Ellis-Gaut seconded. Minutes were approved unanimously with
Gretchen Buehner and David Walsh abstaining as they were not in attendance at
that meeting.
3. Discussion: Brainstorming Code Revisions
The committee discussed its boundaries in the code amendment process and how
differing opinions would be represented. Staff noted that initially all ideas will be
entertained, a strategy for code amendments would be developed and if needed, a
request to City Council to expand the scope of the committee's review would be
presented. Dissenting opinions would be represented in the final report to Planning
Commission for their consideration in recommending a course of action to City
Council for ultimate adoption.
Members of the committee opined that changes to the Planned Development
ordinance were premature before comp plan changes were adopted, and that PD
reviews be suspended until the comp plan is updated. The committee recognized
that in the interim, unimaginative subdivisions will likely result, and difficulties in
creating plans for those sites that the standard rules don't fit.
The discussion then turned to the specifics of the current PD ordinance. It was noted
that there is not a lot of opportunities to accomplish the goals of planned
developments on small parcels. The code is also generally lacking in detail the types
of amenities it seeks. The committee suggested a statement of objectives be included.
Under the assumption that a planned development should result in a product that is
better than a standard development, the community at large should be benefited.
The following items were offered as suggestions:
(V`` Off site mitigation, specific architectural features that are "green" or environmentally
conscious, an open space requirement rather than recommendation, long term
maintenance assurances of common tracts, landscaping bonuses, energy efficient
building, architectural themes, public dedications.
Staff suggested developing a "toolbox" for planning commissioners to use in
assessing the general public benefit of a proposed PD. The toolbox would be a list or
score card of different amenities, not all of which would need to be present in the
PD, but would guide decision makers whether the threshold for granting deviations
1
Planned Development Review Committee
from the standards is warranted. The toolbox would not be part of the code, malting
it simpler to add to and modify as circumstances or technologies change, but would
be acknowledged by City Council, and available to potential applicants. If properly
developed, this checklist would give Commissioners the tools to review PD proposals
with a fair degree of uniformity with sufficient flexibility and discretion to obtain a
unique product. If a proposal did not rise to the level of meeting enough criteria, the
applicant would still have the option of undergoing a standard subdivision.
Staff handed out a list of other Oregon cities' development code websites, and
convened the meeting by requesting that the committee members provide suggestions
for either code specific changes or ideas for the toolbox.
5. Next meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Staff adjourned the
meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Meeting Attendees:
Committee Members: Gretchen Buehner,John Frewing, David Walsh, Alice
Ellis-Gaut, Ron Ellis-Gaut.
Absent: Sue Beilke, Scott Sutton, Bill McMonagle, Charles Schwarz
Staff: Morgan Tracy, Dick Bewersdorff
Distributed: 10/04/04
2
List of possible rankings M
A "toolbox" primer or��n s (min
Size of the proposed site
Average lot size of adjacent developments (or abutting lots)
Access to the site's Road Classification
Distance to school
Distance to park
Distance to transit stop or route S��h
Distance to neighborhood shopping center
Distance to regional shopping center
Distance to major employment center
Distance to child care
Provision for automatic sprinkler systems
Provisions for the elderly or handicapped housing marketv�,�r
Energy Conservation measures beyond standard UBC/ICBO (Earth
advantage/LEED)
ercentage of project cost spent on neighborhood public transit
improvements
Percentage (square footage?) of Resource Protection Open Space Provided
Percentage (square footage?) of Useable Open Space Provided
Reduction in building site coverage from std./increase in landscaping
Density bonus possibilities:
Provisions for Low and Moderate Income Housing
Off site traffic improvements (beyond the nexus) e.g. contributions towards
intersections, bridges, road alignment, utility undergrounding off site,
signals, etc. that are not directly tied or required to offset impacts from the
proposed development.
Provision of school property or fee in lieu per unit.
Provision of fire station site or fee in lieu per unit.
Storm drainage - Off site improvements to alleviate existing flooding issues.
Public Recreation Facilities (trail system, playfield, or capital contribution
for parkland or open space acquisition, other facilities such as swimming
pools, tennis or basketball courts)
Morgan Tracy- Planned Development Code Changes Pae 1
8
From: "John Frewin9 1frewin9tele
ort.com
><—
J
T - "Morgan Tracy" <Mor an ci. i ard.or.us>
Date: 6/20/2004 8:32:17 PM
Subject: Planned Development Code Changes
Morgan:
I am concerned that our Planned Development Code Change committee is going nowhere. In our two
meetings to date, we have barely scratched the surface of purpose and problems with the Tigard Planned
Development Code. You may truly be too busy to work on this committee.
I propose that at our next meeting, the following specific changes to Chapter 18.350 and its derivitive
sections of the TCDC be considered. If we can get a majority vote for these changes, we will have made
at least some progress, pending the longer term revision of the comp plan and its impact on planned
developments.
Please forward this proposal to other committee members so they can consider the changes before our
next meeting and copy me so i can see that others have a copy. Of course specific input from others on
the committee should also be considered. Please provide committee members with the forms or
requirements referenced at 18.350.090.A.4 and 18.350.090.13, where it is stated that the Director has
more detailed requirements for a planned development.
Thanks, John Frewing
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CHANGES
For TCDC 18.350.090, add "lot coverage, landscaping area, open space area, location of buildings,
streets, parking configuration, utility easements, landscaping or other site improvements". This is
necessary information to allow determination of compliance with 18.350.030.B.1.
For TCDC 18.350.100.A, restate as "The provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, are not
applicable to conceptual plans for a Planned Development. Chapter 18.360 is applicable to detailed
development plans for a Planned Development" to clarify the different requirements between conceptual
and detailed development plans under Chapter 18.350.
For TCDC 18.350.110.A.1, restate as "The area to be designated as open space and the proposed
conveyance documents of subsection 2 below shall be submitted as part of the detailed development
plan." This will clarify the sequence of information submittal for open space. In subsection 2.b, the city
attorney's review and approval of the terms of conveyance should be stated as a requirement for approval
of the detailed development plan under Chapter 18.350.
For TCDC Table 18.510.2, define Maximum Lot Coverage for larger lot sizes as follows: "20%, 30%, 40%
and 50%" respectively for R1, R2, R3 5 and R4.5 residential zones to recognize that Tigard's
comprehensive plan desires that such lots retain natural features wherever possible.
Morgan Tracer Planned Develo ment Code Chan es W K Page 2
For TCDC 18.715.020.A.1.c, add "including surface water drainage channels, water quality treatment
facilities and retention ponds, swales and associated dedicated tracts"to recognize that these areas are
not able to be developed.
For TCDC 18.715.020.A.2, add "and privately held dedicated open space"to recognize that such space,
as dedicated to a homeowners association, is not able to be developed.
For TCDC 18.715.020.3, delete"When information is not available . . . . (to end of section)" in recognition
that all detailed development plans are required to show(preliminary plat information)all land dedicated
for public rights of way.
For TCDC 18.715.020.A.4, add"including sidewalks and planter strips"to recognize that these areas are
not able to be developed.
CC- "Jim Hendryx" <jimh@ci.tigard.or.us>
Morgan Tracy-Help from an architect Pa e
OFA
From: "John Frewing" <jfrewing@teleport.com> `
To: "cpaddock" <cpaddock@viclink.com>
Date: 9/21/2004 2:38:23 PM
Subject: Help from an architect
Carol,
I am on a committee to suggest changes to Tigard's planned development ordinance. You are the one
person who suggested an alternative development pattern for Ash Creek Estates which had less impact
on trees, topography and natural features. One item that has come up in our committee is that the city
should perhaps provide some kind of idea list for developers to use in designing their homes/layout such
that they meet the goals of the city, namely to use'innovative planning practices'which will result in a
'superior living arrangement'. At another point, planned developments are to'maximize the opportunities
for innovative and diversified living environments'. The regulations require and applicant to submit'a
statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular
approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include a description of'the character of the
proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant.'
So I need some help compiling a list of the above items(I want to be constructive and suggest something
rather than just complain all the time). I hope to distribute this to all other committee members before our
next meeting on October 4. Please think outside the box!!
What are'innovative planning practices'?
a. sustainable neighborhood
b. solar access emphasis
c. child-centered development
d. disabled accessible development
e. transit-oriented development
f. creative use of concrete& steel
g. natural wood appearances thruout
h. open space(both developed and not developed)
i. add some more!!!
What are diversified living environments?
a. Mediterreanean style neighborhood
b. Vertical oriented housing and views
c. BC Rainforest styled neighborhood
d. Bungalow/craftsman styled neighborhood
e. Ultramodern housing styles
f. Commune living
g. Classical Greek designs
h. English Tudor cottages
i. The ultimate hi tech neighborhood
j. Only for the physically fit and fitness addicts
k. Oriental homeland
I. Soviet style apartment living
m. Quiet at all costs
n. add some more!!!!!
What are some'planning objectives and approaches' as noted above?
a. single story neighborhood for accessibility
b. no lawns
c. high end professionally kept grounds and building exteriors
d. no automobiles visible outside of buildings
e. a bicycle-oriented access system
f. a water-oriented view for all
Morgan Tracy- Help from an architect Page Z.
-f
g. golfing lifestyle development
h. a 'mountain lodge' environment
i. lowest cost living
j. privacy a premium
k. an international flavor of different designs (from swiss chalets to tongan grass huts)
I. add some more !!!!!
And finally what might be a couple sample'character of the development and rationale behind the
assumptions and choices made by developer'
a. Portland has a reputation for some environmentally sensitive activities. This neighborhood will be self-
sustaining as much as possible and more than any other neighborhood in the metro area. As a result, we
will accept capital and operating cost penalties in the range of 20 percent. We will use recycled material,
reuse water and organic waste through composting systems and common garden areas, use permeable
pavement, provide common space for a day care facility and provide bikeways from the site to shopping
centers (including the construction of bikeways for the 10 blocks to the nearest shopping center). We
think there is a market for this development because much of the economic growth in the metro area
comes from people relocating from much more expensive California homes who work in the hi tech
professions and are sensitive to the environment.
b. add some more"'.
Thanks very much, John Frewing
CC: "Sandi Savage" <Sandi10S@comcast.net>, "Alice Gaut" <aeg@csgpro.com>, "Ron
Gaut" <rcg@csgpro.com>, "Sue Beilke" <sbeilke@europa.com>, "Brian Wegener"
<brian@tualatinriverkeepers.org>, "Lisa Hamilton-Treick" <Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup.com>, "Morgan
Tracy" <Morgan@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Dick Bewersdorff' <DICK@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Jim Hendryx"
<jimh@ci tigard.or.us>
Page 1 of 1
Morgan Tracy - Tigard Community Development Changes to Achieve Purposes of Planned
Developments
From: "John Frewing" <jfrewing tele ort.com>
To: "Morgan racy < organ(aci.tigard.or.us>
Date: 9/18/2004 5:22:33 PM
Subject: Tigard Community Development Changes to Achieve Purposes of Planned Developments
Morgan: I previously sent you some TCDC changes on June 20 and 21 which I propose that the Planned
Development Review Committee approve in order to achieve the stated purposes of planned developments in
Tigard. I assume that you have forwarded those items to all committee members for consideratin at our next
meeting on October 4. Below are listed some additional items which will ensure that adequate information is
contained in an application to apply the more general and subjective approval criteria of the code. Please ensure
that committee members have all these suggestions well in advance so we can discuss them on October 4.
A 18.350.020 D. Modify this requirement to state that the conceptual plan an detailed development plan shall not
be heard concurrently, but shall require separate applications. This is necessary to allow evaluation of the
concept, purpose, general objective of the planned development in relation to its surroundings, etc. before getting
mired down in the cost and detail of the required plans.
B 18.350.010 A. Add the qualifying statement that the PD process applies only to developments with more than
5 acres of net developable land. This is necessary because only parcels of this size offer the opportunity of
providing public benefits while still accomodating housing development and this will prevent a development from
using the PD process only for the purpose of avoiding other subdivision requirements.
C 18.350.090 and 18.350.110. Preface these two sections with a statement that submittal of the information
requirements are approval criteria because the required information is necessary to apply other more general
approval criteria of 18.350. Clarify that the conveyance requirement of 18.350.110 must be submitted with
evidence of city attorney approval at the conceptual design stage of PD application.
D 18.350.090. Add a requirement that the impact study for a PD must be submitted as part of the conceptual
design stage.
E. 18.350.100.B.3.h regarding public transit should require that for PD, because of their larger size and because
of their avoidance of some normal development requirements, the applicant shall propose the development of
sidewalks for at least 25%of the distance between the development and existing public transit service. An in-lieu
fee, of an amount estimated by Tigard to make this development with Tigard funds can be offered as an
alternative.
F 18.350.090 should be supplemented by providing examples of amenities, design approaches, objectives,
rationales behind assumptions and choices which might be made by applicant. This can be considered a 'toolbox'
for assistance to applicants. A requirement should be added to identify a characteristic architecture for the
development, to be extended to street and landscape features in the design. A requirement for the narrative to
address the purposes of a PD as outlined in 18.350.010(identifying specific design features which promote each
purpose)should be added to this section.
G 18.350.100 B 3 a (1)should be clarified to state that this standard anticipates the use of cluster housing,
smaller houses, multi-level housing structures, beneath grade parking and up to a 30 percent reduction in density
requirements in most situations. Only where it is shown that Tigard is not meeting its multi-year housing density
obligation as required by regional planning can the 30 percent reduction in density be waived. This same section
should require the applicant to identify trees of community significance, whether it be by species, size, age or
historical association, and dedicate such tree areas as common open space with the maintenance requirements
of the homeowners association or other conveyance vehicle (110).
John Frewing Sept 18, 2003
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Morgan\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HT... 10/4/2004
Mor an Trac -PD Com mittee4Recommendations s Page 1
0
From: "Ron Ellis Gaut'<roneg@csgpro.com> �
To: <Morgan@ci.tigard.or.us>
Date: 10/3/2004 9:25:45 PM
Subject: PD Committee Recommendations
Greetings Morgan,
I regret to inform you that I will not be able to attend the PD
Committee meeting tomorrow evening due to a schedule conflict. However,
I want submit to you and the other committee members my thoughts and
recommendations for consideration. I hope you consider these
recommendations and facilitate discussion with the committee members. I
look forward to hearing how these recommendations were received by the
committee.
Regards,
- Ron
The Purpose statement of the PD code provision (Section 18.350.010) is
of obvious importance when it comes to interpreting and enforcing the
existing code. It is therefore essential that, as we are proposing
changes to the PD code, we revise the Purpose statement.
The Purpose, as currently defined, is problematic in that it does not
clearly and adequately articulate the intent behind, or justification
for, approving planned developments. It lacks clarity of intent, and as
a result, inhibits clear and consistent interpretation. When the defined
purpose for PDs is ambiguous and confusing, how is it possible to know
if the end result fulfills the purpose?The authors of the current code
may have intended to be ambiguous, believing that this allows for more
discretion on the part of the approving body. However, this ambiguity,
and the uncertainty it creates, is not useful.
In my view, the Purpose statement should strongly convey a specific
intent for why PDs make sense, and thus, should reflect the goals and
objectives that will benefit the primary stakeholders. Put another way,
the Purpose should be clear about the expected benefits for the intended
beneficiaries. While the overall policy behind PDs, and for that matter
development in general, is better left for the Comp Plan or other policy
documents, if PDs are intended to provide exceptions to standard code
provisions, the justification for doing so should be based strictly on
benefits to the primary stakeholders.
Mor an Trac - PD Committee Recommendations Pa e
So who are the primary stakeholders the PD code should serve? Certainly
the citizens of Tigard as a whole are primary. Additionally, adjacent
neighborhoods, future residents of PDs would seem to be primary
stakeholders. Non-primary stakeholders, but stakeholders non-the-less,
are property owners and developers. These non-primary stakeholders
interests cannot be ignored, but cannot take precedence over the primary
stakeholders.
So what is the compelling concept behind Planned Developments? Simply
defined, the end results should be better than what would be otherwise
attainable through the standard code provisions. If one agrees with this
simplified summary of the concept, the Purpose (section 18.350.010)
should be completely rewritten so that a PD will only be approved if
there are clear benefits for the primary stakeholders.
The newly defined Purpose should clearly define the who is included in
the group of primary stakeholders. While the desired benefits of the PD
will necessarily include subjective measures, overall the purpose should
be unambiguous with regard to desired outcomes and stakeholder benefits.
Another idea worth considering with regard to the Purpose statement is
to make explicit that which is not part of the purpose for PDs. For
example, a PD is not a vehicle for making a development project more
profitable by increasing density, nor is it intended to be used to make
"hard to develop sites" developable.
As a starting point for redefining the purpose for PDs, it is necessary
to evaluate and critique the existing Purpose statements. Provide below
are the statements contained within 18.350.010 along with some issues
and questions worthy of discussion:
1. To provide a means for creating planned environments
through the application of flexible standards, i.e., zero-lot lines,
narrower streets, and other innovative planning practices which will
result in a superior living arrangement,
(The first question is why? Why do we need a means for doing this?)
2 To facilitate the efficient use of land-,
Mor an Trac -PD Committee Recommendations Pa e 3
(What defines efficient use? From whose perspective should this be
evaluated?)
3. To promote an economic arrangement of land use, buildings,
circulation systems, open space, and utilities;
(What is an economic arrangement, and why should we promote it?)
4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing
landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning
procedure that can relate the type and design of a development
to a particular site; and
(This sounds like a good idea, but if the preservation is not to the
greatest extent possible, then should we deny the PD? How does one
assess the"greatest extent possible"and what are the criteria?What
are the means within our current planning process that can answer this
question?)
5. To encourage development that recognizes the relationship
between buildings, their use, open space, and access ways and
thereby maximizes the opportunities for innovative and
diversified living environments.
(This also sounds good, but what is lacking is an explanation of
intended benefits for stakeholders, i.e., the citizens of Tigard.
Implied is an inherent benefit in"innovative"and "diversified living
environments" but what does this really mean?What is the baseline from
which you measure innovative and diversified?)
In summary, I agree with all of John Frewing's recommendations for
changes to the PD code, particularly with regard to the process for
concept plan approval. I feel strongly, however, that without a clear
purpose defined for approving a PD in the first place, the Planning
Commission and Planning Director do not have clear direction and
understanding of intent from which to correctly interpret and apply the
code. So in addition to modifying other details of the code, 1 recommend
that if we do nothing else, we overhaul the Purpose.
Morgan Trac PD Committee Recommendations Paq&4'
Ron Ellis Gaut
Manager, Consulting Services
CSC Professional Services, Inc.
hftp://www.csgpro.com
CC: <aeg@csgpro.com>, <rcg@csgpro.com>, <sbeilke@europa.com>, <bill@h-mc.com>,
<ccnm schwarz@msn.com>, <David.Walsh@spnewsprint.com>, <jfrewing@teleport.com>,
<s.a.sutton@verizon.net>, "'Dick BewersdorfP" <DICK@ci.tigard.or.us>, "'Jim Hendryx
<jimh@ci.tigard.or.us>
�yr�F2
HARRIS - McMONAGLE ASSOCIATES INC.
ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS
12555 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD OREGON, 97223
TEL. (503) 639-3453 FAX. (503) 639-1232
MEMO TO: Morgan Tracy
SUBJECT: PD Code Revisions
DATE: 10-04-04
A-18.350.020 D,Under"B"the overlay plan and the concept plan most likely need to be heard together as provided for in"D".
You must know the concept to make the decision weather to allow the PD overlay zone.The detailed development plan is the
result of the approval of the first two.I do not find any reference where the concept and detailed plan can be heard together.
Once the concept plan is approved then under"E"the overlay zone and the preliminary plat can be heard concurrently,and I do
not see any pit falls in this process.
B 18.350.010 A,I do not see any rational reason to make 5 acres the minimum number. As infill occurs and taking into
consideration the constraints placed upon the lands in many cases it is necessary to go beyond the base subdivision code to
functional utilize the land.Examples would be town homes in an R-5 zone.Private streets with more than 6 units served.
Special modifications to the road standards to provide for a public road connection to other lands.The whole purpose of the PD
concept to get away from the cookie cutting approach. If you make it to difficult then no one will do it.
1 received an e-mail from Ron Ellis Gaut.He advocates defining the PD code in such a manner that in my view eliminates the
whole purpose of the PD code. Ron speaks about primary stakeholders being those other than the property owners and or
developers.This term"Stakeholder"is being misused,please consult Blacks Law Dictionary for the proper definition.While
the City may be considered as the citizen's representative through the land use regulation process, it would be a far cry to
involve all people in the City as Stakeholders.
C 18.350.090 and.110.I would agree that a clarification may help.
D 18.350.090 I would agree that a clarification may help.
E 18.350.100 B.All Pd sites may not be large ones;the use of the term avoidance is not true. In almost all cases the same
development items are utilized in a PD,they just may be of a different configuration,size,number of units etc. The idea of
providing for sidewalks offsite and or a fee in lieu of should be added to the standard development code as mitigation for an
impact of development.
F 18.350.090,suggests that examples of amenities etc.etc.be listed.These items are discussed in 18.350.100 Approval Criteria
and seems to cover the basic question.As a project is submitted certain elements are needed and others are not depending on
the type of project involved.As housing types and commercial development evolves the specifics need to be left out of the
code and simply become a matter does the proposal address the concerns of the site and the functional requirements and
impacts of the specific neighborhood.
G 18.350.100 B 3 a(1)The present zoning code takes care of these issues.The Density of the PD overlay zone is governed by
the underlying zone.Additional density may be utilized based on the proposal and for the most part the market dictates the size
of the lots. If this proposal is to eliminate the 80%density rule then this may not be the vehicle to do it.
As far as community trees or a given tree is concerned if the city was to map those trees and modify the various planning
documents and hold the necessary hearings then the development community could be aware of just which trees they would
have to contend with during the preliminary development phase.
In further addressing Ron's statements,the following.
If a PD is going to be expected to accommodate additional improvements and or set aside additional ground,it sure had better '
be profitable or nothing will be done. Ron states that the PD concept should not be used to make"hard to develop sites"
developable,when in fact that is one of the primary reasons to have a PD is to provide a method to use these marginal lands to
the best extent possible.
To address the statements that Ron presents on page 2 of his letter would take quite a while and involve a detailed knowledge
of land use planning.
Bill McMonagle
BILL
Mor an T22L-Alice1 PD COmments.doc WPa e 1
Alice's PD Thoughts
Refine Purpose to be specific about what we expect from PDs,(including,but not
limited to, overall desirable characteristics for residential development generally(in
anticipation of eventual re-drafting of the entire CDC, in which general provisions should
be echoed&reinforced):e.g.,creative/innovative/progressive, non-repetitive, non-linear,
aethetically pleasing,environmentally sustainable(low impact, low maintenance, green
building, designs that mimic&harmonize with natural functions/features,reduce
dependence on grid-generated energy sources,preserve&restore resources),provide
usable common/public space, blend&harmonize w/adjacent uses with the intent of
overal l improvement of the surrounding community, etc.
Compliance w/subjective criteria to be determined by the City,with input from affected
neighborhoods&other resident"stakeholders"at the conceptual design stage&
throughout.
Neighborhood Input should be required &accommodated from the earliest stages of the
planning process,&a meaningful mechanism provided for achieving this.An appropriate
starting point would be the inclusion of representative(s)at the conceptual design stage; at
bare minimum an invitation to the initial concept design presentation,with an adequate
opportunity to review &comment. Planning staff should be required to formally consider
& incorporate the comments of adjacent landowners&affected neighborhoods,
institutions, &facilities in the concept design approval process,as well as at all
subsequent stages.
Ex Officio seat(s)on the Planning Commission hearing the application should be
available to representatives of affected neighborhoods/landowners&others(nearby
institutions,businesses, or others uniquely affected by the proposed development).These
representatives would not vote,but could question,comment,and participate in
discussion. Procedures/mechanisms for determining who represents these"stakeholders"
would need to be designed&refined(e.g.,where there is no formal Neighborhood
Association,how is the rep chosen?)
Planned Development Overlay Zone Approval Process should not be undertaken in
advance of the Conceptual Design phase, since the point of revisions is to condition the
granting of a Planned Development Overlay on the meeting of design criteria appropriate
to the City's objectives and the goals and characteristics of the neighborhood&/or
defined area of the City and the characteristics of the site.
Concept Design Approval Process should be publicly noticed&all action taken in full
daylight, including publication of pendency of the action.
Create a Toolbox for use by planners,citizens, and Planning Commission in shaping
negotiating, &evaluating designs&building standards.
Morgan Tracy Alicel PD COmments.doc Page 2
Other Comments:
I agree with the specific recommendations offered by John Frewing re: amendments.
I was unable to download portions of the other PD codes,specifically Lake O;however
the rest of the Lake O.CDC is impressive for its articulation of vision, internal
consistency,&specificity of process. I intend to obtain a hard copy but was unable to do
so in time for this meeting.
Alice Ellis Gaut
10/7/04
I
w
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
I .
I
I i
ble zoning systems, for example, is beyond the scope the objectives of the systems themselves provided a
of this study.A more feasible approach focused on in- good framework for evaluating their success.
terviews with the principal actors in the development
process, investigation of zoning procedures and prac- PROMOTING ORDERLY, COMPATIBLE
tices, and detailed analyses of the ordinances. In each
of the seven communities studied, interviews were con- DEVELOPMENT
ducted with zoning administrators, public officials, de- What kinds of effects, compared to conventional zon-
velopers and builders, zoning attorneys, and other peo- ing ordinances, do flexible systems have on community
ple familiar with the adoption and administration of the growth and change? More specifically, what effects
new zoning provisions, including those who drafted the have such systems had on overall community develop-
ordinance. Records of zoning decisions under the new ment since they were adopted and, looking to the fu-
systems were examined, and step-by-step approval pro- ture,what might we expect these systems to produce in
cedures for two or three specific zoning decisions were the way of an overall community development pattern?
traced. Zoning administrators in Hardin County and Zoning, of course, is only one of many determinants
Fort Collins provided staff reports on experience with of community patterns of growth and development.
their systems. Finally,a day-long discussion of the case Other public policies and actions--annexation proce-
studies by zoning experts provided additional insights. dures,public works, and tax policies, for example—
Research was guided by an outline of evaluation fac- may influence the form and function of development as
tors intended to probe the potential effects and effec- much or more than zoning. Of even greater importance
tiveness of flexible zoning provisions. (Ilse accompany- perhaps are social and economic forces, such as rates
ing feature box summarizes the factors examined in the of household formation, family incomes, employment
analysis.) As research proceeded, it became clear that opportunities, and patterns of property ownership, not
l
57 p
M
k
mit. A cultural survey is required as part of the applica- the project constitutes a good job of
Policy 39, special areas, requires that projects bor- implementation.
g the Blue River must include landscaping, 0 points: if the policy is irrelevant, or no public
peuestrian paths, bridges,and street furniture or the ap- benefit or public detriment results from
plicants must agree to participate in an improvement the project, or a public detriment has
district established to upgrade the riverfront. been fully mitigated, or the project consti-
Relative Policies and the Point System. Most of the abso- tutes an adequate job of implementation.
lute policies represent no real departure from the stan- —I point: If the project constitutes an inadequate
dards and requirements found in zoning, subdivision, job of implementation or will produce
and other land development regulations. Far more un- some public detriment. t
usual are the relative policies and the point scoring sys- —2 points: If the project substantially fails to imple- }
tem. Each relative policy is assigned a range of points ment the policy or will produce an un-
and a multiplier factor that are used to calculate scores. mitigated significant public detriment.
The code assigns a multiplier factor (from I to 5) to
Points are assigned as follows: establish the relative importance of each policy:
+2 points: If a significant public benefit is attained x l: A policy of minimal importance
with no substantial public detriment, or x 2: A policy of moderate importance
the project constitutes an excellent job of x 3: A policy of average importance
implementation. x 4: A policy of relatively significant community
+1 point: If some public benefits are attained,a importance
minor public detriment is mitigated,or x 5: A policy of significant community importance.
x CRITERIA�,I'OtN�?TS aND QE CISIOI�F,RESLES EDR
A,Q
[l tttrtpr;+i�'ile t/se,F'06 osed uses ate encour
`2[ d)that wil f 4t c�tnfliet wit}exisfsng uses tn'the� vel
`&nct:and Wi 1 ebnftirra with tti;r desired charaMer Staff'guide
furktian of the dtstrict,as specified in the land +$ High pr..
ideEines: (1 to Z
gr► t pasitiye points are possible use guicieliness l t
hitt#a rqultipltec 4�� k y �n corz►piiark with land use guidelines s
Ste gridehn s:4 Y { r i g K �i CI Nit eflecE n,
'rJ S
+`ti igh pr4orrtizsampaUble with(and itse,disttiet 4 Noncompliance with guidehnes'wittt an—a(verse irrt
guidel{nes and adpacent uses a pact on the town
+4 Compatible with district guidelines and adjacent uses r 8 Noncompliance with guidelines with an'extrem0 ad
0 �patible with drstrrct swdelines verse impactors the town or neighborhood, Y
(2) JO&hpWN4 Else lbficy Proposes uses are dlscoui<�' ( ) eopttiat rtt rcxieyrrents Proposals(brat)will imple �nG<
ed(tFtatj are ricompatilijewitEi tjre preferred'uses, ment capt 191
rovEmerst n s s ified in the Land
p . r !
o[the desired chain rand function of the district _ i t
ass eeified in the land use use guidelines.are encoirra
p guidelines. (0 to t nega w'hamtul#ijilier of
five poin#s,with:a in of 41 Staff guidelines
5taffgUldeGries +5:.Large number O..improvemen s tree
0:,4: Compatible with district guidelines +4 Some improvements needs'id all pr
Not compatible with district guidelines 0 None needed;none provided
8: Extxemely noncompatible with guidelines and 4: Some itriprarements needed,not pr ded "
neighborhocxl = 8; Many improvements needed,few or none provide '?
(i) Relationships to:Other Districts;Proposed develop (fi.) Special Improvemertts Fbleritial;The implementatio
mein"is encouraged to'comply with the recommenda- of public or private special improvement projects,
tions of the land use'guidelines concerning the rely itemized in the land use guidelines,is encouraged { ,
tionship,to c,ther'distriets;particularly where thea to +2 p(mts,with a multtpher of 2j I19st
separation of adjacent districts is desirable. ( Z to 0 Staff'guii3elines i .
points,with a m#ltiplier of 3) +4: Provides a major special improvement recomme
Staff guidelines in the land use guidelines �-
0:,In compliance with land use guidelines +2: Provides a minor spe ent in the!a
Not compatible with adjacent district use guide ' `s
Extreme noncompatibility with adjacent district : NothinI `
Sequence of Development:Proposed uses are encu
aged to comply with the recommendations in the '
+1
' v
f
A
ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART'
.- ALL CRITERIA APPLJCABLE CRITERIA ONLY
Will the criterion
Is the criterion applicable? be satisfied?
CRITERION Yes No If no, please explain
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
1.Social Compatibility
2. Neighborhood Character
3. land Use Conflicts
4.Adverse Traffic Impact
! PLANS AND POLICIES
S. Comprehensive Plan
PUBLIC FACILITIES&SAFETY
6.Street Capacity
7. Utility Capacity
8_Design Standards
9.Emergency Access
10.Security lighting
11. Water Hazards
RESOURCE PROTECTION
12.Soils&Slope Hazard
13.Significant Vegetation
14.Wildlife Habitat
15.Historical Landmark
16.Mineral Deposit
17.Eco-Sensitive Areas
18.Agricultural Lands
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19.Air Quality
20.Water Quality
21. Noise
22.Glare&Heat
23.Vibrations
24. Exterior Lighting
25.Sewage&Wastes
SPIE DESIGN
26.Community Organization
27.Site Organization
28.Natural Features
29. Energy Conservation
30. Privacy
31.Open Space Arrangement
32. Building Height
33.Vehicular Movement
34.Vehicular Design
35.Parking
36.Active Recreational Areas
37. Private Outdoor Areas
38. Pedestrian Convenience
39. Pedestrian Conflicts
40. Landscaping/Open Areas
41. LandscapingBuildin s
42.Landscaping/Screening
43.Public Access
44.Signs
162
Morgan Tracy-RE: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety _ Page 1
From: PFarrington@peacehealth.org
To: <opn@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: 9/22/04 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety
I'd further add that there's a lot to be said for two elements that can improve the look of a neighborhood:
trees and time.
Take the Colorado example. From what I've seen of Parker, there isn't anything particularly distinguishing
about it in terms of innovative housing or subdivision design there. The same can be said for new urbanist
development going up in the former Lowry Air Force Base. In a recent visit my wife observed that it
looked like "just a bunch of big houses on small lots" and compared it with the Park Hill neighborhood she
grew up in near Denver's City Park. True the housing and landscaping at Lowry was so new there was
nothing to soften the development's look and scale. But I later found photos of Park Hill when it was first
developed in the 1920s and it looked remarkably similar to Lowry today.
Philip
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-opn@lists.uoregon.edu [mailto:owner-opn@lists.uorego n.edu]On
Behalf Of Mimi Doukas
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 11:12 AM
To: Gordon Howard
Subject: RE: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety
From the private side of the equation, I have to agree with Gordon. Any
knowledgeable developer will introduce at least three types of homes into a
development to maximize the market they are selling to, otherwise, they are
essentially competing with themselves for buyers of their one home design.
Developers are learing their lessons over time. Sometimes they have to see
their design constructed and have a market reaction before they fully
understand that consumers respond to diversity and good design.
I would also point out that innovation in residential developments is not
just achieved through a variety of home designs, but it also requires
variety in your street design. A great deal of the monotony is the result
of overly strict engineering/fire standards for street design. Minimum
centerline radii, exact 90 degree intersections, and boring sidewalk options
all contribute to the unimaginative, suburban-style development that we all
complain about. Most of this is done in the name of fire safety and public
maintainance, but it is typically overkill. Consequently, subdivisions look
like they were designed by engineers rather than planners or landscape
architects.
With all due respect to my engineer friends,
Mimi Doukas
____= Original Message from Gordon Howard <opn@lists.uoregon.edu> at 9/22/04
10:34 am
>Not to throw too much of a wet blanket on this
>"problem," but neighborhoods in Portland which are
>highly prized and considered models of humane and
>sensible urbanism have an almost universal 50 x 100
>lot size. The variation has come with 60+ years of
>construction and remodeling and reconstruction. The
Mo an Tracy-RE: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety Page 2�
>First Addition in Lake Oswego, the hot new
>neighborhood in that city, also consists of a 50 x 100
>standardized lot pattern. The variation comes in the
>home design, not the lot size. A lot of developers
>try to vary designs anyway, because they know that the
>"sameness" look detracts from the marketability of
>their subdivision. From my viewpoint, I don't see the
>need for regulation in this area of our profession.
>--- Richard Townsend <rtown@lincolncity.org> wrote:
» There's a city in Colorado, I think, that requires
>> variation in house
» design by requiring X number of different designs
>> before they can repeat
» any particular design (so instead of AAAAA you get
>> ABCDA, and I think
>> they also have to vary the order of the different
>> designs (so no
>> ABCDABCDABCD). You could do the same thing with lot
» size, too.
>> >>> tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us 9/22/2004 9:00:05 AM >>>
>> My council and planning commission would like
>> planning staff to explore
>> ways
>> of getting (encouraging and requiring) more
>> imaginative subdivsion
>> designs.
» We are looking at addressing two primary aspects of
>> subdivision
» design:
» minimum lot size and lot size variation. In
>> addition, we are also
>> considering modifications to setbacks and may want
» to take a look at
>> other
» residential design standards.
>> Currently we do not have a minimum lot size but
>> rather rely on a gross
>> density range (ie. SFR -2-6units/acre, R1 - 5-10
>> units/acre) to
>> control the
>> number of lots allowed. What we are finding is that
>> in most cases
>> developers are maximizing the number of lots they
>> can build by creating
>> tiny
>> lots with little variety among lot sizes and home
>> appearances. The
>> issue is
>> not as much that we are getting small lots as we are
>> not seeing much
>> variety
>> which seems to translate into subdivisions with a
Morgan Tracy- RE: opry Subdivision Lot Size and VarietyPage 3
>> high degree of
>> sameness.
>> I'm sure we not unique among other cities addressing
>> these issues. I
>> would
>> like to hear how other cities are addressing these
>> issues and would be
>> interested in looking at specific section's of your
— codes. You may
>> contact
» me directly if you prefer. Thanks in advance.
>> Tracy A. Brown
>> Director of Planning & Development
>> City of Sandy
>> 39250 Pioneer Blvd.
>> Sandy, OR 97055
» ph. 503-668-4886
» fax. 503-668-8714
>> email. tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Declare Yourself- Register online to vote today!
>http://vote.yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended solely for the use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable state and
federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or are not authorized to receive for the intended addressee, you
are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, distribute, or disclose to anyone this message or the
information contained herein. If you have received this message in error, immediately advise the sender
by reply email and destroy this message.
--------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Tracy-opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety Page 1
From: tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us
To: <opn@lists.uoregon.edu>, <OCPDA@egroups.com>
Date: 9/22/04 9:23AM
Subject: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety
My council and planning commission would like planning staff to explore ways
of getting (encouraging and requiring) more imaginative subdivsion designs.
We are looking at addressing two primary aspects of subdivision design:
minimum lot size and lot size variation. In addition, we are also
considering modifications to setbacks and may want to take a look at other
residential design standards.
Currently we do not have a minimum lot size but rather rely on a gross
density range (ie. SFR-2-6units/acre, R1 -5-10 units/acre)to control the
number of lots allowed. What we are finding is that in most cases
developers are maximizing the number of lots they can build by creating tiny
lots with little variety among lot sizes and home appearances. The issue is
not as much that we are getting small lots as we are not seeing much variety
which seems to translate into subdivisions with a high degree of sameness.
I'm sure we not unique among other cities addressing these issues. I would
like to hear how other cities are addressing these issues and would be
interested in looking at specific section's of your codes. You may contact
me directly if you prefer. Thanks in advance.
Tracy A. Brown
Director of Planning & Development
City of Sandy
39250 Pioneer Blvd.
Sandy, OR 97055
ph. 503-668-4886
fax. 503-668-8714
email. tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us
Morgan Tracy- Re: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety w Page 1,
From: rtown@lincolncity.org
To: <opn@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: 9/22/04 9:58AM
Subject: Re: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety
There's a city in Colorado, I think, that requires variation in house
design by requiring X number of different designs before they can repeat
any particular design (so instead of AAAAA you get ABCDA, and I think
they also have to vary the order of the different designs (so no
ABCDABCDABCD). You could do the same thing with lot size, too.
>>> tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us 9/22/2004 9:00:05 AM >>>
My council and planning commission would like planning staff to explore
ways
of getting (encouraging and requiring) more imaginative subdivsion
designs.
We are looking at addressing two primary aspects of subdivision
design:
minimum lot size and lot size variation. In addition, we are also
considering modifications to setbacks and may want to take a look at
other
residential design standards.
Currently we do not have a minimum lot size but rather rely on a gross
density range (ie. SFR -2-6units/acre, R1 -5-10 units/acre)to
control the
number of lots allowed. What we are finding is that in most cases
developers are maximizing the number of lots they can build by creating
tiny
lots with little variety among lot sizes and home appearances. The
issue is
not as much that we are getting small lots as we are not seeing much
variety
which seems to translate into subdivisions with a high degree of
sameness.
I'm sure we not unique among other cities addressing these issues. I
would
like to hear how other cities are addressing these issues and would be
interested in looking at specific section's of your codes. You may
contact
me directly if you prefer. Thanks in advance.
Tracy A. Brown
Director of Planning & Development
City of Sandy
39250 Pioneer Blvd.
Sandy, OR 97055
ph. 503-668-4886
fax. 503-668-8714
email. tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us
Morgan Tracy- Re: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety Page 1
From: gordonhhoward@yahoo.com
To: <opn@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: 9/22/04 11:06AM
Subject: Re: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety
Not to throw too much of a wet blanket on this
"problem," but neighborhoods in Portland which are
highly prized and considered models of humane and
sensible urbanism have an almost universal 50 x 100
lot size. The variation has come with 60 + years of
construction and remodeling and reconstruction. The
First Addition in Lake Oswego, the hot new
neighborhood in that city, also consists of a 50 x 100
standardized lot pattern. The variation comes in the
home design, not the lot size. A lot of developers
try to vary designs anyway, because they know that the
"sameness" look detracts from the marketability of
their subdivision. From my viewpoint, I don't see the
need for regulation in this area of our profession.
--- Richard Townsend <rtown@lincolncity.org> wrote:
> There's a city in Colorado, I think, that requires
> variation in house
> design by requiring X number of different designs
> before they can repeat
> any particular design (so instead of AAAAA you get
> ABCDA, and I think
> they also have to vary the order of the different
> designs (so no
>ABCDABCDABCD). You could do the same thing with lot
> size, too.
> >>> tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us 9/22/2004 9:00:05 AM >>>
> My council and planning commission would like
> planning staff to explore
> ways
> of getting (encouraging and requiring) more
> imaginative subdivsion
> designs.
> We are looking at addressing two primary aspects of
> subdivision
> design:
> minimum lot size and lot size variation. In
> addition, we are also
> considering modifications to setbacks and may want
> to take a look at
> other
> residential design standards.
> Currently we do not have a minimum lot size but
> rather rely on a gross
> density range (ie. SFR -2-6units/acre, R1 - 5-10
> units/acre) to
> control the
> number of lots allowed. What we are finding is that
Morgan Trate-Re: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety P 2
> in most cases
> developers are maximizing the number of lots they
> can build by creating
> tiny
> lots with little variety among lot sizes and home
> appearances. The
> issue is
> not as much that we are getting small lots as we are
> not seeing much
> variety
> which seems to translate into subdivisions with a
> high degree of
> sameness.
> I'm sure we not unique among other cities addressing
> these issues. I
> would
> like to hear how other cities are addressing these
> issues and would be
> interested in looking at specific section's of your
> codes. You may
> contact
> me directly if you prefer. Thanks in advance.
> Tracy A. Brown
> Director of Planning & Development
> City of Sandy
> 39250 Pioneer Blvd.
> Sandy, OR 97055
> ph. 503-668-4886
> fax. 503-668-8714
> email. tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself- Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Morgan Trac -Re: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety P
From: jbarta20@yahoo.com
To: <opn@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: 9/22/04 11:18AM
Subject: Re: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety
In a perfect world, with no single family residential property developers marketing to the U.S. public's
taste, that would be a great way to go.
Gordon Howard <gordonhhoward@yahoo.com> wrote:Not to throw too much of a wet blanket on this
"problem," but neighborhoods in Portland which are
highly prized and considered models of humane and
sensible urbanism have an almost universal 50 x 100
lot size. The variation has come with 60 +years of
construction and remodeling and reconstruction. The
First Addition in Lake Oswego, the hot new
neighborhood in that city, also consists of a 50 x 100
standardized lot pattern. The variation comes in the
home design, not the lot size. A lot of developers
try to vary designs anyway, because they know that the
"sameness" look detracts from the marketability of
their subdivision. From my viewpoint, I don't see the
need for regulation in this area of our profession.
--- Richard Townsend wrote:
> There's a city in Colorado, I think, that requires
> variation in house
> design by requiring X number of different designs
> before they can repeat
> any particular design (so instead of AAAAA you get
> ABCDA, and I think
> they also have to vary the order of the different
> designs (so no
> ABCDABCDABCD). You could do the same thing with lot
> size, too.
> >>> tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us 9/22/2004 9:00:05 AM >>>
> My council and planning commission would like
> planning staff to explore
> ways
> of getting (encouraging and requiring) more
> imaginative subdivsion
> designs.
> We are looking at addressing two primary aspects of
> subdivision
> design:
> minimum lot size and lot size variation. In
> addition, we are also
> considering modifications to setbacks and may want
> to take a look at
> other
> residential design standards.
> Currently we do not have a minimum lot size but
> rather rely on a gross
> density range (ie. SFR - 2-6units/acre, R1 - 5-10
Morgan Tracy- Re: opn Subdivision Lot Size and Variety Page 2
> units/acre) to
> control the
> number of lots allowed. What we are finding is that
> in most cases
> developers are maximizing the number of lots they
> can build by creating
> tiny
> lots with little variety among lot sizes and home
> appearances. The
> issue is
> not as much that we are getting small lots as we are
> not seeing much
> variety
> which seems to translate into subdivisions with a
> high degree of
> sameness.
> I'm sure we not unique among other cities addressing
> these issues. I
> would
> like to hear how other cities are addressing these
> issues and would be
> interested in looking at specific section's of your
> codes. You may
> contact
> me directly if you prefer. Thanks in advance.
> Tracy A. Brown
> Director of Planning & Development
> City of Sandy
> 39250 Pioneer Blvd.
> Sandy, OR 97055
> ph. 503-668-4886
> fax. 503-668-8714
> email. tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself- Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
--- StripMime Report-- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
Morgan Tracy-RE: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety Page 1
From: mad@WRGD.COM
To: Gordon Howard <opn@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: 9/22/04 11:23AM
Subject: RE: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety
From the private side of the equation, I have to agree with Gordon. Any
knowledgeable developer will introduce at least three types of homes into a
development to maximize the market they are selling to, otherwise, they are
essentially competing with themselves for buyers of their one home design.
Developers are learing their lessons over time. Sometimes they have to see
their design constructed and have a market reaction before they fully
understand that consumers respond to diversity and good design.
I would also point out that innovation in residential developments is not
just achieved through a variety of home designs, but it also requires
variety in your street design. A great deal of the monotony is the result
of overly strict engineering/fire standards for street design. Minimum
centerline radii, exact 90 degree intersections, and boring sidewalk options
all contribute to the unimaginative, suburban-style development that we all
complain about. Most of this is done in the name of fire safety and public
maintainance, but it is typically overkill. Consequently, subdivisions look
like they were designed by engineers rather than planners or landscape
architects.
With all due respect to my engineer friends,
Mimi Doukas
____= Original Message from Gordon Howard <opn@lists.uoregon.edu> at 9/22/04
10:34 am
>Not to throw too much of a wet blanket on this
>"problem," but neighborhoods in Portland which are
>highly prized and considered models of humane and
>sensible urbanism have an almost universal 50 x 100
>lot size. The variation has come with 60 + years of
>construction and remodeling and reconstruction. The
>First Addition in Lake Oswego, the hot new
>neighborhood in that city, also consists of a 50 x 100
>standardized lot pattern. The variation comes in the
>home design, not the lot size. A lot of developers
>try to vary designs anyway, because they know that the
>"sameness" look detracts from the marketability of
>their subdivision. From my viewpoint, I don't see the
>need for regulation in this area of our profession.
>--- Richard Townsend <rtown@lincolncity.org> wrote:
» There's a city in Colorado, I think, that requires
>> variation in house
» design by requiring X number of different designs
>> before they can repeat
» any particular design (so instead of AAAAA you get
>> ABCDA, and I think
>> they also have to vary the order of the different
» designs (so no
>> ABCDABCDABCD). You could do the same thing with lot
>> size, too.
Morgan Tracy- RE: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety Page 2
>> >>> tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us 9/22/2004 9:00:05 AM >>>
>> My council and planning commission would like
>> planning staff to explore
» ways
>> of getting (encouraging and requiring) more
» imaginative subdivsion
» designs.
» We are looking at addressing two primary aspects of
» subdivision
>> design:
» minimum lot size and lot size variation. In
>> addition, we are also
» considering modifications to setbacks and may want
» to take a look at
» other
» residential design standards.
» Currently we do not have a minimum lot size but
» rather rely on a gross
>> density range (ie. SFR -2-6units/acre, R1 - 5-10
» units/acre) to
>> control the
>> number of lots allowed. What we are finding is that
>> in most cases
» developers are maximizing the number of lots they
>> can build by creating
>> tiny
» lots with little variety among lot sizes and home
>> appearances. The
» issue is
>> not as much that we are getting small lots as we are
>> not seeing much
>> variety
>> which seems to translate into subdivisions with a
>> high degree of
>> sameness.
>> I'm sure we not unique among other cities addressing
>> these issues. I
>> would
>> like to hear how other cities are addressing these
>> issues and would be
» interested in looking at specific section's of your
— codes. You may
>> contact
>> me directly if you prefer. Thanks in advance.
» Tracy A. Brown
>> Director of Planning & Development
>> City of Sandy
>> 39250 Pioneer Blvd.
» Sandy, OR 97055
>> ph. 503-668-4886
>> fax. 503-668-8714
Morgan Tracy-RE: opn: Subdivision Lot Size and Variety PiA-P731
+l
» email. tbrown@ci.sandy.or.us
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Declare Yourself- Register online to vote today!
>httpi//vote.yahoo.com
)mmittee Name E2 ge'L/Je4j/ KoMMI #ex,
�G�U�v� �, zzx(
VOLUNTEER SIGN-IN SHEET
Date Volunteer Name HOURS Comments
fru
v k1 .N
susaWsmartU.doc