Loading...
City Council Packet - 01/26/1983 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign their name on the JANUARY 26, 1983, 7:30 P.M. appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL provided, ask to be recognized by the Chair. LECTURE ROOM 1. SPECIAL MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call t, 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff, Council F< Audience For Non-Agenda Items Under Open Agenda 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies 2.2 Comprehensive Plan Map/Open Hearing & Continue to 2-2-83/7:30 PM 2.3 Interim Zoning District Map */Open Hearing-Continue to 2-2-83/7:30PH o Public Hearing Opened o Public Testimony o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration/Action by Council 3. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair under item 1.3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact the City Administrator prior to the meeting. 4. ADJOURNMENT * Included in this item will be consideration of the zone changes for the following areas: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA 3-82 (Durham Island) NPO *5/6 A request by the City of Tigard to change the zoning on 238.64 acres located generally north of Durham, west of 74th, south f of Bonita and east of Hall Blvd from Washington County zoning to City of Tigard zoning. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA 5-82 (Bechtold Annexation) NPO 33 A request by the City of Tigard to change the zoning on property located generally west of 121st and north of Gaarde Street from Washington County to City of Tigard zoning. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA 7-82 (North Dakota Annexation) NPO #2 & 7 A request by the City of Tigard to change the zoning on 180 acres located generally East of 115th Avenue, West of Greenburg Road, North of Tigard Street, and South of North Dakota Street from Washington County zoning to City of Tigard zoning. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA 17-82 (Randall) NPO S4 A request by the City of Tigard to change the zoning on a Iw parcel of land located south of Pacific Highway (99W), just east of SW 79th Avenue and is approximately 5.94 acres in size, from Washington County M-1 (Industrial) zoning to City of Tigard C-5 (Highway Commercial) for the first 200 feet directly south and parallel to Pacific Highway (99W) and M-4 (Industrial Park) for the remaining portions of the property. (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 36CD, Tax Lot 2200) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA 16-82 (Cooper) NPO 84 A request by the City of Tigard to change the zoning on a parcel of land located on the west side of SW 66th Avenue, just south of SW Baylor Street, and is approximately 0.57 r` acres in size, from Washington County RU-4 (Low Density Residential) zoning to City of Tigard C-P (Commercial-Professional). (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 36DD, Tax Lot 4300 & 4400) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA 11-82 (Benny Larson) NPO 93 A request by the City of Tigard to change the zoning on a parcel of land located on the west edge of the City, just north of SW 126th Avenue which is located off of SW Bull Mountain Road, and is approximately 1.49 acres in size, from Washington County zoning RU-30 (Single Family Residential; 30,000 square foot minimum parcel size) to City of Tigard R-30 (Single Family Residential). (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 9A, Tax Lot 400) COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 26, 1983 r � TIGARD CITY COUNCIL_ SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors John Cook, Tom Brian, Kenneth Scheckla, Ima Scott; Frank Currie, Director of Public Works ; Bob Jean, City Administrator (arriving at 10:47 P.M. ) ; Patt Martin, Word Processor (arrived at 9:00 P.M. ) ; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning and Development ; Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel ; Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 83-06 A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF TIGARD. (a) Director of Planning and Development stated that this resolution was being considered because the City received a petition requesting annexation. He noted that economic development is predicated upon annexation of the Tigard triangle land. (b) Public Testimony: LaValle Allen, 7540 SW Hermosa Way Tigard, expressed concern that the Comp Plan is directed to the developers needs and the citizens in the area of the Tigard Triangle don't want to be in the City. Geraldine Ball, 11515 SW 91st Avenue Tigard, objected to the map marked Exhibit "G" as it does not show her property correctly. Karen Freiu, 14630 SW 106th, questioned what would happen to the property in the area regarding zoning, taxes and sewer & water improvements. Associate Planner Coursolle answered the questions posed by Ms. Ball and Ms. Freiu. Allen Roth, 7420 SW Hermosa Way, opposed the annexation. Gene Jackson, 7045 SW Clinton, expressed his opposition to the annexation. (c) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve. (d) Councilor Scheckla stated his opposition to the annexation proposal because of the added burden to the City's budget to upgrade the streets to City standard. (e) Councilor Scott stated she could not support the annexation proposal because of the $700,000 deficit in the proposed budget. (f) Councilor Brian offered his support of the proposal because of the .. Haines Road Interchange and the economic development possibilities in the area., COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 ®®®--.®a .r-��- ®mame�SBm - Motion to approve Resolution No. 83-06 was approved by a 3-2 majority vote of Council. Councilor Scott and Scheckla voting nay. (g) Director of Planning and Development stated that the Boundary Commission would hear this issue on March 3, 1983. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 83-07 A RESOLUTION FURTHERING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF 1IGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED 1N EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (a) Director of Planning and Development stated that this area was outside the Urban Growth Boundary, however, the City has requested this be added. The annexation was requested by a triple majority petition. (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSING ELEMENT (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Public Testimony: i Gary Reid, 12700 SW 72nd Avenue, appearea to represent the Metro Area Homebuilders Association and stated that he could support the Housing Element if traffic studies were not required when determining minimum densities in developments. Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut - NPO #3 Representative, presented the attached memo, dated January 11, 1983, requesting changes in Housing Element. Betty Cookson, 10520 SW North Dakota, expressed concern regarding the description of established neighborhoods and concerned with medium density abutting open space. Geraldine Ball , 11515 SW 91st Avenue, presented letter to Council questioning whether or not her property was in the City and if the Council was trying to disannex her property. WORD PROCESSOR, PATT MARTIN ARRIVED: 9:00 P.M. Gloria Johnson, 9300 SW Hill Street, expressed concern regarding the buffers between duplexes and single family homes. Kevin Hanway, Staff Attorney for Portland Homebuilders, expressed concern regarding the language in 6.1.2 and concerns regarding manufactured homes on individual lots which could create problems ( with surrounding single family residential homes. l PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 �. John Butler, NPO #1 Member, stated he wanted 6.1.2 to remain at 20% and manufactured homes should be as permissable as "stick built homes" per LCDC rules. JB Bishop, Suite 303 10505 SW Barbur, requested 6.3.2 refer to residential property. (c) Public Hearing Closed (d) Director of Planning and Development requested Council move to consider the ZCA's listed on the agenda on February 28, 1983. (e) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to hear ZCA's on February 7, 1983. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. RECESS: 10:09 P.M. RECONVENE: 10:34 P.M. (f) ORDINANCE NO. 83-05 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (g) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to adopt. (h) ;lotion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to make the following amendments to Page #3 of the Housing Element: 6.1 Findings # 5: "The rapidly changing housing market will require the City periodically to reevaluate its housing and land use objectives to provide for a variety of housing types and densities to meet the needs of future residents." 6.1 Findings Add #7: "Undue concentrations of public assisted or subsidized housing serves to isolate the recipients of such housing from the mainstream of the community, its full range of basic services and the diversity of its neighborhoods. For this reason, the City should take steps to disperse such housing within individual neighborhoods and throughout the City itself." 6.1.2 Policy: "Subsidized housing units shall conform to all applicable development standards. To prevent the geographic concentration of public housing and insure a balance in the distribution of such housing, the minimum distance between subsidized housing units located within any single family zoning district shall be five times the minimum lot width in the zoning district on any street. For purposes of this policy, the term "subsidized housing" shall mean any housing developed or constructed by the Washington County Housing Authority with financial assistance of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development." Implementation Strategies #1: " The City shall monitor the rate of development through an annual "land survey", which will function as an up-to-date inventory of land available for future residential needs. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (i) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to delete Policy 6.1.1 from Page 3. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. i (j) Lengthy discussion followed regarding manufactured housing and its mix with "stick built" homes. CITY ADMINISTRATOR ARRIVED: 10:47 F.M. (k) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to amend 6.1 Implementation Strategy #4 as follows: "The Tigard Community Development Code will allow for manufactured homes in manufactured home parks and subdivisions, within specified development districts." Approved by 4-1 majority vote of Council, Councilor Scott voting nay. (1) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to make the following amendments: 6.2, Findings #5: "Financing costs of residential units cannot be controlled by the City of Tigard; however, the City can assist in public facilities and services development financing mechanisms." 6.3, Findings #1: "A major concern of the community is the viability of their established residential areas and the effect on these areas from change and growth." 6.3, Findings #5: "In order to retain the character of these areas and minimize adverse impacts of these areas, adequate standards need to be established for more intensive residential uses that border established residential areas." Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (m) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to amend 6.3.2 as follows: "In the Tigard Community Development Code the City shall require a density transition whereby increased residential densities are adjacent to established areas in the following manner: r_ a. The density within 100 feet of each property line shall not exceed 25% over the density shown on the comprehensive plan for x the adjacent land unless there is an intervening road (major collector or arterial) in which case this provision shall not g apply. b. "Where the proposed development abuts an existing housing development, the housing types shall be compatible. For Example: �. "l. Two housing units which are attached are considered compatible . with a detached single family unit ; but PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 "2. More than two housing units which are attached are not considered compatible with a single family detached unit. " Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (n) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to amend 6.3 Implementation Strategy #1 as follows: 1Ihe Development District Map shall indicate those areas which are already "Establishe:d Areas". Established areas are areas which have been determined to be developed and are as set forth on the "Development Standards Map". Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (o) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to insert a new Implementation Strategy #3 under 6.4 as follows: "Within the Planned Development section of the Tigard Community Development Code: a. Development will be prohibited on lands not classified as developable as defined in OAR 660-07-140; b. "Twenty-five percent of the number of units which could be accommodated on the undevelopable land may be transferred and placed on the developable land; however c. "The transfer of the density shall be limited by 125% of the top iof the range of the residential plan classification on the developable portions of the site." Approved by unanimous vote of Council. OEM (p) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to amend 6.4 Implementation Strategies by adding #4 as follows: "The Tigard Community Development Code shall also provide for a Planned Development process which encourages innovative design, more efficient use of land, energy efficiency and more flexible development standards." Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (q) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to amend 6.5.1 as follows: "Tile City shall require that all housing units be: a. "Constructed according to the Oregon Uniform Building Code or other applicable state or federal structural codes ; and { b. "Maintained in a manner which does not violate the City's nuisance i ordinance. " Approved by unanimous vote of Council. i (r) Motion by Councilor Cook seconded by Councilor Brian to correct all , typographical errors in the Elements and amend Page 40 Population Trends 1961-1970 as follows: "The population of Tigard more than quadrupled between the time Tigard was incorporated in 1961 and 1970. (1961: 1,084 and 1970: 5,302) PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 �MmM11ONES AW- MARLAMW t "Since specific population census data was not gathered for the City of Tigard in 1960, it cannot be exactly determined what age groups significantly increased during this time period. Most of the Portland metropolitan area experienced increases in the 0-14 age group due to the "postwar baby boom," and it can be assumed that similar trends occurred in the Tigard area. " Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (s) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to amend 6.3 Implementation Strategies by adding #5 as follows: "Upon periodic plan review, the City shall maintain an updated map showing "established" and "developing" areas." Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (t) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Scott to add language suggested by NPO #3 as 6.3.3 as follows: "In all phases of the development approval process in a residential "established area,01 a primary consideration of the City shall be to preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established areas." Approved by unanimous vote of Council. f (u) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to amend Page #46, 1. Public and Semipublic Land, as follows: "A 20% allowance was made for streets in single family areas and 15% for multiple family areas which will consume some of the vacant residential land inventory and thereby will not be available for housing. The allowance was calculated by reducing total vacant residential land by 20% or 15% accordingly." Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (v) Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 83-05 as amended was approved by unanimous vote of Council. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING - URBANIZATION (a) Public Hearing Opened i (b) Vittz Ramsdale, NPO #3 Representative, expressed concern regarding e policy 10.1.1 a and 10.1.1 b-2. He also requested the following i language be added as Implementation Strategy #11: "The City shall S not assemble, nor present to the Metropolitan Boundary Commission, any annexation proposal which includes both non-consenting landowners and which would create an "unincorporated island". 3 (c) Consensus of Council was to cont:knu�-�public hearing to 2-7-833.. 1 6. ADJOURNMENT: 12:01 A.M. /vf Deputy Recorder - C2ty of Tigard ATTEST: yor - City of Tigard PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 DATE January 26, 1983 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please Print your name) ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1.3 Call to Staff, Council & Audience for Non-Agenda Items Under open Agenda - PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation .12 r i S c / 7 - January 26, 1983 :� •.u.�.:^�zs�r,....ni..,.._.•:.,.rsl-x;.r. r•rnt+sz-�en'.uayx,,;4, - - �'"wI"s�'°�cS�`t'�stafy""•`�"e'1�"ore'"`�'�'°Ti'gard`�i Ey"'Council�on f i the following item: (Please print your name) i CCLC'-":, Item Description: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS i 2.1 Housing t ponent (Eor) Opponent (against) I e, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation � IRA _77, zz Af i a t i i i i i t i C i v ®o ,p1'A 72-82 C�xpRF1fE�:S.7VC PLAN Rb-10T -�MtLm'c' f'Ic� name ca Ge Pdi.�e L. BaU and J at11575 S. U- 97at Aveaue„ and J am � "xS DA, �� a�a' {zea onal a t tfue u ('-Lc P-ean�guy. on G'A 12-82 Com12,-ehents.we Nan 'Rza szt •- flousrJu�. � 712 [flLeb tLon we wataPd eihe to CLdit t,d w wo �rsta •thz Ci.tl� or F�ude�z /3ouna.'vu� �2e PnaJuxea.P Ata. 1668, ai�'.oved �� [3oundaa�v Carrmi.esa.ian on FeZ.nun�u� 12, 79$7 cai_th F.r'ncz2 On.de�L on f9anch. 20, 1987. The $ f, wat, z zoned and A-/t0 under Ted Oadirluzce f+o. 87-30 docwRent ai- ed ark , 79$7. as�rl acfrrwkr9.-�p� p� ,tize S.t:u�.eta�� o� S.t�te, t�.e�t. o� R.ea�. & Taxn..tian 17.e.�t. .o� r4�,C(IruLb and [.C7n.d anC� L�.E��:tl?lL�l2�n-t (7'0 /�LG�-�1�G �IJ'J11Zd� SlIJL1l.P1�-Ot/L� �Q.dit.11LClftOR CO�G� - get Ua huig ton Cawzbj hept .same o� -thp- pA� on .the rta�c 4 a.3 Fon• Pa a on .the A-40 pAolw,Lbj th vy ohangzd the a 6z a6,6men.t Paweiu rzg .the uatu e of .the houa.ee and ,the vaXue- 4 ,the .Panel, j, ,-t Uazhuw,ton Cvwztry kept .the RU-4 - n. Th.-a j is rocs on the- CL tY oA 7*,- r-d Com.fvLefzerz --- Afan. "cap cad JrLten.im � map az Z The guza.tLaa we wou.Pd Zi.fze .La "h and h lfa cnawezerl c.a airzce the �za�e�ty &xzz annzxed as A-40 and .the Caufztev ha.6 ,Et a,3 RU-4 haw does -t feat z&naed .ta G' zzncP- w.e woa'.t .Pa g LLV .t1rwunh anon an Lexa-t.Lon? ; fiiJu,tfte�c gccea ti_an r,�e wou.Pd �ifz a anzurzr ed iz tJu.a �•r�w,,4 w de-air wLtJ�orLt 3• the rfvcov 2 al- the. peop"L&j owrr e-c &&-ued .it "-zu e t uza /3ahen Cana-Ei-c�t and rreczh e the c�2l,LGy7 PlL�1LF1 = l7 �' Z q P c v ;" t�• i.� e a dfx thcr_t P e made o� u P.f'.Lc fL�r_i r:e grid .the CL4s o-P T qlz d .r ecoy d. t I 1 y I t i Paul and Gloria ,Johnson 9300 S. W. iiill Street Tigard , Ore-on, 97223 January 21, 1983 Tigard Planning Staff Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Council '-, 12755 S. W. Ash . Tigard, Oregon, 97223 Dear Members: This letter is pertaining to Duplexes as buffers. We believe that the single family residents have the right to be protected against density development. In the Housing Book, page 7 , Policy 6. 3.2 , Section B , 1 & 2, it is not clear pertaining to the buffer between single family homes and multi-family. N.P. O. #1 Book. Page 17 . Policy #7. says duplexes should be buffers between multi-family and single family areas . This Policy should be maintained in our new City Code Book so as to protect all the established single family neighborhoods or areas. This Policy #7 in N. P. O.—#1 Book should be included in Policy; # 6. 2.. 3 in the new Housing Book. We were at the Tura Meeting on Thursday, January 13 , 1983 , and the recommendation was made by the Tura Committee that duplexes be a buffer between single family homes and multi-family including residential areas inside the CBD line . t This was written down by Mr. Patrick Furrer, Chairman of the E Tura Committee and Mr. William Monahan, the Planning Director. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, 0 i Sincerely, s -7 k j s•:r L•r.� `/.. - l��t Wit''?"�% Paul and Gloria Johnson C t r{F I s t F t (Cil CITY OF TIGARD , OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 82- . `j AN ORDINANCE SPECIFYING THE ANNEXATION POLICY FOR VARIOUS UNIN- CORPORATED LANDS WHICH ARE WITHIN TIGARD' S URBAN PLANNING AREA REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 79-26 , PRESCRIBING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, in the past, the City Council has attempted to encourage annexations that would establish straight, compact and logical boundaries for the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that it is necessary to establish a system for measuring the physical, environmental , and social impacts of proposed annexation on the community, to insure adequate staff review, and to insure compliance with the requirements of Tigard' s Comprehensive Plan, ORS Chapters 197 and 222, concerning annexation, and ORS Chapter 199 , concerning local boundary commissions; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the above policies , the City Council hereby determines that this document denoted as "annexation policy" for the City of Tigard is a desirable and necessary guide to decisionson the future boundary of the city and is hereby adopted and promulgated to be utilized in the development of the comprehensive plan for the area involved; and WHEREAS, the lands that are the subject of this annexation policy are not subject to provisions of the annexation rule, OAR 660-01-315, because they are located within the acknowledged Metropolitan Regional Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, to insure that the provisions of this annexation policy become immediately effective in guiding annexation decisions of property owners, the City Council , and the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission, and thereby preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the residents thereof, an emergency is declared to exist and the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and approval by the City Council. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. INTENT 1 . The City is committed' to maintaining the highest practical level of service to residents . Therefore, the City should consider the impact each annexation will have on the level of services provided and the general "quality of life" enjoyed by the citizens of Tigard. 2. The City considers itself to be the most logical provider of cost-efficient urban services to those areas within Tigard' s Urban Planning Area. ORDINANCE No. 82-1111 Page 1 3� The City shall not approve the extension of city or Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) sewer lines beyond the Tigard city limits except where the annexation applications for those properties have been submitted to the City or where a non- remonstrance agreement to annex those properties has been signed and recorded with Washington County and submitted to the City or where there is a potential or imminent health hazard. in health hazard situations involving land located in the Metropolitan Regional Growth Boundary, the City is required by ORS 222. 850 to 222.915 to annex the affected area, unless an .alternative plan to alleviate the hazard is approved. Therefore, property owners affected by a health hazard annexation will sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance to annex to the city and submit the recorded copy to the City of Tigard. 4. The City shall actively seek to annex the areas served by all new city or Unified Sewerage Agency sewer_ lines that are contiguous with the city. 5. The City shall accept, encourage, and assist in the preparation of annexation proposals of all lands within Tigard' s Urban Planning Area. 6. The City shall actively seek to include all "unincor- porated island" areas into the city. 7. Land use designation and zoning shall be assigned to proposed annexation areas only after a thorough study addressing State-wide Planning Goals, city and neighborhood needs have been completed and adopted by the City. Section 2. PROCEDURE The following process shall be followed in the application and review of annexation proposals: 1 . To ensure adequate staff review for annexation application, deadlines shall be established. Applications for annexa- tion shall be filed with the city prior to 5 : 00 p.m. on the last working day in either February, May, August, or November. 2. The city staff shall review the annexation proposal applications and submit all required information to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission with sixty (60) days after the application has been submitted. Section 3 . APPLICATION Each application for annexation shall include the following material : 1 . A statement of the availability, capacity and status of existing water; sewer, drainage, transportation, park, police and fire service, and school facilities. ORDINANCE No. 82- _ Page 2 s e i 2. A statement of the increased demand for such facilities �. to be generated by any proposed development within the annexation area. 3. A conceptual development plan which indicates the types and intensities of proposed land uses, transportation corridors, significant natural features and adjoining land uses . 4 . A statement describing any potential negative physical , aesthetic and social impacts of any proposed development on the community as a whole or the neighborhood. 5. A map to scale of area to be annexed which includes the surrounding area, and- metes and bounds legal description of annexation area. Section 4 . REPEAL The City of Tigard hereby repeals its former annexation policy, Ordinance No. 79-26, in its entirety. Section 5. EMERGENCY CLAUSE Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health, and safety of the people of the City of Tigard that the foregoing change in the boundaries of the City become a permanent part of the City ' s records, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage by the Council , and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By the City Council by vote of all Council members present; after being read two times by number and title only, this -_ day of } „1 P 1982 . � f Recorder - Ci of Tigard SIGNED: By the Mayor on this _2p day of Q. 1982 . 1 Mayor - City of Tigrd i is i 1 1+ FASI-i1NGVN COUNTY —5/6�_ c C Inicr—I)rp(u nrnt ('orrespoudcncc i)atc January 18, 1983 UEPAf:1MEN1 OF ('CANNING To = Yvonne Addington, Plan Manager WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSL Planning Department HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123 From :)(Martin C. Nizlek, Transport3tion Division Manager ��� h" `` ��'`' -S-5 Department of Public Works Subject Aloha Bypass and Murray Extension Towards the end of the year several of the community planners requested back- ground information on these proposed routes prior to "going public" again. While I expect to handle such questions personally at these meetings, I 'm providing a brief response for backup. ALOHA BYPASS JUSTIFICATION As you may recall , the original suggestion to look at an Aloha Bypass alignment came from a citizen proposal at one of the town hall meetings last fall . That proposal suggested that we look at an alignment virtually as we are now proposing. Once we incorporated the alignment in the transportation model we saw several important things happen: First and foremost was the magnitude of demand - it far exceeded what one could casually ascribe to local traffic . That is, regionally significant volumes were re-routed to it. Second, we found that distinct and sizable reductions (10% and greater) might be realized in the volumes along congested facilities such as Highway 217 near Tigard and along Highway 99W near Highway 217. Given the costs required to expand Highway 217, we see the Bypass asa much more desirable and financially affordable alternative. SECONDARY BENEFITS There would be other benefits which are harder to quantify. First, travel times in Washington County between , say, the 185th area and Tualatin would remain at today' s levels rather than increasing to the point of "choking off" that desirable accessibility between subareas of the County. Second, with or without an extension of Murray Boulevard into Tigard and Highway 99W, the creation of this Bypass would reduce the amount of extraneous, through traffic penetrating neighborhoods. Traffic would find a more direct route desirable to one of a discontinuous local street system and local residents would find increased accessibility available to them. Finally, but perhaps the 'Most significant planning .issue, is the accessibility of the core of Washington County to other parts of the County, the region and down-State. While local attention will be focused on the Sunset Highway for the �. next several years, improvements to it can never overcome the physical constraints east of us (Vista Ridge and Highway 217 constraints) . Simply put, the ability of the 185th area to develop as planned will be enhanced by added accessibility. i E Aloha Bypass Page 2 MURRAY BOULEVARD EXTENSION JUSTIFICATION The impacts of extending Murray would be similar to the Aloha Bypass but on a more localized scale. As we are well aware, Walnut Street between 135th Avenue and Highway 99W is heavily impacted by through traffic avoiding congestion on 217 , Scholls ferry and 9914. The extension , when modelled , shows a need for two to three lanes. Our traffic numbers do not indicate a major reduction of traffic on Walnut Street primarily because of increased local traffic "loading out" to the more accessible Murray Extension. SECONDARY BENEFITS From my contact with the Planning Department' s community planning efforts in the Bull Mountain area as well as recent contact with Frank Currie of Tigard, it is becoming more and more apparent that added collector facilities need to penetrate this area. An appropriate design on Murray would be able to handle this added function. . . .but care must be exercised in the frequency of connections. We (Public Works) are wor'King with Tigard (Frank Currie) and an engineering -onsultant to define an acceptable, low impact extension alignment. This is .►ecessary as part of the LID design process for 135th Avenue north of Walnut Street so that in the long run there will not be a "direct" connection into Walnut Street. FUTURE EFFORTS Metro and ODOT will be cooperating in a joint study of the southwest corridor (southeast area of Washinqton County). This effort will add more detail to these findings. We have asked ODOT to include locational studies for the proposed Bypass route in their budget and to consider 185th (from the north County line to I-5) being a State facility ultimately. Relative to the issue of rural impacts , , 1.a11r;ut resfjk_jnd. the rura i plan was generated without any transportatiun consideration and it is .likely that this B.voass may be justified simply by the added rural traffic in the area. Clearly, ever, it is warranted for the urban plan. MCN:ss :2:2 O'DONNELL, DATE January 26 , 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO EJS 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM RE City of Tigard - Planning and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan Amendment FACTS During the comprehensive plan hearing before the council in December on Air, Water and Land Resource Quality and Public Facilities and Service Elements, questions were raised by NPO #3 on three items in reference to METRO and DEQ. These include Implementation Strategies No. 3 at 4 . 1. 1, dealing with air quality; Policy b at 7. 2 .2, dealing with waste water; and Policy 4 . 2 . 2, also dealing with waste water. The council agreed to seek other comparable language for these items. DISCUSSION The language objected to in each instance is the same language required by MSD to meet regional requirements. Under Section 4 . 1 of the CRAG Rule, local comprehensive plans are required to conform with regional plan elements which have been adopted by rule by the CRAG Board. Two such elements have been adopted: The Land Use Framework Element and the Waste Treatment Management Component of the Public Facilities Element. In addition to the t special regional plan elements, MSD has a number of functional plans with which local jurisdictions should be coordinated. The reason for including this language is that MSD, LCDC, state agencies and citizens need to have some evidence that the juris- diction' s governing body knows about these plans. The references must be sufficient to meet both substantive goal requirements and regional coordination requirements. The former requires a brief summary of the plan' s factual base. The latter requires policies in the plan recognizing and supporting the relevant MSD plans. It is the adequacy of this recognition with which we are dealing here. I have spoke to Joe Cartwright from MSD and neither he nor I were able to come up with other language to meet the requirement. We concluded it is simply better to say exactly what it is we mean so that everyone is put on notice as to what is really happening. The items referred to above should remain as they are in the plan. E P E a i I SKS:mch 1/26/83 Y COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCHEDULE MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1/25 - CC 1/27/83 -- PC Housing Comp Plan Designation Map Interim Zoning Map 2/7 - CC Urbanization Findings , Policies & Implementation Strategies 2/22 - PC Study Session Community Dev. Code l 2/28 - CC ZCA' s 3/8 - PC Community Dev. Code Final Zoning Map 3/21 -- CC Community Dev. Code Final Zoning Map P i } p Need to schedule - CC - Comprehensive Plan Map hearing (s) $ Interim Zoning Map i t i :p ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plan that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas o:f open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at. the same demsity. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE I S Su •�<c %��' �3 s r Y 'i s E i 6 fFS, F3 E G i 5 k t�{t 3 Q S t E( f[[ f ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plana that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas of open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at- the same density. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DF TE i MA t E r �C ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plan that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas of open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at" the same density. SIGNA" -'E ADDRESS DATE >' 9 J- ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS i We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plan that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas of open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at. the same density. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE F N, All G gid_ �� ,, 5e-t, i / ��S �f'1✓ 7�— /�/s�V3 f �, l � > �S S•� �� j 5� � � S 3 7/ ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plan that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas of open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at:. the same density. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE -vs-3 9ze) T 3 t/jV i70 G -1 ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plan that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas of open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at. the same density. STIMINATURE ADDRESS DATE 6-' p 7:e� bwje07-/9 S'3 �Q �iG�-- \P a12u Sw, N�ti�►-p�\�o�t� �?��� ;i��o,�'.� moo. •(��- ;��. �/i5//�� -73 i� �• � �fj�j,� SSU-. lti`. G',�dim.7.� /—�y� � 3 ® A EW NOW ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS r We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plan that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas of open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at: the same density. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE ��_� C�--�.�✓ /f G C% C) LJ , CzJ. �G/FCe�ti—'--L � " � —i Ile CP f/0 o J�D € 23 SO — & v �� 0 , 1- /v 43 a Kaffa �.�—= ea Z- ST 77 14 Z3 r 4 { i ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plan that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas of open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at. the same density. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE ��.'.� fir.. z'G�� 1/(09s S�i, !�/q/N•��57• %i��r�D/(' /_ j_ '����t.,�-,.:�- �'�2.r. �-T,r.�� �<i 6'� �'•��.i, is vi��.11� .�--�j�--4,=G_/ - ? -� A 7 �(�-..�.�,-� Gr /v ya o Scv iw s 1_,v�✓ s ,6 0 7 o s JZ c a l—lU s,P,3 z 5. S te ,,/, ( - I L 171 /1/400 —fCej J� -1 t ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plan that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas of open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at. the same demsityo SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE 76) vie US o "� w i l �- G� ,�, l bow �• -� / — .. 7Z ZONING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt policies in its comprehensive plan that provide that the zoning in existing neighborhoods shall match the existing development, and that areas of open lots within existing neighborhoods shall be zoned at the same damsity. SIGN-kTURE ADDRESS DATE C hZ1 !(4F5D Sir /� �- //- - �3 L� Ctl eN Ida /00 � ����' � �- !o/so sGfi /✓l��?r���� sT- � - lam - �3 � t, J . r i DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy s as part of its comprehensive plan: IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PPOCESS IN AN "ESTABLISHED AREA," THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S). Signature Address Date E/S'3 A4 DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy as past of its comprehensive plan® IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVEWP14ENT PROCESS IN AN "ESTABLISHED AREA. THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE. AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S) . Signature Address Date 1 l'L 1�3 clv� u 7 yS s w 12 5 j15 /Q'3 r } z e i I i DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy as part of its comprehensive plan: IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN AN "ESTABLISHED AREA," THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S). Signature Address Date t I` 7 t F Y E Y *L 9 n �Y T 3 Ce� IIy} T .sem DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy as part of its comprehensive plan: IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN AN "ESTABLISHED AREA," sEE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S). Signature Address ` Date HimWam DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy as part of its comprehensive plan; IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN AN "ESTABLISHED AREA," THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF TKE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S). Signature Address Date 2 7�) � z 1V lCs' 11 O c DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy as part of its comprehensive plan; IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN All "ESTABLISHED AREA, THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CIT% SHAI:L BE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S). Signature Address Date urn. 0 SGv " kv. -/V-93- '00. 4107 7 IN f S � � C t C3F F A { t t DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS i We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy as part of its comprehensive plan: IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN AN "ESTABLISHED AREA, THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S). Signature Address Date i ; 3-766 z 33 0 '139 50 Av- s wltgllr ; l„�G,ok� r DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS i We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy as part of its comprehensive plan: IN ALL, PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN AN "ESTABLISHED AREA," THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERtJE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S), Signature Address Date tAj- ton C1 q =T 63 .'off 1 ,�� � p•�� ] tk�p S S 1.� L�3 4.,� �� t l ( 5 DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy as part of its comprehensive plant IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN A11 "ES'T'ABLISHED AREA," THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S) Signature Address Date �i '- /` � � i �•� �l X712��GYI / '-3 JG / ��/ � !J •�-i. . (/(. LC/1LK�/%t�L/�'iL�y'•t // 4/ CJ 5. 9,3 w . Y m �l }goo .S'c� uJ,k�,, 's%Ti .'�b o� U D j3.&� " ' 11 a 7 © S LI-) ut��ti,. �� 7`.` � dti r- y _ � 3 r--)C;27,L ldU ,:t- / 1Y :t;2Y 35 r - % t � � -3 n S �✓ � f r �l�� �0 l U D®�Og ®®Y7Y8W®o�ip� �wwl --iylliii�H� DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS { We, the undersigned, request the City of Tigard to adopt the following policy as part of its comprehensive plan: IN ALL PHASES 'OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN AN "ESTABLISHED AREA," THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD(S). Signature Address Date o S Lu. !� 61~- 3183 . '-j CSG' `✓ ,•''`,' ��''���`-� o77v S �% �ti'U r- ?��.�z�'1 i - 23 -e-L5 -23 -� t Paul and Gloria Johnson 9300 S, W. }sill Street Ti.-ard, Oregon, 97223- January 21, 1983 Tigard Planning Staff + ate Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Council 12755 S• W. Ash Tigard , Oregon, 97223 • Dear Members : This letter is pertaining to density in the Omara Triangle. This land is presently zoned single family low density. The recommended new zoning is medium density. This area is surrounded by established single family homes . The residents in this area bought their homes here because the area was zoned single family low density. We have a Petition here with 160 signatures of residents in this area reauesting that it stay lowdensity. N. P. O. #1. also, is requesting that it stay low density. We feel that a higher density will destroy the character of _ this established single family residential neighborhood or- area. r Thank you for your time and consideration, Sincerely, ti Paul and Gloria Johnson r RIMINI F s a s , r (E fa/ F t 1 i S E f ADOPTED BY LCDC- December 11, 1981 1 J 1 OAR 660-07-000 2 Division 7 3 Metropolitan Housing 4 660-07-000 - STATEMENT OF-PURPOSE - 5 The purpose of this rule is to assure opportunity fcr the provision 6 of adequate numbers of- needed housing. units. and the efficient use of land 7 within the. Metropolitan Portland (Metro) -urban growth boundary, to 8 provide greater certainty in the development process and so to reduce i . 9 housing costs. This rule, in and of itself, will not affect the 10 acknowledged status of a jurisdiction. I 11 660-07-100 DEFINITIONS 12 For the purposes of this rule, the definitions in ORS 197.015 13 and 197.330 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions apply: _ 14 660-07-110 Housing Needs Projection refers to a local 15 determination, justified in the plan, as to the housing types and 16 densities that will be: 17 A. Commensurate with the financial capabilities of present and 18 future area residents of all income levels during the planning period; j 19 B. Consistent with.OAR .660-07-200 through 660-07-350 and any 20 other adopted regional housing standards; and 21 C. Consistent with Goal 14 requirements for -the efficient 22 provision of public facilities- and services, and efficiency of land use. �I 23 660-07-115 Needed Housing means the mix of housing types and 24 densities that results from a housing needs projection. I i 25 660-07-120 Detached Single Family Housing means a_housing unit s _ '.Page 1 E 1 that is free standing and separate from other housing units. 2 660-07-125 Attached Single Family Housing means common-wall 3 dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot. 4 660-07-130 Multiple Family Housing means attached housing where 5 each dwelling unit is not located on a separate lot.. 6 660-07-140 Buildable Land means residentially designated vacant " 7 and, at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within 8 the Metro urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by 9 na,ural hazards (Statewide Planning Goal 7) or subject to natural to resource protection measures (Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15). 11 Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential 12 use. Land with slopes of 25 percent or greater and land within the 13 100-year floodplain is generally considered unbuildable for purposes of 14 density calculations. 15 660-07-145 A Net Buildable Acre consists of 43,560 square feet 16 of residentially designated buildable land, after excluding present and 17 future rights-of-way, restricted hazard areas, public open spaces and 18 restricted resource protection areas. 19 660-07-150 Redevelopable Land means land zoned for residential 20 use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to 21 present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood 22 that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential 23 uses during the planning period. 24 660-07-200 ALLOCATIONS OF BUILDABLE LAND 25 Buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map i Page 2 ' t I 11111 ilia SRI! I consistent with the need for housing within the Metro urban growth 2 boundary. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount 3 of buildable land in each residential plan designation. 4 660-07-210 Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required 5 Local approval standards, special conditions and procedures 6 regulating the development of needed housing must be clear and objective, 7 and must not have the effect, either of themselves or cumulatively, of 8 discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. 9 660-07-220 The Rezoning Process 10 A local government may defer rezoning of land within the urban 11 growth boundary to maximum planned residential density provided that the 12 process for future rezoning is reasonably justified. 13 A. The plan must contain a justification for the rezoning 14 process and policies which explain how this process will be used to 15 provide for needed housing. 16 B. Standards and procedures governing the process for 17 future rezoning shall be based on the rezoning justification and policy 18 statement, and must be clear and objective. 19 660-07-300 MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND MIX STANDARDS FOR NEW 20 CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY 21 660-07-310 Purpose 22 OAR 660-07-320 through 660-07-350 are intended to establish by 23 rule regional residential density and mix standards to measure 24 Goal 10 Housing compliance for cities and counties within the Metro urban 25 growth boundary, and to ensure the efficient use of residential land Page 3 l�..:1�� — dos 1 within the regional UGB consistent with Goal 14 Urbanization. 2 OAR 660-07--330 through 660-07-350 implement the Commission's 3 determination in the Metro UGB acknowledgment proceedings that 4 regionwide, planned residential densities must be considerably in excess 5 of the 6.23 dwelling units per net buildable acre assumed in Metro's "UGB 6 Findings." 7 660-07-320 New Construction Mix 8 Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must designate 9 sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 10 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing 11 or multiple familv housinq. 12 660-07-330 Minimum Residential Density Allocation for New 13 Construction 14 660-07-335 The Cities of Cornelius, Durham, Fairview, 15 Happy Valley and Sherwood must provide for an overall density of six or 16 more dwelling units per net buildable acre. These are relatively small 17 cities with some growth potential (i.e., with a regionally coordinated 18 population projection of less than 8,000 persons for the active planning 19 area) . 20 660-07-340 Clackamas and Washington Counties, and the 21 Cities of Forest Grove, Gladstone, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Troutdale, i 22 Tualatin, West Linn and Wilsonville must provide for an overall density 23 of eight or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. 24 660-07-345 Multnomah County and the Cities of Portland, i t 25 Gresham, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego and Tigard must provide for an i - i Page 4 t i rg r 1 overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. 2 These are larger urbanized jurisdictions with regionally coordinated 3 population projections of 50,000 or more for their active planning areas, 4 which encompass or are near major employment centers, and which are 5 situated along regional transportation corridors. 6 660-07-350 Regional housing density and mix standards as 7 stated in OAR 660-07-320 through 660-07-345 do not apply to small 8 developed cities which had less than 50 acres of buildable land in 1977 9 as determined by criteria used in Metro's UGB Findings. These cities 10 include King City, Rivergrove, Maywood Park, Johnson City and Wood 11 Village. 12 660-07-360 Exceptions 13 A City or county may take an exception to the residential 14 density and mix standards of this rule as stated in OAR 660-07-320 15 through 660-07-350. Such an exception shall be taken pursuant to the 16 procedural requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 2, Part II EXCEPTIONS. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 6977A/2OC i i 21 25 Page 5 D-- INC. 11515 S.W. 91ST AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97223 J.S.A. p (503) 639-2900 26, 1983 C1 T CCC%I ( t «_:TJ;..: 3T&I 3.1 2 Redo fit ian TR.z'7-�1u,, .ta the C.i_t;t T&a�l f'i tzarye rES Gzaa.fd&. L. an---' J nea.icLe c-t 11515 S. J. 97z t Au- 1-EJe zra�z t La a on �reca�ul as oL.�ri i rz c to the rzaj' u lzatse Merz f�uruzis;ze<w' a✓s it r.'oed not .a/zmr ouz nr�,a/r.�:a� nai. 'zaez -i-.t v�;:art aca�- �=' S. , ��-np��__ f Lelmhulz-6f< . Liz /ILLd az'3u/Le:.� me /,^i LLZ�. .CLUZ/LC�-JLT /7L717iS the CamJ;zu�s.�«Iz. . Our a-ttczn c r: r_uea n . ' ie rz on 'z-�ac;t`z cLiui�s�.ar .eine -eal't C fezb,,- to ',arzcb /z 2 to ccl cze rLi s .t�Z/zz.�te_tian �..a -�.;�e -Eirz-e n.,c!ut,d nanl•'z arzu ,dor.L•trz - _ - i o _ wire 6 on Tx) L%i_` "T" i-t bfou'd Av-a "!a'Iu= Sou t/w.e s.t c orrizen a:'" La t 23, 3-6nc 78, a di-.6 tan r-c o-ff 350 Rc. zdane�en�eta me t",a ,Zin Oztevi a6 .thc authani.,ty- urui ,im canrrlun it &rou f-d /ze ve .to 4Z Jze t'"ze f:urzru rub AM aorctrz Za aa,7 2, d i.zce .dtaA t,u at .size Sou.t'we,3 i t_glu� o;' La-t 23, v.�'oda 78 and ocuze a di,6tarzce o/' 350 Ae-, t -theme wc,z on one vay 4 a L arta 78 t/urt ',au could ca. I ems;e mah_e tJua 1?,2/Lt o;! .t<i.e Citic o- T.i_7a4d ze� Jzeaz3. 1 - aR • •.eeoect/an JrLi�.i e`�rn�xa.tron off Ten u 't to .t11,e CZ-b- a TLS ate: t L k r{k 1 ADOPTED BY LCDC: December 11, 1981 t ' 1 OAR 660-07-000 2 Division 7 3 Metropolitan Housing 4 660-07-000 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE_ 5 The purpose of this rule is to assure opportunity _For the provision 6 of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land Y 7 within the Metropolitan Portland (Metro) urban growth boundary, to a provide greater certainty in the development process and so to- reduce 9 housing costs. This rule, in and of itself, will not affect the 10 acknowledged status of a jurisdiction. 11 660-07-100 DEFINITIONS 12 For the purposes of this rule, the definitions in ORS 197.015 t 13 and 197.330 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions apply: i 14 660-07-110 Housing Needs Projection refers to a local 15 determination, justified in the plan, as to the housing types and g 16 densities that will be: 17 A. Commensurate with the financial capabilities of present and , k 18 future area residents of all income levels during the planning period; 19 B. Consistent with OAR 660-07-200 through 660-07-350 and any 20 other adopted regional housing standards; and z E s 21 C. Consistent with Goal 14 requirements for -the efficient 22 provision of public facilities and services, and efficiency of land use. 23 660-07-115 Needed Housing means the mix of housing types and , . 24 densities that results from a housing needs- projection. 25 660-07-120 Detached Single.Family Housing means a housing unit . 1 ' Page I _. s w f 4- 1 that is free standing and separate from other housing units. 2 660-07-125 Attached Single Family Housing means common-wall 3 dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot. 4 660-07-130 Multiple Family Housing means attached housing where 5 each dwelling unit is not located on a separate lot.` 6 660-07-140 Buildable Land means residentially designated vacant 7 and, at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within 8 the Metro urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by 9 natural hazards (Statewide Planning Goal 7) or subject to natural t io resource protection measures (Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15) . li Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential 12 use. Land with slopes of 25 percent or greater and land within the K 13 100-year floodplain is generally considered unbuildable for purposes of P r 14 density calculations. 15 660-07-145 A Net Buildable Acre consists of 43,560 square feet 16 of residentially designated buildable land, after excluding present and 17 future rights-of-way, restricted hazard areas, public open spaces and L 1 18 restricted resource protection areas. 19 660-07-150 Redevelopable Land means land zoned for residential 20 use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to 1 s 21 present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood S 22 that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential 23 uses during the planning period. 24 660-07-200 ALLOCATIONS OF BUILDABLE LAND € 25 Buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map ° i Page 2 't i =� �. 1 consistent with the need for housing within the Metro urban growth 2 boundary. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount 3 of buildable land in each residential plan designation. 4 660-07-210 Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required 5 Local approval standards, special conditions and procedures 6 regulating the development of needed housing must be clear and objective, 7 and must not have the effect, either of themselves or cumulatively, of 8 discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. 9 660-07-220 The Rezoning Process 10 A local government may defer rezoning of land within the urban 11 growth boundary to maximum planned residential density provided that the 12 process for future rezoning is reasonably justified. 13 A. The plan must contain a justification for the rezoning Z4 process and policies which explain how this process will be used to 15 provide for needed housing. 16 B. Standards and procedures governing- ihe process for 17 future rezoning shall be based on the rezoning justification and policy 18 statement, and must be clear and objective. 19 660-07-300 MINIMUM RESIDDITIAL DENSITY AND MIX STANDARDS FOR NEW 20 CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY 21 660-07-310 Purpose 22 OAR 660-07-320 through 660-07-350 are intended to establish by 23 rule regional residential density and mix standards to measure 24 Goal 10 Housing compliance for cities and counties within the Metro urban ( 25 growth boundary, and to ensure the efficient use of residential land Page 3 1 within the regional UGB consistent with Goal 14 Urbanization. 2 OAR 660-07-330 through 660-07-350 implement the Commission's 3 determination in the Metro UGB acknowledgment proceedings that 4 regionwide, planned residential densities must be considerably in excess 5 of the 6.23 dwelling units per net buildable acre assumed in Metro's "UGB 6 Findings." 7 660-07-320 New Construction Mix 8 Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must designate 9 sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 10 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing 11 or multiple family housing. 12 660-07-330 Minimum Residential Density Allocation for New 13 Construction r 14 660-07-335 The Cities of Cornelius, Durham, Fairview, 15 Happy Valley and Sherwood must provide for an overall density of six or 16 more dwelling units per net buildable acre. These are rel;a;ively small 17 cities with some growth potential (i.e., with a regionally coordinated 18 population projection of less than 8,000 persons for the active planning 19 area). 20 660-07-340 Clackamas and Washington Counties, and the 21 Cities of Forest Grove, Gladstone, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Troutdale, 22 Tualatin, West Linn and Wilsonville must provide for an overall density 23 of eight or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. 24 660-07-345 Multnomah County and the Cities of Portland, 25 Gresham, Beaverton, t illsboro, Lake Oswego and Tigard must provide for an Page 4 overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. 2 These are larger urbanized jurisdictions with regionally coordinated 3 population projections of 50,000 or more for their active planning areas, 4 which encompass or are near major employment centers, and which are 5 situated along regional transportation corridors. 6 660-07-350 Regional housing density and mix standards as 7 stated in OAR 660-07-320 through 660-07-345 do not apply to small 8 developed cities which had less than 50 acres of buildable land in 1977 9 as determined by criteria used in Metro's UGB Findings. These cities 10 include King City, Rivergrove, Maywood Park, Johnson City and Wood 11 Village. 12 660-07-360 Exceptions 13 A City or county may take an exception to the residential C_ 14 density and mix standards of this rule as stated in OAR 660-07-320 15 through 660-07-350. Such an exception shall be taken pursuant to the 16 procedural requi-c-ments of Statewide Planning Goal 2, Part II EXCEPTIONS. 17 18 19 t 20 21 22 23 6977A/2OC i � 24 25 Page 5 Paul and Gloria Johnson 9300 S. W. Hill Street Tigard , Oreton, 97223• January 21, 1983 Tigard Planning Staff Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Council '-• 12755 S. W. Ash . Tigard , Oregon, 97223 • Dear Members : This letter is pertaining to Duplexes as buffers. We believe that the single family residents have the right to be protected against density development. In the Housing Book, page 7, Policy 6. 3. 2 , Section B, 1 & 2 , it is not clear pertaining to the buffer between single family homes and multi-family. N . P. O. #1 Book, Page 17. Policy ;/7. says duplexes should be buffers between multi--family and single family areas. This Policy should be maintained in our new City Code Book so as to protect all the established single family neighborhoods or areas . This Policy #7 in N.P. O. #1 Book should be included in Policy # x. 2. 3 in the new Housing Book. We were at the Tura Meeting on Thursday, January 13 , 1983, and the recommendation was made by the Tura Committee that duplexes be a buffer between single family homes and multi-family including residential areas inside the CBD line . This was written down by Mr. Patrick Furrer, Chairman of the Tura Committee and Mr. William Monahan, the Planning Director. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, Sincerely, Paul and Gloria Johnson k �MEM Paul and Gloria Johnson 9300 S. W. Hill Street Tigard , Oregon, 97223. January 21, 1983 Tigard Planning Staff Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Council 12755 S. W. Ash Tigard , Oregon, 97223• Dear Members : This letter is pertaining to density in the Omara Triangle. This land is presently zoned single family low density. The recommended new zoning is medium density. This area is surrounded by established single family homes . The residents in this area bought their homes here because the area was zoned single family low density. We have a Petition here with 160 siFnat-ures of residents in this area requesting that it stay lowdensity- N.P. O. #1. also. is requesting that it stay low density. < We feel that a higher density will destroy the character of this established single family residential neighborhood or- area. Thank you for your time and consideration, Sincerely, / l• •�c1 Paul and Gloria Johnson k Y 1 L t � t 'aI O'QONNELL. DATE January 26 , 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO EJS 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM RE City of Tigard - Planning and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan Amendment FACTS During the comprehensive plan hearing before the council in December on Air, Water and Land Resource Quality and Public Facilities and Service Elements, questions were raised by NPO #3 on three items in reference to METRO and DEQ. These include Implementation Strategies No. 3 at 4 . 1 . 1 , dealing with air quality; Policy b at 7. 2 .2, dealing with waste water; and Policy 4 .2. 2, also dealing with waste water. The council agreed to seek other comparable language for these items. DISCUSSION The language objected to in each instance is the same language required by MSD to meet regional requirements. Under Section 4 . 1 of the CRAG Rule, local comprehensive plans are required to conform with regional plan elements which have been adopted by rule by the CRAG Board. Two such elements have been adopted: The Land Use Framework Element and the Waste Treatment Management ' Component of the Public Facilities Element. In addition to the special regional plan elements, MSD has a number of functional plans with which local jurisdictions should be coordinated. The reason for including this language is that MSD, LCDC, state agencies and citizens reed to have some evidence that the juris- diction' s governing body knows about these plans. The references must be sufficient to meet both substantive goal requirements and regional coordination requirements. The former requires a brief summary of the plan' s factual base. The latter requires policies in the plan recognizing and supporting the relevant MSD plans. It is the adequacy of this recognition with which we are dealing here. I have spoke to Joe Cartwright from MSD and neither he nor I were able to come' up with other language to meet the requirement. We concluded it is simply better to say exactly what it is we mean so that everyone is put on notice as to what is really happening. The items referred to above should remain as they are in the plan. SKS:mch 1/26/83