CPA 23-84 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING CFA 23-84
n ".,....' CITY OF TIG7 2T
Policies 6.1.2 & 12.1.14
•
•;
;
t
}
•
•
•
raj;. 'd
•
, I
1•�
i
,r.b
t- I
• i
r ,
p
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORD CNANCE NO. 85_ �.�_
AN ORDINANCE DELETING POLICY 6.1.2, SUBSIDIZED HOUSING DISPERSAL, IN SINGLE
�, Pt t ,, t("`: LOCATIONAL.TIONA1,_ CRITERIA, AND
FAMILY ZONES ;AND 1 �I_:L�` 12 1, L, ., ~` .. '.
1�t�:� :,r N'L:LAL 1,.�,,t�
DECLARING AN EtlERGENCY. (CP6, 23-M84) '.:.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan For the, City by ',`
Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; rand
- ` WHEREAS, Volume 2 -- Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies was x,'
adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission held an
; acknowledgement hearing on Tigard's Comprehensive Plan on October 12, 1984; and
• WHEREAS, at the October 12, 1984, (-CDC hear .ig, the Commission voted to
;.,`' acknowledge Tigard's_ Plan upon deletion of policies 6.1.2 and 12.1,1.4; and
WHEREAS, Policy 641 2 and policy 12,1, 1.4 were adopted by Ordinance No. 84-3b
on July 9, 1984 and '.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October
2, 1984, to considc. the deletion of policies 6.1.2 and 12.1.1.4 and a
trecommendation was made to the City Council to delete the policies; and
y cOctober 8, 84, to
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before City Council on 19
Council voted to retain
consider the PlanningCommission recommendation and: Cc►un
L . ' policies 6.1.2 and 12.1.1.4 but no final order was adopted; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on February 11,
1985, for Council consideration of the Planning Commission' s recommendation.
:` THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1,4 I~olicy 6,1A2. shall be deleted as` set forth below. Language to be
deleted in in Lbra.cketsj
["6.1.2 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS SHALL CONFORM TO ALL ,
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS4 TO PREVENT "tHE
' GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION - iuBLIC HOUSING AND INSURE A
BALANCE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH HOUSING, THE
R SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS
MINIMUMDISTANCE Tt�EEI�! �,
� 8E
LOCATED WITHIN ANY SINGLE FAMILY -ZONING DISTRICT SHALL
BE FIVE TIMES THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTI t ON ANY STREET IN
TIE DEVELOPMENT, TO AVOID CONCENTRATIONS OF SUBSIDIZED
HOUSING IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONED DISTRICTS, THE
LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IN SECTION 4. u f POLICY 12.1.1 ,
ORDINIAItV.:;E NO 8:5
ttge1
E..
4
_. . . it
SHALL nt APPLIED WHEN Si rING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
PROJECTS IN SINGLEFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS. FOR
PURPOSES OF 1HIS POLICY, THE TERM "SUBSIDIZED HOUSING" .
SHALL MEAN ANY HOUSING DEVELOPED OR CONSTRUCTED WITH i
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF 1 HE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND OR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND fE UE STATE OF OREGON OWNED
AND MAINTAINED BY A NON-PROFIT', QUASI—PUBLIC PRIVAIt: OR
GOVERNMENT AGENCY."] ;•t.
Section 2: Policy 12.1. 1 shall be deleted as set forth below.` Language to be ,
d
oleted in in [brackets] .
i, 4
C 4, Subsidized Housing in ST.ngle Family Zoning Districts
A. The Following factors, will be the determinants for
locating subsidized housing, as defined it Policy
6.1.2, in single family zoning districts:
(1) All units should, if possible, be within 1/4 mile of a
route of 1'<
Public transit
,
Addit
nal
s should be
(2) areasiUwhich subsidized
exhibit d uani.tower th anµ-aerageo�Ell.evel of
subsidy and medium to low level of poverty.
(3) No more than 30 percent of the units in :a development ,
of 10 units or more shall be subsidized, ,';.'.
(4) No more than two subsidized housing units shall
t
adjoin."
:. Section 3: In order that the City's Comprehensive Plan be acknowledged by ::
LCOC as soon as possible, an emergency is hereby declared` to exist
and this ordinance shall become effective upon its passage by the ,4
Council and approved by the Mayor,
, i
PASSED: Sy L( '.1 __t 1 w t.. vote of ail Council members present after
being read by number and title only, this 1 2- day
CY C,y)„n. l
,/ rieputy City Recorder — City of Tigard
APPROVED: This µ// ' , day of
,
Mayor •- City or Tigard
0990P
• 0RDXNANC NO, 5._
Page '
r
f'}� r• . .l ^:.ry-+M. ry u,,..,,.W4 mw.ca .xi,.,+e,.«,.,H, �• r,� l,` -. .:. ,„y�,px.,.. .,. j :»4 ,x...,.w ,.
/ r
8 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING -
a. Public Hearing Opened
b, Finance Director summarized the supplemental budget request tip,. °
c. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak.
d. Finance. Director stated the t;'.udget Committee and staff recommended
.. approval
e. Public Hearing Closed
f. RESOLUTION NO. 8585-07 A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING REVENUES.,
RECOGNIZING BEGINNING FUND BALANCES, APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL
BUDGET AND MAKING t PPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR, 1984-85,
g. Motion by Councilor Briar , seconded by Councilor Edwards to k
approve.
Approved by una ti,mou:s vote of Council present.
0. CPA 23-84 PUBLIC HEARING - SUBSIDIZED HOUSING POLICY
,. . a. Public Hezcring Opened ; . .'.:.
bi Commune ty Development Director synopsized the history noting that ,,.
"= LCDC had requested the City delete the policy for subsidized `
housing. Staff currently has new policy language which may be
; J .. enacted at a later date, (post acknowledgment) if the City's
activity requires.
c. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak.
d. Community Development Director stated Planning Commi' sion and
staff recommend approval.
•
: ..,, e. Public. Hearing Closed
rMy
f. Consensus of Council was to support this compromise,, City
Adi.nistrator stated he felt LCDC would honor this compromise
since Mayor Cook had worked with LCDC ovr this issue
g. ORDINANCE. NO. 85-O3 AN ORDINANCE DELETING POLICY 6.1..2,
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING DISPERSAL IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES, AND POLICY v
RESIDENTIAL
C. . . AND DECLARING AN
ESIDENTIAt� LOCATIONAL
1241.1.4, �, CRITERIA, ,
EMERGENCY. (CPA 23.84) ,61
! h. Motion by Councilor Brian, ss conded by toun, ilor'Edwards to 'adopt.
Approved 'by unanimous vote of council present.
10 i CONSENT AGENDA i These items are considered to be routine and
4 may be
• enacted in one motion without separate discussion, Anyone may request .
,. iand separate action.
that an item be removed by motion for discussion
.. Motion;to
Page :z -• COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1085
t
pp ,
CITY OF TIG44, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM .. UtIMARY
AGENDA OF: February 11, 1.985 AGENDA ITEM If'w
DATE SUBMITTED: January 30, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Ordinance ,, :,-38 ;.
" ISSUE/Ar,ENOA TITLE: Subsidized adopted ul,,y 9a 1,934 attached
n.._ PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton
Norasx y Polzcxes 6 y 1.2 and 12,1.�; PR
! ,, REQUESTED BY Elizablth Newton•
DEPARTMENT � 71/
HEAD OK:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION : .41MARY
Attached is a memo which outlines the status of the subsidized housing policy •
a issue yet to be resolv,,d before the Comprehensive Plan gains ackno ,eaement
from LCOC, youLCDC will ya wled9s ;he plan upon deletionof
ic e .,�F► 1 y 2 apd the locat�.onal c.ritert,a , . a �r�� l.. .1 related
A s are aware,
poi� i � � Lay `� 1
subsidized ho .. it ,r„ n (.c;to ..er, 2,_1.9844 the PlannirYg Commission voted 6-2 to
re�� o Council that policies 5.1 .2 a ,.2-y-
..,. •1-... .—be�,...„deleted. On
�'ommenc4.,� to Gity�. �,.� ,
October 8, 1984, the* `Czrurtc l t�rl° rye a " I w .p. cy,however, a final
ire..
f order was not pasted whi lche Cocnc�la t•hd ..a tennativ, sglu_ti.on .from
staff and LCt)C. 'The tem° attached describes the t 11,ernative
policy 6.1-2 •
which •.., in; fiatod day ' ""G staff and was reviewed by'.tFtexr Ota a"`ttorne
�� .:ae i,s also attached. --the
The aiternati ve policy. 1�� ,� gCity_attorney s office
has -reviewed the 'Languagew-an&,.fir, s. that .,.„the, a.ternati.ve cll i y fou d” the
legal. The City staff feels that if a ...the., post acknowledgeme,ot stage, it is
necessary_ to amend the plan to include the alternative policy, it` wau-1�"`not ie •-
difficult tomisislret^� A
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
•
•
1. Delete, clic 6,1,2 and the locational criteria in policy12.1.1. which
' �!_.:�. . ,�' ..., �,
relate to subsidized housing. - -.
' 2. Retain policy 6.,142 and the locational criteria in policy 12.1.1 which
relate to subsidized housing
SUGGESTED ACTION
•
. Delete policy 6,1-2 and the locational criteria in policy 1241,1 which relate I
to subsidized housing.
t 0980Pfdml i
• •
. 1 a.. � , .- ...uww,wwun ... x, ± ..,"il ..Lw.+JpKy • N ,,.r„ `ir.:
r w+wW+r
a*dC^
w
• 1
,f-
F` u
. r•
MEMO
•
t' TO: City Council r
FROM: tlizabetth A. Newton, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Subsidized Housing
On January 14, 1985, 8111 Monahan, Director of Community Development presented
the Council a
reportthe subsidized housing policy. This is the only ;.
'' outstanding issue to beresolved to gain LCDC acknT:tg git Q the j'AtIL`
' Ccim: r71herisive an. In 8111 Monahan memo of ,January 9, 1985, (attached) he
outlines the steps which had been taken at that point to resolve the ;
subsidized housing issue. Sine tat -ts e the City. std_.ki auLed the
revi.s.id, suggeste language from LCDC and has reviewed it with Adrianne
s Brockman of�°'t:he C1 i,'y-Ii torrre.y-Ls-o-N .r#...
The revised language proposed by L:.0Cstaff suggests deletirtg aol.icy 6.1.2 and
the locational criteria for subs idi:ed housing in policy 12.1.1 of the City's
{CDC staff Rts an alternatie vto pol ..i,.�2.. thick .'
Comprehensive Plan. �,su��es
, .._ ._ ,. icy,�..,�..... ..w -d.6
;, could be proposed as an amendment
to the 'City's Plan at past acknowledgeynent.
•, The'
..:, +.w..e ,ate
'6I
awruu-.«..wmn-: �t.•.wLL'.0+vcnx+uawwxxw�.w,uwxwr+nweu uw— ,wr ,an. Nwww+we.N+�w+�+.wr.�.�sx .�e"� wpy.wwF x'
I'
j ronuxuc uw•
The City could hold the olic o. .., o _ e_pal.an urnta 1 need` d-, or insert it
immediately_ afteE, ..a,cknow-ledr.em.,ent.,_ The proposed Iar cage, ,as modified y
staff, is attached for your review. .:.
Y , The problem with the City's subsidized housing policy is that the F•
W estr .ctions are laced onl on ,si:n le fam. . y� .t.:a.ts-, w� ed--uad,-ope =a d b the
't
l'. �- Wa.$h.i*ngto. ..,.C.o 'n.t, ....H ui.s_i ag.---Auth_o.t ty .... . r.,. ..,r... laces an unfair burden on the
•` ",) _nits which s t on.. other renter occupied single
• �� Housing Authority u � �"� placeds ,,
f ami lye .ung t•s'. - 1't e Ater _. i.r, s.... .. .- . .,, __
nate r�o�Licy being suggested `� rCt�� staff would.. •
1{ require that any contiguous sile fami v nits owned an' managed in common be
M ur:�+--ruga- ww
.- required_ to,_ file a maAntena vee ,ac r and .. _a
eemer,t b�� subl e_ct ..at�► adif"�ed� s�.tt
y' .�w,�s �. .� 't"h� modified site�.e ..%.._�..__ _ � � �. .�.�x.... _�.
d e s.i n_. r.e.v:. - _ � s . , w i sou re '
• g � '~ design review process
iew recess
that the issues raised by the City Council rr�lative�„,to. subsi.d .zed- housing
during the Comprehensive Plan :adoption process are add^essed, These concerns,
+ � ..o °•a_W . . c.; . property,�. .�s•
•; the cont= 'wed ma.�ntenanca, units otnd ri institutional i•'.,
appearance, and the construction of units- rout of character i.�a.tfe surrounding' ,,
t.
i units, cart he a problem whenever units are owned and maintained gin`common not
just with units trianaged. by the Housing
Authority. ,�, ,.- -
The alternate policy being suggested by LCDC staff would require,i hat , .time € '
,. contiguous single family units are owned and managed in common, a maintenance }',
agreement would be filed with the City for the units and° t:he'y- are:.
,.:�stb��tct -t��° a.
modified site design review rocs .3, The. modified Site Design Review, px cess :,
*• , would address issues and impacts-t . 'ed to the following;
a. Parking
b. Noise .:
! ' ng
c, 8uffe,ri
d Color and teror Treatment of Structures
e. 8utlding Orientaion'
. f. Landscaping '
g. ongoing Maintenance
a:,
,
i
t e.
y
,`1 Adrianne Brockman of the City Attorney's office, after- reviewing the LCOC, staff proposal, stated that the ,approach proposed would be legal. City staff
asked Jim '° field representative, to have the LCDC .;
/` flats �a71'�zitic'�t�`�i our LCOC
4'
ti. attorneys review the Proposal and. indicate whether or not they support it. ';
Council 'should be aware that the deletion of policy 6.1.2 and the subsidized
1'{., housing locational criteria in policy 12.1.1, would leave the City, without a ,°'
{ { policy r irtg...� ..u. sigciiz.ed—.hau-s-i:'ng h --eot prehen a�.ate.�,:: The orae "' ,-•-of
'
d ' g l e ol,S cie- ---- is that the Comprehensive Plan wb41,.,i .c�ccie+ �" d / -'
iii ,March. The City then wall have an a tern„ .• ' • __Il 1j. v Mah .ch round be "
a - `
submitted at post acknowledgment which LCOC has helped to develo ar►d
supports. Xaa ada .,n 'iir—C ty.. "w 1l have..m e; aii6-F rice from LCDC that the y.
Policy would have been approvable by LCDC in acknowledgement and that LCDC
will not object to inclusion of the policy at post acknowledgement. On the*
other hand, if the City attempted to insert the replacement policy now, there
'
are no guarantees of a'uccess since
1. LCOC did not give us the option or replacing the policy at our last I ",
:, hearing, and, «
K , . 2. Any new policy would be reviewed and commented upon by the various t4
,. rev a,ew agencies- which comme ted earlier. Ti ime delays are inevitable ,
:0, *''
• - given the review period involved if we attempt now to take any other
action than to delete the policy. :
t
4 .
r:',...et, ( „,„
,
0972P "
dtaj
10
15
5. 1
, v
a
a'
p,p �
4 «4a
-_ :_ ix . � •. .,
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL 'AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: Januar:L.11J 1985 AGENDA ITEM #:
y .y 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Q+ �. ed final action
DATE �U8�9I`�'TTE;L1< Januar 8,� �L..�N_.
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Subsidized in November
Nausin Re rt PREPARED BY: William iam A. Monahan
REQUESTED BY: I
•
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: . ' ''�^'xl CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
a• Mwwir�N. N...{raw� ....•..ili...w '. __. ..: y - �\
�. rrrr• A v. .. ,+
INFORMATION SUMMARY
! The attached memo is a report of the steps which we have taken to work out an
°. agreement with ,CDC oh our one remaining� acknowledgment issue — subs i; i.zed' ,.
housing dispersal policy. No action is needed at this time. We will present
alternatives and suggested actions a.t a later date. Our goal is to attain
acknowledgment of ; +^ pla riin March.
' ��!NN. ...'• wNrlrwMNlN!!4!lNrw�-
��in.�r..,i.,wi+�+iNr' y�..y�MwNwNrrn,WlYNrIwN.IrW�IrN.M�NN.NNIWNww.w4Nr!
ALTERNATIVES ,CONSIDERED .
.;
•
� .... WrJYi41•!YrIM.N '.. ... - '. .,.v.. •,,.•.•. , MiN.r.Ml.Mit.iiWLi:iWiYN>N1ti«w�..�iwii iii..i4.w•..NNN:N+wN.a�N ,.:.. I.ML...••.•.a flni.N•�...'.. •. , •�•".. .1.19N.ieNWOYYN...rrrJF.
! �.I..aNNN.:r.wwwl.a Nu .N.rwweuwN+rwlrnrwNNwN1 -•• INl1rNWwN.Y4NNNNwY'rMl�MNwNN.++MNNr.NNlN.. WrwwNl;NNfw.wYrrrNwrMrnwl
SUGrESTED ACTION
No action needed at this time. . ;
901p
i. i i is
MEMORANDUM ••
•
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
•
TO:
Members of the City Council January 9, 1985
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director :-' Community Development
ni
SUBJECT: Report on Subsidized Housing .
Since our acknowledgment hearing before LCDC in November, two important
: meetings have been held. The first meeting, attended byMayor John Cook in
Salem, was held on December 7, 1984, with Assistant Director Eldon Haut and
LCOC staff. The discussion during that session centered on LCOC's requirement
that policy 6.1.2 and 12.1.1 of the plan dealing with subsidized houslaig
dispersal be deleted. We explained our concerns and convinced LCDC that we l
need to have the option of inserting an alternative policy if we eliminate
6.1.2 and 12.1.1. Our discussion resulted in a commitizlent from LCDC that they
would work' with us to draft language we hop to accomplish our p,,r; ose of
drafting a
policy or Code provision which LCDC can support. The alternative
ti
•
could be proposr�d as an amendment to our plan at post acknowledgment.
.. Although LCDC is not required to approve our modifications at post
acknowledgment, being in a position to argue that the, language which we may
propose is language which LCOC supports could be in cur favor.
LCOC staff, Jim Sitzman and Dale Blanton, met with Liz Newton and I on
e December 27, 1984, to discuss their ideas for alternative language. Our
intent was to develop a policy or implementing technique which _performs
same purpose as our original policy, that is, preventing an undue
concentration of subsidized housing.
One possibility being discussed is a process which requires a review of any
subdivision which will result in common ownership of over three adjacent units
or more than thirty per dant of the units in the subdivision. The review
would involve an analysis of building type, siding, and maintenance of the
structure and grounds. Thus, the concern which were raised during the
comprehensive plan process about subsidized units such as appearance and
.,' µ: preservation of property values could be dealt with within a review process.
` only h a process could
which �s not restricted .' to subsidized ized units. Stich
eliminate the criticism of our plan that we are singling out subsidized units
only for additional review.
We are awaiting revised suggested language which LCOC is working on. once
this language is received, the staff and City Attorney' s office will review it
then submit it to you for consideration. At that time we will outline the
appropriate steps needed to complete the process;
®O1P
dmi
k
/0 /
" _ TTIGARD CITY COUNCIL
. ,' REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1984, - 7:40 P.M.
r •,
.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: rom Brian, Phil
*. Ed in, Kenneth Scheckla, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Frank ,
r Currie.. Director of Public Works Bob Jean, City
Administrator:' Bill Monahan, Director of Planning &
Development; Tkm Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Patt Martin,
a. ,. Deputy City Recorder,
j! 2, CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS .
a. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Scott, to
reaffirm appointment of Patt Martin as Deputy City Recorder.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
r"'
:} b. City Administrator requested the following action:
o Withdraw Item #10 CPA 24-84. ,
o Item #14, 18,26 Farming and 18,44 through 18.52 Livestock
postpone until November.
o Add 20.1 Fanno Creek Park Contract Quotation Bid Awards:
CI Add 20.2 Mayor Roy Rogers Sister City Proposal ' ,'
( 3, VISITOR'S AGENDA ',
111 a. Kenneth, Steuart, resident of Terrace Heights Mobile Court,
requested the Council sign off as Friends of Terrace Heights to
g`ve, them some legitimacy g�t�.macy and some backing.( The residents have
Y
been given eviction notice as of October 31, 1984, Mr, Steuart
submitted a letter that can be individually signed by each
Councilor. - ..
4. EMPLOYEE/VOLUNTEER AWARDS/RECOGNITION µ
4.
4 Mayor Cook rooted approximately 40 people attended Volunteerism Clay on
October 6, 1984:
N
a. Mayor Cook read a proclamation on volunteerism and presented Mary
Payne' with the 1st Volunteerism Award of the City on her efforts
`
in restorinci the Windmill.
r Mayor Cook also presented Molly CadY a Key to the City for mowing
. .r
the lawn around the Windmill.
tMayorin 107-80 there was about 5,000 volunteer
.. .<< Cook• stated w.s in excess of 9 Ot�C� volunteerhours,
hours, to 1983 84 there a ,
b� Ma �s-. Cookrecognized Sandy Crow and Bobby White fo!
r being
'. employed
with the City over 5 years.. They were unable to attend
Volunteerism Day and the city Council meeting. Also, rrank Currie
was recognized for Lit B years on Volunteerism pay,
COUi,JCIt MtNU`t t'S .. OCTOBER 8, 1984
y
« -
RAILROAD CROSSTNG
a. Director of Public Works stated the deielriP er was aware of the
P „
railroad crossing requirement from the beginning. He also stated
the developerwouldget a systems development
y rebate. The
applicant appeared before the Planning Commission requesting the
item regarding the railroad crossing in the Notice of Decision be ,
deleted.
Council discussed the Code regarding railroad crossings. ,
Councilo' Brian asked if the railroad crossings would justify an
LID. Director of Public Works said yes ,
b. Motion Ly Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Brian, to require
the railroad crossing be constructed or the applicant come back
and build 6 cul-de-sac.
•
Approved by 3--2 majority vote of Council present, 'Councilors Scott
and Scheckla, voting Nay.
16. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 23-84 SUBSIDIZED ;)USING
a: a. Director of Planningand Development p gave a summary of the
material on this item in Council packets. He stated there were 6
remaining items to comply with for LCDC Four items were taken
care of either in cr-rrespondence and minor code revisions and the
hearing tonight on ESEE. The two remaining L.iems; 1) whict' is out
, of our control for Washington County to adopt a combined p:tan and
k zone 'designation, and 2) Subsidized Housing Policy 6.1.2 and
Locational Criteria 12»1i1 (4).
Staff Recommendation
Director of Planning & Development recommended Policy 6.1.2 and
12.1.1 (4) be deleted completely from, the Code. He felt it has
accomplished wi at it was set out to and didn't feel it was needed .
t i anymore. LCDC also suggested this.
b, Public Hearing Opened
Geraldine, Ball, 1151.5 SW 91st, representing herself, attended the `
LCDC hearing and recommended Council seriously consider removing
Policy 6.1.2 and 12, 1.1 (4).
" 'i; f ..
Mark: Weintraub, 1200 SW Main gildJ i, Housing Authority Washington Co., concurred with ; the Planii .ng Commission in deleting Policy
6'i 1 i Znd 1 4y/y iy) iyi ( .
and f. +� (4).
Bob Bledsoe '11600 SW Walnut, NPO #3 stated the supported
NPc�
i i 3 which was to revise
reta�r�x.�g the: existing language or' Option �!
the Policy changing the limitation on number of units allowed Per
two os' three. They felt some protection was needed rather than rM
deleting comr.letely i `
•
u ,
Page / - COUNCll., MTNt it - Oe rCUF R' #1, 1,904
" I ,
, Councilor Scott recommended retaining the current language.
Councilor Edin stated it was a question of principle over money.
He felt if the `policies were retained a lot of staff and money
would be spent at LCOC hearings, He felt the City should go along
withget LCDC if that's what. it takes to the Code. passed. •.
Councilor Schack la concurred.
,
Councilor Brian felt they should go by principle and revise the
policy to go towards Salem's L'7,DC approach.
Councilor Scott felt the City Council has a special responsibility
;````�` to look out for the citizens. She recommended to retain the
current language.:
Mayor Cook concurred with Councilor Brian
. c. Councilor Edin moved, seconded by Councilor Scheck 1 ., to revise
the policy changing the limitation on number of unit.; all-„,'.ed per
two ,r three to comply with the policy in Salem's comp. Lan and
to amend the 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile in each direction of the r. ,
subsidized housing location.
, Approved by 4- 1 majority vote of Council preseot, Councilor Scott
. voting Nay.
�•
17. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 25-04 ESEE DOCUMENT
a. Director of Planning & Development gave summary and stated this
deals with anotherhousa issue and that is the' designation .')f '.
district overlay. He stated the Planning Commission recommended ?'
the ESEE document be amended to give the owners of the historic
•
districts the option of having their property put, under the .1'
historic overlay anytime they wanted. He also stated the NPO #3
brought to the Director's"rectnr's attention more properties in the future
that would apply under the historic district.
Bob Bledsoe, 11..000 SW Walnut, NPO j113 wanted to reconfirm the
propertiesf'utufuture for historic dx a nt{ c4sw
b. Staff Recommendation
Director of Planning & Development's recommendation of the
Planning Commission that the Council approve the language as
proposed
. . Councilor c. Motion byCouncilor Brian, seconded by - Edin, to approve
tho proposed language recommended mmended by the Planning Commission.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present,
Director of Planning & Development will bring back an Ordinance to
be adopted on :1.D/22/04
Page R; - •COUNT ti« MtNtll`ES - OCTOBER 0, 19
,, w
October 4, 1984
City of Tigard
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 23, 397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
1000 Friends of Oregon is delighted to hear that your Commis
Sion on October 2 voted:
to delete the City's subsidized housing policy (plan amendment
CPA 23.-84) , and
° to approve the addition of wording to the City's development
code clarifying that any future reclassification of the Estab-
lished
and Developing area boundaries will not reduce the over--
all average residential density below 10 units per acre (CPA
24-84) .
Provl_ded that the City Council goes along with your recommendations,
1000 Friends of Oregon will be happy to withdraw its objections
to acknowledggmeant of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and implement-
ing measures.
Please accept our congratulations on a job well done.
S nce�cy, •
(,,t/'/e4,f8ct,
Lidwien del<roon Rahman
is Land Use Planner
ta:yc fa)
cc Dale Blanton BLCb'
w
Mary Holley,, Housing Di.,Ntision DivisionOCT 19
CITY 'TIGARD
PLANNING DEPS".
400 DEkI1.�r Ii1.11L.,.1 ti 519S.,W.'17t,Itttt: AVENUE POATI.AN1),OREGON 97204 (503)223.4396
•
FIIfY • w
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
•
REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 2, 1984
1. Vice President Owens the the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. The meeting;
was held at the Fowler Junior igh . LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut.
° . ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice President Ownes, Commissioners Fyre, Butler,
Leverett, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Campbell.
President Moen (arrived 9:15 P M.)
: ABSENT: Commissioner Bergmann,
STAFF: Director of Planning and Development William A.
Monahan (arriving, at (9:30 P.M.); Associate
Plat Liden Associate Planner Newton (arriving
at. 9: 15 P.M. ); and Secretary Diane N. 3elderks
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:,
e Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to
:approved minutes of September 11, 1984, as submitted, Mction carried
unanimously by Commissioners present:
e Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve
minutes of August 22,. 1984, as submitted. Motion carried unanim. sly
by Commissioners present.
l'' 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
e Commissioner Butler commented that he had been called at home
regarding item 5.1, Mallard Lake. Several other Commissioner had :
also been called. ; .
o Commissioner Vanderwood slated she had communication regar ,ing item
5.10, the Richard' Smith appeal.
5. PUBLIC NEARING'
5.1 PLANNED OEVt:LOPMEN T Pt 4-0 ?NE CHANGE zC 12-84, SUBDIVISION S 9-84,
VARIANCE V 15-84 WARDINf FF., DEVELOPMENT/MALLARD LACE NPO # 6
Request for a rezoning from R-4.5 to R 4.5 (Ps), Planned Development,
Detailed approval and Preliminary Plat approval Por a 43 lot, single
family residential development, and a Variance to the ma imum cul-de-sac
length of 400 feet to allow a 460+/1 foot length Located: North of S
` Satt,lertt., between Launalinda Park and Scheckla Park subdi vi i ns, (W°Tiq
251 11AD, lot 6500).
a Associate Planner Liden reviewed the status of the application,
recommending' approval with conditions. Discussion followed regarding
the wetlands/sensitive lands, density, and NPO II 6 'comments.,
PLANNING ��lCRM1i
UtOctober Page i
,
n
5 5 ZONE CHANCE ZC 15-84 1:1.1"Y or 1 LGARD H;tS1c)k:tC l):L`slR1.e (HO) OVERLAY
A request to assign the historic Di strict Overlay on the Zoning Di.stri.ct
M.Ap to the following properties: Joy 1`ht1c:tire (Wt 1"M 151 3500 lot 2700);
Tigard Grange (WCTM 2; 1 300 lot 600); Tigard Street Farlithouse arid
.._ 4 FeedSeed `IM 251. ?AD
tnliridrntll` txit:,lM 151. 341)t) list: 1t)t) , <:ii'tc� 1'�.� +xrci arid Wt,.
lot 5400)
• Associate Planner Newton rev i.ewed the rove chiaricJe recommendation
explaining how the Planning Commission h<Aci to apply the HO Overlay or
she would have to the ECSE. Also, the Soy Threratre arid the
t"igard Street Farmhouse and Wit-1(141i 1,1 opposed havir►j a Ill) Overlay; the
1 i gird Feed arid Seed had cat) led arid said they only rswi•iud t.hic+
building, the land is uwritid by Sou t.t ii r n P� �,i f'i irid s to 1 I h.:cd t:>'i`:ri
unable to coritar_t anyone from the 1 igard Crango D scussi.on followed.
PUBLIC l' S'rIMONY
• Larry Derr, 33 NW 1st, Portland, representing 'Tigar'd pl.a'a, opposed
having the Soy rhreatrci designated a Historic District, tl s main
concern was for the lack of adequate parking
• drib Bledsoe, NP() ft 3 Chairman recommended th,A' the Charles ligand
house located at 11180 SW Foririer• be i.rit.l.ucled under' thio Historic
District. Discusssirjn followed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSEI)
COMMISSION OISCUSY3ICN AND ACTION
• Consensus Of the Commission n
. was riot. 1.0 require the HE) designation on
properties who opposed it. . ..
Commissioner Variderwuod moved and Commissioner Peterson sut:orided trs
delete all but Tigard Feed arid St,ctd and Tigardand Grange from the
g g
t . request to have a HC) designation. Also to setover the hearing to
October 3, 1984, For Tigard ret d and Seed rind rhe Tigard Grange,
Mot iori carried unanimously by Commissioner present
5.6 1:011P Rt tf NStVE PLAN AMENDP11:1`r CPA 28 -134 Sl)tUS t t)1/I 0 111)1,15'1 Alt";
# A reque+s t by the Ci ly of l gard t ev i t+41 arid raiiit+rid o l `i it i e s6„1 ,7 arid
12. 1 t 4 , iii the 17, iipr°ehensiveV0ium a , 1 1Nt) Pot yICI LS, tNt)
1MPt.FMtNlAl111N 51RA11011, tl
o (is'siot i tA. P 1„aririer New Len r iev"#t41.10C1 t he s Lot,u'E l l the poll t!,,, and the
N rapt,i,ri'ri ,iva i;1,.4b 1 She re+gi;te'+s I nil t..he Comm i s' i o in r c'tcyf'utlzmirt'nd one 'or t.l•it!
Opt lClrir+
{
P1 ANN tNt; t,t'MM 1 ,,1 tt'tN1 M t Ntt t t'', tlr i ih i'r 7 1904 P.4(li= t
f
t
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
a Geraldine Fall submitted a let.ter into thy, r•ctcor•d recommending that
the City tycopy the stabs id i;4c,d housing policy From the City of Lake
Oswego.
• Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, recommended that the Commission, adopt ' -
one of the First throe options.
PUBLIC HEARING Ct osc.t;3'
?MMrSSI�N t)XSCUssIoN
tilt �•i�1' t �i'S �1 h AND ACTION
I.:ON
•
Consensus of the Commission was to go For• option number f ivt 'which
woo id deltht; eMisti.tttl policy rttrr replace it 'wit•h a policy t.'rr,:et
commits ttht .0i t.y r rfrWt't tht rttcrrty .rns t rr
Authority to d'rvcj rp
, , ,yuid1irs to 1)0 t.t d fur stbsIdi ed
housing units i•rt the
Cityof i'iyani Commissioners Moon and varderwr rd preferred option
tor
numberthree which would revise thepolicy changing the limitation
.
on
the number of units allowed contiguous to one another from 2 to 3.
Lenghty discussion followed,
* Commissioner lyretmoved and Commissioner Leverett seconded to forward
a recommendation to City Council For option number four, which reads
as follows:
Delete Policy 6.1.2 and Policy 12.1..1: 4.
Motion carried bymajorityvole. Commissioners Moen and Vanderwood
voting
.�.n yy
• vo4i1 g rro aR I:
5.7 ZO1'!E ORDINANCE AME:NDMEN1 LOA 6-84 CITY or TIGAR0
A request by the City of , Tiyar-d to review 'amendments to tha following
sections of the Community Development Code:
18.130 Conditional Use
18.120 Site Development Review
I . 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulatitns
18.138 Established Area .. Developing Area Classification
18.32. 120 Notice of Decision by the Director
18.136.020 ArtrtrYx niton - Administration and Approval process
1.8,12.3! 0 Persons ent i til t'd to Notice on Appeal or Review -
$ l y p o t t N o t i r,. +
18. 114 Sisyris
1.8.26 Definitions ,y"Wyet,land5"�, "t�ev°it�t�►", "Accept",
+ttAppt. [S+,
"t't.�b'I 111,1;itlit'';i� Day"
i{
r" A �
t"C«ottt ll is 1(,", t'I tic 'tl.ar''tit i rttt,"
18,60,050 tntiu's tri. 1 Park I rurtt Y.-ttcl it'tb<u_k
18.'0,0trO t t�tttt frit{uttt- i..atl front. Yard. cwt.+that.lc
to.,/2,050 1ttt.ivy incus tni.a t t'ront Yard! ,l,t+t haat
18.40„.040 t.o,,,i dint i ;l Density 'transition
I n- 100 I� r4(1 .r4 ap i i.�'tt) rrc1 k.1( r t►testi ntj '+paac.i r1t3 or' It t,o hit 141‘1.e.
1.9.41 t1441., t:tet'o: fit t i ctrt,
1 . 1 1:2 N.ctri i`,+r ttt t i'1t1 t1+>t4s
ill. 1011 I tet-ttic.xltttii 4' tit 1144*"t444t(.1c+t;I'. At
ItI ANN INt'. t flt'11"tt`s"tMINII II ' t)t Iitttt,tt w 1,))3 4 11,,,1111.« f
Planning Commission
October 2, 1984
Agenda Item 5.6
CPA 23-84
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
p TO: Planning Commission September 27, 1984
FROM. Planning Staff
SUBJECT': Subsidized Housing Policy
On April 26, 1984, the Land Conservation and Development Commission voted to
. ; continue acknowledgment of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to July 1, 1984. The
City submitted responses to the continuance order on June 28, 1984. Then on
August 15, 1984, the City submitted additional information to LCDC. Following
our submittal, on August 24, 1984, LCDC issued a memorandum asking for
comments to the newest submittal The Commission received four letters of
objection to the City's new subsidized housing policy. The letters are from
• Oregon Legal Services Corporation, 1000 Friends of Oregon, attorneys for the ,
Washington County Housing Authority and the State Housing Division. Copies
are attached.
The In Order to comply for the subsid_zo.d housing policy reads,
"Delete Policy 6.1.2 dealing with dispersal of subsidized housing, or,,
provide, an analyi.sin the plan why this poli :y will, not unnecessarily add
to the
cost of needed assisted housing and more clearly define the term
"subsidized housing "
It is the City's pry itior`i that the In Order to Comply Statement has been met,
Policy 6.1.Z was deleted and replaced with new policy 6.1.2 and locational
crityria. In addition, the term "subsidized housing" was clarified, The new
.)1 policy 5.1.t was modeled after a subsidized housing policy included by
reference in the City of Salem's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan The City o''
Tigard's policy is less restrictive in that there are fewer locational
criteria incorporated into the policy, However, the City of Tigard's= policy
is more restrictive than Salem's in that Tigard's subsidized housing policy
allows no more that two subsidized housing unitstogether. Salem's policy
allows a maximum o three subsidized housing units together.
The LCDC staff has indicated to the City's Planning, Staff that they will
wledgment of Tigard' s Plan ,requiring;
recommend' another continuance for aokno .
` delete policies 6 1.2 and 12.1,1 T'or provide an an.,,lysis in the
the .
Plan py
City to d to the cost of needer!
�.an why these policies will not unnecessarily add
assisted. housing. If the subsidized housing policies are deleted by the City,
the LCDC Staff will recommend delayed signing
4 M
00
•
Subsidized Housing Policy Memo
September 27, 1984
Page 2
•
OPTIONS:
1. Keep the revised police as adopted<by the City and argue that if Salem did
not have to provide an analysis as to how these policies will not
unnecessarilyadd.dd tothe cost of needed assisted housing, the City of
Tigard should not be required to provide one
ADVANTAGES:
No additional staff time required.
DISADVANTAGES:
The Salem policy was reviewed prior to changes in the OAR relative
to this issue and an analysis may not have been required at that
time.
The four agencies which have objected would still object and. ask
LCD : to delay acknowledgment.
LCDC staff would recommend a continuance of acknowledgment until the
policies were deleted or the analysis was completed.
S g dispersal policysupported by the local"
was
The Salem housing
housing authority: Ours is not.
If the Land Conservation and Development Commission did acknowledge
the plan with the policy intact, one of the four objections would
appeal to the courts. That would cost the City in legal fees and
time. .
2. Keep the revised policy as adopted and do the analysis required in the
original comply statement.
ADVANTAGES:
4 the policies do not unnecessarily add to
If the analysis shows that
would
of needed assisted housing,g the objections the policy,
thehou5�.n , ject�. ns to'
ould probably not be sustained by LCOC staff,
DIS ADVANTAGES
Determiningthe methodologyto do the analysis
difficult
y
and may not show that thepolicies do not. add to, the couldcost of needed
assisted
sted housingIt will be diffito prove
Housing
Authority cart acquire and develop housing sitesto accommodate
only
two adjoining lots at
acostwhich. ...i s .. greater
than acquiring and
develo ing lotsto accommodate larger Jetelo ment
the policy changing the limitation on the ndmber of unci`
�� Revise�e ... 1'tsvlllowed.
contiguous to one another from 2 to 8
a
Subsidized Housing Policy Memo
September 27, 1984
Page 3
ADVANTAGES;
This would conform to Salem's', policy. The City could then use a
fair treatment argument at the' LCDC Hearing,
If the City changed the policy, performed the cost analysis, and the
completed analysis showed that the cost of assisted housing would
not be adversely affected, LCDC staff could not reasonably sustain ,
the, objections.
DISADVANTAGES:
contend that the OAR now in teffec regarding d
LCDC ma
yassisted
applythe time of Salems acknowledgment
housingda.dn+atat
The Washington County Housing Authority does not support the policy.
The cost analysis may show that the policy would add to the cost of
assisted housing,
If the City changed the policy and chose not to do the cost
an6,1ysis, LCDC staff would recommend a continuance until the City
complied,
4, Delete the policy.
ADVANTAGES,,
The LCDC staff would recr mend acknowledgment with a delayed signing
until. Washington Count . ,:pts designations for the unincorporated
areas within the City's , ,tinning area. Washington County's action
would be the only remaining issue
DISADVANTAGES
The City would not have policies or guidelines, for the location of
subsidized single family units in the community, however, in the
comthg year the Housing Authority expects to only build 25 units;
perhaps two would be allocated in Tigard,
y pPolicy 5 Delete the existing Policy and re lace it with a olio that commits the
City and the Washington County Housing Authority .to develop guidelines to
be used for locating subsidized housing units in the City of Tigard.
ADVANTAGES:
The city and the Housing Authority could come up with mutually I
agreeable guidelines for the location of subsidized housing units
,CDC staff may not sustain the objections and the objectors may
withdraw their comments if t o City and Housing Authority agree, on
locational guidelines
I
Subsidized Housing Policy Memo
September 27, 1984 •
Page 4
DISADVANTAGES;
The City and Housing Authority may not be able to agree on
•
guidelines. An impartial party, selected in advance by the City and
mayAuthority, ybe needed to resolve differences which may arise.
RtCOMMENDED ACTION:
The Commission should review the alternatives and select one to propose to the
Council,
•
•
(EAN:pm/0653P)
i
•
r '
r
A
11 ry
f .., c ... -► wow 11 el
('�, CD \ H., ! f n CD 0.) C O C'.
CO
1 CD 11CA.
1-, a w ca., m q C7 e'
a-, -' , 1 - 7 ':,
z
a ici ' co c 'a s' _3- G
n N i n v d ro 0 el • n Z V
1 .,' "�
• a
O ,y4 --• 0- i co m i D D �- d 0 s
ca to "
rycry'
o _cr., I h. = I r� "'a _•� V Q �' ci �.
"' a. . tJ
nn a
CD a, v;
The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission Octo- y, o Z.
ber 2 1984,at 7:301PM at Fowler Junior High,School Lecture Room,10865 SW p ",
a a (.) '
Walni t,Tigard,Oregon.Further information may be obtained from the Direc- �, �;
g g
tor, o1 Planning and Development at 12755 SW Ash Avenue, Tigard,_Oregon m
97223, or by calling 639.4171.
-......� % ... .S._'v•.uV'u•a.♦. \U�Vv.1.♦v, 'IU L•�
ZONE CHANGE ZC 15-84 CITY OF TI.GARD-HISTORIC DISTRICT OVER-
i.AY
A request to assign the Historic District Overlay on the Zoning District Map rn 11
to the following properties:Joy Theatre (WCTM 1S1 35DD lot 2700);Tigard • ..<
Grange (WCTM 2S1 3DD lot 600); Tigard Street Farmhouse,and Windmill rrl
(WCTIMM 1S1 34DD lot 100); and Tigard Feed and Seed (WCTM 2S1 2AB lot L:. 1,`,")z r,
0
y ZONEORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 6-84 CITY OF TIGARD = <n`d:
CE . �� ca --
5400.) - 4 c
' A request byte City of Tigard to review amendments to the following .z• m
sections of the Community Development Code: t rt_.
18.130 Conditional Use 7
18.120 Site Development Review .. ,
18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations H
18.138 Established Area-Developing Area Classification H
18.32.120 Notice of Decision by the Director "`•
18.136.020 Annexation-Administration and,`Approval process.
Appeal Persons entitled.to Notice on A eat or Review-Type of Notice
18.114 Signs
18,26 Definitions 'Wetlands**, "Review", "Accept", "Receipt", "Appeal",
"Public Business Day","Complete".
18,68,050 Industrial Park-Front Yard Setback
18.70,050 Light Industrial-Front Yard Setback
18.72.050 Heat y Industrial-Front Yard Setback
18.40.040 Residential Density Transition
18.100 Landscaping and Screening-spacing of tree buffer
18.42 Use Ciassitications
18.132 Non.Conforming UseS
18.108 Inadequate or Hazardous Accl,.ss
18.44 R-1 Single Family Residential-Livestock
18.46 R-2 Single Family Residential-Livestock
18.48 R-3.5 Single FaLnily Residential Livestock
8.50 R-4.5 Single Family Residential-Livestocl{
18.52 R-7 Single FFamlly Residential-Livestock
18.32.275 E.Amended Decision.Process
Xt COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 18,32,380 Final Action ofhAMENDMENTrovaltCPA hOrit23-84 SUBSIDIZED HOUS-
ING
OUING '
A request by the City of Tigard to review and amend policies 6.12 and 12.1,1
4 of the
IMPLEMENTATION rehensSTRATEGIES,ive 2 FINDINGS, POLICIES, AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 24-84 DEVELOPING AND
ESTAELISRED AREAS
A request by the City of Tigard to Ilevievt and Amend Policy 6"3.2 of the
Comprehensive Plan a FIND.XIV
G, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES,
,," COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 25.84 ESEE DOCUMENT
A request by the Cityof Tigard to review and amend the ESEE document of
.Volume I - comprehensive Plan to revise sections on the Cipshaw,
I1'ouse/Sev, a Gables, .toy Theatre, Tigard reed and Seed, Tigard Orange,
Tigard Street Farrnhu",ise,and Windmill.
IIEVI8Vit OP WEST TIGARD PLAN-Ey Washington County (This itettt
will be set over to October , 1Di34)
TT6117 Publish Septernber 20,,108
t -
OREGON LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
HILLSBOR,3 REGIO NAL OFFICE
230 NORTHEAST Sr:"COND,SUITE A
HILLSBORO,OY44EG'3N 97124
(503 j648-7163'
September 14 , 1984
Ms. Elizabeth Newton
City of Tigard Planning Do artment
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard y' Oregon 97223
RE: Comprehensive Plan M!, knowledgment
. I I
Dear Liz: •
Enclosed is a copy of our most recent objections to
the proposed Plan.
Sincerely
r ,
hi 4
Charlie Harris
Attorney at Law
CJH:mcs
cc: Department of Latid Conservation and Development
C‘V OVA ot.p..1„
n
k ���
Department of Commerce
c..,.....
��; HOUSING DIVISION
V,croA ATIYEH 110 LABOR & INDUSTRIES BLDG., SALEM, OREGON 97310-0161 PHONE (503) 378-4343
C1OV;FINOR
September 13, 1984
•
MR JAMES F ROSS, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT
1175 COURT STREET NE
SALEM OR 97310
ATTENTION: MIKE BYERS, LEAD REVIEWER
Dear Mr. Ross:
The Housing Division has reviewed the amended comprehensive plan materials
submitted by Tigard for acknowledgment. The HousingDivision filed a written
objection on to the plan during the first acknowledgment proceedings in February,
g 9
v
1984. Based on our review of the resubmitted materials, we found that the
City has made substantial progress toward y p g meeting the. compliance issues set
1984 Director s Report. However,. our review also revealed
out in the April 4, p '
two significant Goal 10 compliance issues that remain unresolved. We there-
fore object to acknowledgment of the plan at this time for the reasons
detailed below.
1. Residential Density Transition Policy and Ordinance
Goal O in
p y statennt # Tigard to include in its
density calculations comply
aonsieration of density reductions due to transi-
tion
from °'establi shed° to °°developing'° areas. In order to comply state-
ment #7 similarly required the City to either delete implementation of its
density transition policy or assess the impact of the implementing ordi-
nance on the City's ability to meet the ten unitG unitper acre density
requirement.
Tigard has chosen to retain its density transition policy and implementing
ance. Although the ordinance has been amended it still provides for
ard�n g
a density reduction in transitional buffer zones between °established°` and
U " a density transition. still . 125
°
Bevel o��pg areas*� The t�11 'will not exceed
percent of the abutting established area density.'' (Tigard Commune ty
Development Code §18.40.040(A) by, as amended' Ordinance No. 84-32.);
. impact of reductions .
Tigard has not addressed the: density due to ..these
transitional, buffer zones on its ability to meet a density of ten units
ti
per acre.
AN 80UALOPPO(4TUNITY EIVIPLoYEk
/ . O.
•
James F. Ross, Director
September 13, 1984
Page 2
It 'i s important to note that the density transition policy and ordinance
not only apply to existing "established" and "developing" areas, but also` W
"established"
to future designatedareas Land t' 1,t is currently vacant
or' "developing"
may soon be built upon and tnus designated as an
"established" area.
The on-going impact of the density transition policy must be assessed and
compensated for in Tigard's density calculations.
2. Subsidized Housing Dispersal Policy
Goal 10 in order to comply statement #5 required Tigard to either delete
its dispersal policy for subs-idized housing or explain why the policy did
not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed assisted housing.
In response, Tigard has chosen to retain and amend its dispersal policy.
The amended policy sets out four locational criteria for siting subsidized "
housing in single-family zones:
a) All units should, if possible, be within 1/4 mile of a route of public
transit.
b) Additional subsidized units should be encouraged in areas which exhi
bit a lower-than-average level of subsidy and medium-to-low level of
poverty.
c) No more than 30 percent of the units in a development of 10 units or
more shall be subsidized.
d) No more than two subsidized housing units shall adjoin.
The Housing Division believes that these criteria are vague and discre-
tionary and may have the effect of adding unneccessarily to the cost of
needed housing in Tigard.
For example, the plan does not include an inventory of vacant land zoned
for single-family housing that is located within 1/4 mile of a public
transit route. Tigard has limited public transit service and there may be
little, if any suitable vacant land that Meets this criterion. Likewise,
the plan contains no discussion of areas that exhibit a low level of
subsidy or of poverty, or even how those levels might be measured.
Thelast two criteria, prohibit rohibit adjoining subsidized housing units
and l i mi t subsidized housing to 30 percent of all units in a development
of 10 units or, more, are vagueand may prevent- developers from taking
advantage of economies of scale. There � cost savings in
• . unite:ore aye considerable ..
developing more than one housing �t a time i n the same proximity.
•
James F. Ross, Director
September 13, 1384 •
Page 3
Fi nal l and erha
y. p pimportantly, the City the
s most has notsaddressed why
four criteria are necessary at ail . As we stated in our February 24, 1984
letter of objection, the recipients of State and F� � oral single-family
subsidy programs are typically indistinguishable from their neighbors.
The dispersal policy places an unwarranted burden on both the eligible
households and the agencies administering the subsidy programs.
3. Conclusion
In conclusion, Housing acknowledgment Division ion objects to acknowl ed ment of the
Tigard comprehensive ve plan and implementing ordinances at this time. We
wotl d be pleased to work, with the City in finding amenable solutions to
the compliance issues we have raised. .
Please contact this office if you have questions or require further
Informationr
Sincerely,
E.)„.
Mary E Nol 1
Senior Housing Pla -r
MEfil swd
(PLN)CMII--10
cc: William Monahan, Tigard
Jim Si tzmari, DLCD
b '.. P
x
OREGON LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION -
HILLSBORO REGIONAL.OFFICE DEPARTMr:
F Nb
r
230 NORTHEAST SECOND SUITE A° � �$ �A�
� ENTa�Q DOE
CE OREGON 97124 E VI-AE��PM .NT
cn �648.7163
SEP 1.,*0 1984
September 11, 1984 SALEM
}
Mr. James Ross, Director
D Qaz tment. of Land Conservation
and Development
1175 Court Street, NF
Salem, Oregon 97310-0590
•
RE: ObjectionTigard Request for Acknowledgment of
h to
Comprehensive Plan - Housing Housinq Element
Dear Mr. Ross:
I am an attorney with ()regon Legal Services ; I am also
the chairperson of the Community Housing Resource hoard of Washington
County. Both of these organizations areinterested in assuring
the availability of housing for low-income people in Washington
County. On behalf of these organizations and
on behalf of our
low income clientele,, I strongly n ly object to the City of Tigard' s
policies regarding subsidized housing.
In April Isubmitted objections to Tigard' s original proposal,
which objections were upheld by the Commission. Tigard's current
proposal is no better, and in many ways worse than, the original
proOosal. „Policies 6 .1 .2 1 (4) fail to meet Goal 10
and the tropoliitan Housing let in.the following respects:
( 1) The Finding on ,which,_. the subsidized . housing policy
is basedis unsupported by anydata. in .the Resource Document.
Policy 6,1 (Housing Needs) includes the following Finding.
*
Undue concentrations of public assisted or sub-
sidized housing serves to isolate the rec i +ient
of such housing from the mainstream of "t7-11e com-
munity, its full range of basic services and the
diversity, of its neighborhoods. For this reason,
the City should take steps to dsnerse such. housing
within individual neighborhoods and, throughout the
City itself:, (p. 1i-38)
There is no data.
4 R esource section or otherwise to
support this Finding. The only
,tatement in, the R-,source document
Pp k.
point
w pp t
relevant�.ry� this�+7I ..,/�+� +��+�y �5f�+� '(} +��¢ �.�{ the
�+.�
J.�w��.w�GLn� to tA..L.7r3 V�nt R1.wwt 4.1G1.��,Y M.4 A:.' �cate+� 7W.h�.n o ���tG
i ' *� b
es dential, r ens .ties intend to tiro~ ide
�,� �gar�o�a s r
a ,Variety Of living environments woi.411. provi' rkc", ,d `b
*„
for the housing needs of different family sizes
and needs. (p. 1-154)
It appears from this statement that the concerns expressed in
the Finding are already addressed in a much less discriminatory
manner by the various residential densities.
The most. that can be said for the Finding is that it is
an attempt to perpetuate a myth with no basis in reality. In
fact, without any supporting facts, one can't' even be sure what
myth we are trying to perpetuate. What is the evil of "subsidized"
housing? Is a house built with TJ.5. HUD funds inherently more
evil than a house built with U.S. Bancorp funds? If not the
house, then perhaps it ' s the occupant of the house. But all
we know about the occupants is that they qualify for "subs idized
housing" ; presumably, then, they have either low or moderate
incomes. one fact that is o).ear from the Resource volume is
that rine third of Tigard' s population fits within the low/moderate
income category. Do they feel "isolated from the mainstream
of the conumtznity `� Probablythey
not, since arethe community.
? .
what then, is the purpDse of limiting subsidized housing? Without
anv facts in the record, it is impossible to tell . Without
any facts to supl..--.rt, them, both the Finding and Policies must
be invalidated.
2) Policies 6 . 1 . 2 and 12 . 1 , 1 (4) are arbitrary, bearin
no rational relationship to the . indncu
T spporting them.
Even if the Finding discussed above could be justified,
the Policies themselves are arbitrary, since they bear no rational
relationship to the Finding. For example, Policy 6.1.1 incorporates
a requirement that all "subsidized housing be located within
one mile of an elementaryschool.. Why does a senior citizen
have to ,live within a.ntile of a school,1-,,,friel:ely because the dwelling
was built with government funds? Just as importantly, 1181,4 is
going to be dispersed "throughout the City, "
subsidized housing ,Y
ifonly mile of a school and within
it can be built within a
a quarter mile of a bus route. These two requirements alone
would prevent subsidized housing in large areas of the city,
especially in the outskirts where much of the undeveloped but
hu .] dale land exists
The amended Policies violate Goal 10 and the Metrogol ri
Lousing rule :;because they are neither. clear nor object LveL
PolicY 12. 1 .1 (4) sets out sever.
al factors Which will he
determinants for, locating subsidized housing. These factors,
ow'evervague contain. va ue terms whichare susceptible to wholly
arbitrary ` .. units
M .. ... . , (2) contains
a.nterx�retat.ia�n� example, ..
Fob subparagraph .
a.ph
a requirement that all subs+idized. units' .shoulFd f possible, "
be within 1/4 mile of a public transit route. roes this mean
that so lona As l
units. anad is_ available within this 1/4 mile strip,
stabs I diced .
cannot be built elsewhere? or is that 'ataterlent
merely a guideline?'`
y .
{
Subparagraph (3 ) encourages additional subsidized units
"in areas which exhibit a lower-than-average level of subsidy
and medium-to-low level of poverty.," While the intent of this
phrase is admirable, the vagueness of the terminology is exactly r
what is proscribed by OAR 660-07-015, 660-08-010 and ORS 197.307(5) .
The effect of these vague criteria is to deter construction
ofsubsidized
housing
ain any part of the city. It is virtually
impossible for am developerto anticipate how the citywill interpret
these criteria in any pax a.cular case. These Policies are not
the ''clear and objective°° approval standards and special cone tions
allowed by Oregon' s land use law.
while the, dispersal of subsidized housing may De an admirable
goal, the City's lip-service to this goal is belied by its actual
Policies, which only serve to deter subsidized housing all together.
Cityby
30% ndcat,.d the criterion ,
I think the real attitude of the is 1
which states that not more than ofthe units in a development
of at least 10 units can he subsidized.
" r for the City were' really,
If �h�.
g _third of its
interested in providing needed housing
s nts who Mqualify for subsidized housing, it could
would
residents
rephrase this criteron to say that at least 30% of the units
in a development of 10 units or more shall be subsidized.
The Implementation Strategies on pP. 11-34-35 contain good
assure to o he adequate supply of and dispersal of
lowa and oderateincome h.ou s i;iq throughout the City. Strategy
#6 could be expanded, to apply to all lower income housing,,
just housing for seniors and handicapped. But Policies 6.1.2
and 12.1.1 (4) are arbitrary
policies which defeat the purpose
of Goal 10. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan should not be acknowledged
so long as these Policies (or any subsequent Policies of their
irk) are contained within the Plan.
el'hank you for the opportunity to make these objections -
to the Plan. Please notify me of the exact time, date and Place
of the LCDC Acknowledgment~hearing.
sincerely, t
. o
y ;
Charlie Harris
httorney at Law
`yrs
cd: 0`ean Fogarty
'Dayton Page
♦.., .. . ., : ,r..:., 1uLi .,-u,vu rr l _. :Uerr #.,,
"� lE� DEPARTMENT OF LAND
CONSERVATION AND'DEVELOPf.fENT
SEP121984
�E P OWNSTElN, RASK.,'SWEENEY KERR & GRIM
625
PillI
*�, i `^ l ATTORNEYS AT LAW •
1200 S.W.MAIN BUILDING SALE
RORTLAND. OREGON 97205
�vnw+•+'..uiLECPTSON TELEPN0WE(5031221-17712 KRfD T.HANNA'.
RIGHARO v.BROWNSTEJN tsEORGE 0,CUia1ts'
RAYMOND M',PASR'
MICNAEL'R.SANDOVAL
MILES SWEENEY
ANDREW P ttE�2R
JEi�'E`REY V.HILL.
DOUGLAS R.GRIM
JEAN FOOAgTY'
t11T A.JENSEN
HARK B,tVE'INTaUtE
}
DAVID J.SWEENEY
e 0►1fGUM STATE A
{ September 11, 1984 No
WA'CHiNGTON STATE BARB
41110..
CERTIFIED MAIL,
RETURN RECEIPT RE •UESTEL
Department of Land Conservation
and Development
1175 Court Street N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
• Re: Housing Authority of Washington County
City of Tt,gc�ard 's Camprehens ive Land Tse Plan
Dear Mr. Ross and Fellow Commissioners:
kM i As you are aware, the undersigned are attorneys for
the Housing Authority of Washington County, an affected' agency
acknowledgmentp
with respect: the. grantingof ah of compliance ,
to the City of� `i and on behalf
g of the Housing Authority of
Washington count
y (hereinafter the "Housing Authority") , we ob-
ject
�3shit� ton
+. g of compliance to the
to the granting of an acknowledgment
P
City of Tigard and Ore submitting the following to you pursuant
to OAR. 660-03-020.
p1984, the
` On April 26, Commission reviewed the City of
g grequest� ... compliance ,with the statewide
�i ard 's acknowledgment menu for ,
planning goals. The Commission found that the City of Tigard's
Comprehensive plan and land use regulations did not
gyet comply
with statewide planning Goal 10. Particularly, the Commission
sustained, the objections of the Housing Authority, Oregon Legal
Servides
s
and 1000 Friends of Oregon to' Poicy 6. .2.�.. The Ct1nc,,-
missi,on ,stated:
"' a arc s' housingbackground
9 t material, does
indicate that approximately 1,90 households,
or aboutone-third of its existinc households, ,
have income 1V0,18 at or below the moderate
income level for Tigard, andg p may
' need Tigard„ these roti: s ma
somegassistance (Resource Docu
m entsP gehl 7) however, Policy
6.1.2 as it
is written does not encourage needed assisted
�. g
.. it there sufficient. i.nf+��cmatat�n
hot'15'�n ,� ni"3ry44.1')
in the Plan to uttify this policy or to show
w
Department of Land Conservation -,
and Development
September 11, 1984
Page 2
that this policy will not necessarily add to
the cost of needed housing. " t
By its continuance order of April 26, 1984, the Commis-
sion found that in order for the City of Tigard to comply with
the statewide comprehensive Goal 10 it must:
"Delete Policy 6.1.2 dealing with dispersal
of subsidized housing, or, provide an analysis
t. in the Plan why this policy will riot unreces- .
sa r i ly add to the cost of needed housing and
more clearly define the term 'subsidized hous-
ing
The City Tigard's Ti ard's res onse to the Commission's order
P n s
has been the following. It has deleted the following language:
"Subsidized housing units shall conform to
all applicable development standards. To
prevent the geographical concentration of
{
public housing and ensure 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
on any street in the development."
It has added the following language:
"To avoid concentration of subsidized housing
in singlei:amily zoned districts, the loca-
tional criteria in Section 4 of shill be appliedPolicy 12.1.1
siting 'hous-
when subsidized
ing projects in single fatly zoning districts."
Section 1 of Policy 12.1.2 provides:
.4. Subsidized Housin. in Single ramil Zon-
ing Districts
on-ing: Districts
" (A) The following factors will be the
determinants for locating; subsidized housing,
as defined in Policy 6.1.2, in single family
toning districts:
(11 All Units should be loo ted within.
one mileof an elementary school.
}
•
Department of Land Conservation
anol Development
September 11, 1964.
Page 3
" (2) All units should, if possible, be
within 1/4 mile of a route of public transit.
" (3) Additional subsidized units should
be encouraged in areas which exhibit a lower-
than-average level of subsidy and medium-to--
low level of poverty.
" (4) No more than 3C percent of the units
in a development of 10 units or more shall be
subsidized.
" (5) No more than two subsidized housing
units shall adjoin."
The City of Tigard also expanded its definition of
subsidized housing to include that owned and maintained by a
"nonprofit, quasi--public" age-:cy.
The Housing Authority objects to Policy 6.1.2 as re-
written, and Section 4 to Policy 12.1.1, as violative of state-
wide planning Goal 10. The Housing Authority reiterates its
objections as stated in its February 21, 1984, letter to the j.
Department of Land Conservation and Development and makes the
following specific objections:
Policy 6.1.2 and 12.1.1(4) are more offensive to Goal
10 than their predecessor:s. GoP.1 10 requires that planning juris--
"fair must provide their share* of, low and moderate
cost housing in response to the needs of the relevant area. The
City of Tigard has documented a need for housing assistance in
approximately 1,900 of its households, or about one-third ot its
population. Rather than responding to this documented need, the.
City of Tigard has chosen to artificially and unecessaril.y
restrict subsidized housing and concentrate the location of such
housing to areas located approximately 3-1/2 blocks away from
bus routes and within one mile of elementary schools. It further
seeks to restrict subsidized housing into areas where there is a
lower than average concentration of medium to low levels of
Poverty.
Nowhere in its plan does the City of Tigard demonstrate.
that there is ant bui13able land that meetscriteria, nor does
the City provide an.l
• objective basisfor its limitations a5. set
housing constrcted for the elderlyerestr ictdto one subsidized
forth in Policy12.1.1(4) . For example, �should sibs imi i.e
from an elementary school?'
In its April 26, 1964, order the Commission stated
that the City of Tigard must delete Policy 6.1.,' or *provide an.
/" ,w
Department_ of Land Conservation
and Development
September 11, 1984
Page 4
analysis in the plan why this policy will not unnecessarily add
to the cost of needed housing." The City has failed to delete
provided the explanationreegquired by t 4 om-
6.1.2, but has not rovihe Com-
- Clearly, the criteria contained inPolicy 1 .1.1( ),
restrictsthat housing to 30% of the units in a de-
velopment that no more than two subsidized
P q
housing units may adjoin unnecessarily increases the cost of
needed housing and are therefore violative of Goal 10.
In addition to its lack of rational foundation, Policy
12.1.1(4) is internally, inconsistent with Policy 6 .1.2. Policy
6.1.2 states that the locational criteria in Section 4 of Policy
single
seeks to "avoid concentrations of subsidized housing in
fam:rly zoned districts." In fact, Section 4 of, Policy
_
12.1.1 results in just the opposite. Assuming that there is
buildable land within the Cityof Tigard that' meets the numerous
and restricted criteria established in Policy 12.1.1, all sub-
sidized housing, as defined in Policy 6.1. 2, would' be located
therein. The effect of Policy 12.1.1(4) therefore contradict
its stated policy objective as provided in Policy 6.1.2. Such
internal inconsistencies support the Housing Authority's position
that Policy 12.1.1(4) , like its.predecessor in Policy' 6.1.2, is
' by the City of Tigard to avoid its respon
.,.. a thinlyveiled effort
sibilitpersonsstated instatewide planning
Goal l0ies to low income as s9•at
0
By its order of April 26, 1984, the Commission also
instructed the City of Tigard to more.g
n , clearly define the term
"subsidized housing". The City 's attempt to comply with this
order amounts to the deletion of housing owned and maintained by
"nonprofit,
housingownedand maintained
private agencies and the inclusion of
bynon ro "
y p f�.t, quasa. -public" agencies. This attempt at redefin-
ing
,edefin--ing "subsidized housing" does little to clarify the term. Fur-
,
fails to address whysuch housing,_. i subsidizedo , as
thezmo
regg
opposed to other low income' housing, must be restridtedto these
locational criteria. It is apparent that the City of Tigard has
concluded that low income people who receive certain kinds of
publicly herpublic assisted housing, as opposed' to of assistance,
`
or preferentialloan treatment, are undesirable. I
t
also
clear, from policy 12.1.1 (4) ,s requirement that nommore
than 30%
of the Units in a development of ten units or more shall be sub-
.
sidized'-and. that no more, than two subsidized housing units shall
adjoin, that the City concluded thathaving low income people
living g rneat one another is also undesirable
policy 6.1.2, as rewritten, and Policy 12.1.1(4) con- s
tains restrictions that are violative of Goal 10 in that they
serve iot, low income housing to a narrow location. with
to rest
,
r +
r
Department of Land Conservation
and Development
September 11, 1984
Page 5
out any factual basis whatsoever. Said policies are internally
inconsistent and unnecessarily increase the cost of needed hous-
ing. The Housing Authority wishes to be heard at the hearing
with respect to the City of Tigard's plan and further requests
that notification thereof be sent to the undersigned, as well as
to:
Mr . Dayton Page
Executi
ve Director
Housing Authority of Washington County
P. 0. Box 988
560 S.E. Third Avenue
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
Respectf4tly ,s bmitted
f
' 't
AND"R` { .. ',K
APE:jme
cc Dayton Page
0
( ,.. .r.....,....n j.
•
ti '1• fYM . " .. 1! . .. wH:Y! • �.w�yr:M Vy�.
•
! '}d•1 1� . ..t vrr• /N»M.a wf.".1• 1.,, .pY•f. y', .
.
.«•S y • • ♦ `. i. /• "'k}I,1 J M}v y l».Y 1n. Y . I KK'1. IUM..i'.1J.1 V Uw iL w y
: . « Y • r t. rt .Jr.•}�. F ';rri.t•qw«h,.,Mb wrs.r,3W'7,`rlk a;+-u aIl•?1-..4 +r�..
• '.�. .^ r• ', , "u w•' " ..o IM' h, ,ti ..•. .y +. ... 'T ..', ,dot. r•'
2 ;�i. , t.S�,A q. ['�_�'"l•t�,[�L}~+` ,+]�t.� t � yf•N4�r 1 �I. •+ • .y ,
. 'i(4,(l.t �1':� �. El�r A�v��t r 1'�.(,54) t' ck.,)A L=tl r•,1,);;11t • t'
. }. • • `. �`. flC. *y., ;. \.Yr•:` ._ .�1• .'p.� 2�'}l.�',r2 y.1f ,!� }• • •'r' 4:�
• ♦C y}• . •t , ~ /.'+ 2'i .,!• f�,!• 1 A• ` ! :•,Y� • •.i.t-• S ..Y',y ,}y,
' ♦ ♦ ♦ , •'. .+.. r""{:•,1 •..> i...Ct+�.:K•� 1' .fir • rL" ,. .r r' l' • , r.rrwr rw ' ♦
. .•:�;st:`!.*'t✓.a;C.,,`�..'1..�.(c.�.1;:1.�.7etitic.l..i,:�1r'1:..xdJ:s"vi:.�'+�...ra.t.,°s.,i.e.RtaG'+r.."r'.:5�.1..�i:.:z.+CDS.i'CaStas.t..��....'t.,�.r.J�.wi"`,tii.4:.ab.twi'��- v:ra.:.....matin+S:.Sw.ny:`,�tISi.S.u�1'.fa�. :r•L•;:=..rsiiiv:rWe...ur^+ka..:."`Jl..,....,c....',`�r.
September 10, 1984
Mike Byers , Lead Reviewer
Dept . of Land Conservation
and Development
• 1175 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97310
RS City of Tigard Acknowledgment Request--Objection
Dear Mr. Byers:
Friends of Oregon has reviewed for compliance with
Goal 10 materials submitted byCity the of Tigard in res-
ponse to the April 1984 Continuance Order. We are impressed
with the organized and systematic manner in which the City,
has
responded to each order to comply. We are particularly
1 -
pleased � steps � , with the Me
that the City has taken' to
tropolitan Housing Rule requirement of providing opportunity
for housing to be built at a density of 10 dwellings un$ 5
per net acres .
i Unfortunately, the package of amendments currently under'review fails to - ,. ' density
s z#.ion standards on overalladdress thet of
densit • Because�ofs'chisand other
r
def icienc} s1000 Friendssvg objects to acknowledg-
ment of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and
implementing ordi-
nances .
rdinance.s
We have Previously participated in the City of Tigard's
acknowledgment proceedings, as evidenced by letters dated Feb-
ruary 19, 1981, October 10, 11980 , and ruary 24, 19��, February
Au-
gust 8, 1978.. We will be happy to cooperate with the City
the
in formulating amendments which bring Plan, into full com
plinace with 'the Housing Coaly
Goal. 10, Housing
1. Densityran ;ition Po1ic
As was pointed out. in 1000 Friends ' previous letter of
objection, and those of several other objectors, the City
, Density Transition standard (section 1840040 of the Code)
has the potential of limiting actual permitted density to a
DI ItI/11.1)111(4 Sit)'s:1WGW:1 t Intl")AVl..1,41t'(, tilt"t l.A l),OO1:1:tiDDN 97204 (cio1.1)2 ,1. .'.6
rY b
1
P Mike Byers
Sc tember 10, 1984
Page Two
' level below the 10 units per acre required according' to the
i Metro Housing' Rule. This concern was shared by LCDC, result-
ing in two different orders to comply,, ;
, ,
pr ' , ' , -: , ' , order No'. 4, which deals with overall `density, 'states":
"Calc.i.lations of overall density shall include consideration
of density reductions due to transition from established to
developing areas . " The '' not,
,. addressed has not , addressed this. part of p
the order in its`response (Exhibit H) .
An assessment of the effect of 'these density reduction
standards is essential, because overall; permitted density is
exactly 10 units per ,acre , ,with no surplus capacity whatso - ,
' ever. Therefore, the density reduction, standards inevitab-
ly bring the. City's overall permitted density down to a level
below the required 10 units per pet acres .
In order to evaluate the overall effect of the densit-
y
reduction standard it is essential to also consider the im-
pact of the reclassification of "established" and "developed"
areas . According to d the Development Code, Section 18. 138 .
010 D, land which is currentlyclassified as "developing" will
at some point be reclassified as "established. " , The effect ,
of that reclassification is to further reduce permitted den-;
sity, ,because additional land area will be subject to the den-
sit reduction standard. This..: issue, is addressed in the `ord
er-
to-comply number 7, which requires the City to' either delete
the whole reclassification process or to adopt language to ,
indicate that it "wil.I. not have the impact of reducing the
residentialrydensity below t -�e required 10 units per acre av�-•
) e.rL a ge M "
Here again, the City has not taken any steps to meet this '
y
requirement exhibit K `(ordinance 84-32) does not address
the issue of reclassification ,
The City of `Tigard should either, delete the process of
density reduction due to transition from established to de--
velopin areas, or assess its impact on. overall dens; Ly and
compensate, for the loss of density elsewhere
2 S`ubsidited Housing
The City of Tigard has revised its subsidized housing
dispersal.policy in response to the order-to-comply ,numbs '" 5,
As amen 11d,. the: factors to determine the location of st psi-
izod
d` housing are:
`
t' ,
,,c.
11 Mike Byers
September 10, 1984
Page Three
( 1) All units should, if possible, be with-
in 1/4 mile of a route of public transit .
(2) Additional subsidized units should be
encouraged in areas which exhibit a lower
than-average level or subsidy and medium-
to-low level of poverty. ,
( 3) No more than 30 percent' of the units
in a development of 10 units or more shall
be subsidized.
(4 ) No more than two subsidized housing units
shall adjoin.
In addition, the definition of "subsidized housing" has been
amended to clarify the City's intent of excluding owner-oc
cupied homes financed by, for example, State G. Z loans .
However, the City has failed to "provide an analysis in
the plan why this policy will not unnecessarily add to the
cost of needed assisted housing, " as required by the Commis-
s:ion an its order to comply. For instance, no analysis has
been conducted to assess what proportion of SF buildable lands
in Tigard lies within 1/4 mile of a route of public transit.
Considering there are only four bus lines serving the City
of Tigard, which run mostly along major transit roads gener-
ally bordered by higher-density residential or commercial zones,
this requirement - could severely limit the availability of
land for subsidized housing in -
sin lef amil zones . Likewise,
single-family
no information has been provided to identify which areas are
considered to "exhibit a lower-than-average level of subsidy
and medium-to-low level of poverty, " and whether these are f:.•1
coincide with land which is within a quarter mile of a route
of public transit. Admittedly, these first two standards are
phrased so as to not be mandatory, but they could be used by
opponents of subsidized housing to discourage, such housing
forms.
The third and fourth requirements particularly affect
certain (quasi)public agencies whose main purpose it is to
provide subsidized housing, Because of
. these requirements,
t ��nnot make costd �tgesresulting from
` buying a largo. subdividing it,
units as part of one project.
The Ctty of Tigard has failed to cons der how these stan�=
daros might add to the cost of subsidized
housing, and has
not provided any reasons which might justify such standard
s
...
•
•
r1
•
i
Mike dyers
September 10, x.984
Page Four
in spite of their cost-increasing effect. Considering that ,
28% of Tigard households may need housing assistance, the City '
must assure that aclaguate opportunity exists for" the ' appro
priate agencies to ; w,:.^T1de such assistance
Summary ,
In summary, the City of Tigard.' has 'adopted la and or-.. '
g p �' n
ce amendments which in most instances satisfythe Come
,_
missaon's orders toEcom l and therefore hring the plan into
compliance with Goal IO., Unfortunately, the City has failed
' to consider the impacts of its, density transition requirements
on overall density, ' and has amended its subsidized housing
dispersal policy' without analyzing hove the, new standards af_-
fect Costs •and land availability' for subsidized, housing. For
these reasons, 1000 Friends of Oregon must object to ack�iow-�
gTigard ,, Plan.led, merit ofthe T�. gl�
and �.amoreh�nslve
We appreciate this opportunity to comment.
Yours siicerely,
! ��+fr�`� �a1�+'� .g ", �� ',fit ,/',.
, , . f�.f...„,„,...,,.„..f......„...„ sj yf ��/' tKJ '��� y
„ .
i t(( tt��
�y . , ,
, ,
.. , . .
,. ,,,., . :: : , . ', . Lidwii.en de Kroon-:Tahman,
Land. Use Plarne:r .
i
LdKR,:yc
- 'cc w City of Tigard
any 'I3oiley,
ousing bion
Chanes iIales,. t o.mehuilders ssoc,iati,on '
.
{
3i•
}
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 84-
•
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICY 6. 1.2, SUBSIDIZED HOUSING DISPERSAL IN SINGLE
FAMILY ZONES, AND POLICY 12.1.1, RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (CPA 14-84)
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City by
Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and „
WHEREAS, Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies was
adopted `as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission held an
acknotaledgemeit hearing on Tigard''s Comprehensive Plan on April 26, 1984 ; and
WHEREAS, at the April 26, 1984, LCDC Hearing, the,' Commission voted to continue
gto Comply Statements; and
acknowledgement on Goal #5 with In Order
WHEREAS, Policy 6.1.2 was amended by Ordinance No. 84-29 on May 14, 1984; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 12,
1984 to consider 4the In Order to Comply Statements and a recommendation was
made to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a pub 1 is
hearing was held before the City CG'oP",il on June 25, ; 1984,
for Council consideration of, the Planning Commission's recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAA I NS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Policy 6.1,.2 shall be athended as set forth below. Language to
be added is underlined. Language to be deleted is in
[brackets
"6. 1.2 ('SUBSIDIZED ROUSING UNITS SHALL, ' CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. TO PREVENT THE &E9GRAPHIL
CONCENTRATION' OF PUBLIC HOUSING ANIS INSURE A BALANCE IN THE
DISTKJBUTION OF SUCH HOUSING, THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
SUBSIDIZED ROUSING. UNITS LOCATED WITHIN, ANY SINGLE FAMILY
ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE FIVE `LIME THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON
ANY STREET
. SRE,E .. IN'. HE DEVELO�PR.ENt. ) '. I O
AVOID CONCENTRATIONS'
ONCENT
RA1 IONSt O E
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONED DISTHICTS, THE
t
LOCATIONALCRt1EkIA IN S. IION ` , UI. POLICY 12. 1.1 SHALL BE
,
* APPLIED
SITING
SUS; I 11tZM1CUS �tPROJECTS IN S 1 NUi L.,..E
'FAMILY ZJNINt , L4llI� � 1Rt1t : µ, TRIS tOL1C1r
I I11
TERM "SUBS'II)I2EIJ HOUSING" SHALL, AN\ Ili.1tiS INC; OH
tC1NS`I"HUCI EUU WITH ESI NANOI,AI. Ass IS I AN 5, t)I I tit, 1',.ti:, t$tw1'41.1'1i11h.N".1
OF HOUSING AND LORI URBAN ItEVE.Ltt1'ME NI AND I It1M STAll' 01,` ,t, ;1't. 'tN
OWNI,D AND MAIN°1 A,I'NF O AI A ts(11.i.,, 1%4i ! , , r �'.JYt:*1 l I`It1_'l I I'H I k`w1,1.1,
ttR t,t'VhL4N,ElLh I A .1 Nt Y."
x�1wiNlTyrttr1 twat
' +xw3 M.lwii
I
l Sect ion 2: Policy 12.1.1 shall be amended to add a Section 4. as set
forth below. Language to be added is underlined.
"4. Subsidized Hous ing in Sin le f'amil Zoning Districts
"A. The following factors will be the determninants for
locating subsidized housing, as defin_ed in Policy
. 1.2L in single family zoning distri
bcts:
' (A) Al�_l_units should, if possible, be within 1/4 mile of a
route of public transit.
•
"(2) Additional subsidized units should be encouraged i
& n
areas which exhibit a lower-than-average level of
subsidy and 'ed ium-to--low level of poverty.
1"(3) ;No more than 30 percent of the units_ in a developrrtenr.
of 10 units or more shall be subsidized.
No more than two subsidized hrusing 'units shall
adjoin." ---
Community Development Code may comply with
Section 3: In order that the
LCDC regulations, to improve the operation and implementation , ;
of
the Code. and to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this
ordinanc..a shall become effective upon its passage by the
Council and approved by the Mayor.
PASSED; By lei 6.lC►t' ,/c
voteof all Council members .present after
being read by number and title only this ? r?'.day of ,Jed j ,, 1984.,
Deputy Recorder - Cit of Tigard
APPkOV D: This tj it' day o1 �< , 19134.4
.
w
)144.)t- City of Til;iirr.l.
(O47c)1P)
4.l1UIN 1 tvattli,,1, t4i, . t, {
. ,,, �i.t.1„,r*
( Y
„ft v
tl
a
•
CITY OF TIGARD: €ROED.SEDY;AMENDMENTS TO PLAN ,
AND CODE RE: HOUSING,
6.1.2 THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR PROGRAMS WHICH
ASSIST FAMILIES IN SECURING ADEQUATE HOUSING.
6.5.2 IN ADDITION TO 6.5.1 (b), WHEN. THREE OR MORE CONTIGUOUS SINGLE FAMILY
UNITS •ARE OWNED AND MANAGED IN COMMON THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE
COMPLETION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES
1, (add) THE SITE: [DESIGN] DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS SHALL PROVIDE FOR
ESTABLISHEMENT OF A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WHICH IMPLEMENTS POLICY 6.5.2.
THIS PROCESS SHALL BE USED TO ASSURE THAT CONTIGUOUS UNITS' .OWNED AND
MANAGED IN COMtU)N ARE DESIGNED, 5Ii T
ED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER WHICH
MINIMIZES CONFLICTS BETWEEN THESE UNITS AND SINGLE FAMILY OWNER-OCCUPIED
UNITS, THE PURPOSE OF THIS STRATEGY IS TO DETERMINE HOW, (NOT WHETHER)
UNITS OWNED AND MANAGED`IN COMMON ARE SITED.
FINDINGS
As types and intensity of uses intermingle (and transition across an urban
area,] conflicts may arise involving noise, odors, air pollution, dust and
visual incongruities. These conditions create the potential need for buffers
to minimize_or eliminate the conflicts,
! ( 01 - UNITS OWNED AND MANAGED IN COMMON” [HAVE,] WHERE NOT REVIEWED, HAVE
RESULTED' .IN COMPLAINTS AND CONFLICTS INVOLVING DESIGN, BUILDING RAND YARD
WITH NAISSUE'S CAN BE ADEQUATELY DEALT
MAINTENANCE AND OTHER' MINORPROBLEMS. THESE:
ROUGH APPLICATION , OF SITE (DESIGN] DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS WHICH
CONSIDER [ISSUES OF] HOW SUCH UNITS ARE SITED WITHOUT IMPEDING THE SITING OR
RESTRICTING HOUSING CHOICE. SUCH A PROCESS SHALL NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE ,
COST THROUGH CONDITIONS OR DELAY AND WILL NOT BE USED TO REDUCE DENSITY OR=
HOUSING TYPES. PERMITTED WITHIN THE ZONE
6.6.1
C. A lication of sitingand desi n standards ssingle
owned and managedandard to Nr� units
Pp g fa
in common
Eliminate Policy 12.1.1.4 (Locational Criteria)
•
.,;.
11
18.120.020
R A. (Add in 1) 'CONTIGUOUS HOUSING UNITS OWNED AND MANAGED IN COMMON
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE REVIEW, CONSISTENT WITH PLAN POLICY 6.5.2
IMPLEMENTING STRATEGY 1 AND FINDINGS DUPPORTT4G APPLICATION OF THIS
PROCESS."
18.120.030
A. (Add) If the applicant is to own and manage three or more cont ieluous
housing units in common, [then] an agreement between the owner(s) and
the City regarding siting, design and maintenance which complies with
18.120.055 shall be consummated through a modified [the] site
[design] DEVELOPMENT review process
18.120.055 SITING, DESIGN AND elAINTENACE' STANDARDS
A. [APPLICABILITY] OF THE DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. THIS ai
SECTIOI APPLIES TO UNITS OWNED ANG MANAGED IN COMMON WHERE THREE OR
MORE UNITS ADJOIN ONE ANOTHER.
B. PURPOSE - THE PURPOSE OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS TO ASSURE BY SITING,
DESIGN. AND MAINTENANCE THAT UNITS OWNED AND MINAGED IN COMMON ARE
INTEGRATED WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS. STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO MAINTAIN
HOUSING DIVERSITY AND CHOICE WHILE AVOIDING UNDUE UNIFORMITY,
INSTITUTIONAL. APPEARANCE AND LONG TERM NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT. THESE
STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO DETERMINE HOW, [NOT WHETHER] UNITS ARE
I, SITED STANDARDS'SHALL NOT BE APPLIED IN A MANNER WHICH UNREASONABLY
t INCREASES COST OR RESTRICTS HOUSING CHOICE THROUGH CONDITIZ)NS OR
PROCEDURAL DELAYS. CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS WILL NOT BE USED TO
REDUCE DENSITY OR [RESTRICT] LIMIT HOUSING TYPES WHICH ARE PERMITTED
WITHIN THE APPLICABLE ZONE.
C. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL — STANDARDS GOVERNING THE AGREEMENT REQUIRED
BY 18.120.030: .. ..
1, UNITS SHALL
BE DESIGNED AND SITED TO AVOID UNDUE UNIFORMITY AND
INSTITUTIONAL APPEARANCE. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT OR UNITS COVERED BY
THIS SECTION ARE LIMITED TO ISSUES OR DESIGN AND IMPACTS RELATED TO
THE FOLLOWING:
[TRRAFF'1C AND] PARKING
b) NOISE
[c] [AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES]
[d] c) BUFFERING
t 1 + ) COLOR AND EXTERIOR TREATMENT OF STRUCTURES
[ ] 0.) BUILDING ORIENTATION
[i] f) LANDSCAPING
Ch[ s) ONGOING MAINTENANCE ,,
x
•
2. ACCESSORY STF:JCTURES AND OPEN SPACES USED IN COMMON SHALL BE
INTERIOR TO THE UNITS SERVED AND SHALL BE ADEQUATELY BUFFERED THROUGH
r
BUILDING ORIENTATION, FENCING OR LANDSCAPING.
3. AN EXECUTED MAINTENANCE AGREEMMT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ASSURE.
UPKEEP OF THE GROUND$',, LANDSC P NG AND STRUCTURES AT A LEVEL
COMMENSURATE AND TYPICAL OF SIMILAR PROPERTY WITHIN THE '
METROPOLITAN AREA. [(EXAMPLES IF DESIRE)]
D. CONDITIONS - CONDITIONS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THOSE AREAS IDENTIFIED IN
SECTION C (STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL) AND SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH
LIMITATIONS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION B (PURPOSE).
PLEASE NOTE This language was proposed byLCtIC
"'` st~a1'F and then reviewed by
the City staff and City Attorney's office. Tk.,e words in [brack,ets] are words
City staff proposes L delete. The words underlined are words City staff
proposes to add.
0919P . �.
.34
•
I' I
T K li 1 e1