Planning Commission Packet - 04/24/1979 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
� . � .. . . ... . . ... . . ... .. . . _ . .. .. . . . . . .,..... _ . .. .. .. . . . . . .. ...� .. I
� .� . : . � - . . . . . . . . . �
. . � . � . . , . � . . � . �
�,
AGENDA ��
� {'
f� TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION j
STUUY SESSION ��II
April 24� 1979 - 7:30 P.M, f
Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room
i
10865 S.W. Walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon jr'
��
,.,
1. Open Meeting: �I,
��
2. Roll Call• i;l
p
3. Study session items: +'
t
�
1. Chapter 18.57 Sensitive Land Consideration Flood Plain, �
Drainageways & Greenways - Second Draft 4/16/79 !
�.
�
2. Housing Tmplementation Plan - r
4
A. Smaller Lot Sizes (
B. High-Density A�artments !
C. Mobile Homes !
D. Location of Assisted Housing �
E. Tigard's Fair Share of Low Income Housing �
F. Unnecessary Standards or Restrictions
G. Discrimination Against Households with Children �
H. Zone Ordinance Revision for R-5 and R-20 Single Family (
Reszdential Zones ?{'�
f
�:' w�, 4. Adjournment: �
�
Y
�
�r
1
!
i{
t
f
�
y
�
� . . .. . . . .� (
F
i
E
� �
,. . ,_ .._
. � ,
.
�� � �. _ .<
, ,
_ , . ,_ _ ,
...._ � ._ ,.,_. k ��.
` �,'
�`- �
j ,
i �,i
'� .
� MEMORANDUM '�
` i
�a
.. . . . � � ��srj,
6�
To: Planning Commissioners , � '
�.
From� Ken Selby • � '
Associate City Planner �"
� ;
, ,
Subj: Housing Implementation Plan �'
{:,,
Date: April 20, 1979 '
�;
�'''
r;''
The attached is an update of the Housing Implementation P1an that was !?
tabled on November 2J., 1978. The direction to the statf was to present # '
����.
' the P1an before each NPO Committee for their input on the nine (9)
identified areas and any other they wished. � '
�4
�,;,
Please review the attached for discussion on April 24, 1979 Planning �''
i,',
Commission Study Session. ;�
t';
�';;
��
�,. - �:�
�:
�'�
t�
t.;
�;�
t�,
�;!.
��i
�;,.
F;:
�,
��:'
r:
�:
�
�;;
�:
a�.:
�
l;
t:
�
. E
�
. �
�: .
�
. �
�
,
;
- �� ' . ;
. » � , • .
�
SL'C�vD Di�AFT OF 4/16/79
.
�' •
�� Chapter 18.57
Sensitive Lanrl Considerations •
� Flood Plain, Drair�agetivays and Greenways
18.570010 Statement of Intent. Sensitive lands are lands poten-
tially unsuitable for developr.2ent because of location within the 100-
year flood plain, within a natural drainageway, or on steep slopes.
Sensitive n rea re desi nated as such in order to ive reco - '
la d a s a g � g
nition to the need to pr.otect the public health, s�fety and Welfare
of the community th.rough the regulation and contro]. of lands within
floodplain, drainagetivay, and steeply-sloping land areas, and to thereby
mitigate potential financial burdens arising from flood damaoe los�
and t� preserve natural draina�eways from encroaching uses whict�
threaten to adversely affect the property rights of the citizenry of
the community, public safe�ty, and the public health by natural condi-
tions arising from upstream or dovm stream flood levels. City actions
under this ordinance will recognize the rights of riparian o�mers to
be free f.'rom invasion of flood or wates intrusion and d�mage caused
by acts oT omissions to act on the part of the City, its Commissions,
reprasentatives and agents, and landowners and occupiers.
�he floodplain district has for its purpose the preservation of �
natural ti•rater storape areas within the floodplain district by dis- '
couraging or prohibiting incompatible uses. I
18�7.020 Deiinitions. In this chapter the following words and �!
phrases shall be construed to have the specific meanings assigned to �I
�-' them as follows:
(1) "drainageways�� are defined as those areas which convey sig-
nificant seasonal concentrations of water over the surface of the land.
i (2) "Fill" means any act by which earth, sand, gxavel, rock or
any other similar mater�.al is deposited, placed, pulled or transported,
and includes the conditions resulting therefrom. I,
(3) "Flood" means a temporary rise in s�ream flow or stage �hat
results in water overtopping stream banks and inundating land adjacent �
the normal flo�t or �rater through the stream channel. �
(4) "F1ood hazard" means a danger to property or health ae the '
result of inunda�ion of the floodplain.
(5) '�Floodplain" means the relati.vely f].at area or lowlands
adjoining the channel of a river, stream, watercourse or other bady
of water vrhich has been or may be covered by fl.00dwa�ers within the
area of applicability defined by the floodplain district.
(6) "Floodplain distriet" means those areas within the City of
� Tigard inundated by the one hundred year r�gulatory flood.
���
� ;
i . .
SECOND DRAFT OF 4/16/79 — Tigard 5ensitive Zands Ordinance . � ,
�,. (7) "Flood surface elevation." Those elevations depicted on the
fl,00dplain series maps are based on mean sea level datum, and their
locations are an indication of the surface elevations at that location.
(8) "Qbstruction" means any dam, wall, embankment, levee, dike,
gile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel. modification, bridge,
conduit, culvert, building, gravel, refuse, fill, structure, matter
or things of a similar nature in, along, or across or projecting into .
any channel, watercourse, or floodplain drainagewa,ys areas which may
it�pede, retard or change the direction of the flavr of water, either
in itseZf or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water,
or that is placed where tne flow of water might carry the sarae
doRnstream to the dama�e of health or property. ,
(9) �'ReguZatory flood" means the flood used �CU define the outer �
boundary lines of the floodplai.n district. The maximum flood predicted
to occur within each one hundred years. .
(10) "Ste�ply sloptng lands" are portions o� the ground surface
wha,ch have a, slope of 12 per cent ar grea�er.
(11) "Structure" raeans constructed edifice, barrier or building
of any kind, or any axtifically built ��p or composition of physical
parts adjoi.ned together. � �
18.57.0 0 Permitted uses. Except as provided by Section 18.57.OLF�,
� only the fallowing uses shall t�e permitted within the sensitive lands, so
long as they do no� substantially obstruct or affect floodwaters: �
(1) Floodplaa.n Dis�rict and Drainageways:
a) Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens or unpaved play areas.
b) Agricultural uses conducted withoizt locating a structure
in the floodplain district„
c) Community recreational uses such as bicycle and pedestrian
paths, archery ranges, or unpaved athletic fields or parks.
d) Pu�lic and private conservation areas For water, soil, open
space, foxest or wildlife resources.
e) Removal of poison aak, tansy rag�ort, hlackberry or any •
othor noxious vegetation.
(2) Drain��eways:
a) Fences. �r�°��'���
b) Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, blackberry or any ��""�
other noxious vegetation.
,
�2� I
_ ,
�,
• � � i
" SECOND DRAFT OF 4�16/79 - Tigard Sensitive Lands Ordinance
, �
a �
R�
�
(3) �`Steeply sloping lands:
�' a) Lovr-intensity recreational uses such as bicycle and
ped.estrian paths.
b) Landscaping or gardens which provide substantial vegetative
cover.
c) Publ.ic and private conseraation areas for vrater, soi1, .
open space, forest or p�ildlife resources.
d) Removal of poison oak, tansy ragt+rort, blackberry or any
other noxious vegetation.
18•,57.040 Uses and activities allotived with a special permit:
The foll.ovring uses and activities are a7.lowed �nly by special permit
granted by the Planning Commission and ba�ed on the standards set forth
in Section 18.57•060.
(],) Pdithin floodplains, drainageways and steeply aloping lands:
a) Fill.ing, and structures thereon.
b) Off--street parking and maneuvEring areas, accessarays and
service drives located on the ground surface.
�� c) Roadrvays, bridges or utility faciltties.
d) Dumping of garbage, rubbish, debri�, junk, or other
solid waste.
e) Excavating.
f.) Removing any live ve�etation other than poison oak, I,
tansy raavrort, bi.ackberry or any other noxious vegetations I
(z) Within steeply slopin; lands only: ��
a) Subsurface sewage dispasal, septic tanks and drain fields. �
b) Structures.
(3) l�Jithin the flaodplain only:
a) Any temvorary struc�u.re P�hich by its nature cannot be
readily removecl from the floodplain area during periods of flooding,
and which would impecle ar interfere with the flovt of floodvraters within
tY�e di�truct.
b) Any change in the topography or terrain which would
change �he flow of �raters during fl�oding periods, or vrhich would
� increase the fl.00d hazard or alter the direction or velocity of the
floodwa�er flow.
—3—
_
i
SECOND DRAFT OF 4/16/79 - Tigard Sensitive Lands Ordinance ' w
;
I
i
�
.18.57.0�_,�Tonconforming uses. A,ny pre-existing condition or
structure within the sensitive lands district is subject to the provi� �„�
sions of Chapter 13.68 of this Code.
18.57.060 Special permits: In accordance vtith th,e procedures and
requirements set forth in C.hapter 18.8.4 of this Code, an appZication
for a special use permit filed as by said chapter stai;ed may be appro'ved
or denied by the Planning Commission follovring a public .heara.ng.
All apnlications for a "Special use permit�' sha11 be supported by
the follo�vino infoa•mation to enable �he Planning Commissa.on to adequately
determine vrhether� the propoeed use is located in the floodplain or
drainajevrays district and if so, whether the proposal, if approved, '
will conform to the purposes axid guidelines as set forth in this cha�tex.
A. Floodplain: ,
].) Plans dravm to sca].e, submitted in triplicate as prepared
by a registered professional enoin.eer with experience in hydraulic and
(�eo-2) hydrolooic engineering and processes, shovring the nature, loca-
tion, dimensions, elevations and topography of the site; the location
of existing and proposed structures located upon the site, existing and �
proposed areas to be filled or otherwise modified, and the relation-
snip of these to the location of the strea�► channel, and. propo�ed
'� methods for controlling �rosion.
2) Any documentation, photographs, 1z�ater �arks, and eimilar�
ev�dence offered in support of tne claim that the site or axea in
questi.on lies above high water a� defined by the regulatory flood.
B. Drainageti�rays:
1) P].an� drarm to scalE, submitted in tripli.cate as prepared
by a registered professional engineer with experience in hydraulic and
hydrulo;ic engineerin� and processes, showing the nature, location,
dimensions, elevations and topo�raphy of the site; the loca�ion of i
existin� and proposed structures lacated upon the site; existing and
�
proposed fi],l or excavated areas, and the relationship oi these to the I�,
location oi the stream channel. (if any) , and the proposed methods of
controlling erosioxi. '
C. Steep slopes: �.`` `; �
1) Plans drati�m to scale� submi.tted in triplicate as prepared �°
by a qualified registered professional engineer showing the nature,
w4 . J
,.._
� _ _ _
. I �`.
_ . i . �
SECOVD �:t�'T OF�t�/1.6/�9 - Tigard Sensitive Lands Ordinance �
,
1 �p.
t4;
locatiorr, dimension�, elevations, and topography of the sitQ; the �°�:
�.
' loGation ofexisting and proposed structures located upon the site, �`'
4'
existing and proposed fill or excavated areas, and proposed methods of k;:;
controllin� ero�ion. • 1 ��':"
�;,I
�::,
4i;:
18.570.070 Standards• , i;;
(1) 0.pplication for a special floodplain pprmit shal7. be granted i!'
or denied in accordance with the following standards: ��
�i
a) No structure, fi11, storage or other uses sha1.Z be per— �'
. i�
mitted vrhich alone or in combinatiozi tivith existinG or proposed uses �t
would reduce the capacity of the floodplain area or raise the flood `
surface elevation or floti�r ra•tes on upstream or downstream properties, �
or create a present or foreseeabl.e hazard to public health, safety and I
general rrelfare.
b) The appl.ican� has the permit required by the State of
Oregon under ORS Chapter 541 for removal or fillin� of water�vays, or
demonstrates that the provisions af this statute do not app].y.
(Z) AppZication for a special drainageway permit shall be granted
� �� or denied in accordance with the following staiYdards
a) The proposed action will not adversely impact runoff,
erosion, ground stability, water quality, �round taater level, flovr
rates or flooding.
(3} Application for a special steep slopes permit sha3.1 be
granted or denied in accordance with t.he following standard:
a) Affirmative docur�entation �hat the proposed actiors will
' nat adversely impact runoff, erosion, ground stabili.ty, v�ater quality,
groundwater 1eve1, or flooding; and that the site can support the
proposed modification or structure as designed.
(Section 18.57.075 — Treatment of created hardships, is deleted.)
�
,
-5-
I . .�,. _ _ _ .. -.-_._ :_ _ .:�_. ..,,.. . _ ._,� .. ...
_ _.
, .`,j <j,
. ,..Y
" ` ''s � � �
sECOrrD D�a� ox 4/16/79 �
�
;
;
• Chapter 18.56 �
i
Planned Develo�ment Distri.ct (P-D) `� I
;
j
18.�6.01 Pur�ose: Add the follotving sentence: �
�
"Finally, it is intended to insure ,that development of sensitive
lands shall be caxried out in a manner vrhich protects the health, .
safety and welfare of the community."
Add a nevr sectiono
1.8.56.015 Sonsitive lands. All parcels containi.n� sensitive lands
mus� be rezoned as Planned Developme:it Dis�ricts before any future
development may take place on. the sensitive lands portion.
Revrrite: •
180 6.110 llensity. Zn ord�r ta preserve the �.nte�rity of the
comprehensiv'e p7.ar� and xelate it to the planned development, the
number of dwelling units and other allovrances perni�tted shall be
determined as follows: �
(1) The area of the buildable porti,on of the property involved� �
which does not lie within the floodplain, steeply sloping lands, or
will be computed,
� drainagetiva�� and 20 per cent of t�he total so derived vrill be subtracted.
� Tne area so derived will be divided by the minimum lat axea per dv�elling
unit required by t.he underlying district or districts in vrlaa.ch the �
planned development is located.
(2) For residential planned uni� developments, up to a 20 per
cent increase v�ill be considered a�ove the ma�imum a11o�Yable density
as determined abov�. S�
�k3�3�4M�i7k�7�G�X74�MSC�Cl��}{���7c�X��X74Dt�X�.�£�t�c�X�3i�
g7���X�S��XX in order to compensate the ovmer of the
land for any units which are lost becau�e of the �edi.cation or �.on- i
devalopment of open space or other land dedicated to a political sub-
division. Hov�ever the total number of units in the planned unit
development may r�ot exceed the nunber that the applicant demonstrates
could have been built on non-sensitive lands and lands w�.ich could be
reclaimed 3.n accordance with the standards of Section 18.57•070 of the ��-, �*�
Sensitive Lands ordinance.
���
_ __ _
.
:
� _ _ _
,.. . �. ;. . � _�.,.
.:,.
_. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ,. �
�� _ _ _
• � � � 1
+ SECOND DR�'T OF 4/16/79 — P��ned Development Ordinance Niodifications
, : �
, s.
1 . i
� ,
(3) In otner than residential developments, allowances shall be
�rn consirlered 'by the Planning Gommission for open space dedication.
Additional allovrances can be for greater land c�verage for commercial,
bu:ildin�s, adda,tional building height, or a,ncreased parkin� spaces.
T.he allowances shall not exceed the maximum development that rrould have
' been permitted for the entire parcel in the absence of a pZanned unit •
development district.
(4) In determining the percenta�e increase in units or the addi—
tional allosvances, the Planning .Commission shall grant density or
allovrance increases �vhich most closely compensate the ovmer of the
land for any uses which are foregone because of the dedicaton or
non—development of operi space land.
ALTERYd�TIVE FOR (Z��,�3) ana (4) ABOVE:
(2) If part or all of the sensitive lands can be reclaimed for
development in accard with the stan.dards of Secm 18s57s070, the addi—
„ � tional units or deve�.opment available through reclamation also shall. be
allowed in the planned unit developrnent. If the developer is required
to ded3.cate or n.ot develop some of the reclaimable sensitive land so
that it can be used as open space, the Planning Commission shall gran�
density (or in nanresiden'tial developments) a].Zowances which most
closely compensate the owner of the land for any uses which are foregone
because of the dedication or lack of development of the open space.
Allowances shall include greater land eoverage for commexcial buildings,
additional building hei�ht, or increased parkin� spaces. The allowances
shalZ not e�ceed tha maximum development that would have been permitted
for the entire parcel in the absence of a planned unit devalopmPnt �
district.
(3) In residential developments, a density bonus of up to ten
per cent may be al.lotved to compensate ior the net cost to the applicant
of amenities furnished for the benefi.t of the City or other political
subdivision as a resul.t of planned unit clevelopment.
�.
�2_
I M
i. . .� l> ! ..
Planninc� Commission April 19 , 19?3
', �n i Marcus Waad .
���='�'�� SPIlS1.�7.VP_ S�ands Or3inance - Seconc7. Dr��t of 4-�16--79
The Ser,.si.tive Laricls Dr.a�t s����d- re�lects r�comrnenclatic��i��
covexing �hree (3) majo� �c�].iry c17:C�c18. The, se are�(I,) The cir_c�ani--
__._ __.�__�___.--------- ----�......
� �t;ances, �.� �.r�y, under. whi.ch devel.opmEnt i.n �he sensitive ].a,nds
shc�u].d �� al.,�.o�aecl.
fi� J_�as� a majority of the �ub��ornmit�.ee agre�ed. on •
severa�l. �rinciples. �1'hese pri.nciples wer.e tk�at develc�pmen�t
of th,e flood, plain woul.d riat be a1lo�red if it wou�d �roduce �
�n� incr�asQ in tapstream or downstream flaoding. This means
triai� the Coxps of Er�ginzers' proposal for a on.� foot increase
:�r� r1o�d plain height was rejec�.ed, �nd n� cost/benefit
� � ,
an�.ly�is of t�he value of development versus i.z�creased flooclinc�
would be rele�an.t to a reques� to develop floodp]_ain lands. The
subcommittee' s majority concludec� that owners of land adjoining
,
th.e fl,00d�lain should have the r�.ght to k�e �'r�e from the
inv�sion of flooding cansed by developmen�t on ather l�.nds . In
addit�ion, �ny .flood plain moda.fica�ion must also be compatible
with the public health, safety and welfare. Far example,
dangerausly deep retention ponds should not be allowed.
However, the subcommittee fe:L� that the purpose of the
Sensit.ivE Lands Ordinance should be to gratec� the public, and
no� to �x�ovide a subterfuge for the taking of open spac<e by
th� city. Accordingly, references t.o greenway preservation are
� removed from the Sensitive Lands Ordinanee. At the �ame time, .
;.
� _ _ _ � _
. .;ti._. _ _ , �
C'' . ` a ?
i
I � �i
� the Planned Development B�strict Ordinance w� expanded to �,,�;sµ;'
al'law the open space in the floodplain greenway to be considered �
in the context �f a rec�uired planned unit development of sensitive
lands. .
In the past the conjoining of publ.ic health, sa�ety and ',
welfare considerations with greenway preservation may have led
to inapprapriate decisions on floodplain development.
� Because the existing ordi.nances do not-�e�i�e separatdyg�o- .
.- pr.otect flood�lain greenway areas, the Commission
general�.y has not allawed any fl.00dplain develapment, even �
that which c:ould be carra.ed aut eaithout dang�r to upstream
or downstream prop�'rty owners. Arguably, at times the flood--
i
plain area which has been left undeveloped was far greater
than the city actually wanted or needed for greenway purposes. �
cic.�.��.y:�(r—��
In short, a more ���� way of protecting and pr�serving
� the greenway is needed than a defe�to floadplaa.n development pro-
i ,
hibition.
(2) The appropriate density trade-offs for the dedication
of greenway and other open spac�.
After the subcommittee concluded that the appropriate
method of preserving tlae greenway is to allow density trade-
offs, we turned ta ths question af how much of a trade-off
is rPasonabl.e. Tn the past, density trade-off considerations
have been on an ad hoc basis, without consis�.ent standards
that could be applied to the differing applications . As a
result, the densities allowed might have been too dependent `,,�,,,�
�
upon the smoothness of the applicant' s pres�ntation, rather than upon
��. _ _ `� .
,
. , .
, �, _ _ ,.. ...
�Y . .�.. . . . ...:���.... .. :..::.. ��....... ...�.....�.�.�.. ........,.�_ .
�
M1 ` � '
1
.��. .. . � tt . . .
. 1�:
�
;
�
, .
� � t" an objective sei: of criteria. The proposed ordinances provide
two possik�le alternatiwes £or maki.ng the density trade�otfsd
(�) Th� treatment of ��re��.�nds. Wetlands di�fcr from
,._.�_-------- -,
floodplains, d�ainage ways and s�eep slopes in Tigard, in .
that their development pnses no special dangers to tl�e
o�vners of ather properties. Accordingly, the health, safety
and welfare a�' i:he conanunity does not ne�essa.rily r.cquire
regulation of wetlands in tche sam� mannPr as regulata.on o�
other designated sensitive lands. FurthermorP, the sma7.1
wetland areas in Tigard ar� not ecolpgicall.y sensitive in
the sense that l.arger marshes within '�he state might be. Th�
subcommittee concluded that. wetlands do pase a s�ecia�
engineering problem which perhaps should be addr�ssed h�
�" ordinance, but that the importaz�t policy d�cisions relative
�
to floodplains, drainage ways and steep slopes should not
.....
necessarily be carried over ta the wetlands. Ac:cordingly,
wetlands were delet�d from the porpc�sed Sensitive Lands Ordinance
draft.
The Draft Ser�sil"r`vt, C.c,.K<<5 WL�r��-1�+����ct, i
_•------�.
The following is a section by sectian discussion of the
' major changes ta th� Sensitive Lands Ordinance made by the '
�ubcommittee, plus some additional editorial changes that
might be needed to clarify t�ie lan-gf..uage in the dra�t. � `��0 ',".y�`� `�'�'�`�,;p
�(�-i•f•.C't'l1 ZitG��.- GL--kLu:rC �'t.�..-[•_,�" L,L•ct4 LI.�Ri iY., Lir.+.'� l.�t�.i•�� '�-l. ..ili[i�ti:� �1LY-r, iL.(,�.�.fv.�.l�( � C�'MMO M'.L!_Gc._ ��.
�'he title should read °'Chapter 18. 57 Sensi.tive Land '°"`�'�''`�"� '�''•��
u,-a':�, �l�a�f."
Consideratinns-Floodplain, Drainage W� and SteeP Slopes ." `'��P�'`°7"��`�`
�
�: 18. 57. 010 is amended to reanove references to qreenways
and wetlands. Greenway preservation will be treated in the
revisions to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. The
: '
rights of repaxiant� owners to be free from invasion from
_ _ . �__ _ .
... .. , . _..,.. ___:._..�_ _..�_..,.___._.:
� �'` � ' .
, `�, ';� �
l„
� n ,;
flood or�,water intrusion and damage is reaognized explicitly: ��
18. 57. 020 (6) is amender� to remove .references to various
maps showing the �'loodplain. The subcommit�tee was concerned
�hat some of th�se maps, particula�ly thase of the Corps af ,
Engineers, might reflect a floodplain�if a one (1) foot • i
increase in flood elevatiori were al.l.owed. The policies
reflected by such maps are not the intent of the subcommittee.
Maps, o.f course, can be used �to help de�ermine objectively
which areas are inundated by �he 100 year regulatory flood.
Section 18 . 57. 040. . The ordinance as written inadvertently
neglected t� state that with special permits, structures would
,
be allowed on fi11 in floodplains and structurES would be
� al.lowed in steeply sl.oping land�� Earlier, �tructures had
..�,
bpen removEd in an autright per.mitted use. Accordingly,
they needecl to be added to the special permit, section or
they would be prnhibited under all cix�cumstances.
� Section 18. 57� 060. Several clari�ications were added,
including specification ot the -type of experience the applicant' s
engineer must possess.
Section 18 . 57. 070 (not "570" ) is added to set out
separately the standards which must be met for the granting
of' special permits. The intent of �.he subcommittee is that
develapm�nt would �e perm?t�P� �f the standards are met, �
subject to the open space considerati�ns �rovJid�ed1��,�a,��art
`of planned unit developments. Accordingly, if the standards
are met with respect to a par�.icular area, but the Planning
�,,r'�
Commission thinks that area should remain open space, appropriate ,.,
trad�-offs must be made.
I •
' . Section 18 . 57. 070 (1) should read "safety or general
welfare. Sectian 18 . 57 . 070 should have added to it the
following language, "or create a pres�nt or foreseeable
hazard to public health, sa�ety �r general welfare" , '.
Section 18. 57. 075 � TrEatment of Created Hardships - is
dele�ed. The subject matter of this section is transferred to
the Planned Unit Uevelopment Ordinarice�.
Changes to Planned r�evelopmerit Distric� Ordi�ance '
(Chapter 18. 56) .
Section 18e56. 015. This sect�,on requires developmen� of
sensi�ive lands as part of a planned developmPnt district.
However, parcels containing sensitive lan�s could be developed
}. � without the planned unit d�velopment, if th� sensitiv� lands
l �� '
were not developed. Accordingly,nstaff administratively could
rezone all parcels containing sensitive lands to the underlying
i
zoning cal�ed for in the Comprehensive Plan. However, priox
to development __ r___�_� which entails invasion of the
floodplain�PD zoning must be aPproved.
Section 18 . 56. 110 i.� rewritten to clarify the density
requirements and trade-off_s. As the ordinance now is written,
a planned devel�pment apparently obtains a 10� density bonus
eve� if it dedicates no land. This provision appears to be
inconsistent of other provisions of the planned development
district�which state� that special circumstances must exist
in order for lot coverage ta be less than called for in the
� underlying zone. In any event, a density bonus should be given
- 5 -
; ,. ... _. . .
!�'., ., _ _ _
_ _ _
;_ . ... , ,._ _ � _
, �, __ .. '. ..____....w_.,. .�
;� . ;�
. � �� ;�
'� f
���f, . 1
, ��+..,.. ..
only in return for considezations �given by the applicant.
In addition, the ardinance remains ambiguous concerning the
definition of the "net devel.opable area" which is used to I
• I
compute the allowed number of uni�s. �,
i��-�c ,
� options are proposed for this section. In both • �
,
aptions, a basic number caf allawable units is computed,
excludiny sensiti,ve lands. i7nder the first option, a density
�
banus of up to 20 o would be a7.lowed to compensate the c��er�`�`�`�"�
�-e-€ units lost because of dec�ication or nondevelopment of
apen apace, or for other land dedicated to political subdivision;,
(such as a school site) . This aption gives particular
�tJ�.•
emphasis ta limiting the potential reduction in�lot sizes�
�' r� cal.led for in the Neighborhood Plans. In some cases, the �:�,;::
maximum number of units al.lowed by this farmula may be less
�-Gi�..,^.�t:::�i< <.y.. i�.:.e.l'«��.2.f�-l.t
i
than^could have been sited rs��� floodplain land, '-'�,'- ^����d
"Y1Lt'V'��cir r•••�l ...,7 i L... .i. L.-..Ci[t'��bt✓—irl-le---�i'�(�n���'t't•�. �
Unc7er the other aption, no limit would be placed on
the density increase in non open space units, but the
applicant could site no more units than needed to make him
. -tA.�.��z,-� J�
whole for �leaving open space. Under tlzis wording, the
Planning Commission wou].d choose between the amount of
develapable open space and �he lot sizes on the remainder of
the parcel. The Commission could choose larger lots and
less apen space ar smaller lots and more open space.
�
� - � �. .
� .._ , , � _ _ _.. ,�.. ,.
�� _ : ....._. , ..
,..�..
, ' '1 �
��: �
1
,
�� � .
Correctians �
In 1�. 56.110 (2) , lines 6, b�tween the words "for" and
"any" , �the phrase "the val.ue to him" should be add.ed. In
the second alternativ� to 18. 56.110, paragraph ( 2) should be �
�
rewritten as follows: "If an applicant is requa.rec� to
dediaate or not deve�.op non sensi�ive land, or sexisitive
i
lan�d �ahich could be reclaimed in accordance with the standards
of Section 18. 57. 070 of the �'igard City Code, the City Council
Snaii grant the number of uni�s, or in nonresidential developments,
allawances which must closel.y compensate the arrrner of the
land for any uses which have fo�egone because of the dedi.ca�ion
or lack of development of the l.and. Allowances may include
�4 greater land coverage for commercial buil.dinqs, additional
buildinq height, or increased parking spaces. Th� nuznb�r of
units or the allowances shall not exceed the maximum development
" that would have been permitted for the entire parcel in the
absence of a pl.anned development district. "
Proposed subsectian 3 af Uption two f.hen should be deleted. •
In 18. 56. 110, all references .to '"Planning Commission" should
read "City Council" . Relief from System Development Charges
might be an additional trade-off for open space dedication.
�..
- 7 _
.. . . ,. ... . ., ... ,. _..
, .;... .
��,-r..,, . � ... �. ... . . .� � . . .. . . . � . .. �. . . >, . ..: . �.�. _.,.,..
.i ... .�. _. . ._. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .... .. ._.... .. _ . ...,. .�.-,:,. .
�
� �
i .
`��'. r 1 1 LI,M #L]
� Si;tALLER LOT SI ZES
� �'' Applicable Policy: ^
Policy 12 . R�vise lot size requirements to a11ow smaller lot sxzes
in designated ar•e�s.
Findings :
• 1) The smallest lot size now allowed in Tigard under stand�rd plan I
designations and the zoninq code is 7500 square fee�. This permits '
four (4) units per gross acre. The next highest standard density
allowed is 12 units psr acre. The resuTting "density gap" leaves
no opportunity far dwellings a.ffordable by most current residents
of Tiqarcl.
2) According to the most rec�nt available da-ta , an average new
conventianal home built on a 7500 square foot lot costs $72 ,500
while an average new conventional home on a 5p00 square foot lot
costs $47 , 500, or about a third 1�ss ($25, 000 less) . These
estimates are }�ased on a survey conducted by the Metropolitan
, HomEbuilder' s Association in June of
45
b i
u lders wi
th
( 60g of the
lots) . According to th�.s survPy, the pPr unit profit was
approximately the same re ardless of the 1 �
g �t si.ze. The sale price
of developed lots averaged $10, 118 for 5, 00 square foot lots an.d
$15 ,230 for 7000 square foot lot.s (this would mean an aver�ge of.
$16, 300 for 7500 square foot lots) � The typical house size on a
: �- 5000 square foot lot is 1000 sqtiare feet; the comparable size is
� �,,, 1500 square feet on 7000 square foot lots. Lot size kaasically
determines house cost because of a linear relationsYiip between
lot size, lot cost, and house size.
3} The monthly mortgage payment on the typical house on a 7500
square foot lot, exclusive of �axes and insurance, is $520
4 ($72 ,500 house, 20a down payment, 104 interest fnr 30 years) .
Purchase of this house would require an income of $25 ,04�. A
house of 5, 000 square foot lot would require a mortgage payment
of $341, and therefore an income of $16,344 .
4) The average conventional new housE on a 7500 square foot lot would
, require an income almost 1/3 larger (31e3o) , or $6 ,p00 more, than
the average current Tigard household earns ($19 ,07U) . According
to the results of a recent City of Tigard housing survey, anly
slightly more than one-fou_th of current sinRle-family residents
could afforcl a conventional new house on a standard lot (7500
square feet) if they were in the housing market. Only about 27g
have an income of $25, OU0 or more.
5) About 600 oE Tigard ° s currPnt single-family residents have an
income sufficient ($16, 300) to afford a conve.ntional new home an
a 5000 squa.re foot lot.
6) The stanc7ard lot size in the City of Portland is 5000 square feet
� or 44� of the area zoned for single-family rESidential uses.
_ � _ �, _ _ € __
, � ,... . `r
. .. r � '' . . . . y ��a
� Page 2 '� "
, ; .h
7) The Planning Department evaluated areas throughout the Tigard � �/�
Plannin_q Area for potential comprehensive plan revisians to '�--�
allow 6 units/acre or 5000 square foot lots (see attached
analysis) . A tota.l 431 acres in 9 areas (see enclosed map) , are
proposed for designation as Urban Moderate Low Density (with an
R-5 zone) . This comprises 26% of the vacant buildable land which
is designated for single-family residential use.
8) A considerable area --190�-acres in farmland and rural open space
would be saved from premature urban development by allowing these
somewhat higher density sing].e--family residences as proposed. This
190 acres is approximately equivalent to a square more than one-
half mile on a side (2$77 feet) . Adoption of the staff proposal
wi11 therefdre significantly fur�ther the two state land use planning
, • goals #3 and #�4 (Agricultu�al Lands and U.rbanization) .
�
9) Several ather obj�cti�res of land use planninc� waulcl also be servF�d
by allowing more single-family residential development on sma.l_le�r
lots :
Goal #11 (Public Facilities and Services) - More efficient
use of public faciliti,es (e.g. , smaller lawns and l.ower
water consumption) .
Goal #12 (Transpor�tation) - More fully multi-moclal
transportation system (e.g. , greater transit u�E through :�,
increased passengers along existing and future transit `'`..�
corridors) .
, Goal #13 (Energy Conservation) - Reduced energy consumption
(eeg, smaller homes , shorter commuting distances, etc. )
10) A detailed evaluation of pr.oposed areas is attached.
Implementation Recommendation:
1) Amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the proposedl3 areas
as Urban Moderate Low Density (6 units per acre) ; add a new
R 5 zone to the Zoning Code; change the zones on affected parcels
within the City.
�` °?,
r.�
. �
�
i
'Page 3 ' 'I
Proposed bioderate Low Density Areas
GENERAL CRITERIA USED IN SELECTTtvG AREAS (IIN02DERED)
�' II
1. Larger Parcels of Undeveloped Land i
�n view of the existing and previous lack of land available for develop� I
ment as moderate low density single family residential areas, it is felt that '�
a substantial proportion of the remaining large lots, which are otherwise �i�
suitable, should be included. , ' ii
2. Equitably Distributed Around the Community , I
I
Changes in residential densities should be apportioned, as much as is �
feasible, among the various NPO's. This consideration also will provide fox I
a requisite variety in the location, neighborhood characteristics, and I
environmental features of housing at this density. I
3. Minimal Alteration of Adopted NPO Plans ' I
- - - — I
Pzoposed areas have been chosen with an eye toward minimizing changes in I
existi,ng allocved densities. This factot is relevant both with regard to I
somewhat low�r density areas (eg., Urban Low) and higher density areas (eg. ;
Medium). Preservation of existing Medium Density designations is especially
important since there is relatively much less land allocated to these potential
housing opportunities for low and moderate-income households.
G. Compatibility with the Adopted Community Services and Transpo7rtation Plan I�
� �Yt`
The relationship between housing density and basic public facilities and
services is an important factor. Locations relative to the street system,
especially access to collectors and arterials, and to existing and future Tri-+
Met service, were selected with care. An eval.uation of immediate traffic
impact was made for each area.
i
5. Compatibility with the Adopted Environmental Design and Open Space� Plan
Areas were chosen which avoid environmentally sensitivP locations as much
as possible. The slope of the areas is paxticularly significant: Steep
sZope areas were not included so that standard subdivisions can be developed.
SELECTED AREAS (also consult a�tached table)
IVPO �kl - Between Cresmer Drive and Ash Avenue and Between Ed�ewood & 0'Ma�xa
Street
1. Existing Uses - Agriculture with three houses, surrounded on west
and south by singlc family residential and on north by opeix space.
2. Existing Plan Designations - Urban Low Density, the same as on
surrounding area.
3. �nvironmental Features - Gently rolling topography.
� ' 4. Tra.ffic Impact - Proposal would add 210 trips to local streets.
The corresponding traffic increases wouLd be 9.3% and 5.4%,
respectively.
........ ... . . . . .,.,.... . ,. . ...... .... ...... .. ..... . ... ,. ..„_... ...i�..:„.� � �.,_.'.. .� .....,i.., , .� .:�...,. . ' .�,:..�.�� :� ...... .v.... . . . ...< ..1..1-..»t-
: �.•_
i ��, .
' Page 4 '
NPO ��2 - a) - South of S.W, Dakota, East of 95th
j
1. Existing Uses - Agricultural land with surrounding single family. �, { ;;�;
� � �:y
`�_+.'
2. Existing Plan Designation - Urban Low Density.
3. Environmental Features - Level topography.
4. Tr�ffzc Impact - Some increase similax to traffic loai as surrounding
neighborhood use. ,
NPO ��Z - b) - South of�Greenburg Road, Between 95th & 91st
L'. Existing Uses - Apartments to the west and south, There are four
single family units in the identified �reao
2. Existing Plan Dea.sgnation - Urban Low Density.
3. Environmental Features - Open space, and relatively flat. '
4. Traffic Impact - An increase of approximately 4.3% divided between 91st
and 95th.
I5. Other Factors - Greenburg Road is serviced by Tri-Met.
�, ��'� ..
,�,
i
' ,
, �;�;
�;;za�:=�
,�:
''�'t�';
:.�i
� �
-, .
., .:. ,
_ _ __ _ _
_ __ .,
..,.,:
` ,� _ _
Page 5 �
r a
5. O�'jher Factors - The location of this site adjacent to the. downtown
ar�a, and along Fanno Creek with its future pedestrian/bikepath,
makes it especially apropos for higher density. Tri-Met provides
� •
service along Hali Boulevard and Pacif.ic Highway.
NPO 9�3 - West of 121�t
1. Existing Uses - 3 homes and three large par.cels in agricultural �
producCion (tax-deferrals) with single £amily residential on three
sides (south under construction) and large agricultural parcels to
' the west. •
2. Existing Plan DesignaL-ions - 5uburban Density (3/ac) with the same
on the north and east and Suburban Low Density (2/ac) on the souCh
a�d west.
3. Environmental Features - Most of the parcels are gently sloping, I
� but there are stee er slo es ( 12%) on the western ortions.
P P
P
4. Traffic Impact - Assuming a 50:50 split of traffic between Gaarde
and 121st, th e proposed density would increase traffic 7.2% on 121st and
50% on �aarde. The total residential traffic in NPO #3 would be
increased 7,4% by the cambined effects of the two areas proposed for
Moderate Lo�a Density.
5. Other Factors - Tri-Met provide� service on Ga�ardP - 121st.
NPO �1k4 - a) - North of Pfaffle and East of Hall
` ' �+.�-" 1. Existing Uses - 4 vacant parcels are surrounded by single family
residential.
2. Existing Plan Designations - Urban Low Density witY► the same to the
north and east and Residential-Commercial tca the �west an.d south.
�
3. Environmental Features - Level topography.
4. Traffic Impact - Assuming a 50c50 split between Hall and Pfaffle,
there would be a corresponding increase of 0.9% and 1.7%.
5. Other Factors - There is bus service on Hall.
NPO �k4 - b) - South of Atlanta Street and North of Franklin
1. Existing Uses - 33 single family residences surrounded by vacant
parcels.
2, Existing Plan Designations - Commerc9.aL-Professional.
3. Envixonmental Features - Level topography.
4. Traffic Impact - There wauld be a 3.0% increase on 72nd. '
5. Other Factors - There is bus service on Hall. Blvd. .
�
,
� -- --- -
_ _. �
� � .
, Page 6 � "
NPO 4k5 - East of Hall and North of Durham,Road
I: l. Existing Uses - About a dozen large-lot residences, mostly along
Hall and Durham and several large vacant parcels. The area to the , _
north consisks of large loG residences, large agriculturaZ -- vacant
parcels 1ie across Hall Boulevard, and the U.SeA. treatment plar►t and
a few homes and large parcels are south of Durham Road.
2. Existing Plan Designations - Urban Low Density with the same to the
wes� and north, Institutional to lche sou�h, Industrial east of Fanno
Creek, and retail in the northwes� corner of Hall and Durham Road. �
3. Environmental Features '� Generally level topogzaphy.
4. Traffic Impact - Assuming a 50:50 split between Ha11 and Durham,
traffic would increase 5.3% on the former and between 4.0% and 6.�.%
on the latter.
5. Other Factors � Tri-Met provides service along Hall-Durham and on '
Upper Boones Ferry to the southeast.
NPO �kb - a) - West of Hall Between McDonald and Durham
1. Existing Uses - Large agricultural vacant parcels with a large
vacanr parcel east of Hall and single family residential on other
sides (under construction).
2. Existing PLan Designations - Urban Low Density with the s�ame surrounding.
. Retail at corner of Hal.1-Durham.
3. Environmental Features - Level �opography.
4< TrafEic Impact - There would be a 4.4% increase in traffic on Hall
near the area, or 9.7% with the change of derisity proposed east of
' Hall.
,
5. Other Factors - The area is served by Tri-Met. '
NPO �6 - b) - South of Durham Between Pacific Highway and Ha11 B1vd.
1.. Existing Uses - About a dozen residences on vacant, agricu,ltural
(some tax-deferred), and very Iarge-lot parcels. Summerfield is
across Durham; single-family residential is slated for construction
to the east; there are vacant and very lar.ge-lot residences to the
south and west.
2. Existing P1an Designations - Urban Low Density (4/ac). Urban Low
iy adjacent on the south, Urban Low to the north, and Residential-
Comcnercial �n the west.
I
3. Environmental Fea�.ures � Gentiy sloping terrain with a few drain.age- �
ways.
�`'�' i
,
.
,
. , �� . , , �
, .,
� __ _. __. _ _ ,
_ _ . __ ,
1 `' � _
�'age 7 1
j'
4: Traffic Impaet - Assuming a 50:50 split between traffic to and
f�om Pacific and Hall {or Upper Buones) the west end of Durham woul.d
have 6Yo more traffic and theeaFc end (at Hall) 7.2%, •
_ 5. Other Factors - The western portion of the area is well-locaked for
use of Tri-Niet on Pacific. The area adjacent to the Z'ualatin River
would provide more modexate cost housix�g with an immediately
adjacent amenity.
,
NP9 �67 - a) - South �f Scholls Ferry Road and East of 135th ' .
1. Existing Uses - Agriculture with b residences, and surrounded essent3�ally '
on. three sides by the same, but single-family will be shortly under
construction adjacent to the east and soukh.
2. Existing P1an Designations - Url�an Low Density, with the same on the
east and south, except for some UrUan Medium on the southeast, and III
Urban Medium on the north.
3. Environmental Features - Gently sloping topography with drainage
swales and flood plain along Summer Creek.
4o Traffic Impac� - Assuming that a11 of the traffic generated ixz the
proposed area will use 135th, the volume will ir�crease 5.8%y a� 16.2%,
depending upon whether that street is conn�cted with Bull Mountain
Road.
� 5. Other Factors - The more moderate cost housin.g possible with 5,000
'� square foot lots will be adjacent to a major environmental amenity
in the form of Summer Lakes Park and the Greenway along the Summer
Creek flood plain.
The addition of 58 pupils (29 elementary) � contribute to the local
school capacity problem, depending on the time this area is developed.
NPO �k7 -b) - South of Schools Ferry Road and West of 121st
1. Existing Uses - 3 houses and three large vacant and agricultural
parcels, with single family surrounding on the east, south, and west
(under construction, and a shopping center (planned soon) and multi.-
family on the north.
2. Existing Plan De�ignations - The draft NPO �k7 Plan shows the area as �
Urban Low, with the same on lands to the east, south, and west. The
area to the north would be glanned Medium Uensity, Residential-
CQmmercial; anc� �2Pt2ila �
3, Environmental Features - Gently sloping topography. �
4. Tra�fic Impact - If all of the traffi:c generated by the area were �to
use 121st, the volume would increase 4.8% over that expected other-
wise, For the northwest quadrant of NPO ��7 (Zone ��1 in Buttke°s
�•� traffic analysis), the total increase in the traffic £rom this area �
and the area east of 135th (see above) would be 7.9% or a 21.3%
increase from residential uses only.
. _ _ ,. . _ t . . . . . ,. ..:<..�.0 ,., . _
r
� �� .5. �,
Page 8 1 --
1: � �'
5. O�her Factors - Future Tri-Met service on 121st, as proposed by the },
City iri its adopted Comrnunity Services and Transportati�n Plan, ,�
crcight be bTOUght closer to a reality by increas�ing density in this
area. '�he area is also acijacent to East Summer Lake, which wwill be • � ;
part o£ the park system. �
�.
�
The addition of 56 pupils (2$ elementary) ma� contribute to L-he local �,
school capacity problem, de�ending on the time this area is developed.
;
' �
j
;
E;
,�
. �,
, �l
r�
i;
�,
�
' 4,
,:
[;
,
k.
$�
i'
�'
�,
{'I
L
n�;�;:
f�
��
a
��
�
r
�
�rJ
ti
� �
�
�
�
F(
t[
. V
4
1
�
i�r �
�� 1
�
I
j
�
l
. . . � � . � . � . . � .��. I
�, _ _ _ , ;
, ,. . . ; . _ . . _ ._.._
, � �
ITEM #B �', .
1'
� High-Density Apartments
,
�
A licable Policies �
Policy 15. Provide g.reate.r di�ersity of housing dEnsity (eg. ,
duplex, �-p1ex, attached single-family units,etc. ) .
Findings
1 . Throughout the country, in the Portland area, and in TAgard
there is a growing demand for rnore multi-family housing as
a rESUlt of smaller households and changing lifestyles. In
1970, 26% o� the housing in the tri-county �,rea was multi--
family, but the proportion increased �0 30% by 1977. It is
naw expec�ed that at least 35% of the dwellings in the year
2000 will bP multifamily units.
2. This regional demand is reflected lpcally in consistently low
multi-family vacancy rates in Tigard. At the end of October
t��ere was a rate of 1.6% (according to PGE and building �ermit
data) which is far below the 7% regarded a.s no.rmal in a pro-
perly �un�ctioning housing market . Significant increases in
rent , above gener�.l inflationary trends, result from such a
disparity between supply arid demand. ;
3> Despite the trend in demand for multi--family housing, the �
� City has in recent years adopted plans which will r�duce
its proportion of the housing stock in �the future. This �
can be seen even from a cursory comparison of the areas
planned for multifamily in the original 1971 Community Plan
with the adopted neighborhood plans. When the Housing Plan {
was adopted last year, multi.�amily dwellings constituted only �
1/3 of the housing stock, but under the NPO plans this ratx� i
will be reduced to about � by the time the area is fu11y develop- ''
ed. ��a
�?,
r
4. Less than 100 acres of buildabl.e lanci is vacant and designated � t�
Urban MedYUm Density, permitting multifamily units to a max- � k'
imum af 12 per acre as an outright use. A sizable proportion `
of the area designated Urban Medium is in the Bonita triangle 4'�,
with a 6 units/acre den5ity lid. The Buildable Lands Inventory ja�
is still in the process of being u�dated, so the exact acreage !'�i
figures are not yet available. On the basis of available data ��;
(which does not include the NPO #6 l�.nc� use designa�ions or �'
t!?p draf°t I�PO �`7 design�,tions) , hotivever, there are currently ,':
1313 acres of buildable vacant land planned for Urban Low ��
Density, Suburban, or Suburban Low Density residen�ial use. ;,
Some additional multifamily units may be allowed in areas ''
designated Resid�ntial-Commercial in adopted neighborhoad i
plans (NPO's #4 ) , but there is not yet any corresponding ;
zone for this land use plan category . The 1971 Community Plan �'?
� in essence limits the outright permitted multifamily densi�y �.�
��_:
,�:
,,
if
sI'.•'
f�'
�+I,:..._ _
_ _ _ _ , .. ._ �
� r
Page 2 ,�
, .
to �.3 units/acre in areas designated Residential-Commercial.�
Higher densities (to 48 units per acre) might ba allowed subject,
it is implied, to canditional use procedures.
,
5� No ne�v housing at densities greater than 13 units per gross acre
is permitted outright i�n �he City, which thereby constricts the
range of housing opportuni.ties for those seeking to live here.
6. The economies o� scale permitted iri the construction and manage-
ment of multi-f amily dwell.ings at densities higher than 12-13
per acre can make housing available at somewhat lower cost .
?. Only slightly more than one quarter of Tigard's current single-
- family residents can afford the average cosi: ($72, 50�) of a new
single family home in Tigard on 1:he av.erage 7500 square �oot
�at. �hree of every four Tigard single family xesidents
ar� therefore priced out o� the conventional new home market
in Tigard. Their counterparts elsewhEre who' wish to live here
as well as those living outside Tigard in multifamily units
who wish to live here require a great�r choice of housing than
is presently available.
8 . By meeting its own expected housing needs, Tigard will also be
satisfying the Land Conservation and Deve7.opmEnt Commissian
that it h.as ac�equatelq addressed the sta,te land use planni.ng
Goa� #1Q . Tigard's neighboring ju.risdictions -- Tualatin, Durham,
and Lake dswego -- have al�eady ciemonstrated that community
.
resistance to the provision of adequate housing opportunities
may result in difficulties when comprehensive plans axe submitt���:
to LCDC for acknowledgmen�t of compliance with the goals.
9. Tn view of the continued regional trend toward more multi-
familq housing, and the fact that its proportion of the total
� wi].1 be about 35% by th� year 2000, Tigard should implement its
adopted Housing Plan to ensure that its own proportion,remains
' approximately the same (35%) as in 1977.
10. High Density Residential (40 units/net acre or 50 units/gross
acre) is a conditional use in a portion of NPO #4 and should be
considered for outright permittEd use there.
A. The area (see Policy #1? of NPO #4 Plan) is bounded by
Atlanta, Franklin, 68th and 72nd and contains about 53
acres. There are 42 homes west of 70th (i_n th�: Conversion
Units) and 33 in the eastern part. The area to the west
of 72nd contains two small subdivisions and several large
vacant parcels. To the east, north �.nd south are largely
scattered residences and vacant parcels .
B. The area has an outstanding location with regard to regional
transportation f acilities since it lies adjacent to Highway
217, Pacif ic Highway and Interstate - 5. A full interchange
with I-5 will be under construction in several months. The ,�`'>� �
?2nd Highway 217 half-interchange is programmed for develop-�-.-'
ment as a full interchange but an air quality analysis
is postponing construction at this time. Tri-Met provides
relatively frequent service along Pacific, about one quarter
i �.
.
� __-_ _. _ _ _--_.__. ,
,
i . :. . . . .. ... . . . . �.... . . .. .. . . .. . ..... .. . ... .... . .... . ... .. .. . . .. . ... ... ...,. _..... ... .... . .. .. ..
..._. .... ...,. ,�.J:.::
f1 . ' ` . . .. /. . . . . .. �.... � . i.....
� Page 3 �
� 1��
I . ,
.mile north of the northern part of the area.
� �'
D. Major employment centers in industry, commerce (eg. ,
retail stores and restaurants) , and offices are or will be
within a short distance of the area, thereby permitting �
pedestrian commuting.
I
E. A large shopping center (Fred Meyer 's) is nearby. ',
F. High densi�y apartments antl condominiums here would
stimulate ir�troduction of a new Tri-Met route along 72nd
that would also service the South Tigard industrial area.
G. High density residential development will make fox� more
efficient use �f energy, water, and sewers and other public
facili�ies and services (see Appendix K, of the Hous�.ng
�lan) . l
H. Approximately 1690 units could be built on the site (as- I
suming 40 unitsJnet acre) . On the basis of the 197?
buildable land survey, thzs would provide an overall. Tigard I
multifamily proportion of 35% at full development -- the
same as that in 197? and also equivalent to the e�pect�d
�! regional average at that time<
I . At full development the 1690 units would contribute about 'i,
' C76 pupils to the local schools. Thi.s is bas�d on art
c! � estimate of 0.4 pupils per dwelling unit, or half the
number of pupils from single family dwellings.
J. The added automobile traffic volume generated by the multi-
� f amily at full development (over that already expected from
Office-Park) would be about 2900 trips per day, according
' to the City 's consulting tra�fic engineer. Divided equally
between I-5, 72nd southbound and ?2nd northbound, this would
mean ari addition to each o� around 1000 trips . The effect
on ?2nd (under this scenario) would be as fnllows :
Section Adopted Plan Addition Percentage Incxease �
72nd S. of Pacific 2000 1000 5Q%
" S, of Atlanta 4000 1000 25%
" S, of Dartmouth 6800 1000 15%
" S. of Franklin 6600 1000 15%
" S. of Hampton 19000 IUU(7 5%
Peak hour traffic might be the same as with Office Park bPCause
that use has about 50% greater rush hour volume.
K. The impact of high density apartments on 1oca1 property �
taxing bodies would be posa�tive: multifamily dwellings tend
to generate more revenue than costs in terms of public
fa,cilities and services (see Appendix L o� the Housing Plan) .
,
,
. . .,... �... ..: :.. .... . . .. . � . �. . . . . . .. .. . � . .. . . . ._ . .. ..... . .. ...�.�.. . .. `�. � 1'V
- f I�l''.�.�'�1 t C �� �. �;'
� ry
j
�, MOBILE HOP9ES �
.—._ i
.` ';�
�? APPLTCABLE POLICIES: ' �°,
t;
PoZi��y ZtJ. Revi.se the zoning ordinance to permit mnbtiZe home CI
sub<1z�aisions anr� pc�rk� in suitable areas and under s-Gandards �I�
�hi.��h m�zk� thorrr compat�ble r�ith the n.eighborhood. i��
p;j
8�`.
FINDINGS : �',
. ;:;'
r
1) The Planning Department has closely examined available technical �'
literature on mobile homes (=manufactured housing) iri order to �`
ascertain the best approaches toward increasing opportuna.ties �';'I
for their use in Tigard, The following have been especially =�
useful. : � ��'
I',
. �,I
The Siting of Mobile Homes in Oregon, Planning Bulletin `!�,
No. 11�, Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, �;��i
University of Oregon, Apri1, 1978 .
�
Niobile Homes ' '
& Mobile Home Parks: Their Place in the ;
Community, Eugene �7oint Housing Committee, July, 1974 . ' �'
Yester�lay's Trailer House. . . Today' s Mobile Home, Peter !I
J.L. Mann, Mid Willamette Valley Council �f Governments, r`
Salem, October, 1974. �
�
�� Oregon ' s Mobile Homes : Housing By Any Qther Name, Steven ;'�
W. Belcher, Western Interstate Commission for Higher �;�
Education, Boulder, Colorado, 1974 . �'�i
��"Mobile House Fast Facts" , Mobile Home Dealers Association, Y,�
Salem, no date. !;;
r���
i:,
Mobile Home Code, City of Eugene, February, 1977. }`
;
"Comparison Study" :Federal Mobile Home Code-aregon "�
Building Code, Jsrry Hoard - Code Specialist, March, 1976 . ;`.:
�_:
2) The cost of mobile homes is considerably less than that of ��3
conventional single family dwellings. The cost per square foot �
of space is about $18-$22 by comparison with more than $28 per �`�
square foot up to $50 for "stick bui].t" �nits ($35-$4G is �:'
typical) . While expensive manufactured homes ($40, 000 plus) can �;-.':
be purchased ,the average cost of a unit puxchased in Oregon is ' '
$20, 000. A comparable conventional house (in terms of space - � '
about 1000 sq. ft. ) would cost $37,500 or 87 . 5% more, exclusive +::
of the land. As an option for those seeking lower cost home - �� ��
ownershi �':;:',
p, mobile homes are thousands of dollars less expensive. t°;,
(Also seE attached Appendix I from the adopted Housing Plan) . � `
f `�
3) Mobile homes are in great demand. One out of every eight Orego�ian� `
� now lives in a manufactured home. For the state of Oregon as �:��;
a whole, they comprised 25% of al.l new single tamily housing �:�
r�
�9,�
,, :
l=:�
r;r�9
��
�.c_,.:... .. . . . . . ... ...... . .. .. . .. .... _ __
,
_ ., .
_ . _ _ _ _ __ . . , _,. :.
. .. . �.. � �
,
Page 2
;i
permits issued in, 1970 , and 410 by 1973. These figures ' �
underestimate �he populaY�ity c�f manufactured homes because
restrictive local ordinances, especially in the WillamEtte
Valley, have very greatly diminished the areas where tk�e
units are allowed. This is al5o evidenced by th� extremely i
low vacaz�cy rates in Portland-area mobile home parks, for
example.
4) Since stringent construction standards have been adop�ed by the
' federal government and state of Oregon (see below) , the
financin
g available for purchase of mobile homes has expanded,
with terms now approaching those provided �or conventional
single family homes. Oregon Trail Savings and Loan offers a
20-year loan for mobile homes worth $15 ,000 o.r mo.re (the
interest rate was 11. 5% in early September),. Benjami.n Franklin
has a similax� loan prc�gr.am with a sel.ection of terms� The
Oregon Veterans home l.oan program will pravide loans for as long
as 30 years which are essentially indistinguishable from loans
on conventional hames. The FHA and VA wi11 laan on manufactured
homes for 15 years or 20 years depending on whether the uni� is
a single raide or double wide (current interest is 12�} ,
5) The quality of mabile homes i.s now clasely rec�ulated by the
fer3eral and state government_ �'he Oregon Department of Commerce
enforcES a strict code regulating the construction and installatio
���.,
of mobile homes. It inspects every new mobile homP for `�
compliance with stand3rds of the U.S . Department of �FIousing and�
Urban Development (HL1D) . A comparison o:f' the HUD code and the
�regpn Uniform Building Code found them to be very similar. In
some respects the federa]. manufactured home code is superior
to the standards required of "stick" hames: it is, for e�ample,-
a performance code rather than a specifications code; t,he fire
safety standards are greater; and same structural. members must be
of higher quality.
6) Older mobile homes had a reputation for having a relatively Yiigh
fire hazard, but even before the promulgation of the recent state
and fede.ral standards, the rate of �ire fatalities in Oregon �
mobile homes had dropped considerably below the rate for
con�>�ntio�al housing. The rate was 1 in 4600 units in . 1965 �
(.1 in 11, 000 for conventional dwellings) , but this decreased
more than tenfold by 1972, when there was 1 fatality in 49,000 �
(1 in 12 , 7p0 for "stick" homes) . , "
�,
7) Older mobile homes also tended to depreciate in Value over the ��
years , but newe.r units are not merely not dec3.ining in value, �'
they are actually appreciating in real terms. In Multonmah
County, for example, their assessed value is increasing abou�
10o-15s every year. 'i
��
8} Residents of mobile homes are increasingly difficult to distin����sh��
as a group, from residents of conventional siingle :�amily homes.�' r
Various studies in Oregon show that mobile home households, in ���
�.ggre_qate, have only slightly lower incomes than average, are �
t
���
,,
� _.. _
� '
. .
_ � _ . � . _ , . .._.
�
� '. �
� .
1.'
' page 3 ?�
,�
�
smal.ler, and are somewhat more mobile than those living 'in
conventional �ingle family housing. ;viany of these differences
can be acounted for by the fact that mobile home residents consist
dispropo.rtionately of young adults without chi:l.dren and. the
aver 55 who are retired or close to retirement.
9) The demand placed on school facilities by mobile homes depends
vn density and, in the case of mobile home parks , whether -
children are permitted. Tn Eugene, mobile homes where ch�.ldren �
were allowed produced less than 30� of the pupils/units which �
werE characteristic of conventional single family dwellings.
,
IO) Residents of manufactured homes tend to generate less traffic
than "stick"dwellings, apparently because of smaller households
and the highEr proportion of the Elderly. Data developed by '
Carl Buttke for Forest Grove suggests . that the number of trips
is 55-75� of. the trips producEd by conventiona.l units.
11) The idea that mobile home residents typically pay less than their
fair share of taxes is, if anything, the exact opposite of the
case: mobile homes tend to pay disproportionately for local
public facilities and services. The resul.ts of a 1968 statewide
study on this issue (by the mobile horne industry) have since been
corroborated by a study in Eugene, for instance. MGbi1e home
parks contribute more on a per acre and e�pecially an a per punil
�' basis than conventio.nal single family hausing.
12) Mobile home parks must meet minimum state standards for streets,
parking, wallcways, lot spacing and sepa.ration, etc. (see attached
list) .
i 13) In Tigard, the existing code only allows mobile homes as a
conditional use an land zoned A-2 (multi-family) , on garcels
of at least 5 acrese
14) There are now four mobile home parks in the Tigard P1an Area:
Terrace Heights (Upper Boones Ferry at I-5)
, 57 units (11 units/acrP)
Royal Mobile Villa (Pacific Highway south of Durham)
243 units (5 .9 units/acre)
Cascade (off Scoffins)
37 units (21.4 units/acre) �.
Pacific ([3a11 north of Pacific)
17 units (13.6 units/acre) ,
15) The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission has.
indicated, in its action on the St. Helens Comprehensive P1an,
that permitting mobile homes only as a conditional use is
cont.rary to the statewide land use planning goal for housing.
�, 16) Objecti,ons to mobile homes are essentially based upon es�hetic
distaste, a judgment which hacl much more serious grounds in
_ �
_.. , . _ .. __ __ , . . , ,.-: ....,, ..
� __. _._
. ��
�
Page 4
� "the era of the ratty old trailer park, with helter-skelte-r �
layout, iilhabited by Ma and Pa Kettl.e types" . The exter�.or �' r
appearance of modern manufactured homes and "stick-built" �'`�'
houses are now con�rerging. Regulations controlling skirting,
roof line, density, landscaping, e tc. can minimize remaininq
diff�rences.
I7) Regulations governing the appearance of mobile homes can '
significantl.y raise the cost of the housirig option, and this . �
fact must be c,arefully considered in determining their content, �
IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS : �
The Zoning Ordinance should be revis�d to: �
. �
1) Allow individual mobile hames as an outright permitted use in
R-5 and R-7 single family residential zones, and as a -
conditional use in R-10 zones , subject to specified standards
(see below) . `
2) Allow mqbile home parks as an outright permitted use in R=5 �
zones, and as a �onditional use in R-7 zones, subject to �
specified standards (see be'low) . �
, ��
' E
�
a
���;1
I
_ ,I
._ _ _ ` ,�� _ _ , .
- P�tg� 5 1
�
i'
,
� .
`� MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS '
�
�:` Mobile Homes on Tndividual lots. When a mobile home is ir�stalled it
shall comply with state installatian st�ndards . A mobile home on
an individual l.ot sha11 comply with the folloing additional �
provisions : �
1) The mobile home shall have an: Oregon insigne with a date not �i
previous to 1977 . No reconstruction o.r equipment installation ,
shall have been made to �the mobile home unless it has been state
approved as evidenced by an appropriate insigne. �
i�
2) The mobile home shall be tied down with devices that meet state ,,
stanc�a:rds for tiedown devices. 1';
l'
3) The mobile home shall have a water closet, lavatory and bathtub j',
or showPr.
�I
4) The mobile home shall have a kitchen area or room containing a I
sink.
5 The mobile homt l.ubmin shall. be connected to �th '�I
) p g e publio wa�ter �I
supply a.nd public sewer. i
6) The wheels of the mabile home shall be removed when the unit �I
is installed. I�
�
� �� 7) The mobile home shall be owned by the owner shall within 30 days
either replace thE mobi.le home with another approved mobile home
or remove the foundation, mobile home accessory structures and
other structures on the prop�rty and disconnect sewer, water and
other utilities. The agreement shall further state� that the
city (or county) may make the removal and disconnectiran anc.� place
a lien against the property for the cost of. the work if the own�r
fails to perform the work within the 30 days.
8) The mobile homes shall be owned by t.he owner of the I.oi: on which
it is installed.
9) ExcepE for a structurE which confarms to the state definition
of a mobile home accessory structure, no ex�ension shall be
attached to a mobile home.
10) The mobile home shall be double wide or wider and contain at
least 950 squar� teet of space, as determined by measurement of
the exterior dimensions of the unit ex ssive of anX trailex
hitch device. Space within a mobile home accesspxy structure
shall not be included.
11) The mobile home shall be placed a maximum of eighteen (18") inches
above the ground level at any point, unless the mobile home is
plac�d upon a basement foundation, or unless approved by the .
� Planning Department;
_ � _
;, _ _. _.
� , . . . ._
i � _ _ _ , <:
' 1 �
Page 6 l�
`I
12) Tkie mobile home shall be placed upon a permanent concrete or
block foundation or supplied with a continuous perimeter �
� skirting that extEnds at le�st si.x (6") inches bel�w the surface
of the ground or to an impervious surface; such skirting shall
be comp�sed of th� same material az�d finish as the exterior �
of the mobi:Le home or of brick or concrete block. Othe.r
materials or finishes shall be approved by the Planning
Department; .
13) The mobile home shall have a roof with a minimum slope of sixteen
(16%) percent (2 :12) , and sl�all have a composition or shake roof,
or other roofing agents approved by the Planning Department.
MOBILE HO�lE PARKa A mobile home park shall be built to state standards
in effect at the time of construction and shall comply with the
foll.awing additional provisions :
la The mobile home park shall occupy at least 5 acres.
2} Evidence sha11 be provided that the park will be eligible for
a certificate of sanitation as required by state law.
3) The space provided far each mobile home shall be provided with
piped pntable water and el.ectrical and sewerage connections.
4) The number of spaces for mobile homes sh�ll not exceed (6) for eac
acre of the total area in the mobile hozne park. `"'
�:;�:
5) A mobile home shall occupy not more than 40 per_ cent of the
contiguous space provided for the exclusive use a� the accupants
of thP mobile homes and exclusive of space grovided for the
common use of tenants, such as roadways, general use structures,
parking spaces, walkways and areas for recreation and land- ;
scaping. �
6) No mobile home in the park shall be located closer �han 15 feet
from another mobile home nr from a general use building in the
park. No mobile home accessory building or other building or •
structur� on a mobile home space shall be closer than 10 feet
from a mobile home accessory building or other building or `
structure on ano�.her mobile home space. No mobile home or other
building or structure sha11 be within 25 feet of a public street �
property boundary or 10 feet of another property boundary. �
�'
7) A mobile home permitted in the park shall meet the following t
standards as determined by an inspection by the building official, �:
a) It shall have a state insigne indicating aompliance with
Oregon state mobile home construction standards in effect at
the time of manufacture and including compliance for
reconstruction or equipment installation made after manufacture.t
b) Notwithstanding deterioration which may have occurred due tcF=�� '
misuse, neglect, accident or other cause, the mobile home ��
shall meet the state standards for mobile home construc�ion ;
evidenced by the insiqne. �,�
�;
�
��
EI
_ {1�T'.,._ .... . . . . . . . . . ._ .._ ._..__ .....__. . .. _ . . . . . �
- ..
� . . ,:; . .... , _ _ _ . ._. . , ..._ .... _._ ,
� _ . __. ,
� . .
' . page . 7 ; .
� •
�
, c) 'tIt sha11 contain not less than 950 square feet of space
•,as determined by measurement of the exterior �f the unit
� exclusive of any trailer hitch device. ,
d) It shall contain a water closet, lavatory, shower or tub,
and a sink in a kitchen ar other food preparation space.
8) A mobile tiome permitted in the park shall be tied down with
devices that meet state stand3rds for tiedown deviaes.
9) Each vehicluar way in the park shall be named and mark�d with
signs which are similar in appearance to thosE used to iden.tify I
public streets. A map of the namEd vehicular ways shall be
provided to the fire department.
10) If a mobile home space or permanent structure in the park is
more than
500 feet fr m
o a public fire hydrant, the park sha11
k�ave water supply mains de�igned tn serve fire hydrants and
h
ydrants shall be provided within 500 feet of such space or
structure. Each hydrant within the ark shall be locate on a
P d
vehicular way and shall conform in design and capacity to the
_ . public hydrants in the city.
11) A mobile home sha11 be placed a maximum of eigrteen (18"� i�ches
above the ground level at any poi.nt, unless the inobile home is
placed upon a basement foundation, or unless approved by the
. Planning Department.
,�. 12) A mobile home shall be placed upon a permanent cancrete or
h �,� . block foundation or supplied with a contiriuous perimeter
skirting that �xtends at l.east six (6"? inche� . below the surface
of the ground or to an impervious surface; such skirting sk�a11
be c�mpo�ed of th� same mater.ial. and finish as the Exterior
of the mobile home or of brick or concrete hlock. Qth�r �materials
or finishes shall be approved by the Planning Department;
13) A mobile home sha11 have a rnof wzth a minimum slopf of sixteen
(16%) percent (2.:12) , and shall have a campositi.on or shalc�
roof, or other r.00fing agents approved by the Planning
Departm�nt.
,,,.E;.,
�•�
� _.,, . ;
,<...: . . .,. . . �_
.:. _ __. _ :.,,,_ ..,. . ._
_ __. _ �
� . . . ... ;'�
� ITEM #p �
Location of. Assisted Housing
a �'
� ��Applicable Policy ' • �t�
Policy 8. Low and moderate income housing units shall be located
�,ccording to a�ppropriat� standards (eg. , not concen-
tra�tions of undue size, to minimize impacts on existing r�
�,
neighborhoods, etc. ) .
Findings �
1. The City of Tigard currently has no guide3.i.nes to help public
agencies and private indivi.duals in select�.ng suitable locations
�or n�w assisted housing. �e
#.1
Implementation Recommendations ' , ��
Private, public,and quasi-public provides of assisted housing should
be urged to use the following procedure in selec�ing locations : �''
� 1. �'he candidate sites should meet the following miriimum or �'
:�hreshald criteria: ��
���
A. � Tlae proposed housing density is permitted outri.ght or ' E;
is a conditional use according io the e�isting zone �:
designation on tne site. ' �;
�; B. A full-service grocery either exists or is proposed ,within
the maximum radius of the site.
C. For projects intended to hoi.tse families, rather than the
edlerly, there should be no other assisted housing for
families within � mile of the site.
D. Thexe is existing bus servic� within � mile of the site. •
' ��
2. The candidate sites should b� evaluated and rated according to +
.a.ttached variables or a similar system.
�?
i
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�.
�
_ . _ _�, _ _
t�` �' - � `
VARIABLES FOR RATING SITE AREAS FOR ASSISTED HOUSING � �
u4
ELDERLY FAMILY �D
N
MAXIMiT1� RADIUS-� MILE biAXIMUh4 RADIUS - 2 .MIi,E
IOPTIMUM - 500 FT. OPTIMUM RADIUS - � b�ILE
� TR,I-MET FREQUENCIES(OFF P�AK --9-3} TftI-1vIET FREQUENCIE�S �
�1-�' "
I 4, 5,6,� 2 � -_ .
9,10, 11 4 - �
; 12, 13, 14� 15 6 same as elderly
18, 19,20,21 g
over 21 10 �
EXISTING HAP PROJECTS (WITHIN MAXIM�JM) EXISTING ASSISTED HOUSING(WITHIN 1!4A�IMUM)
� Family & Elder�y 0 Family & Elderly p
Family l Famil� 1
I Elderly 2 Elder ly 4
� none 3 �
none 6
� PARKS/DIDICATED
GREENWAY(CUb4ULATIVE)
'� none in max. or opt. 0
1 or 2 in max. 1
' 2 or more in max. 2 same as elderly '
1 in optimum 3
2 or more in opt. 4
BANKS SCHQOL LOCATION
none in max. or opt, 0 none in max, or optimum 0
1 or 2 in max. 1 one in maximum 1
3 or 4 in max. 2 more than one in max 2
1 in optimum 3 one in optimum 3
�BEAUTY PARLORS {CUMULATIVF:) SCHOOL CAPACITIES {SQ.FT. PER pUPIL)
none in max. or opt. 0 less than 8� sq, ft . 0
1 or 2 in max. 1 80-108 sq.ft. 1
3 or 4 in max. 2 more. than 108 sq, ft. 2
1 in optimum 3
5 or 6 in rnax. 4
2 or more in o�t. 5
;
�, e .
;
, : : a;-..f
- " ELDERLY {CONTINUED) �AMILY (CONTINUED) � * �`
ro
RESTAURANTS (�UI�iULATIVE) % LOW - INCOME ENROLLA�IENT W
, '�
more than 20% 0 I
same scale as b�auiy par3ors � 15 to 200 1
10 - I5�o 2
5 to 10% 3 :
P�IAR,hiACIES 0 to 5%a 4
CO�bII�4UNITY CENTERS/SWIl�LMING POOLS (WITHIN MAX. )
sa.me scale a� beauty parlors
none (within max. ) 0 �
at least one of either 1 :
two or mor e of either 2
COMMERCIAL SERVICES : VARIETY (�Y�THIN MAX3MUlui) or both �
no services � COMMERCIAL SERVICE AREAS (Within Maximum)
any one service 1
any 2 services 2 none within max. 0
an 3 services 3 at least ane of either 1
Y
all four services 4 two ar more of either 2
or both .
B�WLING ALLEYSfNiOVIES (WITHIN MAXIMUM)
none within max. 0
one of either 1
two or more of either 2
or both
DAY CARE CENTERS
none within max. or opt. 0
1 witk�in max. I
� 2 or more within max. 2
_ 1 in optimum 3
- 2 or more in optimum 4
.
'I
I
' �, ,I
�
IT�M �E '�, �
yTigard's Fai.r Share of Locv Incane Housing �
� � . P
� 1
Applicable Policy �
' �
Policy 14. Accommodat� for the provision of subsi,dized k�ousing �
assistance to meet Tigaxd's fair share of loca,l/
regional needs . ��
�
Findings 4
s
I. This month the CRAG Board of Directors wi.l�. adopt a Housing �
Opportunity Plan (HOP) �or the Portland area. The HOp wi11 ;I
consider housing needs for the entire region an�. thereby !I
will help i..mprove the a7.location of funds for those requir- �i
ing assistance. �articipa-tion in a HOP by a local juris-
%'
diction will anake it , and the region, eligible for additional 4I
federal funds (from the U.S. Department of Housing and ;I
Urban Development) under various programs . '
2. In the past, local ju.risdictions seeking federal funds under ;
some HUD programs were required to prepare their own FIous- =
ing Assitance Plan (HAP) that estimated the nucnber of local, �i�l
households needing housing assitance and set target gaals ��'�
for meeting that need. The City of Tigard prepared such a ;�i
HAP in 1976 as part of the process o:f applying for the Housing �
�� and Community Development Block Grant funds which v�ere used
to install storm sewers and bikepaths on Tigard and Greenburg.
3 . Participation in the HOP will be nne of the factors considered
by LCDC when it reviews Tigard's Housing Plan (and im-
plementing actions) for compliance with Goal #la (Housing) . �
�;
(.
4. The HOP being developed by CftAG estimates the "fair share" �.
of the region's needy households for the coun�ies and larges� F,
cities only. However, Tigard' s adopted Housing Policy #1� �
referring to "fair share" is not precise enough to guide the
City in deterr�ining its responsilaility as a participant in �'
the HOP.
�:
5. To estimate the City of Tigard's implied "fair-share" of �
needy hou�erolds under the draft HOP, which should approxi-
mate the targets and fund allocations established by the �
Housing Authority of VJashington County, staff used the r:
figures developed for Hillsboro and �eaverton . The HOP ne- �'
edy household fair shares estimated for those two larger cities (
were compared with their respective populations in 1978. f
The average of these two ratios ( . 106) was then applied to (;
an estimate of the current population in the Tigard Plan
Ar.ea (20,000) . The resulting estimate of current needy �
households for the entire plan area (2120) compares we11 �;
� with the 1976 HAP estimate developed independently (1903) and �;
�
�
� _ _._ ...... _ _.,.:. .. ,. ,,;,. ,
Pa�;e 2 . T
� �
s
;
- �
,
an tt�idated HAP estimate based on the intervening overall
�opu�atian increase ( 2302j . Zf this ratio,developed from-
data� for BEaverton and Hillsboro, is applied to the curxent
City population, there are appraaimately 1272 needy households. "
for which Tigard should be responsible if it agrees to �-.�
participa�e in the HOP, This figure is some.what locver than
the rough estimate made in the 1976 HAP (1476) . 'i
Impl�mentation Recommendation
1. The City should agree to participate in the Housing Opportunity
Plan.
.n>.
��!
� � � �� �
-�;'
, .
. _.._.. . . : ,�..:,� �..,�...�.�.....�,_-.--�-�---.,,,.
.. . ,_ , ,... ,
,�, _ „ __ _ , .,. , . :
: , _ _ __ _ , , :
I !; _. . _
I ' ,� ' �
ITEM �F �
Unnecessary Standards or Restrictions �
� �
�plicable Policies �'
Policy 11. Review ancl revise �he subdivision and zoning codes �:a
ascertai.n the presetice o� alzy unduly xestrictive pr.o-
visions which could signi:fi.c�.ntly incxease. costs while �
�
providing negligiY�le benE:�its. �
�'
. Policy 13. Accelerate the review px•ocess for approval of deve7.opment �''
proposals where the qual.ity of the r.eviezv is not aclvcr.sely 1
�;
affECted. 4.
r
I`
Findin�s - �
F
f'
1. In recent months various steps have been taken. by th.e P7.ann3.ng , �
Department to streamline the review process for permit ap- ��'
plications. These include: �
A. Development �f o�►erations/procedures manuals for eacla a� �
the permits processed. by the dPpartmen� (no� y�� comp].eted) , � �:
,,
B. "Fast-tracking" of the review process , where feasibl�. 4;
F
C. Review of the zoning and subdivision codes fo.r possible f'I
� revisions to xeduce unnecessary delays. This analysis ,
�'�
currently being conciucted by a eonsultant , will a�.so 1
�ncluc�e an evalua�ion of the potential �or a "one-stcp" '
i permit system.
2. The proposal to pexmit rolled curbs was investi.gated by the Plan- �
ning. Department, wlaich was advisecl by the h�.ad of the Engineer�.ng ��
Di��i�ion (Jok�n Hagman) that they posed several problems : , �I
,
A. The street gutter along the edge of the Gurb is elima.nated i.a
after the first overlay is installed� (about 5 gears) . ,.
r:�'
B. The City's street sweepers are ineffectual alang rol.].ed �
curbs. }`�
i{;
f�
C. Rolled curbs are structurally inadequate because of a shal- !i
1ow base and raised gutter. In the City 's exp�rience they
are readily made dysfunctional as use drives them into the �;I,
ground (a��d rotates them) as on Fir Loop in NPO n5, �or in- �,
stance.
�`i
D. Rolled curbs extruded by machine (eg, , Viemou�t Ct. in NPO ;�'
#3) are apparently as costly as standard curbs given thei.r ''`�
qual�ty control difficulties. . fr�
i;�!
3. The proposal to move utili�y lines outside �he paved area of E#'!,
� streets (and thereby r�duce c�sts for � dirt hauling and backfill rock) ?'i
is generally endorsecl by the Engineering Division as follows: �I
�
,Y,
. �
�
, � . _ _ �I
;.
; . ;,;
. }: .
, .
Paa e 2 '��
•,
.� ;
A. This chang� of r.equirements wi.11 be a good idea with Te-
spect to te�ephone, el�ctricity, natural gas, and wa�er lines.
F3. Natural gas and �lectric utilities requirE, nevertheless,
that the ri.ght-of��vay be graded to certain stan�ards .
C. �'he U.S.A, requires the 7.ocation of se�ver �.ines with�.r► 5
�eet of the street cen�Cerline.
D. Stor.m sewers should be located under the gutt�x port�.on of
�he pa,v�d sECtion. "
�i
4, Th.e propc��a� to reduce th� pavement width standard for� loca?. si.reE�G:; I
was evaluated: �;
� . The existing standar.d is 34 feet and was originally adopt- 4
cd �vi.thout serious analysis . �
B. The conventional textboo� s1;an�iards do not appEar �o be ;
based upon an overa].l eval.uation of th� costs anci k�ene�i-ts �
of g�nerously large widtYis , espacia115J such impacts as
i..ncreased runoff, higher con�truction ancl maintenance �
costs, incentive for s�eeding, etc. ;
C. Adjacent jurisdictions have a 32 feet 5tandard. '
D. Access tay emergency vehicles, especa_a71y fire �trucxs, �
shoulcl be a. critical consi.deration:
].. In the Cii.y o� Part'land f • fire tru.cks rout�n�ly ne--
gotiate residentia�. streets af 28 feet width with •
cars parked on both sides o� the s�.reet .
?. The Tualatin Kura1 Fire Protecti.on Dis�trict r f r
P
e e s
the �ollowing local street width si.andards:
Y10 pax�king - 24 '
. Parking onE side -• 28 ' __ .
Parki.ng two sides - 32'
It ha:; indicated, however, that it could live tvith a
30 feEt minimum.
Implemer�tation Recommendations
1. Standard curbs should continue ta be requ�red.
2. The location of utility lines should be outside the paved section
where �easible as i.ndicated by the E�ngineering D:ivision of the
Public Works Department . , ����.k
..�.�:,
3. The local str�et pavement width standard shoulcl b� claar�ged from
3� feet to 30 fee�:.
,,. : . .-, .. _ __ _ .
_ ��;
ITEM #G '�
• '�
Discrimination Against Households with Children
� Applicable Policies �'�
Policy 2: The community shall promote ar�d encourage a diversity
oF housing densities and resi�ential types that are
available at various prices and rents to househalds of
all incomes, age, sex, race and living patterns. Such �:
housing should include, but not be limited ta singl.e-- �'
family residences, duplexes, apaxtments, mobile homes, ''
condominiums and townhouses. i
r;
PaTicy 4: Prohibit housing discrimination based on raCe, sex, �I
religion, creed, and marital status, p:
: Findings �'
j;.
l. A very significant proportion of the rental housing in � �;�
Tigard is unavailak.�le to households with children who t'
€;
seek to live here. A survey conducted by the Tigard School ;;
District in 1976 revealed that at least 360 of all �
a artment
% p
z
and duplex units in the Tigard Plan Area prohibited a.nd u f;
�
at least another 15% had restrictions on the number or age ,
of children. It�ore than 51% of the units were discriminating �
against childr�en. This figure is probably conservative �
since the survey was not comprehensi�e and the trend at k
� t�iat time was toward more ren,tal dwelling units excluding
.children. This local experience reflects a growing, probms.
arotxnd the nat ion.
2, The Pl�,nn?n� Departmer�t has in recent months been directly
cont:�acted by single parents who are searching desperately
for available apartments with low to moderate rents.
3. It is widely acknowledged that it is not in the public �
interest to prohibit all rental housing from discriminating
�.gainst children. �
a
4, Preliminary staff investigations of agproaches �o contro].3_ing f
such discrimination indicate that the subject is highly �
complex and is in its "legal infanc;�" . The development of
simple, equitable?effective and enforceable laws will re-
quire considerably more attention than the staff can devote s
to it at present. The City's legal counsel has advised
the department to postpone action in this area until a �
fuller understanding of the subject is possible.
Implementation hecoinmendation
The department recommends no action at this time.
7�,:
_ _ _ _ ,, _ . _ ::,, _
,;,�. . ;
MEMORDANDUM
��:
,
,
T0: Plarining Comnission II
�
�
�'ROM: Ken Selby \
� '
SURJ�CT: Zone 0 dinance Kevision for R-5 and R-20 Single Family Residential
zones.
AL-tached, you will find a proposed revision of Chapter 18.20. Due .to the
update of the City°s Comprehensive Plari, two residential zone classifications
have been createdo
Thi� chapter wi11 be discussed at our next 5tudy Session on April 24, 1979
and will be a public hearing item on May 1, 1979.
� � ,
i
�
�..
_ �,� „ _ _ _. . .:,
„ �
� ,
r
}��. ' PREZIr1I�3ARY FIRST DRAFT
,�
!1
�
Chapter 18.20
�: •
SINGLE FAMILY RE5IDENTTAL ZO(�ES
(R-5, R-7, R-10, R-15, R-20, R-30)*
Sections:
18.20.010 Permitted uses. .'
18,20.020 Conditional uses.
18.20.030 Lot--R-S zone. i
18.20.035 Lot--R-7 aone. �
18.20.040 Lot--R-10 zone. ;
18.20.050 Lot--R-15 zone. �'
18.20.060 I,ot--R-'LO zone. '
18.20.070 Lot--R-30 zone. ,
18.20.080 Setback--R-S zone. !
18.20.090 Setback---R-7, R-10, or R-15 zones.
18.20.100 Setback--R-20, R-30 zone.
18.20.110 Building height.
18.20.120 Additional requirements. �
�I 18.2U.010 PermitCed uses. In an R-5, R-7, R-10, R--1S, R-20 or R-30 zone
the fo owing uses and t eir accessory uses are permitted outright:
(1) Single fami�ly dwellings, each on a separately described lot, as re-
corcied in the county records;
;�. ,
��, (2) Farming, truck gardening, orchards ancl nurseries, provided no retail
or wholesale business sales offi.ce is maintained on the premises, and provided I
that no poultry or livestock, other than normal household pets, are housed or �'I
any fenced run is 7.ocated within one hundre� feet uf any residence other tran
the dwelling on the same lot; I,
� (3) Home occupations, only as strictly defined in Section 18.08.250. II
(Ord. 7U-32 �110-1, 1970) • I
, i
18.20.020 Conditional uses. In an R-5, R-7, R-10, R-15, R-20, or R-30
zone, t e o owir.g uses and t eir accessory uses may be permi.tted as conditional
uses and their accessory uses may be permitted as conditional uses when in accord-
ance with Chapters 18.72 and 18.84:
(1) Duplex residential, with a minimum lot of ten thousand square fe�t, one
duplex per lot; or two signle-family units with a minimum lot area of five thou-
sand square feet per unit. In the event it appears that it is not practical to
divide a legal lot into two kots of five thousand square Feet each, the planning
director may approve the division notwithstanding the fact that one lot is less
than five thousand square feet; pravided, however, that ❑o such lot shall be
smaller than four thousand two hundred fifty square feet;
(2) Boat moorage;
(3) Cemeteries;
(4) Church�s and accessory uses;
(5) Colle�es;
(6) Community buildings (public)
� * For sign regulations, see Chapters 16.36 and 16.40 of this code.
. ._ _ > , _ _ _ _ _... : _ _
,. _._ � .
1. � '1 �.
�`
(7) Governmental structure or land use including public park, playgrouz�d;,
" recreation�building, fire station, library or museum;
(8) Greenhouse; _
(9) Conditional home use: Following the procedure set forth in Chapter
18.72, a conditional home use may be authorized for c�rtain home occupational ,
uses which do not strictly conform to the criteria set forth for hame or_cupa- !
ti.on as defined in Section 18.08.250. I
It is the intent of this pr.ovision Co pravide the means for request for the �
city's consideration of home oecupati�n type uses when special circumstanees axe I
present whieh the applicant feels desez�ve tY�is consideration. It is the intent i
of this titl.e that ary commercial or industrial. operatians which would ordinarily
be conducted in a commercial or industria.l distri.ct conti.nue to be canducted in �
such district and not at home;
(10) Hospital, sanitarium, rest home,: home for the aged, nursing home ar
convalescent home9 �
,(11) Railroad right-of-way;
(12) School: Nurse�y, primary, elementary, junior high or senior high, �
college or university, private, parochial or public;
3
(13) Utility substation or pumping station with no equipment storage, and �
lines which are esse
ntial to the functioning and servicing of residential neigh-
borhoods, �
(14) Any business, service, processing, storage or display essenCial or. in.- �
cidential to any permittPd use in this zone and not conducted entirely within an �
enclosed building; �
(15) Golf courseq country club, private club; �
(16) Children°s day care. (Ord. 77-90 �4, 1y77; Ord. 74-5 �1, 1974; Ord. $
70-•32 �110-2, 1970) .
18.20.030 Lot--R-S Zoneo In an R-5 zone t.he lot size shall be as follows: �
(1) The minimum lot area �hall be five thousand square feet, excepting fr�r
duplex use.
(2) The minimum lot area for duplex use shall be ten thousand square feet.
(3) The minimum lot coverage sha11 be thirty-•five percent of the lot area« ;
18.20.035 Lot--R-7 zone. In an R-7 xone the lot size shall be as follows: I
�;
(1) The minimum lot area shall be seven thousand five hundred square feeC, k;
excepting for duplex use. ��
(2) The minimum lot area for duplex use shall be ten thousand square feet. �
(3) The maximum lot eoverage shall be thirty-five percent �f the lot area. i
(Ord. 76-5 �3(part) , 1976; Orrl. 72-52 �8, 1972: Ord. 7-32 �110-3, 197p) r;
;,
�,
18.20.�40 Lot--R-10 zoae. Ttl an R-10 zone the lot size shall be as follows: �j
(1) The minimum lot area shall be ten thousand square feet.
(2) The maximum lot coverage shall be thirty-five percent (Qrd. 76-23 �4 ��
(pa-ct) , 197G) . ;�
��
18.20.050 Lot--R-15 zone. In an R-15 zone the 1ot requirements shall be
as f.ollows: ��
(1) The minimum lot area shall be fifteen thousand square feet. �
(2) The maximum lot coverage shall be twenty-five percent (Ord. 76-5 �3 �'
�
(part) , 1976; Ord. 70-32 �110-4, 1970). �
18.20.060 Lot--R-2U zone. In an R-20 zone the lot requirements shall be as �
� ,
�O�.�OWS: t
�f
1
;
I
i
. _
� _ I:i
r �;
�;:
�3;
I�:
(1) The minimurn lot area shall be twenty thous�nd square feet. �,
(2) The minimum 1ot coverage sha11 be thirty-five percent. �,
� 1�.20.070 Lot--R-30 zone. In an R-30 zone the lot requirements shal� be �_
as follows: {'`
(1) The minimum lot ax•ea shalx be thirty thousand square feet.
��i''���.
(2) The maximum 1ot cc�verage sh�zll be thirty-five percent (Ord. 70-32 �
�110-5, 1970). f'
18.?_0.080 SetY�ack--R-5 zone. Except as may otherwise be provided in Sec- �;;
tion 18,12.100, the setbacks in an R-S zone sha�l be as follows: i:!
c-;'
(1) The front yard setback sha11 be a minimum of fifteen feee. ��
(2) The side yard setback sha11 be a mimimum of five feet for a one story �;!'
building, six feet for one and one-half and seven feet for a two story build.ing. f,'I
(3) On corner ].ots the setback shall be fifteen feet on each side facir�g a �`'
street other then an a17.ey. ���''�
�''�
(4) The rear yard set back shall be a minimum of fifteen feet. t��
�.
18.20.090 Setback---R-7, R-10, or R-15 zones. Except as may otherwise be
provided in Section 18.12.100, the setbacks in an R-7, R-10, or R-15 zone shall �`
be as follows:
(1) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty feet.
(2) The side yazd setba�k shall be a ma.nimum of. five feet for a one story ['
building, six feet for one and one-half and seven feet for a two story building. ;�'I
(3) On corner lots the setback shall be twenty feet on each side facing a �'.
street other than an a11ey. �
�;;
(4) The rear yard seCback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet. �(Ord. 7b-24
P � �4(part), 1976; Ord. 70-32 �110-6, 1y70) .
�'�, � �
18.20.100 Setback-�R-20, or R-30 zone. Except as provided in Section 18.'
I2.100 the setbacks in an R-20, or R-30 zone shall be as followss ,
(1) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of thirfiy feeC.
(2) 'Ttie side yard setback shall be a uiinimum of five feet for a one story �
building, six feet for one and one-half and seven feet for a two story building. i�;
(3) On corner lots tne setback sha11 be twenty fPet on each side facing � E:'
street other than an alley. ;`;
(4) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet. (Ord. �'�
70-32 �110-7, 1970) . �`
��
�,'
18.20.110 Buildin�height. Except as provided in Section 18�12.110, no ?
building in an R-7, R-10, R-15 or R-30 zone shall eaceed a height of_ two stories j;
or thirty feet whichever is less. (Ord. 76-23 S4(part), 1976; Ord. 70-32 5110-8,
1970) . 7.
18.20.120 Additional requirements. Additional requirements applicable to i�
these zones include 'but are not Iimited to the following:
(1) Off-street parking and loading, see Chapter 18.60; {'
(2) Access and egress, see Chapter 18.64; , . i
(3) Enclosure and screening required, see Section 18.12.080; �
(4) Signs, advertising signs and sign structures shall be subject to the �i
conditions, limitations, prohibitions and requirements of title 16, to which j
particular reFerence is made;
(5) Fire zones, see Section 18.12.120; 9
� (6) Nuisances prohibited, see Section 18.12.070. (Ord. 71-4 �7(part) , 1971; �3
Ord. 70-32 §110-9, 1970) .
�
�