Implementation Report

vLand Division Code Rewrite Projectv

February 2002

City of Portland

Bureau of Planning

1900 SW Fourth, Suite 4100

Portland, Oregon 97201

Portland City Council

Vera Katz, Mayor

Jim Francesconi, Commissioner

Charlie Hales, Commissioner

Dan Saltzman, Commissioner

Erik Sten, Commissioner

For more information, contact:

Stevie Greathouse, Project Manager

Portland Bureau of Planning

1900 SW Fourth, Suite 4100

Portland, Oregon 97201-5350

Phone:  823-7969

Fax:  823-7800

TDD:  823-6868

The City of Portland is committed to providing equal access to information and hearings. If you need special accommodation, please call Stevie Greathouse at 823-7969 (TTY 823-6868).

Implementation Report

vLand Division Code Rewrite Projectv

Includes:

❑  Status report on implementation activities required by Ordinance #179565

❑  Implementation-related amendments to Ordinance #179565 (including Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report)

February 2002

City of Portland

Bureau of Planning

1900 SW Fourth, Suite 4100

Portland, Oregon 97201

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Bureau of Planning

Mayor Vera Katz

Gil Kelley, Planning Director

Cary Pinard, Principal Planner

Stevie Greathouse, Project Manager

Office of Planning and Development Review

Susan Feldman

Rebecca Esau

Eric Engstrom

Nicole Breedlove

Kermit Robinson

Bureau of Environmental Services

Dan LaFave

Lana Danaher

Sun Noble

Dawn Hottenroth

Portland Office of Transportation

Elizabeth Papadopoulos

Glen Pierce

Additional Agency Assistance

Tony Re, Bureau of Water Works

Gary Frank, Hearings Officer

Frank Hudson, City Attorney

Table of Contents

 Page

Summary and Background  7

Recommendation  7

Implementation Date  9

Status Report on Implementation Related Activities  9

Stormwater Design  9

Street Design  10

Public Streets  10

Private Streets, Alleys, Common Greens and Pedestrian Connections  10

Housekeeping Amendments to Other Codes  10

Implementation Amendments to New Land Division Code  11

Summary of Amendments  11

Resource Tracts  11

Measurement of Trees on Large Sites  11

Land Hazards  11

Additional Minor Amendments  12

Recommended Text of Amendments  13

Summary and Background

On September 26, 2001, Portland City Council adopted Ordinance #175965, which repealed Title 34, Subdivisions and Partitions and adopted amendments related to land divisions into Title 33, Planning and Zoning. The Ordinance also called for several related implementation measures, including the development of additional technical guidelines related to street and stormwater design.

The Council delayed the effective date of the ordinance in order to provide time for staff to adequately prepare for implementation of the new land division regulations. This preparation has involved:

❑  documentation of technical guidelines and systems related to the non land use requirements of the new code

❑  preparation housekeeping amendments to other titles of Portland City Code

❑  staff training

❑  preparation of informational brochures and worksheets

❑  public training and information related to the new code

❑  testing of the new code

❑  initiation of a process to monitor implementation of the new code.

When they adopted the new land division regulations, the City Council also recognized that additional minor amendments would be required in advance of the implementation date in order to ensure smooth implementation of the regulations. Several housekeeping amendments have been identified as necessary during the course of training staff and testing the new code. The amendments will improve the clarity of the new code and ensure proper implementation while continuing to implement the legislative intent of the original ordinance.

This report includes:

❑  a status report on all related implementation activities including the development of new administrative rules and technical guidelines.

❑  housekeeping amendments to Exhibit A (As-Adopted Report) of ordinance #179565

The full text of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report is available from the Planning Bureau Receptionist or on line at http://www.planning.ci.portland.or.us/cp_ldcr_doc.html

Recommendation

The Bureau of Planning recommends that the City Council:

1.  Amend Exhibit A of ordinance #179565 as shown on pages 13-67 of this report;

2.  Discuss the possible code amendments outlined on pages 11-12 of this report and direct Bureau of Planning staff to bring back specific language for adoption by the Council if necessary;

3.  Amend ordinance #175965 to delay the effective date of the new code until July 1, 2002;

4.  Approve the processes proposed in this report by each bureau for completion of additional implementation-related work called for by ordinance #175965.

Implementation Date

The Office of Planning and Development Review and others have requested that the implementation date of the new code be delayed to allow additional time to prepare for administration of the new code. The current effective date of the code is March 26, 2002. Delaying the date until July 1, 2002 will allow administration staff in OPDR, Transportation, and Environmental Services to finalize all systems needed for implementation of the new code, and would allow for additional public involvement in the implementation activities described below in advance of the effective date of the new code.

Status Report on Implementation Related Activities

Stormwater Design

The Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) will be undertaking a variety of actions to address implementation issues related to the Land Division Code changes. These changes are needed to support the BES Mission Statement, Clean River Plan goals and bureau policies.

Changes to Title 17 of the City Code:

•  Work with the Office of Transportation to assure there is adequate code language to require improvement guarantees for projects not getting a public works permit prior to final plat, including provisions for summary abatement; and

•  Replace code language to require public sewer easements at the land division stage to assure access to public facilities; and

•  Replace code language to assure drainage reserves can be placed on properties to protect intermittent drainageway channels; and

•  Add a more comprehensive definition of "stormwater management" and "stormwater management facilities" to Title 17.38

Creation of Administrative Rules to implement Title 17.38 of the City Code

•  Document and implement a process for public participation in BES' development review decision-making; and

•  Document the criteria used to make technical decisions on land division projects for sanitary, stormwater and watershed health issues; and

In addition BES will be working with the Office of Transportation and the Office of Planning and Development Review to clarify the process for resolving "balancing" of technical decisions with land division code sections.

BES will be conducting a public notice, review and input process on all proposed changes related to the new Land Division Code. There will be additional opportunities for public input when BES forwards code changes in July of 2002 to support implementation of the 2002 revision of the Stormwater Management Manual and also in the comprehensive administrative rules project that will be completed no later than September of 2003.

Street Design

Public Streets

The Portland Office of Transportation is working on several implementation items associated with the Land Division Code Rewrite process. Transportation anticipates that each of the following tasks will be completed in advance of the effective date for the new code:

•  Transportation is preparing a booklet identifying design based on zoning and calling out applicable design manuals. The information is not new but will now be placed in a single document for improved public access. Public street design is based on a number of national and local engineering standards.

•  The existing process for appealing the technical decisions made by Transportation as part of the land division approval will also be outlined in the booklet.

•  Finally, Transportation is preparing and ordinance to amend Title 17. Some language currently in Title 34 will be placed in Title 17 (including but not limited to performance guarantees, intersection angle, and access control strips).

Private Streets, Alleys, Common Greens and Pedestrian Connections

The Office of Planning and Development Review is developing Administrative Rules for private streets, alleys, common greens and pedestrian connections. The Administrative Rules are currently undergoing internal review; after which, the Administrative Rules will be made available to the public for review and comment. The Office of Planning and Development Review anticipates hosting at least one open house to explain the rules and receive comments. The Office of Planning and Development Review expects the rules to be completed in advance of the effective date for the new code.

The Office of Planning and Development Review is also preparing an ordinance to amend Title 24. Language will be added to allow the Bureau Director to require performance guarantees.

Housekeeping Amendments to Other Codes

The Office of Planning and Development Review and Bureau of Planning will also be working to prepare necessary housekeeping amendments to Titles of Portland City Code other than Title 17 and Title 33 in advance of the effective date of the new code.

Implementation Amendments to New Land Division Code

Summary of Amendments

Since adoption of new land division regulations in September 2001, staff have been working to set up systems for administering the new code. During that process, administration staff has raised questions and concerns regarding application of specific language contained in the new code. In some cases these questions have indicated areas that an amendment to the code language is necessary to clarify its administration; most of these amendments are very minor and are identified in the list on the following pages. In a couple of areas, staff has identified issues that are fairly substantial, but that did not receive scrutiny under any of the policy discussions leading up to adoption of the regulations.

Resource Tracts

The new land division code requires tracts around seeps, springs, and streams, around shared stormwater management facilities, and around any portion of the property that is in a floodway. Because these tracts could not be intersected by rights-of-way, and because lots must have frontage on a street, implementation staff have raised a concern that the presence of these resources would essentially disallow any reasonable development of the site, where the resource lies along the front of the site.

Transportation and OPDR have recommended that language be added to the code allowing stormwater management facilities to be placed in easements and allowing rights-of-way to cut across tracts that are required around seeps, springs, and streams, and around the floodway. BES has requested that any allowance for right-of-ways to cross seeps, springs, streams, or the floodway be accompanied by specific criteria that provide guidance for the circumstances under which these encroachments are appropriate. We request that the City Council direct Bureau of Planning staff to develop specific code amendments if necessary to resolve this issue.

Measurement of Trees on Large Sites

OPDR has raised concerns that measurement of total tree diameter through a tree survey would be cost prohibitive on sites larger than an acre in size and recommends that the regulations for tree preservation allow for measurement to be based on percentage of total tree canopy on these larger sites. BES supports requiring tree surveys of all land division sites, and has expressed concern that this change to measurement would encourage applicants to preserve canopy without necessarily preserving significant trees. We request that the Council direct Bureau of Planning staff to develop specific code amendments if necessary to resolve this issue.

Land Hazards

Under the “land suitability” requirements of today’s land division code, OPDR may require that some work be done on the site to resolve known land hazards, such as soil contamination and potential for liquefaction, at the land division stage; this allows for a more comprehensive consideration of potential hazards before the stage at which individual lots come in for building permits.

The new code replaces the general notion of “land suitability” with more specific approval criteria relating to potential landslide hazards and potential flood hazards on the site. OPDR has recommended that language be added back into the code that would cover other soil conditions such as contamination and liquefaction. Specific text of proposed amendments is shown on pages 27, 49, and 59 of this report.

Additional Minor Amendments

In addition, we recommend that Exhibit A of Ordinance #179565 be amended to incorporate the following minor housekeeping amendments. (Specific text of all amendments and detailed rationale for each of the amendments is shown on the following pages.)

Recommended Text of Amendments

The specific text of all recommended amendments to Exhibit A of Ordinance #179565 is shown on the following pages. The base language reflects what the Zoning Code would look like today if the code amendments adopted by Exhibit A were already in effect. New language is indicated with underline. Language to be removed is indicated with strikethrough.

33.010.030 When the Zoning Code Applies

This amendment would update a reference.

33.100.275  Parking and Loading

These amendments would make a minor language clarification and correct an incorrect paragraph number.

33.405.060 Attached Residential Infill on Vacant Lots.

B. Attached residential infill. The new land division code requires that applicants taking advantage of the bonus provisions of the “a” overlay zone apply for design review concurrently with the land division. The intent of this regulation was to allow the land division proposal to be seen in the context of what could ultimately be built on the site. Requiring a concurrent review ensures that the land division being proposed would allow for a reasonable design. The requirement evolved out of concerns that stemmed from a particular development where the approved lot pattern ultimately precluded a well-designed project.

The amendment being recommended in this report would clarify the process for proposing changes to the design of the buildings after the land division is approved. As currently written, the code is not clear as to whether or not changes to an approved design would trigger a new land division review in addition to a design review. There is an implementation concern that a land divider will often sell the lots before they are developed. If one of those property owners then wants to change the approved design of the structure they will be building on their lot, it would not usually be practical to require a new land division review (the owner of one lot will not have control over the entire site and other buildings may have already been constructed on the site.)

The amendment would require design review or meeting the community design standards to change the approved design, but would not require revision of the approved land division. Design review will still look at the design of the structure in the context of the entire site.

Amend Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report to insert the following in front of page 213:

33.10.030 When the Zoning Code Applies

D.  Private rights-of-way. The creation of private rights-of-way is regulated by Title 34, Subdivision and Partitioning Regulations 33, Planning and Zoning. However, sStreet improvements in private rights-of-way are allowed by right in all zones.

Amend the language shown on page 247 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.110.275  Parking and Loading

A.  Access to parking. Vehicle access to a lot is allowed only must be from an alley under the following conditions. Modifications to this standard are allowed through Planned Development Review. See Chapter 33.638, Planned Development. Adjustments are prohibited.

2.3.  The lot is either:

Amend the language shown on page 319 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.405.060 Attached Residential Infill on Vacant Lots.

B.  Attached residential infill.

4.  Design review required:

d.  Changes to a design approved concurrently with a land division. If the design of the proposed development was reviewed concurrently with the land division through design review, changes to the design of the proposed development after final plat approval must be reviewed through design review. If the proposed development met the Community Design Standards concurrently with the land division, changes to the design of the proposal after final plat approval must continue to meet the Community Design Standards, or must be reviewed through design review. Concurrent land division review is not required to change the design of the proposed development after final plat approval.

33.405.070 Alternative Development Options in the R2 and R2.5 Zones

C.  Flag lots averaging 2,500 square feet. This amendment would clarify the standards that would apply to flag lots created under the provisions of this section. The current code refers to the standards of 33.277, Flag Lots which includes standards for flag lots in the R2 and R2.5 zones. The new regulations no longer include specific development standards for flag lots in the R2 and R2.5 zones. These standards have been moved to 33.110 and should be referenced by this section.

E.  Design review required. See commentary accompanying 33.405.060.B, above.

33.430.160 Standards for Land Divisions and Planned Developments.

The amendments would correct a minor language error and would require that environmental resource tracts be owned in common or by a specific organization (as they are required to be today.)

33.563.020 Where the Regulations Apply

These amendments would correct incorrect chapter references.

Amend the language shown on page 319-320 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.405.070 Alternative Development Options in the R2 and R2.5 Zones

C.  Flag lots averaging 2,500 square feet.

1.  The standards of Subsection 33.110.240.F, Flag lot development standards, and aAll base zone regulations must be met, unless otherwise stated in this section.

E.  Design review required.

d.  Changes to a design approved concurrently with a land division. If the design of the proposed development was reviewed concurrently with the land division through design review, changes to the design of the proposed development after final plat approval must be reviewed through design review. If the proposed development met the Community Design Standards concurrently with the land division, changes to the design of the proposal after final plat approval must continue to meet the Community Design Standards, or must be reviewed through design review. Concurrent land division review is not required to change the design of the proposed development after final plat approval.

Amend the language shown on page 321-333 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.430.160 Standards for Land Divisions and Planned Developments.

B.  Resource areas of the environmental protection zone are located entirely within environmental resource tracts. The tracts must be owned in common by all of the owners of the land division site, by a Homeowners’ Association, by a public agency or by a non-profit organization; and

D.  LandResource areas outside designated disturbance areas must be placed entirely within environmental resource tracts. The tracts must be owned in common by all of the owners of the land division site, by a Homeowners’ Association, by a public agency,or by a non-profit organization;

Amend the language shown on page 339 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.563.020 Where the Regulations Apply

The regulations of this chapter apply to the Northwest Hills plan district and subdistricts as shown on Map 575563-1 at the end of this chapter, and on the Official Zoning Maps. The regulations of Section 33.575563.030 apply to the entire plan district. The regulations of Sections 33.575563.100 through .120 apply only to the Balch Creek subdistrict. The regulations of Sections 33.575563.200 through .210 apply only to the Forest Park subdistrict. The regulations of Sections 33.575563.400 through .410 apply only to the Skyline subdistrict.

33.563.030 Transfer of Development Rights

This amendment would correct an incorrect reference.

33.563.110 Additional Development Standards

This amendment would make tract naming conventions more consistent throughout the zoning code.

33.610.200  Lot Dimension Standards

A.  Purpose. This amendment would add a purpose statement related to the standard for maximum lot size.

D.  Minimum lot width. This amendment would clarify the measurement of lot width when the setback line is curved.

2.

a.  This amendment would clarify that vehicle access is only required from public alleys and would make a minor language clarification. (We cannot require vehicle access from adjacent private alleys, because we cannot guarantee that the adjacent property owner would grant access to that private property.)

b.  This amendment would make a minor language change specifying where the contiguous curb space must be located.

Amend the language shown on page 339-341 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.563.030 Transfer of Development Rights

C.  Maximum density.

2.  Approval for on-site septic disposal has been granted by the Bureau of Buildings Office of Planning and Development Review or sanitary sewer is available to all lots proposed as part of a land division.

33.563.110 Additional Development Standards

D.  Land divisions. All required closed canopy forest areas in planned unit developments and cluster subdivisions land divisions and planned developments must be within an open area environmental resource tract.

Amend the language shown on page 31 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.610.200  Lot Dimension Standards

A.  Purpose. The lot dimension standards ensure that:

•  Each lot has enough room for a reasonably-sized house and garage;

•  Lots are of a size and shape that development on each lot can meet the development standards of the Zoning Code;

•  Lots are not so large that they seem to be able to be further divided to exceed the maximum allowed density of the site in the future;

•  Each lot has room for at least a small, private outdoor area;

•  Lots are compatible with existing lots;

•  Lots are wide enough to allow development to orient toward the street;

•  Lots don’t narrow to an unbuildable width close to the street

•  Each lot has adequate access from the street;

•  Each lot has access for utilities and services; and

•  Lots are not landlocked.

D.  Minimum lot width. For the purposes of this subsection, width is measured at the minimum front building setback line. Where this setback line is curved, width is measured from the intersection points of the setback line with the side lot lines. Each lot must meet one of the following standards. Lots that do not meet these standards may be requested through Planned Development Review. Adjustments to the standards are prohibited.

2.  There is no minimum lot width for lots that meet all of the following:

a.  If the lot abuts an public alley, then vehicle access is allowed only must be from the alley;

b.  There must be at least 15 contiguous feet of uninterrupted curb space for each lot being created under these provisions. This distance is measured along the face of the curb, or along the edge of the roadway pavement if there is no curb. Each lot’s space must be located along the street that the lot’s front lot line abuts, and must abut the land division site; however, each space does not have to be located directly in front of it’s associated lot. See Figure 610-1. Lots that have vehicle access from an alley are exempt from this standard;

33.611.200  Lot Dimension Standards

A.  Purpose. See commentary accompanying 33.610.200.A, above.

B.  Minimum lot area. This amendment would delete a redundant requirement (an average lot size is already required by the density of the base zone.)

C.  Minimum lot width. This amendment would clarify the measurement of lot width when the setback line is curved.

2.

a.  See commentary accompanying 33.610.200.D.2.a, above.

b.  See commentary accompanying 33.610.200.D.2.b, above.

d.  This amendment would correct a typo.

33.630.200  Tree Preservation Methods

A.  Tree preservation tracts.

1.  This amendment would clarify the measurement of tracts when the resource is close to the property line.

Amend the language shown on page 59 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.611.200  Lot Dimension Standards

A.  Purpose. The lot dimension standards ensure that:

•  Each lot has enough room for a reasonably-sized attached house;

•  Lots are of a size and shape that development on each lot can meet the development standards of the R2.5 zone;

•  Lots are not so large that they seem to be able to be further divided to exceed the maximum allowed density of the site in the future;

•  Each lot has room for at least a small, private outdoor area;

•  Lots are wide enough to allow development to orient toward the street;

•  Each lot has access for utilities and services;

•  Lots are not landlocked;

•  Lots don’t narrow to an unworkable width close to the street; and

•  Lots are compatible with existing lots;

B.  Minimum lot area. Each lot must be at least 1,600 square feet in area. However, the average lot size must be at least 2,500 square feet.

C.  Minimum lot width. For the purposes of this subsection, width is measured at the minimum front building setback line. Where this setback line is curved, width is measured from the intersection points of the setback line with the side lot lines. Each lot must meet one of the following standards. Lots that do not meet these standards may be requested through Planned Development Review. Adjustments to the standards are prohibited.

2.  There is no minimum lot width for lots that meet all of the following:

a.  If the lot abuts an public alley, then vehicle access is allowed only must be from the alley;

b.  There must be at least 15 contiguous feet of uninterrupted curb space for each lot being created under these provisions. This distance is measured along the face of the curb, or along the edge of the roadway pavement if there is no curb. Each lot’s space must be located along the street that the lot’s front lot line abuts, and must abut the land division site; however each space does not have to be located directly in front of it’s associated lot. See Figure 611-1. Lots that have vehicle access from an alley are exempt from this standard;

d.  Lots that will be developed with attached houses must be configured so that 60 percent of the area between the front lot line and the front building line can be configured landscaped at the time of development; and

Amend the language shown on page 77 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.630.200  Tree Preservation Methods

A.  Tree preservation tracts.

1.  Tract boundary. The boundary of a tree preservation tract must be at least five feet from the root protection zone of any trees to be protected within the tract. Where the edge of the root protection zone is less than 5 feet from the edge of the site, the tract boundary will be located along the edge of the site. See Figure 630-1; and

33.630.300  Mitigation Option

The intent of this section is to allow mitigation where density requirements, connectivity requirements or an adopted street plan would conflict with preserving a particular tree. As written the approval criteria would have required all three of these conflicts to be present on the site in order for mitigation to be allowed. The amendment would clarify that only one of the conflicts needs to be present to justify mitigation.

33.631.100  Flood Hazard Area Approval Criteria

The intent of these regulations is to prevent the creation of unbuildable lots and encourage clustering of development away from the flood hazard area. The regulations are not intended to disallow development that would be allowed by right under Title 24, or to lock all building locations in at the land division stage. These amendments will clarify that specific building footprints are not required to be approved as part of the land division review. The applicant will still have some flexibility in locating buildings once they have divided the land.

C.  In all zones.

1.  Applicants typically do not know where private utilities will be installed on the site and would not be able to provide this information as part of their application. 33.654.130.A requires that utilities be located as near the street as practicable. If this approval criteria is met, the criteria below would effect the location of private utilities by addressing the location and construction of streets in the flood hazard area.

Map 631-1: This amendment would clarify application of the regulations of Chapter 631 in areas outside of Portland City limits for which Portland has assumed planning service responsibility for Multnomah County.

Amend the language shown on page 79 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.630.300  Mitigation Option

As an alternative to meeting Section 33.630.100, approval of a mitigation plan may be requested. The review body will approve the mitigation plan where the applicant has shown that all of the following approval criteria are met the applicant has met criteria D. and E. and either criterion A., B., or C., below:

Amend the language shown on page 85 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.631.100  Flood Hazard Area Approval Criteria

A.  RF through R2.5 zones.

2.  Where it is not possible to have all lots outside of the flood hazard area, all proposed building locations areas must be outside of the flood hazard area.

B.  R1 R3 through IR, C, E, and I zones. The following criteria must be met in the R1 R3 through IR, C, E, and I zones:

1.  Where possible, all proposed building locations except for river-dependent uses must be outside of the flood hazard area each lot must have adequate area outside of the flood hazard area to accommodate allowed or proposed uses. This criterion does not apply to river-dependent uses; and

2.  Where it is not possible to have all building locations outside of the flood hazard area to create lots that have adequate area outside of the flood hazard area to accommodate allowed or proposed uses, the following must be met:

a.  All proposed building locations must be configured to Lots must be configured so that development on them will reduce the impact of flooding and to provide the greatest protection for development from flooding;

b.  Proposed building locations for uses Lots must be configured so that allowed or proposed uses that are not river-dependent must be located will be able to locate on the highest ground and near the highest point of access, and they must so that development on the lots can be configured in a manner that will minimize obstruction of floodwaters; and

c.  Proposed building locations for river-dependent uses and development must be configured in a manner that will minimize obstruction of floodwaters. Where the proposed uses and development are river-dependent, lots must be configured so that development on them will minimize obstruction of floodwaters.

C.  In all zones.

1.  Services and utilities proposed in the flood hazard area must be located and built to minimize or eliminate flood damage to the services and utilities; and

Map 631-1: Amend Map 631-1 to expand boundaries to cover the Multnomah County Unincorporated Pockets for which Portland has agreed to provide Planning Services.

33.633.120  Phased Land Division Standards

D.  These amendments would clarify that technical requirements may apply to the phasing of land divisions.

33.634.200 Required Recreation Area Standards

These amendments would allow sites in higher density multidwelling zones to meet the recreation area requirements by providing recreation area through means other than set aside of a recreation area tract, and would allow for ownership of tracts by the Homeowners’ Association. Given the constrained land area of many sites in multidwelling zones, recreation area tracts that meet the standards of this chapter may not be feasible.

Amend the language shown on page 91 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.633.120  Phased Land Division Standards

D.  A future division plan must show how each subsequent phase can meet minimum density, the other requirements of Chapters 33.610 through 33.654, and all other regulations of this Title the Portland City Code; and

Amend the language shown on page 93 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.634.200  Required Recreation Area Standards

A.  Standards for all zones. The following standards must be met:

1.A.  Size. At least 10 percent of the total site area of the land division must be devoted to recreation area.

B.  RF-R2 zones. In the RF-R2 zones, tThe recreation area must be in one or more recreation area tracts. Recreation area tracts must meet the requirements of Subsection D., below.

C.  R1-IR zones. In the R1-IR zones, the recreation area may be in one or more recreation area tracts, in a roof-top garden, or in floor area improved for the purpose of passive or active recreation. Recreation area tracts must meet the requirements of Subsection D., below.

D.  Recreation area tracts. Recreation area tracts required by this chapter must meet the following standards:

1.  Size. Each tract must be at least 100 feet wide by 100 feet deep. ;

2.  Location. No more than 50 percent of each recreation area tract may be in an Environmental Overlay Zone or in a flood hazard area. ;

3.  Accessibility. Each recreation area tract must have at least 30 feet of street frontage. ;

4.  Ownership. Recreation areas must be in tracts. The tracts must be either owned in common by all of the owners of the land division site, owned by a Homeowners’ Association, or owned by a public agency. ; and

5.  Improvements. Improvements must be installed in each recreation area tract prior to the first pavement lift on the site or, if no streets are created, prior to the issuance of the first foundation permit.

33.634.300 Required Recreation Area Approval Criteria

These amendments would clarify that the approval criteria also apply to recreation area provided outside of tracts under the provisions of this chapter.

C.  This amendment clarifies that an improvement guarantee or other surety may be required to guarantee construction of the recreation area in timely fashion.

33.635

CLEARING AND GRADING, AND LAND SUITABILITY

Under the “land suitability” requirements of today’s land division code, OPDR may require that work be done on the site to resolve known land hazards, such as soil contamination and potential for liquefaction, at the land division stage; this allows for a more comprehensive consideration of potential hazards before the stage at which individual lots come in for development permits.

The new code replaces the general notion of “land suitability” with more specific approval criteria relating to potential landslide hazards and potential flood hazards on the site. This amendment would add an approval criterion related to other hazardous soil conditions that may exist on the site.

33.634.300  Required Recreation Area Approval Criteria.

All of the following approval criteria must be met:

A.  Location. Each recreation area tract must be located on a part of the site that can be reasonably developed for recreational use;

B.  Accessibility. Each recreation area tract must be reasonably accessible to all those who will live on the land division site; and

C.  Improvements. Each recreation area tract must be improved in order to meet the recreational needs of those who will live on the land division site. Provision for both active and passive recreation must be included. Where there is more than one recreation area tract, not all tracts areas must be improved for both active and passive recreation. Recreation areas tracts may include improvements such as children’s play equipment, picnic areas, open lawn, benches, paved walkways or trails, gardens, or organized sport fields or courts. Surety may be required which specifies the timing of recreation area improvements.

Amend the language shown on page 97-99 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.635

CLEARING AND GRADING, AND LAND SUITABILITY

Sections:

33.635.010  Purpose

33.635.020  Where These Approval Criteria Apply

33.635.100  Clearing and Grading Approval Criteria

33.635.200  Land Suitability Approval Criterion

33.635.010  Purpose

These approval criteria:

·  Ensure limits of disturbance are reasonable given infrastructure needs, site conditions, and tree preservation requirements;

·  Limit impacts of erosion and sedimentation;

·  Protect water quality and aquatic habitat; and

·  Allow some site development activities to occur before Final Plat approval. ;and

•  Ensure that the new lots can be safely developed.

33.635.200 Land Suitability Approval Criterion

Where geologic conditions or historic uses of the site indicate that a hazard may exist, the applicant must show that the proposed land division will result in lots that are suitable for development. The applicant may be required to make specific improvements in order to make the lots suitable for their intended uses and the provision of services and utilities.

33.636.100  Requirements for Tracts and Easements

B.  Maintenance agreement. This amendment clarifies that the City may have responsibility for maintenance of certain facilities within the tract or easement, removes a language inconsistency, and clarifies that maintenance agreements will continue to be reviewed by the City in advance of Final Plat recording as they are today.

33.640.200  Stream, Spring, and Seep Standards

A.  Preservation in a tract. This amendment would clarify measurement of seeps, springs, and seeps. This amendment would also clarify the measurement of tracts when the resource is close to the property line.

C.  Development allowed in a tract. This amendment would clarify what types of development would be allowed in tracts protecting a stream, spring or seep.

33.651.020  Water Service Standards

A.  This amendment will clarify this technical standard to better reflect what the Water Bureau will be reviewing at tentative plan before signing off on a land division proposal.

B.  This amendment deletes an unneeded technical requirement. The Fire Bureau reviews the number and location of fire hydrants as a technical decision later in the process. This information is not needed for determination of compliance with tentative plan requirements.

Amend the language shown on page 101 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.636.100  Requirements for Tracts and Easements

B.  Maintenance agreement. The applicant must record with the County Recorder a maintenance agreement that commits the owners or owners’ designee to maintain all elements of the tract or easement; however, facilities within the tract or easement that will be maintained by a specified City agency may be recorded in a separate maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement must be approved by OPDR and the City Attorney in advance of Final Plat approval and must be recorded within 180 days of final plat approval submitted to the County Recorder to be recorded with the Final Plat or Final Development Plan within 90 days of the final decision.

Amend the language shown on page 111 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.640.200  Stream, Spring, and Seep Standards

A.  Preservation in a tract. Streams, springs, and seeps must be preserved in a tract. The edges of the tract must be at least 15 feet from the edges of the stream, spring, or seep. The edges of a seep or spring are determined through a wetland delineation, performed by an environmental scientist, and certified by OPDR to meet the City’s definition of wetland. Where the edge of the stream, spring, or seep is less than 15 feet from the edge of the site, the tract boundary will be located along the edge of the site.

B.  Development allowed in the tract. The following development, improvements, and activities are allowed in the tract:

1.  Disturbance associated with discharging stormwater to the stream channel, if BES has determined that the site’s storm water cannot discharge to a storm sewer and OPDR has determined that on-site infiltration is not an option;

2.  Removal of non-native invasive species with hand held equipment;

3.  Planting of native vegetation listed on the Portland Plant List when planted with hand held equipment; and

4.  Crossing the tract with a clear span bridge.

Amend the language shown on page 115 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.651.020  Water Service Standards

Water service must meet the following standards. Adjustments are prohibited.

A.  The Water Bureau or District and the Fire Bureau have approved the location, design, and capacity of the water service. verified that water facilities with adequate capacity and pressure are available to serve the proposed development.

B.  The Fire Bureau has approved the number and location of fire hydrants.

33.652.020  Sanitary Sewer Disposal Service Standards

These amendments will clarify these technical standards to better reflect what the Bureau of Environmental Services and the Office of Planning and Development Review reviews at tentative plan before signing off on the adequacy of sanitary sewer service for a land division proposal.

33.653.030  Stormwater Management Standards

A.-B.  These amendments will clarify these technical standards to better reflect what the Bureau of Environmental Services and the Office of Planning and Development Review reviews at tentative plan before signing off on the adequacy of stormwater management for a land division proposal.

C.  This amendment will amend an incorrect reference, clarify that shared facilities may be located in the right-of-way, and will require common ownership of stormwater tracts.

Amend the language shown on page 117 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.652.020  Sanitary Sewer Disposal Service Standards

Sanitary sewer disposal service must meet the standards of this section. Adjustments are prohibited.

A.  Availability of sanitary sewer.

1.  The Bureau of Environmental Services has verified that sewer facilities are available to serve the proposed development; or

2.  OPDR has approved the use of a private on-site sanitary sewage disposal system.

B.  Public sanitary sewage disposal. Where public sewer facilities are available to serve the proposed development, Tthe Bureau of Environmental Services has preliminarily approved the location, design, and capacity of the proposed sanitary sewerage disposal service system. The approval is based on the Sewer Design Manual; and

B.C.  Private sanitary sewage disposal. Where sanitary sewer disposal service is not available, Where private on-site sanitary sewage disposal is proposed, OPDR and Environmental Services have has preliminarily approved the location, design, and capacity of the on-site proposed sanitary sewage disposal system.

Amend the language shown on page 123 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.653.030  Stormwater Management Standards

Stormwater management facilities must meet the following standards. Adjustments are prohibited.

A.  The Bureau of Environmental Services has preliminarily approved the location, type, design, and capacity of the proposed stormwater management systems, capacity, type, location, feasibility and land area required of the proposed stormwater management system and stormwater disposal facilities and as well as any connection to off-site facilities. The approval is based on the Sewer Design Manual and the Stormwater Management Manual;

B.  The Office of Planning and Development Review has preliminarily approved the proposed stormwater disposal system capacity, type, location, feasibility, and land area required of any proposed private on-site stormwater disposal facilities; and

C.  A stormwater management system facility that serves more than one lot must be in a tract or within a right-of-way. If the facility is in a tract, it must be either owned in common by all of the owners of the lots served by the facility, by a Homeowners’ Association, by a public agency, or by a non-profit organization.

33.654.110  Connectivity and Location of Rights-of-Way

The Fire Bureau’s B1 Policy requires that more than 18 dwelling units have at least two points of access. The amendment to decrease the allowed number of units that should be served by a dead-end street would make the land division code consistent with this other requirement.

Today’s land division code includes minimum spacing for both through and dead-end streets. Intersections that are too close together may adversely impact the safety of automobile maneuvering. The minimum spacing requirement was carried over in the approval criteria for through streets under the new code, but was inadvertently left out of the approval criteria for dead end streets. The amendment would add language related to minimum spacing to the approval criteria governing the location of dead end streets.

33.654.120  Design of Rights-of-Way

Amendments throughout this section would make minor changes to street terminology to clarify which streets are governed by these provisions, and would make minor changes to the titles of paragraphs to make it clearer which regulations are standards and which are approval criteria.

C.  Local street approval criteria and standards.

3.  

a.  

(3)  This amendment would clarify that the Fire Bureau may require a turnaround.

b.  Temporary turnaround. This amendment would clarify that OPDR may require a temporary turnaround.

Amend the language shown on page 125-133 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.654.110  Connectivity and Location of Rights-of-Way

C.  Approval criteria.

2.  Dead-end streets in OS, R, C, and E zones. In OS, R, C, and E zones, dead-end streets may be provided where through streets are not required. Dead-end streets should generally not exceed 200 feet in length, and should generally not serve more than 25 18 dwelling units. Public dead-end streets should generally be at least 200 feet apart.

33.654.120  Design of Rights-of-Way

B.  Non-local street standard. For non-local streets other than local service streets, the Office of Transportation has approved the right-of-way width and all elements within the street right-of-way.

C.  Local street approval criteria and standards. The following approval criteria and standards apply to all local service streets except for common greens:

1.  Approval criterion for Wwidth of the right-of-way. The width of the local street right-of-way must be sufficient to accommodate expected users, taking into consideration the characteristics of the site and vicinity, such as the existing street and pedestrian system improvements, existing structures, and natural features.

2.  Standard for Cconfiguration of elements within the right-of-way. For public streets, the Office of Transportation has approved the configuration of elements within the street right-of-way. For private streets, the Office of Planning and Development Review has approved the configuration of elements within the street right-of-way.

3.  Standards for Tturnarounds.

a.  When a turnaround is required. A turnaround is required on a dead-end street in the following situations:

(3)  When required by the Office of Transportation, the Fire Bureau, or OPDR.

b.  Temporary turnaround. Where a street is temporarily terminating within the land division site, the City Engineer, OPDR, or Fire Bureau may require a temporary turnaround.

F.  Alleys.

2.  This amendment would correct a typo by replacing the word “street” with “alley”.

3.  This amendment would allow the new code to be consistent with technical requirements that vehicles to be able to egress from alleys in a forward direction.

D.  Common green approval criteria and standards.

1.  Right-of-way.

a.  Approval criterion for Wwidth of the right-of-way. The width of the common green right-of-way must be sufficient to accommodate expected users and uses. The width must take into consideration the characteristics of the site and vicinity, such as the existing pedestrian system, whether a through pedestrian connection will be provided, structures, natural features, and the community activities that may occur within the street.

b.  Standards for Cconfiguration of elements within the right-of-way.

c.  Standards for Tturnarounds. Turnarounds are not required for a common green.

E.  Pedestrian connections.

1.  Approval criterion for Wwidth of the right-of-way. The width of the pedestrian connection right-of-way must be sufficient to accommodate expected users and provide a safe environment, taking into consideration the characteristics of the site and vicinity, such as the existing street and pedestrian system improvements, existing structures, natural features, and total length of the pedestrian connection. As much as is possible, the users should be able to stand at one end of the connection and see the other end.

2.  Standard for Cconfiguration of elements within the right-of-way. For public pedestrian connections, the Office of Transportation has approved the configuration of elements within the pedestrian connection right-of-way. For private pedestrian connections, the Office of Planning and Development Review has approved the configuration of elements within the pedestrian connection right-of-way.

F.  Alleys.

1.  Approval criterion for Wwidth of the right-of-way. The width of the alley right-of-way must be sufficient to accommodate expected users, taking into consideration the characteristics of the site and vicinity such as existing street and pedestrian system improvements, existing structures, and natural features.

2.  Standard for Cconfiguration of elements within the right-of-way. For public alleys, the Office of Transportation has approved the configuration of elements within the alley right-of-way. For private streets alleys, the Office of Planning and Development Review has approved the configuration of elements within the alley right-of-way.

3.  Standard for Tturnarounds. Turnarounds are not required for an alley. The City Engineer, Office of Planning and Development Review, or Fire Bureau may require a turnaround on a dead-end alley.

33.654.130  Additional Approval Criteria for Rights-of-Way

B  This amendment would clarify that existing private streets do not need to be extended onto the land division site. Requiring private streets to be extended presents legal problems, because the City cannot force the adjacent property owner to allow full-access from the new land division site to the existing street segment. (The new regulations will disallow the creation of private partial streets.)

33.654.150  Ownership, Maintenance, and Public Use of Rights-Of-Way

This amendment would clarify that temporary turnarounds do not need to be placed in a tract. Allowing these in an easement continues the current policy and prevents situations where a new land division is required in order to extend the already platted street onto a neighboring site.

33.660.110  Review Procedures

This amendment would clarify how the number of dwelling units is calculated for the purposes of determining what level of review a proposal will be subject to. The exact number of units is not typically known for a multi-dwelling site at the land division stage.

33.660.120  Approval Criteria

C.  This amendment makes a minor change to clarify that only the shaded portions of the map indicate potential flood hazard areas.

G.  See commentary accompanying amendment to Chapter 33.635, above.

Amend the language shown on page 133 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.654.130  Additional Approval Criteria for Rights-of-Way

B.  Extension of existing public dead-end streets and pedestrian connections. Existing public dead-end streets and pedestrian connections adjacent to the site must be extended onto the site as needed to serve the site.

Amend the language shown on page 133-135 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.654.150  Ownership, Maintenance, and Public Use of Rights-Of-Way

B.  Ownership.

3.  Dead-end streets and turnarounds.

d.  Exception for temporary turnarounds. Temporary turnarounds may be in an easement.

Amend the language shown on page 139-141 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.660.110  Review Procedures

Procedures for review of Preliminary Plans vary with the type of land division proposal being reviewed. For the purposes of this section, the number of dwelling units will be calculated as follows: In the RF-R2.5 and IR zones, the number of dwelling units is the number of lots being proposed. In the R3-RX zones, the number of dwelling units is the minimum required density of the site.

33.660.120  Approval Criteria

C.  Flood hazard area. If any portion of the site is shown as containing flood hazard area on Map 631-1, the approval criteria of Chapter 33.631, Sites in Flood Hazard Areas, must be met;

G.  Clearing, and grading, and land suitability. The approval criteria of Chapter 33.635, Clearing, and Grading, and Land Suitability must be met.

33.660.220  Approval Standards

A.

2.  This amendment would add wiggle room for increase of a particular lot dimension. This amendment is consistent with the policy discussion which was primarily focused on concerns related to decreasing lot dimensions, and is necessary in order for the standards to function as a whole.

5.  These amendments will make tract nomenclature consistent throughout the code.

7.  These amendments will make tract nomenclature consistent throughout the code.

B.  This amendment will make a slight wording change that allows this requirement to be administered. There is no nexus for making the conditions of approval of the tentative plan become conditions of approval of the Final Plat; however, the conditions of the original decision can remain in effect.

E.  This amendment will clarify the requirements related to improvement guarantees and other sureties.

F.  This amendment removes a language inconsistency with Subsection 33.636.100.B., Maintenance Agreement.

Amend the language shown on page 143-147 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.660.220  Approval Standards

A.  Conformance with Preliminary Plan.

2.  An increase or decrease in the width or depth of any lot by less than 5 percent. Width is measured at the minimum front building setback line;

5.  An increase or decrease of up to 5 percent in the area of the following tracts:

a.  a Sstormwater facility tracts; and

b.  Common open area tracts;

7.  An increase in the area of the following tracts or easements:

a.  Environmental resource tracts;

b.  Floodway tracts;

c.b.  Tree preservation tracts;

d.c.  Flood hazard area easements or tracts;

e.d.  Landslide hazard area easements or tracts; and

f.e.  Recreation area tracts.

B.  Conditions of approval. The Final Plat must comply with all conditions of approval that apply to Final Plat approval. All other conditions of approval must become conditions of approval of the Final Plat remain in effect;

E.  Performance guarantees. Sureties. All performance guarantees sureties, including performance guarantees and improvement guarantees, required by the Portland City Code must meet the requirements of the service bureaus and City Code be approved by the appropriate City bureau prior to Final Plat approval;

F.  Maintenance agreements and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs). All maintenance agreements and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Planning and Development Review and the City Attorney and must be recorded prior to Final Plat approval and must be submitted to the County Recorder to be recorded with the Final Plat within 90 days of the Final Plat approval.

.

33.660.310  Review Procedures

B.  These amendments will make tract nomenclature consistent throughout the code.

33.662.120  Approval Criteria

C.  This amendment makes a minor change to clarify that only the shaded portions of the map indicate potential flood hazard areas.

F.  See commentary accompanying amendments to Chapter 33.635, above.

Amend the language shown on page 149 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.660.310  Review Procedures

B.  Same procedure as was used for Preliminary Plan.

10.  Changing the purpose of, or deleting, the following tracts or easements:

a.  Shared parking tracts;

b.  Environmental resource tracts;

c.  Stormwater facility tracts;

d.  Floodway tracts;

e.d.  Flood hazard area easements or tracts;

f.e.  Tree preservation tracts;

g.f.  Landslide hazard area easements or tracts;

h.  Open area tracts; or

g.  Recreation area tracts;

11.  Reducing the area or changing the location of the following tracts:

a.  Environmental resource tract;

b.  Floodway Flood hazard tract; or

c.  Landslide hazard tract;

12.  Decreasing the area of an open area or recreation area tract by more than 10 percent;

Amend the language shown on page 159 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.662.120  Approval Criteria

C.  Flood Hazard Area. If any portion of the site is shown as containing flood hazard area on Map 631-1, the approval criteria of Chapter 33.631, Sites in Flood Hazard Areas, must be met;

F.  Clearing, and grading, and land suitability. The approval criteria of Chapter 33.635, Clearing, and Grading, and Land Suitability must be met.

33.662.220  Approval Standards

A.

2.  This amendment would add wiggle room for increase of a particular lot dimension. This amendment is consistent with the policy discussion which was primarily focused on concerns related to decreasing lot dimensions, and is necessary in order for the standards to function as a whole.

7.  These amendments will make tract nomenclature consistent throughout the code.

8.  These amendments will make tract nomenclature consistent throughout the code.

B.  This amendment will make a slight wording change that allows this requirement to be administered. There is no nexus for making the conditions of approval of the tentative plan become conditions of approval of the Final Plat; however, the conditions of the original decision can remain in effect.

E.  This amendment will clarify the requirements related to improvement guarantees and other surety.

F.  This amendment removes a language inconsistency with Subsection 33.636.100.B., Maintenance Agreement.

Amend the language shown on page 161-163 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.662.220  Approval Standards

A.  Conformance with Preliminary Plan.

2.  A change in the depth or width of a lot;

7.  An increase in the area of the following tracts or easements:

a.  Environmental resource tracts;

b.  Tree preservation tracts;

c.  Floodway tracts;

d.c.  Flood hazard area easements or tracts, outside of the Floodway; or

e.d.  Landslide hazard area easements or tracts.

8.  An increase or decrease of up to 5 percent in the area of the following tracts or easements:

a.  a Sstormwater facility tract; or

b.  Common open area tract.

B.  Conditions of approval. All conditions of approval that apply to the Final Plat must be met. All other conditions of approval must become conditions of approval of the Final Plat remain in effect;

E.  Performance guarantees. Sureties. All performance guarantees sureties, including performance guarantees and improvement guarantees, required by the Portland City Code must meet the requirements of the service bureaus and City Code be approved by the appropriate City bureau prior to Final Plat approval;

F.  Maintenance agreements and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs). All maintenance agreements and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Planning and Development Review and the City Attorney and must be recorded prior to Final Plat approval and must be submitted to the County Recorder to be recorded with the Final Plat within 90 days of the Final Plat approval.

33.662.310  Review Procedures

B.  These amendments will make tract nomenclature consistent throughout the code.

33.662.320  Approval Criteria

A.  These amendments will correct an incorrect reference.

Amend the language shown on page 165-167 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.662.310  Review Procedures

B.  Same procedure as was used for Preliminary Plan.

7.  Deleting any of the following:

a.  Shared parking tracts;

b.  Environmental resource tracts;

c.  Stormwater facility tracts;

d.  Floodway tracts;

e.d.  Flood hazard area easements or tracts;

f.e.  Tree preservation tracts; or

g.f.  Landslide hazard area easements or tracts;

8.  Reducing the area or changing the location of any of the following:

a.  Environmental resource tract;

b.  Flood hazard area tract; or

c.  Landslide hazard area tract.

9.  Increasing or decreasing the area of a common open area tract by more than 10 percent; and

10.9.  Any change that the Director of OPDR determines:

a.  Is a significant change from the Preliminary Plan; or

b.  Will have a significant impact on the surrounding area.

33.662.320  Approval Criteria

A.  Approval criteria for changes listed in Subsection 33.662.310.A.B. Changes to the Preliminary Plan that are listed under Section 33.662.310.AB. must meet the approval criteria of Section 33.662.120.

33.664.120  Approval Criteria

A.  This amendment makes a minor change to clarify that only the shaded portions of the map indicate potential flood hazard areas.

B.  See commentary accompanying amendments to Chapter 33.635, above.

33.664.220  Approval Criteria

C.  This amendment will make a slight wording change that allows this requirement to be administered. There is no nexus for making the conditions of approval of the tentative plan become conditions of approval of the Final Plat; however, the conditions of the original decision can remain in effect.

G.F.  This amendment will correct a subsection numbering error and will clarify the requirements related to improvement guarantees and other sureties.

F.G.  This amendment removes a language inconsistency with Subsection 33.636.100.B., Maintenance Agreement.

33.665.200  Review Procedures

C.  This amendment deletes an out of date reference.

33.665.315  Approval Criterion for Planned Developments in the R2.5 Zone

This amendment will clarify that Planned Developments in areas with specifically adopted design guidelines should meet those guidelines.

Amend the language shown on page 171-175 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.664.120  Approval Criteria

A.  

3.  Flood Hazard Area. If any portion of the site is in shown as containing flood hazard area on Map 631-1, the approval criteria of Chapter 33.631, Sites in Flood Hazard Areas, can be met by the proposal;

B.  

1.  Clearing, and grading, and land suitability. The approval criteria of Chapter 33.635, Clearing, and Grading, and Land Suitability must be met;

33.664.220  Approval Criteria

C.  Conditions of approval. All conditions of approval that apply to the Final Plat must be met. All other conditions of approval must become conditions of approval of the Final Plat remain in effect;

E.F.  Performance guarantees. Sureties. All performance guarantees sureties, including performance guarantees and improvement guarantees, required by the Portland City Code must meet the requirements of the service bureaus and City Code be approved by the appropriate City bureau prior to Final Plat approval;

F.G.  Maintenance agreements and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs). All maintenance agreements and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Planning and Development Review and the City Attorney and must be recorded prior to Final Plat approval and must be submitted to the County Recorder to be recorded with the Final Plat within 90 days of the Final Plat approval.

Amend the language shown on page 179-181 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.665.200  Review Procedures

C.  Review not in conjunction with a land division.

1.  Type III.

f.  A new Type B street plan or modification of an existing Type B street plan as described in Chapter 33.290, Street Plans;

g.f.  Any portion of the site is in an Open Space zone.

33.665.315  Approval Criterion for Planned Developments in the R2.5 Zone

Planned Developments in the R2.5 zone must comply with the adopted guidelines specific to the design district in which the proposal is located, as shown on maps 420-1 through 420-3. For all other areas, pPlanned Developments in the R2.5 zone must comply with the Community Design Guidelines.

33.665.320  Additional Approval Criteria for Modifications of Site-Related Development Standards

A.  These amendments add regulation titles for ease of use.

33.665.340  Proposals Without A Land Division

E.  See commentary accompanying amendments to Chapter 33.635, above.

Amend the language shown on page 183-189 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.665.320  Additional Approval Criteria for Modifications of Site-Related Development Standards

A.  Modification of specified site-related development standards.

•  33.610.200.D, Minimum lot width;

•  33.611.200.C, Minimum lot width;

•  33.110.215.B.2;

•  33.110.230.D, Distance from grade;

•  33.110.240.C.1.d, Landscape standards;

•  33.110.240.C.2.d, Landscape standards;

•  33.110.250.E.4.a(2); or

•  33.110.275.A, Access to parking.

33.665.340  Proposals Without A Land Division

E.  Clearing, and grading, and land suitability.

4.  Topsoil must be preserved on site to the extent practicable for use on the site after grading is complete; and

5.  Soil stockpiles must be on the site and located in areas designated for clearing and grading, if practicable.; and

6.  Where geologic conditions or historic uses of the site indicate that a hazard may exist, the applicant must show that the site is suitable for the proposed development. The applicant may be required to make specific improvements in order to make the site suitable for the intended uses and the provision of services and utilities.

F.  These amendments clarify the treatment of seeps and springs when the applicant is not applying for a land division. Creation of a tract would require a land division. These amendments also clarify measurement of the required resource easement and clarify what development would be allowed within the easement.

33.665.430  Approval Standards

B.  This amendment will make a slight wording change that allows this requirement to be administered. There is no nexus for making the conditions of approval of the tentative plan become conditions of approval of the Final Plat; however, the conditions of the original decision can remain in effect.

D.  This amendment clarifies the requirements related to improvement guarantees and other surety.

E.  This amendment removes a language inconsistency with Subsection 33.636.100.B., Maintenance Agreement.

F.  Streams, Springs, and Seeps.

1.  If there is a stream, spring, or seep outside of an Environmental Overlay Zone on the site, then the stream, spring, or seep must be preserved in a tract an easement. The edges of the tract easement must be at least 15 feet from the edges of the stream, spring, or riparian seep. The edges of a seep or spring are determined through a wetland delineation, performed by an environmental scientist, and certified by OPDR to meet the City’s definition of wetland. Where the edge of the stream, spring, or seep is less than 15 feet from the edge of the site, the easement boundary will be located along the edge of the site. The following development, improvements, and activities are allowed in the easement:

a.  Disturbance associated with discharging stormwater to the stream channel, if BES has determined that the site’s storm water cannot discharge to a storm sewer and OPDR has determined that on-site infiltration is not an option;

b.  Removal of non-native invasive species with hand held equipment;

c.  Planting of native vegetation listed on the Portland Plant List when planted with hand held equipment; and

d.  Crossing the tract with a clear span bridge.

33.665.430  Approval Standards

B.  The Final Development Plan must comply with all conditions or approval that apply to the Final Development Plan. All other conditions of approval must become conditions of approval of the Final Development Plan remain in effect;

D.  All performance guarantees sureties, including performance guarantees and improvement guarantees, required by the Portland City Code must meet the requirements of the service bureaus and City Code be approved by the appropriate City bureau prior to final development plan approval; and

E.  All maintenance agreements and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Planning and Development Review and the City Attorney prior to final development plan approval, and must be recorded submitted to the County Recorder to be recorded with the final development plan within 90 days of the final development plan approval

33.667.300  Regulations

A.  

1.  These amendments will clarify that the provisions apply to nonconforming development as well as lot dimensions.

5.  This amendment will clarify that split zoned lots should not be created through a property line adjustment. (Language elsewhere in the new code disallows the creation of split zoned lots via land division.)

33.700.075  Balancing Requirements for Land Divisions

These amendments will clarify that conflicting approval criteria can be balanced under the provisions of this section.

Amend the language shown on page 195 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.667.300  Regulations

A.  Properties.

1.  The Property Line Adjustment will not cause either property or development on either property to move out of conformance with any of the regulations of this Title. If a property or development is already out of conformance with a regulation in this Title, the Property Line Adjustment will not cause the property or development to move further out of conformance with the regulation;

3.  The Property Line Adjustment will not result in the creation of street frontage for a land-locked property; and

4.  If any portion of the site is within an environmental overlay zone, the Property Line Adjustment may not create a situation where either property cannot meet the development standards of Section 33.430.140, General Development Standards. If this requirement cannot be met, an Environmental Review as described in Sections 33.430.210 through 33.430.280 must be completed before the Property Line Adjustment is requested; and

5. The Property Line Adjustment will not result in the creation of a lot that is in more than one base zone.

Amend the language shown on page 359 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.700.075  Balancing Requirements for Land Divisions

A.  Conflict between technical decisions and land use regulations. Where a requirement resulting from a technical decision is in conflict with a requirement resulting from a land use regulation of this Title, the land division review decision-maker will balance the requirements, as specified in Subsection C, below. The decision-maker will determine which requirements will be waived, which requirements will be met in another manner, and which requirements will be partially met. However, requirements resulting from regulations standards of this Title where adjustments are prohibited may not be waived or partially met.

B.  Conflict between land use regulations. Where two or more requirements resulting from land use regulations of this Title conflict, the land division review decision-maker will balance the requirements, as specified in Subsection C, below. The decision-maker will determine which requirements will be waived, which requirements will be met in another manner, and which requirements will be partially met. However, requirements resulting from regulations standards where adjustments are prohibited may not be waived or partially met.

33.730.025  Type IIx Procedure

These amendments will extend the timeline for staff review slightly. Under the new code staff cannot issue a decision until at least 30 days after the application has been deemed complete—extending the review deadline will allow staff more time to incorporate the public and staff comments that have been received related to the proposal. In order to ensure the Type IIx procedure still fits within the 120 day decision making timeline, the time period for Hearings Officer consideration of an appeal will be shortened slightly.

Amend the language shown on page 371-375 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.730.025  Type IIx Procedure

D  Processing time.

2.  The Director of OPDR will make the final decision on the case within 38 42 days after the application is determined to be complete. The applicant may extend this time limit.

I.  When an appeal is filed.

6.  Appeal decision.

a.  The Hearings Officer will make a written decision in the form of a report and mail notice of the decision within 17 14 days of the hearing.

7.  Amended decision report. If the review body modifies or rejects the decision report, an amended report with findings supporting the decision must be prepared. For review bodies other than the Hearings Officer, the Director of OPDR will prepare the amended decision report and mail notice of the decision within 17 14 days of the hearing. The report must comply with 33.730.090, Reports and Record Keeping.

8.  Notice of final decision. When the Hearings Officer is the review body, the Hearings Officer will mail notice of the decision. For other review bodies, the Director of OPDR will mail notice of the decision. Within 17 14 days of the hearing, the Hearings Officer or Director of OPDR will mail notice of the review body's final decision to the City Auditor, applicant, owner, and to any recognized organizations or persons who responded in writing to the appeal notice, testified at the hearing, or requested notice of the decision. In the case of multiple signatures on a letter or petition, the person who submitted the letter or petition or the first signature on the petition will receive the notice. See 33.730.070 I, Notice of final decision.

33.730.060  Application Requirements

These amendments will make the requirements of this section better mesh with Oregon Revised Statutes, while still providing staff with additional time to determine the completeness of the application.

A.  Check for complete application. The amendment is intended to address the following issues:

•  Notifying Applicant of Missing Information. The adopted Land Division Code Rewrite Project changed the date within which the OPDR Director must notify a land use review applicant of missing information from 14 days to 30 days following submittal of the original application. However, State Law (ORS 227.178(2)) allows the applicant to refuse to submit any of missing information. If the applicant does so, the application must be determined complete on the 31^st day following the date the application was first submitted. If the City waits until the 30^th day to notify the applicant of missing information, the applicant could refuse to submit the missing information on day 90, forcing the City to deem the application complete on day 31. If such a situation occurs, 59 days of the required 120-day review period is lost.

The amendment changes the date within which the OPDR Director must notify the applicant of missing information from 30 days to 21 days. This still allows the applicant, within 30 days following submittal of the application, to refuse to submit any of the requested missing information, and on the 31^st day, the City would b required to deem the application complete.

•  When an Incomplete Application is Deemed Complete. State Law (ORS 227.178(3)) allows an applicant up to 180 days from the date that a land use review application is submitted to provide missing information requested by the City. If the information is received within 180 days, State law requires that the application be reviewed based on the regulations in effect at the time the application was first submitted. To be consistent with the 180-day period identified in State law, the amendment changes the period within which the applicant must provide the missing information from 30 days to 180 days.

•  Consistent with ORS 227.178(2), the amendment clarifies that an incomplete land use review application will be deemed complete on the 31^st day following submittal of the original application if by the 30^th day the applicant indicates in writing that none of the missing information will be provided. The amendment also clarifies that the application will be deemed complete on the date that any of the missing information is submitted, unless the applicant indicates to the City in writing that the additional missing information will be provided.

Amend the language shown on page 381 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.730.060  Application Requirements

A.  Check for complete application.

1.  Initial check. An applicant must submit a request for a land use review on the appropriate forms supplied by the Director of OPDR. The Director of OPDR will review the application to see if it is complete. for completeness.

2.  Incomplete applications. If the Director of OPDR finds that the application is not complete, the following procedures apply:

a.  The Director of OPDR must notify the applicant of any missing information or materials within 30 21 days from the date of original submittal.

b.  2.  Time allowed for additional submittals. If the Director of OPDR finds that the application is not complete, Tthe applicant has 30 180 days from the date of original submittal to provide the missing information or material;.

c.  If the missing information is not provided, the application will be considered complete on the 31st day after its original submittal. It will be processed based on the information submitted. The application will be determined complete on the date the Director of OPDR receives any of the missing information or material, unless:

(1)  The applicant indicates in writing that any or all of the remaining information or material will be provided within 180 days from the date of original submittal. In that case, the application will be determined complete on the date the remaining information is provided; or

(2)  The applicant refuses to submit any of the missing information or material. If the refusal is in writing, and is received by OPDR by the 30th day following the date of original submittal, the application will be considered complete on the 31st day after its original submittal. The application will be processed based on the information and material included in the original submittal;

d.  If none of the missing information or material is provided within 180 days of the date of the original submittal, and the applicant has not refused to submit the missing information or material as specified in A.2.c(2), the application will be voided on the 181st day. The City will not refund the filing fee.

3.  Time extensions. The applicant may request an extension of the 30 day limit in writing. However, if the missing information is not provided within 180 days of the date of original submittal, then the application will be voided. The City will not refund the filing fee.

4.3.  The 120 day limit. The 120 day processing time limit required by ORS 227.178 will begin on the day the application is determined to be complete.

D.  Required information for land divisions.

1.  

b.  Written statement. These additional application requirements would provide for the information necessary to determine compliance with the approval criteria recommended to be added to Chapter 33.635. See commentary accompanying that amendment, above.

d.  

(1)  Base map. These amendments would make the base map comply with the current standards of the County Recorder, which no longer allows block numbers on plat maps. These amendments would also add a requirement for roadway width and delete the requirement for centerline radii. Roadway width is necessary to determine compliance with Chapter 33.654; however, centerline radii will typically be included in specific engineering schematics and not the base map.

Amend the language shown on page 381-389 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

D.  Required information for land divisions.

1.  

b.  Written statement.

•  A complete list of all land use reviews requested;

•  A complete description of the proposal including site layout and circulation, natural features, existing and proposed development and uses, and changes to the site or existing buildings;

•  A description of how all approval criteria are met for the land division and any concurrent land use reviews;

•  Additional information needed to understand the proposal, or requested at the pre-application conference;

•  Names and address of land division designer or engineer and surveyor;

•  Proposed maintenance agreements or Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions; and

•  If Preliminary Plan phasing is proposed, a description and timeline of each phase and timing of associated improvements;

•  If more than 3 lots are proposed, the proposed name of land division;

•  Proposed names of all streets;

•  A description of the type and location of any known potential geologic hazards such as liquefaction hazards, seismic hazards and faults, landfills, contamination; and

•  A description of past uses on the site that may affect the suitability of the site for development, such as industrial uses, landfills, railroad yards, mining, and Quick Vehicle Servicing.

d.  

(1)  Base map.

Additional information:

•  Proposed lot layout with sizes, dimensions, and lot and block numbers;

•  Proposed tract layout with sizes, dimensions, purpose, and name;

•  Proposed layout and widths of all rights-of-way including dimensioning and centerline radii roadway width;

•  Dimensions of proposed right-of-way dedications, including those to be added to existing rights-of-way; and

•  Proposed location, dimensions, and purpose of all easements;

(2)  Existing conditions map. These amendments correspond with amendments clarifying measurement of seeps and springs. See additional commentary accompanying amendments to Chapter 33.640.

(3)  Proposed improvements map. These amendments will:

•  delete an out of date application requirement—on street parking is not a criteria in the review of land divisions under the newly adopted code.

•  amend stormwater-related application requirements to correct incorrect terminology and references and to ensure that the applicant provides the information that is necessary to access compliance with the criteria and standards of Chapter 33.653, Stormwater Management.

•  delete an application requirement for information that is not available at the tentative plan stage—the specifics of street tree planting cannot be finalized until all driveway locations are known. These may not be known until the final plat or later.

(2)  Existing conditions map. The following existing site conditions must be shown:

Surveyed information:

•  Ground elevations shown by contour lines at 5-foot vertical intervals for slopes greater than 10 percent, and at 2-foot vertical intervals for ground slopes of 10 percent or less;

•  Existing development, including dimensions and distances to property lines. Structures and facilities to remain must be identified;

•  Location and dimensions of existing driveways, curb cuts, and sidewalks on and abutting the site;

•  Seeps and springs, wetlands, watercourses, and all water bodies including the ordinary high water line and top of bank; If there is a seep or spring on the site, a wetland delineation is required to determine the edge of the seep or spring. This delineation must be performed by an environmental scientist;

•  The centerline of existing drainageways, including ditches, swales, and other areas subject to wet weather inundation; and

•  Location of flood hazard areas, including elevations of 100-year floodplains, and FEMA Floodway boundaries. Sites that contain a water body not shown on the FEMA maps must identify the location of the flood hazard areas;

(3)  Proposed improvements map.

•  Enough information to determine that minimum lot width requirements are met for each proposed lot including footprint of structures and locations of driveways if necessary;

•  Distances of all known proposed development to proposed lot lines;

•  Proposed pedestrian connections;

•  Proposed on-street parking;

•  If proposed lots are within a flood hazard area or landslide hazard area, proposed building locations, and

•  If Preliminary Plan phasing is proposed; boundaries of sequence of the proposed phasing.

•  Existing and proposed services and utilities; and

•  Preliminary Stormwater Disposal Plan as specified by Chapter 17.38, Drainage and Water Quality, that meets the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual and the BES Sewer Design Manual. including type, size, location, capacity, and feasibility of all stormwater facilities proposed. This plan must include information on the operation, maintenance, and landscaping .of all proposed facilities show the capacity, type and location, as well as the land area required, of the stomwater management system and stormwater disposal facilities proposed. The plan must also provide information on the feasiblity of the proposed stormwater management system being proposed; and

•  Street Tree Planting Plan, including location, species, and size;

(4)  Preliminary Clearing and Grading Plan. This amendment will add a requirement for information related to previous fill activity on the site. This application material will be used for assessing compliance with the approval criteria being added to Chapter 33.635—see additional commentary accompanying that chapter, above.

(4)  Preliminary Clearing and Grading Plan.

•  Existing contours and drainage patterns;

•  Existing drainageways, wetlands, streams, seeps and springs, and other water bodies;

•  Existing trees and vegetation;

•  Areas of the site where fill has been placed;

•  Boundaries of Environmental Overlay Zones;

•  Proposed areas of clearing and grading, including grading and clearing for:

—Rights-of-way;

—Services and utilities; and

—Structures, such as retaining walls, necessary for the construction of these elements. Proposed areas of clearing and grading for individual lots and tracts may also be shown;

•  Proposed contours within areas to be cleared and graded;

•  Proposed stormwater and sedimentation control devices to be used during construction;

•  Proposed stockpile areas;

•  Proposed trees and vegetation to be preserved;

•  Proposed location and material of construction fencing for proposed tree preservation tract;

•  Proposed location and material of construction fence;

•  Proposed amount (cubic yards) of soil to be disturbed; and

•  Proposed structures necessary to construct streets or pedestrian connections;

33.730.130 Expiration of an Approval

B.

1.  This amendment will clarify that concurrent land use approvals necessary for approval of a land division, planned development, or planned unit development do not expire unless no development commences on the site within 3 years. This resolves problems that occur when land use approvals expire after creation of lots and tracts that depend on the approvals.

2.  This amendment will clarify that the deadline for recording an approved final plat applies to the land division applicant and not the County Recorder.

Amend the language shown on page 397 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.730.130 Expiration of an Approval

B.  When approved decisions expire.

1.  

a.  All Lland use approvals except those reviewed concurrently with a planned unit development or planned development listed in B.1.b., below, expire under any of the following circumstances:

(3.)  In the case of land use approvals reviewed concurrently with a land division the 3 years begins after the final plat is recorded.

b.  Exception. Land use approvals that are reviewed concurrently with a planned unit development or a planned development do not expire if they meet all of the following:

(1)  The land use approval was reviewed concurrently with a land division, planned unit development, or planned development;

(2)  The decision and findings for the land division, planned development, or planned unit development specify that the land use approval was necessary in order for the land division, planned development, or planned unit development to be approved;

(3)  The final plat of the land division or final development plan of the planned development or planned unit development has not expired; and

(4)  Development or other improvements have been made to the site within three years of approval of the final plat or final development plan. Improvements include buildings, streets, utilities, grading, and mitigation enhancements;

2.  Land divisions, planned unit developments and planned developments. Land division, planned unit development and planned development approvals become void under any of the following circumstances:

b.  Final Plats and final development plans. Final Plats and final development plans expire if they are not submitted to the County Recorder to be recorded within 90 days of the final decision.

33.853.020  When Review Is Required

C.  This amendment clarifies that tree review cannot be used to amend a tree mitigation plan that is required as part of environmental review.

33.853.030  Procedure

This amendment clarifies that changes to certain elements of the tree mitigation plan are subject to a Type I review. Soakage trenches and dry-wells often need to be moved after their locations have been documented by the mitigation plan.

33.910, Definitions

Final Plat. This amendment deletes an inaccurate term.

Front Lot Line. This amendment deletes a paragraph that was inadvertently not shown as struck in the As-Adopted Report. This paragraph contains information that is no longer valid because the solar access regulations it supplements no longer exist in the code.

Right-Of-Way. This amendment clarifies that private rights-of-way are in tracts and works in tandem with the amendment to “tract” below to delineate public rights-of-way and tracts.

Seep or Spring. This amendment clarifies that the channel which is fed by the seep or spring should be a stream channel created by flowing water, and not a man-made channel. The Zoning Code defines “stream channel” as “An area which demonstrates evidence of the passage of water. The depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water. The channel need not contain water year-round. This definition does not include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses.”

Tract. This amendment clarifies that the word tract excludes public rights-of-way; however, the word does include private rights-of-way. This amendment works in tandem with the amendment to “right-of-way,” above.

Amend the language shown on page 409 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.853.020  When Review Is Required

C.  Changing the approved method of tree preservation or mitigation for a platted land division. Changes to the approved method of tree preservation or mitigation for a land division where the Final Plat of the land division has been approved and recorded, may be approved through tree review. However, if the tree preservation or mitigation was required through environmental review, changes are subject to Chapter 33.430, Environmental Overlay Zones.

33.853.030  Procedure

Corrections to violations of tree protection and tree preservation regulations of this Title are processed through a Type III procedure. Corrections to violations of tree preservation plans and of methods of tree preservation or mitigation approved through a land division are processed through a Type III procedure. Changes to the locations of dry-wells and soakage trenches shown on a tree preservation plan approved through a land division are processed through a Type I procedure. All other tree reviews are processed through a Type II procedure.

Amend the language shown on page 417-427 of Exhibit A, As-Adopted Report as shown below:

33.910, Definitions

Final Plat. The diagrams, drawings, and other writing containing all the descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information concerning a land division.

Front Lot Line. A lot line that abuts a street. On a corner lot, the front lot line is the shortest of the lot lines that abut a street. If two or more street lot lines are of equal length, then the applicant or property owner can choose which lot line is to be the front. However, a through lot has two front lot lines regardless of whether the street lot lines are of equal or unequal length. See Figure 910-3.

For purposes of the solar access calculations, when the actual front lot line is curved, the front lot line is considered to be a straight line that connects the ends of the curve. For a flag lot, the front lot line is considered to be the lot line that is most parallel to and closest to the street, excluding the pole portion of the flag. See Figure 910-5.

Right-Of-Way. An area that allows for the passage of people or goods. Right-of-way includes passageways such as freeways, pedestrian connections, alleys, and all streets. A right-of-way may be dedicated or deeded to the public for public use and be under the control of a public agency, or it may be privately owned. A right-of-way that is not dedicated or deeded to the public will be in a tract.

Seep or Spring. The point where an aquifer intersects with the ground surface and discharges water into a stream channel that flows into a wetland or other water body.

Tract. A tract is a piece of land within a land division site that is not a lot or, lot of record, or a public right-of-way. Tracts have a specific purpose and limited development potential. Examples of purposes of tracts include access, tree preservation, and common open area environmental resource.