2002-2003 and 2003-2004

Regulatory Improvement Workplan:

Policy Package 2-B

Recommended Draft

Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council

December 30, 2003

The Portland City Council will hold a public hearing on this project:

Thursday, January 29, 2004

2:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

1221 SW Fourth Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

For more information on the Regulatory Improvement Workplan: Policy Package 2-B, please contact:

Phil Nameny, City Planner,

Portland Bureau of Planning

1900 SW 4^th Avenue, Suite 4100

Portland, Oregon 97201

Phone: 503-823-7709

Fax: 503-823-7800

TDD: 503-823-6868

EMail: bopregimp@ci.portland.or.us

Internet: http://www.planning.ci.portland.or.us/

The Bureau of Planning is committed to providing equal access to information and hearings. If you need special accommodation, please call 503-823-7700.

(TTY 503-823-6868).

2002-2003 and 2003-2004

Regulatory Improvement Workplan:

Policy Package 2-B

Recommended Draft

December 30, 2003

Acknowledgements

Portland City Council

Vera Katz, Mayor

Jim Francesconi, Commissioner

Randy Leonard, Commissioner

Dan Saltzman, Commissioner

Erik Sten, Commissioner

Portland Planning Commission

Ethan Seltzer, President

Richard Michaelson, Vice President

Ingrid Stevens, Vice President

Christine Caruso

Amanda Fritz

Larry Hilderbrand

Paul Schlesinger

Tim Smith

Portland Bureau of Planning

Vera Katz, Mayor, Commissioner-in-charge

Gil Kelley, Planning Director

Project Staff

Betsy Ames, Assistant Director

Cary Pinard, Principal Planner

Sandra Pattie Wood, Senior Planner

Phil Nameny, City Planner

Table of Contents

 Page

Summary  v

A.  Background  vii

B.  Impact Assessment  viii

C.  Recommended Amendments to the Zoning Code  1

Nonconforming Upgrades: Exemption for groundwater wellfield upgrades (Item 7, RIW 03-04)  2

Short-Term Bicycle Parking (Item 13, RIW 02-03)  4

Changes to the ‘a’ overlay provision and citywide R2 & R2.5 zones (Item 16, RIW 02-03 & City Council Resolution 9/10/03)

 Accessory Dwelling Units  28

 Duplex & Triplex in R2.5 and R2  44

 Detached Houses on small lots in R2.5 and R2  52

Awnings: Design (Item A3, RIW 02-03)  68

Central City Plan District: Required residential development (Item 42, RIW 02-03)  74

Kenton Plan District: Address prohibition of sales of antique vehicles (Item 9, RIW 03-04)  76

Elimination of the Pre-Application requirement for Type IIx reviews (RIW 02-03 & 03-04)  78

D.  Summary of Reports  81

Industrial Lands Assessment (Item A38, RIW 02-03)  83

Evaluation of Nonconforming Commercial Uses

 (Item 41, RIW 02-03)  85

E.  Attachments  87

Note: RIW stands for Regulatory Improvement Workplan. Minor policy items in the RIW are also known as the “Top Ten” list.

Summary and Planning Commission Recommendation

Summary

This report is the third element revising the Zoning Code as part of the Regulatory Improvement Workplan (RIW) 2002-2003 and the first element in revising the Zoning Code as part of the RIW 2003-2004. RIW is a program to update and improve City building and land use regulations and procedures that hinder desirable development. The Recommended Draft looks at several amendments to the Zoning Code that are grouped into what is referred to as “Policy Package 2.” This package has been divided into two pieces. Policy Package 2-A addressed only the exemption to minimum lot size for vacant lots and was adopted by City Council on November 19, 2003. The remaining items of Policy Package 2 are addressed in this report.

For other items that have been included in the 2002-2003 & 2003-2004 Regulatory Improvement Workplans but are not a part of this Recommended Draft, please refer to the chart on the previous page.

In this report, the Planning Commission recommends the following:

•  Nonconforming Upgrades: Exempt improvements made to sites through the Wellfield Protection Program from required nonconforming upgrades.

•  Short-Term Bicycle Parking: Revise the short-term bicycle parking development standards and allow racks in the right of way in limited situations.

•  Changes to the ‘a’ overlay and expansion of housing types allowed in the R2.5 and R2 zones The Planning Commission recommend several changes to the ‘a’ overlay, including changes to allow additional housing type options in the R2.5 and R2 zones citywide. These changes are:

■  Remove specific accessory dwelling unit provisions from the ‘a’ overlay and place within the Additional Use Regulation, 33.205.

■  Revise duplex and triplex provision to eliminate special parking and owner/occupancy requirements, and place duplex standards within the base R2.5 zone.

■  Move provision allowing detached houses on small lots from ‘a’ overlay and allow within the base land division sections.

•  Awnings in Design Overlay Zones: Exempt simple awnings in Design Overlay Zones from Design Review.

•  Required Residential Development Areas in the Central City Plan District: Eliminate the provision requiring residential development for building additions.

•  Kenton Plan District: Revise the prohibition of vehicle sales in plan district.

•  Type IIx Land Use Reviews: Remove the Pre-Application requirement for Type IIx Land Use Reviews, including Land Divisions and Planned Developments.

Planning Commission Recommendation

The Planning Commission recommends approval of these amendments. This recommendation should include the following actions:

•  Adopt this report and ordinance;

•  Amend the Zoning Code as shown in this report;

•  Direct staff to continue any monitoring efforts, as necessary.

Reports

Policy Package 2-B also summarizes two reports for which there are no recommended changes to the zoning code. These reports are included as part of the Mayor’s Regulatory Improvement Workplan. They are available as separate documents through the Bureau of Planning.

•  Industrial Lands Assessment Report (in conjunction with the Portland Development Commission)

•  Evaluation of Nonconforming Commercial Uses Report

A.  Background

On June 26, 2002, the Portland City Council approved Resolution 36080, which sought to “update and improve City building and land use regulations that hinder desirable development.” This was the beginning of the Council’s charge to build an effective process of continuously improving the City’s code regulations, procedures, costs and customer service.

Between the time of Council’s approval of Resolution 36080 in June and final Council action in the Fall of 2002, city staff participated in an extensive public outreach program over the course of 12 weeks. This effort was spearheaded by the Mayor’s Office and included a diverse group of regulatory stakeholders ranging from city bureau representatives to neighborhood association representatives and business groups.

One component of City Council’s 2002-2003 Final Regulatory Improvement Workplan included the annual development of a “Top Ten” list of problematic code regulations. Some of the items included in the “Top Ten” list for 2002-2003 required significant staff time for review and proposal development, thus most of the items from the 2002-2003 “Top Ten” (which turned out to be approximately fifteen items) was grouped into several pieces. The first set of 6 items were reviewed in Policy Package 1, including several items grouped under the general term “Land Division Items”. Policy Package 2, as this recommended draft is labeled, includes six additional items from the original “Top Ten” list. These include short-term bike parking, ‘a’ overlay revisions, awnings in design overlay zones, and required residential in the CCPD. Of the six items, two are reports; one that evaluates nonconforming commercial uses and one that assesses city industrial lands.

On August 13, 2003, City Council adopted the second annual “Top Ten” list as part of the 2003-2004 Regulatory Improvement Workplan. The second list was the result of a second outreach program earlier in 2003. This plan included 11 total items, including the request to revisit the Minimum Lot Size in R5 and R2.5 zones. (This item was incorporated as a revision to Policy Package 1). Three items from this second “top ten” list are reviewed in the Policy Package 2 document presented here. They include nonconforming upgrades for wellfield improvements, vehicle sales in the Kenton Plan District and Type IIx procedures.

On September 10, 2003, City Council passed a resolution to reconsider Policy Package 1 to establish minimum lot sizes for development on existing lots in the R5 and R2.5 zones. City Council also directed Planning Bureau staff to consider code changes to exempt vacant lots from the minimum lot sizes, as well as to provide options for alternative development in the R2 and R2.5 zones. This second item has been combined with our review of the ‘a’ overlay provisions already listed in the 2003-2004 “Top Ten.”. As a result, Policy Package 2 contains a total of 10 items spanning both the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 Regulatory Improvement Workplans.

On October 28, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on the proposals contained in Policy Package 2. Following the wishes of the City Council, the Commission provided an early recommendation for the minimum lot size exception for vacant lots. This separate recommendation was forwarded as Policy Package 2-A and Council adopted it at a hearing on November 19^th. The remaining items from Policy Package 2 were discussed further at the Planning Commission work session on December 9, 2003. This document provides the recommendation that is the result of our work session.

The remaining items from the “Top Ten” lists, as well as other code improvement items, will be reviewed under future policy revisions, as shown in the chart on Page iii.

B.  Impact Assessment

Because this project is one of many inter-related projects in the Regulatory Improvement Workplan, this impact assessment contains references to several other documents. Many of the steps of an impact analysis were performed as part of the other related projects, discussed below. The flowchart of the model process for impact assessment, included in this section, provides additional information.

First Stage Assessment

The model process recommends that the First Stage Assessment address the issues raised by the five questions listed in the corresponding Model Process illustration. These five questions were raised during the initial scoping of the Regulatory Improvement Workplan in the fall of 2002 and during the 2003-2004 Regulatory Improvement review. These sessions created a priority assessment, which originally was called the “Top Ten” list. Policy Package 2-B contains a total of six proposals from the 2002-2003 Workplan and three items from the 2003-2004 Workplan.

Six white papers for the items in this package are included as attachments to the Policy Package 2-B report. These white papers were considered by City Council when they approved the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 Regulatory Improvement Workplan and forwarded these issues to the Bureau of Planning for further work and consideration through the legislative process. The white papers provide descriptions of the problems identified with the code provisions, possible solutions or concepts, and the desired outcomes of changes. These items are shown below. The numbers listed refer to their original identification in the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 Regulatory Improvement Workplan (RIW)or “Top Ten” list.

Item #7, RIW 03-04 – Exempt groundwater wellhead improvements from nonconforming upgrade requirements

Item #13, RIW 02-03 – Bicycle Parking Standards

Item #16, RIW 02-03 – Alternative Design Density (a) Overlay Zone

Item #A3, RIW 02-03 – Design Standards for Awnings

Item #42, RIW 02-03 – Required Residential Overlay in the Central City

Item #9, RIW 03-04 – Kenton Plan District Prohibition on Vehicle Sales

The summaries in Section D were based upon the following two white papers:

Item #A38, RIW 02-03 – Inventory and assessment of Portland’s industrial land supply and zoning issues

Item #41, RIW 02-03 – Evaluation of existence of nonconforming commercial uses in residential zones

First Stage Assessment and Description of Additional Items

The code amendment to remove the pre-application conference requirement for Type IIx procedures was initiated as part of the land division issues in the 2002-2003 “Top Ten” list (Item #A6.6) and forwarded to a future grouping of land division code amendments. The broader issue raised in the white paper was a need for a lower level of review for small land divisions in Potential Landslide Hazard Areas, especially those that are flat. Currently, land divisions of 2-3 lots in landslide hazard areas are reviewed through the Type IIx procedure, which requires a pre-application conference. After discussion at the Planning Commission hearing on the Regulatory Improvement Workplan 2003-2004, the concern shifted focus to the pre-application conference requirement for all Type IIx reviews. After processing many Type IIx land divisions since the implementation of the Land Division rewrite on July 1, 2002, Bureau of Development Services staff noted that pre-application conferences are not necessary to help applicants prepare an “approvable” application. Instead they add time and expense to complete the review. As a result, this item as added to Policy Package 2-B.

Second Stage Assessment

The Second Stage Assessment consists of the following steps: Project Development and Analysis; Release of the Proposal including Impact Assessment; Consideration of the Proposal; and finally Adoption and Implementation. Again, some of the steps in the second stage assessment were carried out as part of other related projects. During the Second Stage Assessment, in addition to updating information prepared in the First Stage Assessment, several key questions are addressed. These questions are addressed below for the project as a whole, followed by analysis related to some specific items.

Question 1: What regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives were considered? Why is the proposal the preferred solution/response? How does the proposal best respond to the objectives and goals identified in the first stage of the project?

Throughout the development of Policy Package 2, Bureau of Planning and Bureau of Development Services staff met to develop and consider various approaches and alternatives to address the items identified by the City Council as priorities for action.

In general, regulatory (as opposed to non-regulatory) alternatives were considered as part of this proposal. This is because the stated purpose of the Regulatory Improvement Workplan is to continuously improve the City’s existing code regulations. Thus the intent of Policy Package 2-B is to clarify and improve existing code, rather than assess whether there is a non-regulatory alternative. However, in some cases (such as under the “a” overlay), staff is recommending deleting or replacing code provisions because the code language does not achieve the purpose of the regulation. This proposal is the preferred solution, because it clarifies existing code language that has been identified as problematic.

Question 2: How were stakeholders and the community consulted throughout the process? What were their responses to the proposed changes and the alternatives considered?

Much of the initial stakeholder and community consultation took place during the public outreach process that took place from the summer of 2002 through the summer of 2003. This information is documented through the Impact Assessment for Policy Package 1 and is not repeated here. Initial documents detailing the outreach efforts include Evaluation of Nonconforming Upgrades and Policy Package 1. Policy Package 1 was reviewed during the spring and summer of 2003, and the final revised package was heard in two packages (1A and 1B) by the City Council on September 24, 2003 and adopted on October 15, 2003. As part of the approval, the City Council responded to testimony by directing the Bureau of Planning to bring to Council code revisions addressing lot size minimums for existing vacant lots, policies involving accessory dwelling units, and duplexes, triplexes and houses on small lots in the R2 & R2.5 zones as part of Policy Package 2. The vacant lot provision was addressed in a separate document, titled Policy Package 2-A and adopted on November 19, 2003. The other concerns are addressed under Section C of this package. The short-term bike parking, ‘a’ overlay zoning, awning design, and required residential in the Central City Plan District were part of the initial review of the 2002-2003 Regulatory Improvement Workplan mentioned above.

A second set of regulatory amendments was addressed during the 2003-2004 Regulatory Improvement Process. To address these issues, the Office of the Mayor conducted several meetings and set up a Regulatory Improvement Advisory Team to review the proposals and propose a recommendation. These were considered by the Planning Commission in July 2003, and adopted by City Council on August 13, 2003. From this list, three additional items are being reviewed as part of Policy Package 2.

Additional stakeholder and community involvement has taken place through the creation of a Short-Term Bicycle Task Force, which met during the Spring of 2003 to review and make recommendations for the short-term bike parking amendments. This task force included bicycle advocates, a pedestrian advocate, developers, architects and city staff.

An in-house draft of these proposed amendments was submitted for bureau comments on September 5, 2003. A Notice of the Community Open House and Planning Commission Hearing for the proposed changes was mailed to nearly 900 individuals and organizations on September 26, 2003. The proposed amendments were made available on September 30, 2003. In addition, to meet Measure 56 notification requirements, a separate notice was sent to 35 owners of CS and RX zoned properties in the Kenton Plan District. The Community Open House was held on October 8, 2003 and attended by 10 members of the community.

On October 28, 2003, the Planning Commission held a hearing on Policy Package 2. A total of 27 people testified at the hearing and additional testimony was received through the mail. Most of the testimony was in regards to the vacant lot provision. This item was separated out as Policy Package 2-A, and has already been heard by City Council. The record for the remaining items was held open until November 14, 2003. The Planning Commission held a work session on these remaining items on December 9, 2003. This session was open to the public, although no more testimony was taken.

Question 3: How does the proposed policy, regulation or requirement provide sufficient flexibility to address a variety of circumstances?

The proposed code changes have been written to apply to a variety of situations. In all cases, the code language has been altered or removed in order to clarify how the regulations are to apply in various situations. For additional assessment of the individual code changes, please refer to the Discussion, Background and Commentary sections accompanying the Code language.

Question 4: What resources are required to implement the proposal and how will any proposed regulation be enforced?

No new resources are required to implement these proposals, since they simplify existing regulations. In the case of eliminating the Type IIx pre-application requirement, this proposal will reduce staff time and applicant expense, since fewer land use reviews will require a pre-application conference. The exemption for awnings may require some additional review time by the staff in the Trades Permit section of the Bureau of Development Services (BDS), but will eliminate a number of quasi-judicial Design Reviews for awnings, resulting in a net decrease of staff time and applicant costs. The new short-term bicycle parking requirements will require a small amount of additional staff time for the Office of Transportation to administer the Bicycle Parking Fund. However, this cost is offset by the fees charged for the installation and maintenance of bicycle racks in the right-of-way. The Code will continue to be enforced by BDS, and in most instances, enforcement will be easier. Bicycle parking in the right-ow-way will be monitored and enforced by the Office of Transportation. Most of the proposed amendments do not implement new policy, but rather try to make existing policies easier to achieve and implement.

Question 5: What are the general benefits of the policy, regulation, or administrative requirement and how do these benefits compare to and balance against the public, private, and community costs?

The amendments in Policy Package 2-B make the regulations easier to understand and apply. We recommend deleting some existing code provisions where the Code is not meeting the policy intent and where simple and direct alternative ways to meet that intent are not available. The changes proposed for the ‘a’ overlay zone and the R2 and R2.5 zones remove some of the disincentives to compatible development and provide opportunity for appropriate housing options, while maintaining the character of neighborhoods. The amendments also increase the opportunity for infill development, housing options and diversity. The short-term bicycle parking provisions will give developers an alternative to providing bicycle parking on-site, while limiting City costs. The awning provision provides a benefit to small businesses in Design Zones, while still providing standards to ensure design quality. More detailed descriptions of the benefits and costs of the regulations and impacts of the changes being proposed are discussed in the Background, Discussion, and Commentary sections accompanying the Code language.

Question 6: How will the regulation’s impact be monitored to determine effectiveness? What should success look like? What resources are needed to gather and evaluate performance data?

The success of these code changes will be monitored through the ongoing Regulatory Improvement Workplan and establishment of the Evaluation and Monitoring Program. The Portland Office of Transportation will also provide monitoring of the success of the program to allow short-term bicycle parking in the right-of-way. Continued monitoring of regulatory and non-regulatory changes for the accessory dwelling units will be done in conjunction with the Accessory Dwelling Unit Monitoring Project. Overall success of these amendment will be monitored through future public feedback about these regulations.

C.  Recommended Amendments to the Zoning Code

How changes are shown in this section

Language to be added to the Zoning Code is underlined; language to be deleted is shown in strikethrough.

The left-hand page is commentary on the recommended code language.

Nonconforming Upgrades: Exemption for required groundwater protection improvements (Item 7, RIW 03-04)

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.258, NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS

BACKGROUND & COMMENTARY

33.258.070.  Nonconforming Development

What is nonconforming development?

Nonconforming development exists where a site met all the regulations at the time it was developed but does not meet the current regulations because of subsequent changes to the Zoning Code. For example, many parking lots were built before Portland required landscaping. Such development is “grandfathered in,” meaning that it can remain so long as there are no changes to the site.

What are upgrades to nonconforming development?

Upgrading nonconforming development means bringing it closer to compliance with the current regulations.

When are such upgrades required?

If an owner is making alterations (e.g., remodeling a tenant space, adding on to an existing building, installing a new air-conditioning system, etc.), upgrading nonconforming development may be required. This upgrade is typically required when the alterations cross a certain dollar threshold. In most cases if the alterations are worth more than $100,000, certain aspects of the development must be upgraded. These aspects include: parking lot landscaping, pedestrian circulation systems, bicycle parking, minimum landscaped areas, screening, and paving of parking lot and exterior storage and display.

Some items are exempt from the threshold—they do not count towards the $100,000. These can include improvements that are required by City regulations, such as seismic upgrades, or improvements made to on-site stormwater management facilities.

The newly adopted Columbia South Shore Wellhead Protection Program will require significant expenditures by property owners in areas of Northeast Portland to improve their sites to protect groundwater resources that provide an emergency back-up and summer water source for one quarter of Oregon’s population. The City will require these improvements whether or not there are any other improvements being proposed on the site.

This amendment will exempt the cost of such upgrades from the nonconforming upgrades threshold. Wellfield improvements that are undertaken either voluntarily or as a requirement of Chapter 21.35, Wellhead Protection, are included in this amendment. This amendment is consistent with the City’s policy to exempt certain types of improvements that contain a substantial public benefit, such as earthquake upgrades, ADA access improvements and stormwater management facilities.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.258, NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS

33.258.070  Nonconforming Development

A. - C.    [No change.]

D.  Development that must be brought into conformance. The regulations of this subsection are divided into two types of situations, depending upon whether the use is also nonconforming or not. These regulations apply except where superseded by more specific regulations in the code.

1.  [No change.]

2.  Nonconforming development with an existing nonconforming use, allowed use, limited use, or conditional use. Nonconforming development associated with an existing nonconforming use, an allowed use, a limited use, or a conditional use, must meet the requirements stated below. When alterations are made that are over the threshold of Subparagraph D.2.a. below, the site must be brought into conformance with the development standards listed in Subparagraph D.2.b. The value of the alterations is based on the entire project, not individual building permits.

a.  Thresholds triggering compliance. The standards of Subparagraph D.2.b., below, must be met when the value of the proposed alterations on the site, as determined by BDS, is more than $100,000. The following alterations and improvements do not count toward the threshold:

(1)  Alterations required by approved fire/life safety agreements;

(2)  Alterations related to the removal of existing architectural barriers, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, or as specified in Section 1113 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code;

(3)  Alterations required by Chapter 24.85, Interim Seismic Design Requirements for Existing Buildings; and

(4)  Improvements to on-site stormwater management facilities in conformance with Chapter 17.38, Drainage and Water Quality, and the Stormwater Management Manual.; and

(5)  Improvements made to sites in order to comply with Chapter 21.35 Wellfield Protection Program requirements.

b. – d. [No change.]

E. through G.  [No change.]

Short-Term Bicycle Parking, (Item 13, RIW 02-03)

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION

The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) was adopted in 1991 as an Administrative Rule by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The TPR governs transportation planning and project development at the local, regional, and state levels. Bicycle parking is one element mandated by the TPR. To further implement the TPR, the Planning Bureau instituted a legislative project titled, “Interim Implementation of the Transportation Planning Rule.” As part of this project a Bicycle Regulation Task Force was appointed by the Planning Commission in 1993 to address bicycle related requirements.

In February 1994, the Bicycle Regulation Task Force authored the “Report of the Portland TPR Bicycle Regulation Task Force”, which made several recommendations for bicycle parking. While this report did not represent consensus on all bicycle parking issues, it laid the groundwork for the 1996 bicycle parking amendments to the Zoning Code.

The Bureau of Planning’s project included extensive revisions to the City’s bicycle parking regulations. The issue of requiring bicycle parking for existing buildings as they are upgraded was not resolved. City Council adopted Resolution No. 35565 to develop a Downtown Core and Lloyd District bicycle parking implementation project to provide high quality long- and short-term bicycle parking in existing buildings. The resolution included a provision for the City to initiate a process to adopt bicycle parking code requirements for existing buildings in the Downtown Core and the Lloyd District.

City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Code on November 6, 1996. The amendments addressed:

❑  Requirements for short- and long-term bicycle parking;

❑  Revisions to the minimum bicycle parking requirements;

❑  Incentives for locker-room/shower facilities in major new Central City buildings;

❑  Allowing the provision of additional non-required bicycle parking to substitute for up to 25 percent of required automobile parking; and

❑  Improved weather protection and signage requirements.

Since these amendments went into effect in 1997, a number of problems with the provision of short-term bicycle parking have been identified by bicycle riders and advocates, the development community, and staff. These problems include:

❑  Rack installation that does not allow the rack to be used as intended, resulting in the provision of fewer than intended spaces

❑  Missing racks

❑  Rack location that does not serve intended land uses

❑  Lack of signing when racks are not visible

❑  Rack types that do not support parking for the number of bicycles claimed by the manufacturer

❑  Short-term racks located behind locked gates in structured parking areas

❑  Developers wishing to maximize leasable space prefer not to locate bicycle parking along facades

❑  Building plans are developed without provision for bicycle parking; changes are expensive

❑  Building plans do not show bicycle parking in adequate detail to determine compliance

Approach

In February 2003, a Short-Term Bicycle Task Force was convened by the Office of Transportation. The Task Force consisted of bicycle advocates, a pedestrian advocate, developers, architects, and city staff. The Task Force was instrumental in drafting these recommended amendments.

While the recommended amendments do not address all of the above issues, they do address many of them and provide developers with an alternative approach--to “buy out” their responsibility for short-term bicycle parking. The amendments also clarify and provide more specificity for developers who are required to or choose to provide short-term bicycle parking on site.

The alternative approach allows developers whose buildings have no setbacks from the street lot lines (lot-line development) and/or without adequate space within a short distance of the main entrance to pay a fee to the Office of Transportation. The Office of Transportation will use the fees to install bicycle parking in the right-of-way, near building entrances. If fees are adequate, grouped bicycle parking will be covered.

Recognizing some of the difficulties in placing short-term bicycle parking on-site near main entrances, the requirement to cover short-term bicycle parking (50 percent if 10 or more spaces are required) and the requirement to distribute bicycle parking to all main entrances are dropped. Additional amendments clarify code language relating to locating and configuring short-term bicycle parking.

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.266, PARKING AND LOADING

Short-term bicycle parking is being located in ways that do not meet the intent of the short-term bicycle parking requirement: to provide parking that encourages shoppers, customers, messengers, and other visitors to use bicycles by providing a convenient and readily accessible place to park bicycles. This is particularly true for existing buildings or new buildings that are built completely or mostly up to the street property lines.

33.266.220.A.1 Purpose

The additional sentence clarifies that short-term bicycle parking should be located near main entrances of buildings and should be visible to bicyclists and in view of passing pedestrians. Having the parking near main entrances makes it convenient for users and more secure because it is within sight of pedestrians and bicyclists.

33.266.220.A.2.b Location

The changes to the locational standards are intended to ensure that bicycle parking is not located in a building, particularly structured parking, and that it is located near main entrances and along the front or sides of a building. In the past, short-term bicycle parking has often been placed where it was not visible, e.g., in structured parking areas or behind buildings, not accessible, e.g., behind locked gates, or above or below the sidewalk level so that bicycles have to be carried to racks. This amendment replaces the current three tiered locational aspect and makes the short-term bike parking requirements more uniform for all building types. Illustrations are added to clarify bike parking placement.

Amend CHAPTER 33.266, PARKING AND LOADING

33.266.220  Bicycle Parking Standards

A.  Short-term bicycle parking.

1.  Purpose. Short-term bicycle parking encourages shoppers, customers, messengers, and other visitors to use bicycles by providing a convenient and readily accessible place to park bicycles. Short-term bicycle parking should serve the main entrance of a building and should be visible to pedestrians and bicyclists.

2.  Standards. Required short-term bicycle parking must meet the following standards:

a.  Short-term bicycle parking must be provided in lockers or racks that meet the standards of Subsection 33.266.220.C;.

b.  Location.

1)  Where there is one main entrance on the site, the short-term bicycle parking spaces must be:

•  Within 50 feet of the main entrance to the building; or

•  Inside a building, in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles.

(2)  Where there is more than one building or main entrance on a site that is not part of an institutional campus, the short term bicycle parking must be:

•  Within 50 feet of a main entrance and be distributed to serve all buildings or main entrances; or

•  Inside a building, in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles.

(3)  On an institutional campus, where there is more than one building or main entrance, the short-term bicycle parking must be:

•  Within 50 feet of a main entrance; or

•  Inside a building, in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles; or

In a common bicycle parking location along a walkway if the short-term bicycle parking is more than 50 feet from a main entrance.

33.266.220.A.2.b(1)

This new standard requires all short-term bicycle parking to be placed outside of a building, regardless of building or development type.

33.266.220.A.2.b(2)

This new standard further clarifies the accessibility concerns for short-term bike parking, requiring that the spaces either be at the same grade as the adjoining sidewalk or at a location that can be reached through an accessible route. This will eliminate situations where bicycle parking has been proposed up a set of stairs from adjacent sidewalks.

33.266.A.2.b(3)

This section groups all of the options for various building configurations under one section. It also clarifies these various types of configurations in the following ways:

(1)  Language has been added to clarify how to measure the 50-foot distance.

(2)  For a building with more than one entrance, language has been provided to ensure that bike parking is distributed along all facades with a main entrance.

(3)  For sites with multiple buildings, the language clarifies the location of the bicycle parking to serve the primary buildings, as they are the only buildings likely to generate bicycle traffic.

(4)  For institutional campuses language has been added to allow bicycle parking to be either within 50 feet of a main entrance or placed in a clustered area that can serve entrances greater than 50 feet away.

b.  Location. Short-term bicycle parking must be:

(1)  Outside a building;

(2)  At the same grade as the sidewalk or at a location that can be reached by an accessible route; and

(3)  Within the following distances of the main entrance:

•  Building with one main entrance. For a building with one main entrance, the bicycle parking must be within 50 feet of the main entrance to the building as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route. See Figure 266-x;

•  Building with more than one main entrance. For a building with more than one main entrance, the bicycle parking must be along all facades with a main entrance, and within 50 feet of at least one main entrance on each façade that has a main entrance, as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route. See Figure 266-x;

•  Sites with more than one primary building. For sites that have more than one primary building, but are not an institutional campus, the bicycle parking must be within 50 feet of a main entrance as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route, and must be distributed to serve all primary buildings. See Figure 266-x;

•  Institutional Campus. On an institutional campus with more than one building or main entrance, the bicycle parking must be either:

--  Within 50 feet of a main entrance as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route; or

--  If the short-term bicycle parking is more than 50 feet from a main entrance, it must be in a common bicycle parking location along a pedestrian access route.

These figures illustrate bicycle parking locations under various building configurations.

Figure 266-X

Short-term bike parking- one building, one entrance

Figure 266-X

Short-term bike parking- one building, multiple entrances

This is the third figure to illustrate bicycle parking requirements for a site with more than one primary building.

33.266.220.A.2.c Covered Spaces

This provision is being deleted because it is difficult to cover short-term bicycle parking, particularly if a building is built to the property lines. In the past, buildings with little or no setbacks have been designed so that bike parking can fit into niches or alcoves, but these areas typically are not under cover. The requirement that 50 percent of the spaces be covered if more than 10 spaces are required resulted in bicycle parking being located in parking garages where it was inconvenient and not visible. Removing the requirement for covered short-term bicycle parking is a trade-off for not allowing it to be inside buildings.

33.266.220.A.2.c Standards for short-term bicycle parking

Often short-term bicycle parking has been located in such a way as to make it unusable or to substantially reduce the number of spaces a rack can actually accommodate. The current code is unclear about how large a space is required for each bicycle. The changes to this section provide additional size standards to ensure that adequate space is being provided for the parking. A number of illustrations have been added to show how short-term bicycle can be configured depending on the type of rack that is used. The Office of Transportation provides information on acceptable types of racks.

Figure 266-X

Short-term bike parking- multiple buildings, multiple entrances

c.  Covered Spaces. If 10 or more short-term bicycle spaces are required, then at least 50 percent of the required short-term bicycle spaces must be covered and meet the standards of Paragraph 33.266.220.C.5, Covered Bicycle Parking.

c.  Standards for short-term bicycle parking. Each required short-term bicycle parking space must be at least 2 feet by 6 feet. See Figure 266-XX.

Examples of bicycle parking layouts. These illustrations show that each space must be 2 feet by 6 feet and have a 5-foot maneuvering area behind each space. The 5-foot maneuvering area can be shared by two bicycles if the bicycle are parked end-to-end.

FIGURE 266-XX

Examples of Bicycle Parking Layouts

This area accommodates 8 bicycles

These areas accommodate eight bicycles

This area accommodates sixteen bicycles

33.266.220.A.2.d Bicycle Parking Fund

This is a new section that creates an alternative to placing short-term bicycle parking on-site in certain circumstances. The exception allows owners to “buy out” of the short-term bicycle parking requirement.

33.266.220.A.2.d(1)

This option is only available to sites that have no open areas, including surface parking areas, near the main entrances that can accommodate the required short-term bicycle parking.

33.266.220.A.2.d(2)

Title 17 is being amended to allow the City Engineer authority to charge a fee to owners who are unable to place their required short-term bicycle parking on site. The fees will be used by the Office of Transportation to provide bicycle parking and associated improvements in the right-of-way, usually in the sidewalk adjacent to the development using this option.

33.266.220.A.2.d(3)

The Bicycle Parking Fund option is available only on an “all or nothing” basis. A property owner cannot choose to place some required short-term bicycle parking on-site and use the Fund option to “buy out” of the remaining required bicycle parking. A property owner who uses the Fund option may install short-term bicycle parking on-site, but it is not considered required parking.

33.266.220.C.4 Parking and maneuvering areas.

These changes allow the maneuvering area to be the right-of-way (sidewalk) where the short-term bicycle parking is immediately adjacent, and requires bicycle parking areas to be paved, as are auto parking areas.

33.266.220.C.7. Use of Required Spaces

This change clarifies that there is a difference between the purpose of short-term bicycle parking and long-term bicycle parking. This section is similar to a section regulating automobile parking. This is intended to clarify that the space devoted to each kind of bicycle parking must be available for the appropriate category of bicyclists. This language reflects the purpose statement and definitions given for both short- and long-term bicycle parking.

d.  Bicycle Parking Fund.

(1)  This option may be used where the following are met:

•  All on-site surface parking areas are more than 50 feet from the main entrance as measured along the most direct pedestrian route; and

•  All on-site plazas, exterior courtyards, and open areas, other than landscaping, are more than 50 feet from the main entrance as measured along the most direct pedestrian route or are not large enough to accommodate all required short-term bicycle parking.

(2)  Fund use and administration. The Bicycle Parking Fund is collected and administered by the Office of Transportation. The funds collected will be used to install bicycle parking and associated improvements in the right-of-way.

(3)  This option may not be used if any required short-term bicycle parking is provided on site.

B.  Long-term bicycle parking. [No change]

C.  Standards for all bicycle parking.

1. – 3. [No change]

4.  Parking and maneuvering areas.

a.  Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle;

b.  There must be an aisle at least 5 feet wide behind all required bicycle parking to allow room for bicycle maneuvering. Where the bicycle parking is adjacent to a sidewalk, the maneuvering area may extend into the right-of-way; and

c.  The area devoted to bicycle parking must be hard surfaced.

5. - 6.   [No change]

7.  Use of required parking spaces. Required bicycle parking spaces must be available for residents, customers, or employees of the use.

a.  Required short-term bicycle parking spaces must be available for shoppers, customers, messengers, and other visitors to the site.

b.  Required long-term bicycle parking spaces must be available for employees, students, residents, commuters, and others who stay at the site for several hours.

ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER’S 33.130, 140 & 218,

COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT ZONES AND

COMMUNITY DESIGN STANDARDS

Commercial Zones

33.130.240 Pedestrian Standards

This change clarifies that bicycle parking, either required or optional, can be placed in the hard-surfaced area between the building and a sidewalk even though this area is described under “Pedestrian Standards” in the Commercial Zones.

Employment & Industrial Zones

33.140.240 Pedestrian Standards

This change clarifies that bicycle parking, either required or optional, can be placed in the hard-surfaced area between the building and a sidewalk even though this area is described under “Pedestrian Standards” in the Employment and Industrial Zones.

Community Design Standards

33.218.140.A.3.c

This change clarifies that bicycle parking, either required or optional, can be placed in the hard-surfaced area between the building and a sidewalk even though this area is described under “Pedestrian Standards” in the Community Design Standards

33.218.140.B.1.d

This change clarifies that bicycle parking, either required or optional, can be placed in the hard-surfaced area between the building and a sidewalk even though this area is described under “Pedestrian Standards” in the Community Design Standards

AMEND 33.130, COMMERICAL ZONES

33.130.240 Pedestrian Standards

A.  [No change]

B.  [No change]

1. – 3 [No change]

4.  Area between a building and a street lot line. The land between a building and a street lot line must be landscaped to at least the L1 level and/or hard-surfaced for use by pedestrians. This area may be counted towards any minimum landscaped area requirements. Vehicle areas and exterior display, storage, and work activities, if allowed, are exempt from this standard. Bicycle parking may be located in the area between a building and a street lot line when the area is hard-surfaced.

AMEND 33.140, EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES

33.140.240 Pedestrian Standards

A.  [No change]

B.  [No change]

1. – 3. [No change]

4.  EG1 and EX zones. The land between a building and a street lot line must be landscaped to at least the L1 level and/or hard-surfaced for use by pedestrians. This area may be counted towards any minimum landscaped area requirements. Vehicle areas and exterior display, storage, and work activities, if allowed, are exempt from this standard. Bicycle parking may be located in the area between a building and a street lot line when the area is hard-surfaced.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.218, COMMUNITY DESIGN STANDARDS

33.218.140  Standards for All Structures in the RH, RX, C and E Zones

A.  Building placement and the street. [No change]

1 - 2.  [No change]

3.  Hard-surface sidewalk extension option. The area between the building and the street lot line must be hard-surfaced for use by pedestrians as an extension of the sidewalk:

a. – b.  [No change]

c.  Bicycle parking may be located in the area between a building and a street lot line.

B.  Improvements between buildings and pedestrian oriented streets.

1.  [No change]

a. – c. [No change]

d.  Bicycle parking may be located in the area between a building and a street lot line when the area is hard-surfaced.

ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER’S 33.258 & 33.450.

NON-CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT AND

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STATION ZONE

33.258.070.D.2.b.3

Bicycle parking must be upgraded when improvements are made to existing development. The exemption for sites with no surface parking and buildings in the Central City Core and Lloyd District recognized that many buildings would not be able to easily provide bicycle parking on site. Because property owners without any surface parking or without areas near main entrances that could be used to provide short-term bicycle parking can now “buy out” of the short-term parking requirement, there is no need to exempt sites within the Central City, Lloyd District, or those without surface parking from this requirement.

33.450.440 Improvements Between Buildings and the Street

This change clarifies that bicycle parking, either required or optional, can be placed in the hard-surfaced area between the building and a sidewalk even though this area is described under “Pedestrian Standards” in the Light Rail Transit Station Zone.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.258, NONCONFORMING UPGRADES

33.258.070 Nonconforming Development

A– C. [No change]

D.  Development that must be brought into conformance. [No change]

1.  [No change]

2.  Nonconforming development with an existing nonconforming use, allowed use, limited use, or conditional use. [No change]

a.  [No change]

b.  Standards which must be met. [No change]

(1) – (2)  [No change]

(3)  Bicycle parking by upgrading existing racks and providing additional spaces in order to comply with 33.266.220, Bicycle Parking. Sites that do not have accessory surface parking or are inside the Central City Core Area or Lloyd District, as shown on Map 510-8, are exempt from not required to meet this standard for long-term bicycle parking, but are required to meet this standard for short-term bicycle parking.

AMEND 33.450, LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STATION ZONE

33.450.440 Improvements Between Buildings and the Street

The land between a building or exterior improvement and a street must be landscaped to at least the L1 standard and/or hard-surfaced for use by pedestrians. If hard-surfaced, the area must contain pedestrian amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, and/or other design elements (such as public art, planters, and kiosks) and be physically separated from parking areas by a 3 foot deep area landscaped to at least the L2 standard. Bicycle parking may be located in the area between a building and a street lot line when the area is hard-surfaced.

ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER’S 33.910 - DEFINITIONS

FOR NEW ITEMS MENTIONED IN SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING

Title 33 Definitions

The existing definitions shown here are for explanatory purposes only. No changes are recommended for existing definitions.

Exterior Courtyard: Courtyards are one kind of enclosed or partially enclosed area that, if located near a main entrance, provides a suitable area for short-term bicycle parking.

Pedestrian Access Route: This term is being added to describe how to measure the distance between the short-term bicycle parking and the main entrance of a building.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.910, DEFINITIONS

Title 33 Definitions (Existing and New)

(Existing definitions are included here for understandability and context.)

Accessible Route: A route that can be used by a disabled person using a wheelchair and that is also safe for and usable by people with other disabilities.

Building: A structure that has a roof and is enclosed on at least 50 percent of the area of its sides.

Exterior Courtyard: An area enclosed in part by buildings or walls and open on at least one side to an adjacent right-of-way.

Long-Term Bicycle Parking: Long-term bicycle parking serves employees, students, residents, commuters, and others who generally stay at a site for several hours or more.

Main Entrance: A main entrance is the entrance to a building that most pedestrians are expected to use. Generally, each building has one main entrance. Main entrances are the widest entrance of those provided for use by pedestrians. In multi-tenant buildings, main entrances open directly into the building’s lobby or principal interior ground level circulation space. When a multi-tenant building does not have a lobby or common interior circulation space, each tenant’s outside entrance is a main entrance. In single-tenant buildings, main entrances open directly into lobby, reception, or sales areas.

Parking Area: A parking area is all the area devoted to the standing, maneuvering, and circulation of motor vehicles. Parking areas do not include driveways or areas devoted exclusively to non-passenger loading.

Pedestrian Access Route: A route between the main entrance of a building and short-term bicycle parking that is hard surfaced, free of obstacles, and at a width equal to that of the Pedestrian Standards of the Base Zone. The route can be on sidewalks, walkways, plazas, and other hard-surfaced areas.

Plaza: An area generally open to the public on a controlled basis and used for passive recreational activities and relaxation. Plazas are paved areas typically provided with amenities, such as seating, drinking and ornamental fountains, art, trees, and landscaping, for use by pedestrians.

Short-Term Bicycle Parking: Short-term bicycle parking serves shoppers, customers, messengers, and other visitors to a site who generally stay for a short time.

ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

FOR SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING

17.28.065 Bicycle Parking

The changes to this section of Title 17 will give the City Engineer authority to collect a fee for short-term bicycle parking that is not being developed on site and which the property owner is asking the Office of Transportation to place in the right-of-way.

The intent is to place short-term bicycle parking in the sidewalk furnishing zone when the sidewalk is a minimum of 10 feet in width or wider, or on a curb extension.

Only sites without open areas, including surface parking, near a main entrance are eligible for this process.

The Office of Transportation will use the fees to install bicycle parking and associated improvements in the right-of-way near main entrances on the site, if possible. If not possible because of constraints in the sidewalk furnishing zone or inadequate sidewalk width, the bicycle parking will be placed as close as possible to the main entrance or entrances or placed in a curb extension. The Office of Transportation will be responsible for ensuring that an equivalent number of bicycle parking spaces (to those not being located on site) will be placed in the right-of-way

TITLE 17, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

AMEND CHAPTER 17.28, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND DRIVEWAYS

17.28.065 Bicycle Parking

[No change]

A. – B.  [No change]

C.  Bicycle Parking Fund. An owner of a building without surface parking, or without parking or open areas within 50 feet of the main entrance may choose to pay a fee to the Office of Transportation Bicycle Parking Fund in lieu of short-term bicycle parking required by Table 266-6 in Title 33, Planning and Zoning. The Office of Transportation will use the collected fees to install bicycle parking and associated improvements in the right-of-way.

1.  Authority. The City Council delegates authority to the Manager of the Bureau of Transportation Engineering and Development (BTE&D) to adopt administrative rules and procedures necessary to implement provisions of this section. All rules pursuant to this delegated authority shall be filed with the office of City Auditor and be available for public inspection.

2.  Calculation of required fund contributions. Applicants must contribute the cost to purchase, install, and maintain bicycle parking and associated improvements. The cost to purchase, install, and maintain bicycle parking will be adjusted annually as determined by the City Engineer.

3.  Payment. The Bicycle Parking Fund fee is due to be paid upon issuance of a building permit. The Manager of BTE&D is authorized to refund the Bicycle Parking Fund fee where the development approved by building permit is not constructed and the building permit is cancelled.

4.  Width of Sidewalk Corridor. The sidewalk corridor where bicycle parking is to be installed must meet or exceed the width recommended in the Pedestrian Design Guide for installation of bicycle parking. In no case may bicycle parking, installed through the Bicycle Parking Fund be placed in a sidewalk corridor of less than 10 feet in width.

Portland Policy Document

Bicycle Parking

The three tiers of costs reflect the increasing difficulty and cost of locating bicycle parking in the right-of-way, as the amount of bicycle parking required on-site goes up. The costs also reflect the expense associated with purchasing racks and installing the racks, constructing curb extensions, purchasing and installing shelters, and maintaining them over time.

The cost will be:

To reflect the number of short-term bicycle parking spaces required on-site, the fees need to be calculated on a per building basis. Some buildings that appear to be separate buildings are actually one building because they are constructed above below grade automobile parking.

It is the intent of the Office of Transportation to install bicycle parking in the right-of-way as soon as is feasible after construction is completed. The first priority for siting the bicycle parking is to locate it within 50 feet of main entrances of the buildings using the Bicycle Fund option. Where that is not feasible because sidewalk widths are inadequate or space is not available in the furnishing zone because of objects such as utility poles, meters, street trees, or utility boxes, the bicycle parking will be placed in nearby locations.

PORTLAND POLICY DOCUMENT

Bicycle Parking Fund Fee Schedule¹

The fees shall be evaluated annually based on changes to the Oregon Composite Construction Cost Index. Any increase or decrease that is not a multiple of $5 will be rounded to the nearest multiple of $5.

Fees are calculated for each individual building on a site. Where rights-of-way separate a building above grade, each part of the building separated by rights-of-way is considered a separate building.

The Manager of BTE&D will site the bicycle facilities funded by the Bicycle Parking Fund in proximity to the buildings contributing to the Fund. Bicycle parking may be grouped where demand is high and located in the vicinity of the buildings contributing to the fund where that is more practical or desirable.

Amendments to the ‘a’ (Alternative Design Density) Overlay Zone, - Accessory Dwelling Units

(Item 16, RIW 02-03 & City Council Resolution 9/10/03)

DISCUSSION & BACKGROUND

Three sets of recommended amendments are being proposed to Chapter 33.405, the Alternative Design Density Overlay Zone, or ‘a’ overlay zone for short. These include changes to:

•  33.405.040    Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units

•  33.405.070.B.  Owner occupied duplexes and triplexes in R2 and R2.5 zones

•  33.405.070.D.  Detached houses on lots averaging 2,500 square feet in the R2 and R2.5 zones

All three are the result of the public outreach done by the Mayor’s office in developing the 2002-2003 Regulatory Improvement Workplan.

In addition, on September 10, 2003 the City Council passed a resolution directing the Bureau of Planning to consider changes to allow detached houses on smaller lots in the R2 and R2.5 zones citywide, and to eliminate the accessory dwelling unit requirements of the ‘a’ overlay and apply the citywide standards. The recommended language on the following pages incorporates changes that respond to the September 10 resolution as well as changes to the ‘a’ overlay.

The first section of amendments to the ‘a’ overlay zone provides some background on the ‘a’ overlay zone itself, and addresses the first of the three provisions above. Following this section are amendments that respond to the second and third of the items as well as the directive from September 10 to consider changes to allow for additional types of housing in the R2 and R2.5 zones.

‘a’ Overlay Background

The ‘a’ overlay was initially created as part of the Albina Community Plan in 1993 and was adopted as a way to increase investment in the area. Since that time, there have been significant changes in other parts of the zoning code. The result has been that some of the standards in the ‘a’ overlay are duplicative, conflicting or no longer provide an incentive for desired development. The standards which cause the greatest confusion are in the section on Accessory Dwelling Units in the ‘a’ overlay, Chapter 33.405.

Accessory Dwelling Units in ‘a’ overlay

In 1991, when the current Zoning Code was first written, a section addressing “Accessory Rental Units” was added to the code (Section 33.205). This provision limited the creation of these units to an internal conversion of the existing house. It did not allow any expansion for the new unit. It also limited accessory units to larger houses (with finished space of at least 1400 square feet), and required owner occupancy of one of the units.

The creation of the ‘a’ overlay zone as part of the Albina Community Plan in 1993 increased the provisions for Accessory Rental Units, allowing them to be added through increased floor area, and built in conjunction with a new house. However, either Design Review was required, or the Supplemental Compatibility Standards had to be met (known today as the Community Design Standards). Owner occupancy was still required for the site. Size limitations were liberalized so that the Accessory Unit could be as large as the primary unit. As additional neighborhood plans (Sellwood, Outer Southeast) were incorporated into the code, the ‘a’ overlay was applied to these areas as a tool to encourage infill development.

The goal of the Accessory Rental Unit provisions in the ‘a’ overlay was to encourage these units as a form of affordable housing. However, this overlay zone did not result in an increase in building applications for accessory rental units. In 1998, the original provisions in Chapter 33.205 were renamed “Accessory Dwelling Units” (ADU) and amended in an effort to encourage the production of ADUs city-wide. This ADU chapter was amended to allow ADUs to be created through an increase in floor area, or in conjunction with a new house. In addition, detached ADUs and conversions of garages were allowed in many situations. The owner-occupancy provision was removed, but size limitations were kept.

The result of these changes was two sets of standards for ADUs in Portland’ Zoning Code; this was confusing to applicants and others.

In November 2002, the City Council approved the 2002-2003 Regulatory Improvement Workplan, which included as Item #16, a review of Chapter 33.405, including the ADU provisions. The corresponding Bureau of Planning White Paper on the item is included as an attachment at the end of this document. In 2000, the Bureau of Planning began a comprehensive study of ADUs built in 1998 and 1999 under both sets of standards as part of a previous City Council directive. In July 2003, Planning submitted a report to the Portland Planning Commission which summarized this research, comparing ADUs built in the ‘a’ Overlay Zone with those built under the provision of Chapter 33.205, as well as comparing these with ADUs constructed prior to 1998.

The Accessory Dwelling Unit Monitoring Project Report reviewed a total of 81 ADUs. The report evaluated eight issues, which included size, owner occupancy, design quality, distribution, and neighborhood acceptance. The report noted that more than 80% of ADUs created in the city were created under the regulations of 33.205, which indicated that the ‘a’ overlay provision did not result in a greater provision of ADUs built in the ‘a’ overlay.

The Accessory Dwelling Unit Monitoring Project Report identified many provisions in the ‘a’ overlay that seemed deficient in regulating ADUs. These include size, owner occupancy, and design standards. The lack of size limitations in the ‘a’ overlay often results in “duplex type” structures built, where neither living unit provides a dominant presence. In addition, the owner-occupancy requirement has proven difficult to enforce. The Monitoring Project Report survey showed that approximately 10% of the ADUs approved under the Chapter, 33.205 were rental units (owner offsite), while nearly 33% of the ADUs approved under the ‘a’ overlay, where owner occupancy is required, were being used as rentals, despite the covenant requirement. However, since this is a Code Compliance issue, enforcement of this provision is complaint generated. According to the Report, neighbors generally had few issues with ADUs regardless of which standards were used to build them. The report also stated that requiring conformance with the Community Design Standards under the ‘a’ overlay did not result in a better designed product. Design seemed to be a minor issue compared to the size allowance in the ‘a’ overlay. In addition, the design standards provided in Chapter 33.205 had as much (or more) of an effect on the design of the ADUs as the requirement to meet the Community Design Standards in the ‘a’ overlay zone.

The amendments addressing ADUs in the ‘a’ overlay will remove ADU language from the ‘a’ overlay and allow Chapter 33.205 to apply to all ADU development. As a result, all maps referring to ADUs in Chapter 33.405 will be eliminated.

In order to continue to encourage the establishment of accessory dwelling units as an affordable housing option, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council direct the various bureaus to research into non-regulatory methods to make accessory dwelling units more affordable to build. One of these ways would be to review the current System Development Charges (SDC) fees that apply separately to ADU’s. The reduction of some non-regulatory barriers to ADU construction may have an equal or greater impact on the construction of these units as the proposed regulatory changes.

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.405,

ALTERNATIVE DESIGN DENSITY OVERLAY ZONE

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

33.405.040  Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units

The duplicative regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units in Chapters 33.205 and 33.405 have not encouraged the development of ADUs, and application of two sets of standards has been confusing and over regulatory.

In order to simplify the process for ADUs and eliminate this regulatory confusion, we recommend eliminating the ADU provision in 33.405 and concentrating these regulations in 33.205. This is based both on customer feedback from the 2002-2003 Regulatory Improvement Workplan, as well as through review of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Monitoring Project Report discussed above.

This amendment allows ADUs to be reviewed under the same set of standards throughout the City. Where the two code sections conflict, we recommend either modifying the regulations in 33.205, or using the existing code language in 33.205 to be consistent. Existing ADUs that have taken advantage of the ‘a’ overlay that do not meet proposed code language will be considered non-conforming development, and subject to the standards of Chapter 33.258.

As discussed previously, owner occupancy provisions have been hard to enforce and/or encourage. Although we recommend removing the owner-occupancy requirement from the Code, we note that the Comprehensive Plan goal of increasing home ownership is still critical. The City has successful non-regulatory programs to foster owner-occupancy, and these programs are better at meeting the home ownership goals. As a result, the items listed in the Purpose Statement of the ‘a’ overlay that apply to home ownership are being removed. Future programs on home ownership should concentrate on non-regulatory incentive programs.

The Planning Commission also supports further study to develop non-regulatory means to encourage accessory dwelling units.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.405, ALTERNATIVE DESIGN DENSITY OVERLAY ZONE

33.405.040  Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units

Sections:

General

33.405.010 Purpose

33.405.020 Short Name and Map Symbol

33.405.030 Applying the Alternative Design Density Overlay Zone

Use Regulations

33.405.040 Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units

Development Standards

33.405.050 Bonus Density for Design Review

33.405.060 Attached Residential Infill on Vacant Lots in the R5 Zone

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

33.405.080 Nonconforming Multi-Dwelling Housing

33.405.090 Design Review and Community Design Standards

33.405.100 Review for Timeliness

Map 405-1 Area Where Detached Accessory Units Are Allowed

General

33.405.010 Purpose

The purpose of the Alternative Design Density Overlay Zone is to foster owner occupancy, focus development on vacant sites, preserve existing housing and encourage new development that is compatible with and supportive of the positive qualities of residential neighborhoods. The overlay zone allows households in Portland to use their existing housing to supplement their income through addition of accessory dwelling units and allowances for home occupations. The zone allows the construction of new “owner occupied duplex units” where the duplex is a means of reducing the cost of new owner occupied housing. The concept for the zone is to allow increased density for development that meets additional design compatibility requirements. The type of additional density allowed will foster opportunities for owner occupancy.

Use Regulations

33.405.040 Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units

A.  Where these regulations apply. An accessory dwelling unit may be added to a house, attached house, or manufactured home in an R zone, except for attached houses in the R20 through R5 zones that were built using the regulations of 33.110.240.E, Duplexes and Attached Houses on Corners.

B.  Creation of an accessory dwelling unit. Chapter 33.205, Accessory Dwelling Units, contains regulations that allow for the creation of accessory dwelling units. In the ADD zone, an accessory dwelling unit may also be created through:

1.  Addition of new square footage to a house, attached house, or manufactured home;

2.  Construction of a new single-dwelling detached house with an internal accessory unit. Addition of an accessory dwelling unit is prohibited in new or existing attached housing constructed under the provisions of 33.405.060, Attached Residential Infill on Vacant Lots; or

3.  In the area shown on Map 405-1 at the end of the chapter, construction or conversion of a detached accessory structure is allowed if it meets the following standards:

a.  It is in a single-dwelling zone; and

b.  The structure is at least 60 feet from the front lot line.

 Detached accessory dwelling units are subject to the regulations of 33.110.250, Detached Accessory Structures.

C.  Location of entrances. Only one entrance to the house may be located on the front of the house, unless the house contained additional doors on its front before the addition of the accessory dwelling unit.

D.  Parking. No additional parking is required for the accessory dwelling unit.

E.  Owner occupancy. The dwelling unit must be owner-occupied when converted. When an accessory dwelling unit is built as part of a new house, the first occupant must be the owner. Owner-occupancy of either the primary or the accessory unit must continue after the creation of the accessory unit. If there is no owner-occupant living in either the primary or the accessory unit, occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit is prohibited.

F.  Other uses. An accessory dwelling unit is allowed in a house with a Type A home occupation. A site with an accessory dwelling unit may have no more than one home occupation.

G.  Covenants with the City. The owner must execute a covenant with the City as described under Section 33.700.060. The covenant must require that for either of the housing units to be occupied, at least one of the housing units must be owner-occupied.

H.  Design review required.

1.  Generally. Development taking advantage of the provisions of this section must be approved through design review or meet the Community Design Standards in Chapter 33.218, as set out in Section 33.405.090, Design Review and Community Design Standards, below; and

2.  Exception. If the site is a Historic or Conservation Landmark, or in a Historic or Conservation District, it is subject to the regulations for historic design review as set out in Chapter 33.445, Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone.

Map 405-1 Maps 1-3. These maps are to be removed in conjunction with the removal of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Provision in the ‘a’ overlay. They will no longer be needed since a detached ADU is allowed by right under Chapter 33.205.

Map 405-1 Maps 1-3. These maps are to be removed in conjunction with the removal of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Provision in the ‘a’ overlay. They will no longer be needed since a detached ADU is allowed by right under Chapter 33.205.

Map 405-1 Maps 1-3. These maps are to be removed in conjunction with the removal of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Provision in the ‘a’ overlay. They will no longer be needed since a detached ADU is allowed by right under Chapter 33.205.

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.205 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

33.205.030 Design Standards

With the change to eliminate the provisions for accessory dwelling units in the ‘a’ overlay, the two sets of code need to be blended into one consistent set of regulations. The following areas are where 33.405 and 33.205 are currently in conflict:

•  Owner-occupancy requirements.

•  Community Design Standards vs. Chapter 33.205 Design standards.

•  Parking requirements.

•  Attached vs. detached ADUs.

•  Size limitations.

The Accessory Dwelling Unit Monitoring Project Report illustrated that the owner occupancy requirement in the ‘a’ overlay was difficult to enforce, resulting in a number of illegal rental units. However, no citizen complaints about the owner-occupancy violations have been received. Based on this finding, Planning Commission recommends eliminating the owner-occupancy requirements from the ADU chapters, and not moving the 33.405 requirement to 33.205.

The Monitoring Project Report noted that application of the Community Design Standards had little effect on the design of ADUs in the ‘a’ overlay. Since 1998, Section 33.205 has incorporated design standards into its regulations, and these standards have had more of an effect on design than the Community Design Standards used through the ‘a’ overlay. The recommendation is to rely on the standards in 33.205 to regulate design.

The ‘a’ overlay does not require any parking for ADUs. Within 33.205, parking for ADUs is required if the ADU is constructed as part of a new house, or when the roadway width for the street is less than 28’. Based upon the Monitoring Project Report, lack of parking did not pose a problem. In addition, with the size requirements discussed below, and the existing household size limitation in 33.205, Planning Commission recommends that 33.205 be amended to remove any ADU parking requirements.

The ‘a’ overlay limits detached ADUs to certain areas. This has proven to be a disincentive for many owners. Within 33.205, detached ADUs have been allowed since 1998, and current development standards in that section have proven sufficient. Concern has only been found when adjustments to the height limit are requested. Thus Planning Commission recommends that the detached provision of 33.205 remain, which will allow the detached ADU provision to apply citywide.

In the ‘a’ overlay, the lack of size requirements has resulted in many ADUs being built as large as the main house, resulting in de-facto duplexes. At this time we propose keeping the current size limitations within 33.205 and applying them citywide. A more in-depth analysis of the ADU regulations in the future may result in re-addressing the size issue.

Amend CHAPTER 33.205, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

33.205.030 Design Standards

A – B [No change]

C.  Requirements for all accessory dwelling units. All accessory dwelling units must meet the following:

1-4.  No Change.

5.  Parking. No additional parking is required for the accessory dwelling unit. Existing required parking for the house, attached house, or manufactured home must be maintained or replaced on-site.

a.  Purpose. The parking requirements balance the need to provide adequate parking while maintaining the character of single-dwelling development and reducing the amount of impervious surface on a site. More parking is required when a vacant lot is being developed because, generally, the site can more easily be designed to accommodate two parking spaces while minimizing impervious surface. In situations where an accessory dwelling unit is being added to a site with an existing dwelling unit, it is appropriate to not require additional impervious surface if adequate on-street parking is available.

b.  The following parking requirements apply to accessory dwelling units. All parking must meet the requirements of 33.266.120, Development Standards for Houses, Attached Houses, and Duplexes:

(1)  No additional parking space required. No additional parking space is required for the accessory dwelling unit if it is created on a site with an existing house, attached house, or manufactured home and the roadway in at least one abutting street is at least 28 feet wide.

(2)  One additional parking space required. One additional parking space is required for the accessory dwelling unit as follows:

•  When none of the roadways in abutting streets are at least 28 feet wide; or

•  When the accessory dwelling unit is created at the same time as the house, attached house, or manufactured home.

Amendments to the ‘a’ (Alternative Design Density) Overlay Zone, - Duplex & Triplex in the R2.5 & R2 zone

(Item 16, RIW 02-03 & Council Resolution 9/10/03)

DISCUSSION & BACKGROUND

Alternative Development Options in the R2 and R2.5 Zones – Owner-occupied duplex or triplex.

During the City Council discussion on the 2002-2003 Regulatory Improvement Workplan, a suggestion was made to incorporate the alternative development provisions from this chapter into the base zone chapters for R2.5 and R2. On September 10, 2003, City Council passed a resolution directing staff to provide increasing opportunities for alternative development in the R2 and R2.5 zones such as duplexes, triplexes and detached houses on small lots.

Historically, these provisions were included in the ‘a’ overlay, because this overlay was applied in parts of the city where infill development on existing lots was encouraged due to proximity to city services. The provisions of the ‘a’ overlay applied to the R2a and R2.5a zones allowed for some alternatives to the base zone, to foster development compatible with existing neighborhoods and to create new situations for owner-occupied structures.

The resolution adopted on September 10 directed Planning Staff to review the current provision that allows owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes in the R2.5a and R2a zones, in order to expand these housing choices citywide. This ‘a’ overlay provision currently allows one dwelling unit per 1600 square feet of site area. This amendment will allow duplexes in the R2.5 zone citywide. As a result we are deleting it from the ‘a’ overlay. The provision for triplexes will remain in the ‘a’ overlay, with some modifications.

One of the modifications involves the removal of the owner-occupancy requirement. While fostering home ownership is an important goal of the Comprehensive Plan, evidence indicates that it is a goal that more attainable through non-regulatory incentive programs rather than regulation. This is further discussed in the following commentary section.

Code language to be provided on following pages

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

33.405.070. A. Purpose This item is being revised to reflect the more limited use of the ‘a’ overlay within the R2 and R2.5 zones.

33.405.070.B. Owner occupied duplex or triplex. The original intent of this provision was to allow for a greater variety of housing types, especially on underutilized lots in the Albina Plan and Southeast Community Plan Areas. The current regulations allow duplexes and triplexes in the R2.5a zone; these alternatives are not allowed in the R2.5 zone without the “a” overlay. The current provisions allow a slightly higher density of 1 unit per 1600 square feet in the R2.5a and R2a zones; the R2.5 zone has a maximum density of 1 unit per 2500 square feet and R2 allows 1 unit per 2000 square feet.

In a resolution passed September 10, 2003, City Council directed staff to explore ways to allow for a larger variety of housing types in the R2.5 zone to meet the housing goals of the City. In response to this, Planning Commission recommends allowing duplexes in more situations in the R2.5 zone. We also recommend that the R2.5 density should still apply for duplexes in those zones. New provisions are proposed for the R2.5 zone in the following pages to allow duplexes in more situations citywide subject to the density limits of the R2.5 zone.

We also recommend removing the owner-occupancy requirement from this section. As is discussed above with regards to ADUs, the owner occupancy provision has been difficult to enforce and has not had the effect of owners living in one of the units. In addition, based upon discussions with staff of the Development Services Center, the Bureau of Planning staff found that this duplex/triplex provision was rarely invoked in the ‘a’ overlay. Other non-regulatory city programs have done a better job of fostering owner occupancy, so it is recommended that the owner-occupancy requirements be removed from the Zoning Code.

Lastly, to clarify the density provision, this item is being re-written slightly to be specific to triplexes.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.405, ALTERNATIVE DESIGN DENSITY OVERLAY ZONE

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

A.  Purpose. The provisions of this section encourage new owner-occupied development in areas zoned R2 and R2.5. They also offer opportunities for enhancing the variety of housing types and building forms that are found in areas zoned for attached or low-density multi-dwelling residential development. Such areas generally include a mixture of single-dwelling detached and small multi-dwelling development. A variety of types of housing in areas receiving infill development will improve continuity with the character of the existing buildings.

B.  Owner-occupied duplex or tTriplex. Development of may include up to three dwelling units, including accessory dwelling units is allowed, if they meet all the following requirements:

1.  The owner must execute a covenant with the City as described under Section 33.700.060. The covenant must prohibit occupancy of any of the units unless at least one of the units is owner-occupied;

1.2.  The proposed development conforms with the maximum height, minimum setbacks, maximum building coverage, and required outdoor area requirements for attached housing projects in the R2.5 zone. The proposed development must meet all other development standards of the base zone, overlay zone, and plan district; and

2.3.  The maximum density allowed under this provision is oOne dwelling unit is allowed for each 1,600 square feet of site area. However, no more than three dwelling units may be placed on a single lot; and.

4.  At least 1 parking place must be provided for each dwelling unit.

AMENDMENTS TO 33.110.240.F

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS IN R2.5 ZONES

TO ALLOW DUPLEXES

33.110.240. Alternative Development Options:

Duplexes are currently allowed in the R2.5 zone as either a conversion of an existing house into a duplex (33.110.240.D.) or through development on a corner lot (33.110.240.E). Although the maximum density in the R2.5 zone is 1 unit per 2,500 square feet, the only way to achieve this density with new construction on non-corner lots is through a land division and development of attached houses. We recommend broadening the application of the duplex provision to allow for duplexes to be built under less restrictive conditions citywide, as long as overall density requirements are met.

33.110.240 A. Purpose. Amend the Purpose statement to include a provision encouraging development of underutilized lots.

33.110.240.D Conversion to duplex in R2.5 zone. Currently a duplex can only be created on a non-corner lot through this provision, which limits a duplex to a conversion of a house. The only way to develop a vacant lot in the R2.5 zone to its maximum density is through a land division for attached houses. The Planning Commission recommends expanding the provision allowing duplexes in this zone so that a wider variety of housing types can be used to meet the R2.5 density. The proposed revisions will allow duplexes to be built on lots of sufficient size to allow two units. To keep the duplex development within the scale of adjacent single family development, the development standards of the base zone will apply, to ensure compatibility. The front façade limitation will also be retained so that these units maintain the appearance of the single family neighborhood.

33.110.240 Alternative Development Options

A.  Purpose. The alternative development options allow for variety in development standards while maintaining the overall character of a single-dwelling neighborhood. These options have several public benefits:

•  They allow for development which is more sensitive to the environment, especially in hilly areas and areas with water features and natural drainageways;

•  They allow for the preservation of open and natural areas;

•  They promote better site layout and opportunities for private recreational areas;

•  They promote opportunities for affordable housing; and

•  They promote energy-efficient development.; and

•  They allow for the provision of alternative structure types where density standards are met.

B.  [No Change].

C.  [No Change].

D.  Conversion to dDuplex in R2.5 zone. Conversion of existing houses allows the density of the R2.5 zone to be obtained without the demolition of existing structures and with minimal impact on the physical character of the surrounding neighborhood. Duplexes are allowed in the R2.5 zone if the following are met:

1.  Qualifying situations. The lot must be in an R2.5 zone, and must have an existing house which will be converted into a duplex. The house must be at least 5 years old.

2.1.  Lot size. The lot must be at least 5,000 square feet in size.Density. A maximum density of 1 unit per 2,500 square feet of site area is allowed;

3.  Unit size. Each dwelling unit in the duplex must be at least 500 square feet in area, not including common spaces such as halls or entries.

4.2.  AdditionsDevelopment standards. Additions to the house may be made, but the building Duplexes must comply with the height, building setback, building coverage, and required outdoor area requirements of the base zone, overlay zone, or plan district.; and

5.3.  Front facade. Fire escapes, or exterior stairs that provide access to an upper level are not allowed on the front facade of the building.

6.  Parking. Any on-site area currently used for motor vehicle parking must be maintained for that use, including garages, carports, and driveways. However, no additional parking areas are required.

7.  Landscaping. All of the area between the duplex and the street lot line must be landscaped to at least the L1 level. This requirement does not include existing driveways or walkways.

33.110.240.E. Duplexes and attached houses on corners. Currently this provision is written in such a way that it is more restrictive in the R2.5 zones than in other single dwelling zones. Because an additional unit is allowed in the R20-R5 zones, a duplex can be created on a lot as small as 4,200 square feet in R7 and 3,000 square feet in R5. However, in an R2.5 zone, the lot must be 5,000 square feet to meet density standards.

In order to fix this discrepancy, we recommend allowing duplexes and attached houses in R2.5 using the same minimum lot size standards as in the R5 zone.

E.  Duplexes and attached houses on corners. This provision allows new duplexes and attached houses in locations where their appearance and impact will be compatible with the surrounding houses. Duplexes and attached houses on corner lots can be designed so each unit is oriented towards a different street. This gives the structure the overall appearance of a house when viewed from either street.

1.  Qualifying situations. This provision applies to corner lots in the R20 through R2.5 zones.

2.  Density and lot size in R20 through R5 zones. One extra dwelling unit is allowed up to a maximum of two units, except in the R2.5 zone where the maximum density, as stated in 33.611.100.C.1, may not be increased. For duplexes, the lot must comply with the minimum lot size standard for new lots in the base zone. For attached houses, the original lot, before division for the attached house project proposal, must comply with the minimum lot size standard for new lots in the base zone.

3.  Density and lot size in R2.5 zone. One extra dwelling unit is allowed, up to a maximum of two units. For duplexes, the lot must be at least 3,000 square feet. For attached houses, the original lot, before division for the attached house proposal, must be at least 3,000 square feet.

43.  Entrances. Each unit of the duplex or attached house must have its address and main entrance oriented towards a separate street frontage. Conversion of an existing house may provide one main entrance with internal access to both units.

Amendments to the ‘a’ (Alternative Design Density) Overlay Zone, - Detached houses on small lots in R2.5 & R2

(Item 16, RIW 02-03, City Council Resolution 9/10/03)

DISCUSSION & BACKGROUND

During hearings for Policy Package 1, a considerable amount of testimony was heard regarding development of detached houses on small lots, the Comprehensive Plan’s density goals and neighborhood compatibility. A specific issue raised is that there is a market for detached houses on small lots, but there are limited opportunities for such development in Portland. The R2.5 and multi-dwelling zones require minimum lot sizes for detached houses that are too large, or require development of other types of dwelling units, such as attached houses. Council agreed with this concern, and directed Planning staff to provide more opportunities for a variety of housing types in the R2.5 and R2 zones. This will also relieve some of the redevelopment pressure for small lots in the R5 zone. We recommend removing some of the barriers to building detached houses on small lots in the R2.5 and multi-dwelling zones, while still relying on the density minimums and maximums in those zones.

COMMENTARY

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

33.405.070.D. Detached houses on lots averaging 2,500 square feet. To foster a wider variety of housing choice in the R2.5 and R2 zones citywide, Planning Commission recommends removing this provision from the ‘a’ overlay and providing it as an option in the R2.5 and R2 zones city-wide. This measure will encourage development of detached houses on small lots in the R2.5 and R2 zones where city services are at a level appropriate to support this density.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.405, ALTERNATIVE DESIGN DENSITY OVERLAY ZONE

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

A.  Purpose. (New language for this subsection is proposed on Page 47)

B.  Triplex (New language for this subsection is proposed on Page 47)

C.  Flag lots averaging 2,500 square feet. [No Change].

D.  Detached houses on lots averaging 2,500 square feet. A site in an R2 or R2.5 zoned area may be developed with detached dwellings on individual lots that average 2,500 square feet or more, when all of the following requirements are met:

1.  All base zone requirements must be met, unless otherwise stated in this section.

2.  Average lot size must be at least 2,500 square feet. Minimum lot size is 1,600 square feet.

3.  Minimum lot width is 16 feet, minimum front lot line is 16 feet, and minimum lot depth is 40 feet.

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.611

LOTS IN THE R2.5 ZONE

In order to expand the variety of housing types allowed in the R2.5 zone city-wide, Chapter 33.611 must be modified to allow detached houses on smaller lots. We recommend providing one minimum lot size for the zone regardless of whether the proposal is for detached or attached housing. This requires incorporating any applicable zoning code language from the R5 chapter, 33.610, into this chapter to make it compatible with current situations.

33.611.020  Where These Standards Apply.

Planning Commission recommends revising this section so that all land divisions in the R2.5 zone are covered in this chapter.

33.611.030  Required Housing Type.

This section can be removed since housing types are covered in the base zone chapter.

33.611.100  Density Standards

In the R2.5 zone, detached houses are now allowed through land divisions on lots averaging 5,000 square feet, and attached houses are allowed on lots averaging 2,500 square feet. The September 10^th Council resolution directed Planning staff to increase opportunities for detached houses on small lots in the R2.5 zone. Staff also wanted to preserve the current development options, which allow less density for detached houses. In order to achieve this, the Planning Commission recommends basing the minimum density for all housing types on the current requirements for detached houses (1 unit/5,000 square feet) and the maximum density on the current requirements for attached houses (1 unit/2,500 square feet). This ensures the maximum flexibility.

33.611.100.C & D. The maximum density will be the current R2.5 maximum density of 1 unit per 2,500 square feet, regardless of the type of housing proposed. Minimum density will be the R5 minimum density standard of 1 unit per 5,000 square feet, regardless of the type of housing proposed.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.611

LOTS IN THE R2.5 ZONE

Sections:

33.611.010 Purpose

33.611.020 Where These Standards Apply

33.611.030 Required Housing Type

33.611.100 Density Standards

33.611.200 Lot Dimension Standards

33.611.300 Through Lots

33.611.400 Flag Lots

33.611.4500 Split Zoned Lots

33.611.010 Purpose

This chapter contains the density and lot dimension requirements for approval of a Preliminary Plan for a land division in the R2.5 zone. These requirements ensure that lots are consistent with the desired character of the zone while allowing lots to vary in size and shape provided the planned intensity of the zone is respected. This chapter works in conjunction with other chapters of this Title to ensure that land divisions create lots that can support appropriate structures in accordance with the planned intensity of the R2.5 zone.

33.611.020 Where These Standards Apply

The standards of this chapter apply to lots in a land divisions in the R2.5 zone that will be developed with attached houses. Lots in a land division in the R2.5 zone that will not be developed with attached houses must meet the regulations for land divisions in the R5 zone in Chapter 33.610, Lots in RF through R5 zones.

33.611.030 Required Housing Type

Lots created under the regulations of this chapter must be developed with attached houses.

33.611.100 Density Standards

A.  Purpose. [No Change].

B.  Generally. [No Change].

C.  No street created. Where no street will be created as part of the land division, the following maximum and minimum density standards apply. Adjustments to this subsection are prohibited.

1.  Maximum density. Maximum density is based on the zone and the size of the site. The following formula is used to determine the maximum number of lots allowed on the site:

Square footage of site;

÷ 2,500;

= Maximum number of lots allowed.

33.611.100  Density Standards

.

2.  Minimum density. Minimum density is based on the zone and the size of the site and whether there are physical constraints. The following formula is used to determine the minimum number of lots required on the site. Exceptions to minimum density are allowed under the provisions of 33.611.100.E:

Square footage of site;

- Square footage of site within an environmental overlay zone, landslide hazard area, or flood hazard area;

x 0.80;

÷ 2,500 5,000;

= Minimum number of lots required.

D.  Street created. Where a street will be created as part of the land division, the following maximum and minimum density standards apply. Adjustments to this subsection are prohibited.

1.  Maximum density. Maximum density is based on the zone, the size of the site and whether a street is being created. The following formula is used to determine the maximum number of lots allowed on the site:

Square footage of site;

x 0.85;

÷ 2,500;

= Maximum number of lots allowed.

2.  Minimum density. Minimum density is based on the zone, the size of the site, whether there are physical constraints and whether a street is being created. The following formula is used to determine the minimum number of lots required on the site. Exceptions to minimum density are allowed under the provisions of 33.611.100.E:

Square footage of site

- Square footage of site within an environmental overlay zone, landslide hazard area, or flood hazard area;

x 0.68

÷ 2,500 5,000;

= Minimum number of lots required.

E.  Exceptions to minimum density. [No change].

33.611.200  Lot Dimension Standards

This is revised to apply to all proposals in the zone.

33.611.200.A Purpose. The first bulleted item is revised to include detached house lots.

33.611.200.B & C. No change is proposed for these sections. They are included for informational purposes regarding lot area and dimensions for all lots in the R2.5 zone.

33.611.200 Lot Dimension Standards

Lots in the R2.5 zone that will be developed with attached houses must meet the lot dimension standards listed in of this section. Lots that do not meet these standards may be requested through Planned Development Review. Adjustments to the standards are prohibited.

A.  Purpose. The lot dimension standards ensure that:

•  Each lot has enough room for a reasonably-sized attached or detached 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.

C.  Minimum lot width. For the purposes of this subsection, width is measured at the minimum front building setback line. Where the 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.

1.  Each lot must be at least 36 feet wide; or

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

a-e.  [No change].

D.  Minimum front lot line. [No change].

E.  Minimum lot depth. [No change].

33.611.400  Flag Lots

Under current regulations, those who want to create flag lots in the R2.5 zone are referred to the regulations of the R5 zone. This amendment simply copies that language into the R2.5 chapter.

33.611.400 Flag Lots

The following standards apply to flag lots in the R2.5 zones:

A.  Purpose. These standards allow the creation of flag lots in limited circumstances. The limitations minimize the negative impacts of flag lots on an area while allowing land to be divided when other options are not achievable.

B.  When a flag lot is allowed. A flag lot is allowed only when the following are met:

1.  An existing dwelling unit on the site is located so that it precludes a land division that meets the minimum lot width standard of Paragraph 33.611.200.C.1.

2.  Only two lots are proposed; and

3.  Minimum density requirements for the site will be met.

C.  Flag lot access pole. The pole portion of the flag lot must meet the following standards. Adjustments are prohibited:

1.  The pole must connect to a street;

2.  The pole must be at least 12 feet wide for its entire length; and

3.  The pole must be part of the flag lot and must be under the same ownership as the flag portion.

D.  Minimum lot dimensions. Flag lots are exempt from the minimum front lot line standard. The minimum lot width and minimum lot depth required for each flag lot is 40 feet. For the purposes of this subsection width is measured at the midpoint of the opposite lot lines. All other lot dimension standards must be met.

33.611.5400 Split Zoned Lots [No change].

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.110

SINGLE DWELLING ZONES

The maximum height in the RF-R5 zones is 30 feet; it is 35 feet in the R2.5 zone. Heigh on lots less than 36 feet wide in the R10 through R2.5 zones is limited to 1.2 times the width of the structure. The intent is to reduce the bulk of houses on narrower lots. The 1.2 ratio generally limits narrow structures to about two stories. As an example, a 20 foot wide row house is limited to 24 feet in height.

With our recommended change to allow detached houses on small lots, we anticipate the creation of 25 foot wide lots for detached houses, particularly in the R2.5 zone. The current regulation would limit these houses to 18 feet in height; this is approximately half the maximum allowed for development on a lot that is 36 feet wide, and is overly restrictive. During the Planning Commission and City Council consideration of Policy Package 1 earlier this year, a height allowance of 1.5 times the width of the house was adopted for development on existing narrow lots and lots of record. (See Section 33.110.213.)

Because the R2.5 zone has a maximum height that is 5 feet more than the other single dwelling zones, it is appropriate for development on narrow lots in the R2.5 zones to also have a larger maximum height than the other single dwelling zones. This would allow development of a two story detached house on these narrow lots.

33.110.215.B. Maximum Height

This section is revised to include different standards for narrow lots in the R2.5 zone. The maximum height in R2.5 is revised to be 1.5 times the width of the structure, in acknowledgment of the higher base zone height. The maximum height restriction of 1.2 times the width of the structure will continue to apply in the R10-R5 zones.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.110

SINGLE-DWELLING ZONES

33.110.215 Height

A.  Purpose. [No change].

B.  Maximum height.

1.  Generally. [No change].

2.  Exception. The maximum height Development on lots created by a land division submitted after July 1, 2002 are subject to the following additional requirements allowed for all structures is 1.2 times the width of the structure in the following situations:

a.  R10 – R5 zones. The maximum height for all structures is 1.2 times the width of the structure oOn lots in the R10 through R5 zones that do not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 33.610.200.D.1, and were created by a land division submitted after July 1, 2002; and

b.  R2.5 zone. The maximum height for all structures is 1.5 times the width of the structure oOn lots in the R2.5 zones that do not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 33.611.200.C.1, and were created by a land division submitted after July 1, 2002.

For the purposes of this Paragraph, width is the length of the street-facing façade of the dwelling unit. See Figure 110-1. Modifications are allowed through Planned Development Review, see Chapter 33.638, Planned Development. Adjustments to this paragraph are prohibited.

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.612

LOTS IN MULTI-DWELLING ZONES

These changes will provide greater flexibility in the types of housing allowed in the multi-dwelling zones, without compromising overall density goals. They address City Council’s direction to allow detached houses on smaller lots in the R2 and R2.5 zones.

The current minimum lot area standard for a detached house in the R2a zone is the same as for an attached house in the R2 zone. In order to allow detached houses on small lots in the R2 zone city-wide, staff considered using the same lot dimension standards for both attached and detached houses in the R2 zone. This would be similar to the recommendation in the R2.5 zone. However, this would further complicate Table 612-1, which has already expanded considerably over the past year.

As an alternative, Planning Commission recommends simplifying the standards in Table 612-1 by applying the standards for attached houses to both detached and attached housing lots in all multi-dwelling zones (R3, R2, R1, RH, RX, and IR). This allows applicants the flexibility to build a variety of housing types in these zones. This should not result in a lowering or raising of density in any of the zones, since all projects will need to meet both minimum and maximum density standards. In addition, we recognize that in the R1 or denser zones, it may be difficult to propose a land division with lots small enough to build detached housing while meeting density. Therefore we anticipate that the provision for detached houses on small lots will most likely be used in the R3 and R2 zones, where housing types are already a mix of low density multi-family and single dwelling. This may, however, result in preservation of some existing detached houses- most likely in the R1 zone- which will no longer have to meet the minimum lot dimensions of 3,000 square feet in the land division process.

33.612.200 Lot Dimension Standards. The first bullet point under 33.612.200.A – Purpose is altered to clarify that a wide range of development options are now allowed, subject to density requirements.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.612

LOTS IN MULTI-DWELLING ZONES

33.612.200 Lot Dimension Standards

A.  Purpose. These standards ensure that:

•  Each lot has enough room for multi-dwelling development that meets all the requirements of the zoning code;

•  Lots are an appropriate size and shape so that development on each lot can be oriented toward the street as much as possible.

•  The multi-dwelling zones can be developed to full potential; and

•  Housing goals for the City are met.

B.  Lot dimensions. Minimum lot dimensions are stated in Table 612-1.

1.  Minimum lot dimensions for lots that will be developed with residential structures are stated in Table 612-1.

2.  Nonconforming uses. Minimum lot dimensions for lots with nonconforming uses are the same as those for detached houses.

33.612.200.B Lot dimensions. We recommend simplifying Table 612-1 by changing the minimum lot sizes for detached houses to be the same as those for attached houses. This change will allow applicants flexibility in housing types, in order to anticipate and respond to market trends. This change also recognizes that detached houses in higher density zones will still have limited applications because of the minimum density requirements of the zone.

Notes:

[1] This regulation may be superseded by an Impact Mitigation Plan.

Awnings: Design Overlay Zones (Item A3, RIW 02-03)

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.420, DESIGN OVERLAY ZONE

BACKGROUND & COMMENTARY

During the public outreach portion of the Regulatory Improvement Workplan, requests were made to reduce the time and expense for simple awnings in the ‘d’ Design Overlay Zone. This problem is most significant in the Central City plan district and other areas where Community Design Standards cannot be used. This item was part of the Mayor’s Original Top Ten Initiative to simplify regulatory processes.

There are two aspects of this item. The first involves exempting certain simple awnings from the design review process. The intent is to allow small awnings to be approved “over the counter” without the time and expense of a Land Use Review. This would be similar to the current exemption in design zones for small signs, which allow signs up to 32 sq. ft. without design review. This involves changes to both Title 33 –Planning & Zoning and Title 32 – Signs and Related Regulations to provide a connection between the sign/awning regulations and the design zone requirements.

The second aspect involves structural requirements for awnings. Currently, all awnings need to have structural calculations and undergo a structural review as part of the permit process. However, Title 32 allows the Director of the Bureau of Development Services (BDS) to pre-approve a set of awning designs and structural elements. BDS is considering development of a set of pre-approved awnings and mountings so that a new structural review would not be needed for each awning.

33.420.045.R. Exempt From Design Review

Planning Commission recommends a new exemption for simple awnings. These awnings are limited by size, materials and design. More complex or larger awnings would still need a design review. We recommend that there be a few specific companies in order to provide options to applicants to meet the exemption.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.420, DESIGN OVERLAY ZONE

33.420.045  Exempt From Design Review

The following items are exempt from design review:

A.-O. [No change.]

P.  Houseboats; and

Q.  Within the Marquam Hill Design District; and

1.-4. No change

R.  Awnings for each ground-floor tenant, which meet the following requirements:

1.  If existing awnings on the same building façade have been approved through design review, or have been placed under the provisions of this Subsection, the proposed awnings must match the following elements of the existing awnings: the sectional profile, structure, degree of enclosure, and placement vertically on the building. The awning also must meet R.2.c through f;

2.  If there are no existing awnings on the same building façade that have been approved through design review or placed using the provisions of this Subsection, the proposed awnings must be a flat or shed configuration in sectional profile (See Figure 420-1), and meet the following:

a.  Awnings must project at least three feet from the building wall façade.

b.  The front valance of each awning may be no more than 12 inches high. See Figure 420-2;

c.  Illumination may not be incorporated into awnings or awning structures;

d.  One or more awnings may be proposed for each ground floor tenant, but the total area of awnings per ground floor tenant may not exceed 50 square feet, measured from the building elevation. See Figure 420-2;

e.  Awning covers must made of Sunbrella™, Dickson Awning Fabrics™, Para Tempotest™, or a material with equivalent characteristics in terms of: durability, texture, and no-gloss sheen; and

f.  Awnings must be at least 18 inches from all other awnings.

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.420, DESIGN OVERLAY ZONE

These two diagrams illustrate the characteristics of an awning that will be exempt from design review.

Figure 420-1

Exempt Awning Sectional Profile

Figure 420-2

Exempt Awning Measurements

AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN CODE, TITLE 32

32.34.020 Additional Standards in Overlay Zones

One of the objectives of the Sign Code Rewrite Project in 2000 was to move all sign provisions from the Zoning Code (Title 33) to Title 32, Signs and Related Regulations, and clarify the relationship between the two Titles. However, because it is not clear that awnings may be subject to Design Review, we recommend an amendment to 32.34.020 Additional Standards in Overlay Zones.

32.52.020 Pre-Approved Design

This clarification insures that pre-approved awnings will be subject to Design Review unless specifically exempted in the Design Review regulations.

32.52.040 Signs on Awnings

This is a clarification.

AMEND TITLE 32 – SIGN CODE

32.34.020  Additional Standards in Overlay Zones

Overlay zones are shown on the Official Zoning Maps.

A.  Buffer Overlay Zone – [No Change].

B.  Design Overlay Zone

1.  Where these regulations apply. The regulations of this subsection apply to exterior signs in excess of 32 square feet within the Design Overlay Zone, and all signs within the South Auditorium plan district. However, signs are not required to go through design review if they meet one of the following standards:

a.  The sign is a portable sign, lawn sign, directional sign or temporary sign; or

b.  The sign is a part of development exempt from design review under Section 33.420.045, Exempt from Design Review.

2.  Awnings. Awnings within the Design Overlay Zone are subject to Chapter 33.420. Awnings must also meet the requirements of Chapter 32.52 of this Title.

2.3.  Regulations.

a.-c.  [No change.]

32.52.020  Pre-Approved Designs

The Director may approve structural awning designs which can be used for more than one awning at more than one site. Subsequent permit applications can reference pre-approved awning designs. Requests for pre-approved awning designs must include appropriate plans and calculations prepared and stamped by an Oregon licensed engineer. Pre-approved awning designs will be subject to the following limitations:

A.  Pre-approved designs are limited to awnings that are no more than 40 feet from the lowest ground level to the maximum height of the awning; and such awnings must comply with the pedestrian clearance requirements of Subsection 32.42.010.C, Clearances.

B.  Pre-approved designs for awnings will be limited to the attachment methods and materials and the wall materials specified in the request and approved by the Director.

C.  In the Design Overlay Zone, awnings using pre-approved designs are subject to Chapter 33.420, Design Review

32.52.040  Awnings and Signs on Awnings

Awnings and signs attached to or incorporated into an awnings must comply with all applicable standards of Chapters 32.30 through 32.38.

Central City Plan District: Required Residential Development

(Item 42, RIW 02-03)

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.510, CENTRAL CITY PLAN DISTRICT

BACKGROUND & COMMENTARY

33.510.230 Required Residential Development Areas

Before 1996, the Required Residential standard in the Central City plan district applied to largely vacant sites in the River District, Riverplace, and South Waterfront areas. In 1996, this standard was also applied to many developed sites in Goose Hollow for several reasons. The City wanted to encourage mixed use development, attain the city’s housing goals, and provide enough housing density to support the light rail stations in the area. The requirement for residential development applied to both new development and additions to existing development of more than 10,000 square feet or more than 50% of the existing floor area. Since 1996, several new residential and mixed use projects have been built in the area, with new housing reaching 40% of the stated 20 year goal. However, no projects have added dwelling units as part of a building expansion—dwelling units have been added only through new development. It is much easier and more feasible to design new development to include residential units, rather than try to accommodate residential in existing buildings or additions.

This provision has been considered too onerous by existing businesses, especially since the housing must be built at the same time or before other uses proposed, and once triggered through building additions, the full allotment of 43 units per acre must be provided. There is no review to determine if existing structures and sites can physically accommodate the required housing. Because of these issues, this became one of the items for regulatory improvement.

Because new housing has been provided only as part of new development, and because applicants have limited their expansion plans because of the requirement for larger expansions to including housing, we believe that applying the housing requirement only to new development, and not to additions to existing development will have minimal effect on the City’s ability to achieve the purposes of this regulation: to encourage mixed-use development, encourage more housing, and provide enough housing density to support the nearby light rail station. It should be noted that this change will only have an effect on sites within the area outlined in Map 510-5 that are currently developed with non-residential uses.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.510, CENTRAL CITY PLAN DISTRICT

33.510.230 Required Residential Development Areas

A.  Purpose. [No change.]

B.  Sites and development subject to the required residential standard. Sites subject to this standard are shown on Map 510-5 at the end of this chapter. On identified sites, all new development and building additions must meet the standards below.

C.  Required residential standard for new development. [No change].

D.  Required residential standard for building additions. Floor area additions that increase the existing floor area by 50 percent or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less, must meet the standard of Subsection C., above.

D.E.  Timing and location of the housing.

1-2.  [No change].

Kenton Plan District: Prohibition of vehicle sales

(Item 9, RIW 03-04)

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.538, KENTON PLAN DISTRICT

BACKGROUND & COMMENTARY

33.538.100  Prohibited Uses

Vehicle sales and leasing are allowed in all zones that allow Retail Sales And Service uses, although some of those zones limit exterior display or storage. However, in the Kenton plan district, which became effective in January 2001, vehicle sales and leasing are prohibited because:

•  The use does not reinforce Denver Avenue as a retail corridor.

•  Most vehicle sales or leasing operations devote much of their site to parking and storage of vehicles. Generally, they are low intensity uses with relatively few employees per square foot of site area, and so are not appropriate near a light rail station.

•  These uses do not take advantage of the increased activity that the light rail station will bring to the Kenton downtown area.

•  There are areas near the Kenton plan district that allow vehicle sales or leasing; these areas are more appropriate as auto-oriented business locations.

•  In other areas of the city, vehicle sales and leasing, along with other vehicle-oriented uses, have been restricted near light rail stations to help support use of public transit. Generally, in the areas surrounding light rail stations, uses that have a high number of employees, visitors, or residents are encouraged.

This amendment allows for limited vehicle sales or leasing in the plan district, while still meeting the intent of prohibiting large amounts of land to be consumed by non-labor-intensive uses, such as vehicle sales or leasing. The limitation, along with the prohibition of exterior display and storage in the CS zone, and the plan district’s restriction of vehicle access along N. Denver Avenue, addresses the Kenton Neighborhood Plan’s goals and policies. In essence, this amendment will allow small, specialty car sales/leasing, such as antique cars or custom motorcycles. Such uses are somewhat more labor-intensive than “regular” car sales/leasing, and may help create or reinforce a special neighborhood character.

This amendment also affects several sites in the RX zone. The RX zone allows Retail Sales And Service uses in new multi-dwelling developments up to 50% of net building area depending on the location of the uses within the building and whether the site is within 500 feet of a Transit Station. Exterior display and storage is prohibited in the RX zone, as they are in the CS zone, but this amendment would allow vehicle sales/leasing in new multi-dwelling development in the RX zone.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.538, KENTON PLAN DISTRICT

33.538.100 Prohibited Uses

The following uses are prohibited:

A.  Wholesale Sales; and

B.  Vehicle Repair; and.

C.  Vehicle Sales or Leasing.

33.538.110 Limited Uses

A.  Individual Manufacturing And Production uses are limited to 3,000 square feet of floor area exclusive of parking area; and

B.  Retail vehicle sales or leasing is limited to 3,000 square feet of floor area per site. Retail vehicle sales or leasing where the floor area is more than 3,000 square feet is prohibited.

Elimination of the Pre-Application Conference requirement

for Type IIx reviews (Item A6.6, RIW 02-03)

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 33.730, QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES

BACKGROUND & COMMENTARY

33.730.035

Currently, the Type IIx procedure is used for:

1.  Some land divisions

2.  Some Planned Developments

3.  Three different kinds of concurrent Type II reviews (for example, an Adjustment, Environmental Review, and Greenway Review). See 33.730.042, Concurrent Reviews.

Type IIx and Type III land division and Planned Development reviews require a Pre-Application Conference. This amendment removes the Pre-Application Conference requirement for Type IIx Land Divisions and Planned Developments, but keeps the Neighborhood Contact meeting requirement. The amendment does not change the requirements for Type III reviews.

Originally, Pre-Application conferences were thought to be necessary for Type IIx procedures to help the applicant with the land use review application. However, after processing several Type IIx reviews, BDS staff finds that the Pre-Application Conference is an unnecessary step and expense.

Although the Planning Commission supports the removal of the Pre-Application Conference from Type IIx procedures for Land Divisions and Planned Developments, we believe that continued monitoring of small and moderate land divisions should take place to determine whether new thresholds should be created for the pre-application requirement.

AMEND CHAPTER 33.730, QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES

33.730.035 Neighborhood Contact Additional Steps Required for Land Divisions and Planned Developments

Two additional steps are required for Before applying for a land divisions and or Planned Developments processed through a Type IIx or Type III procedure, :

A.  Neighborhood Contact Requirement. Tthe applicant must complete the steps in Section 33.730.045, Neighborhood Contact Requirement, before applying for a land division review.

B.  Pre-application conference. A pre-application conference is required. See Section 33.730.050, Pre-Application Conference.

33.730.025 Type IIx Procedure

The Type IIx procedure is an administrative process, with the opportunity to appeal the Director of BDS's decision to another review body.

A.  Pre-application conference. A pre-application conference is optional unless it is a specific requirement of a review. See 33.730.050, Pre-Application Conference.

B. through I. [No change]

F.  Summary of Reports

1.  Industrial Lands Assessment Report Summary

2.  Nonconforming Uses Report Summary

1. INDUSTRIAL LANDS ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

Item #A38 of the FY 2002-2003 Regulatory Work Program “Top Ten” list calls for an inventory and assessment of Portland’s industrial land supply and zoning issues. The problem was described as follows:

“The city zoning code and land use plans have provisions, which affect the continued use, reuse and redevelopment of the city’s industrial lands. The size, condition and continued viability of this industrial supply have been the object of current policy and program debates at the regional and local level (i.e. the METRO Significant Industrial Areas designation and the PDC Economic Development Strategy). An analysis and understating of the city’s entire supply of significant industrial lands is necessary to be able to respond to these policy and program initiatives in an informed and timely way. It will allow decision-makers to have a more complete understanding of the context and implications of city actions. It will support the recommendation of the PDC Economic Development Strategy to redevelop antiquated industrial sites. Finally, it can serve as the basis for a reevaluation of the city’s industrial zoning categories and industrial land use designations.”

In July 2003 the Portland Bureau of Planning, in partnership with the Portland Development Commission, published the Citywide Industrial Land Inventory and Assessment: Inventory Report. The report includes a site-by-site description of Portland’s industrial land supply. The project assembles the most recent information available in Spring 2003 from a variety of sources on the following topics:

•  Industry mix, such as industry classification of employers and number of employees;

•  Land supply characteristics, such as site size, vacancy, and property values;

•  Site advantages, such as transportation access by various modes, access to public redevelopment resources, and planned public improvements nearby; and

•  Site constraints, such as environmental resources, site contamination, and proximity to housing.

A citywide industrial lands inventory has not been conducted since the industrial sanctuary planning efforts in the 1980s. This inventory provides an up-to-date understanding of the characteristics, function and performance of the city’s industrial areas. Information collected in the inventory is relevant to a range of upcoming policy decisions: designation of “regionally significant industrial lands” to comply with Metro’s Title 4; refinement and implementation of industrial development strategies; potential changes to the industrial base zones to better accommodate evolving industrial uses; and future rezoning requests involving industrial land.

The inventory is part of a larger project, the Citywide Industrial land Inventory and Assessment (CILIA). The full analysis consists of three reports:

1.  Industrial Land Inventory Report

2.  Market Demand Analysis Report for the Citywide Industrial Lands Inventory and Assessment

3.  Employment Sites Predevelopment Analysis

The report is available at:

http://www.pdc.us/pubs/bus_serv/industrial-lands.asp#publication.

2. EVALUATION OF NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL USES

SUMMARY

Item #41 of the FY 02-03 Regulatory Work Program Top Ten calls for an “evaluation of the existence of nonconforming (both legal and illegal) commercial uses in residential zones.” The problem associated with this item was described as follows:

“In the 80s and 90s, many properties were rezoned from Commercial to Residential zoning. While businesses can remain in operation as legal nonconforming uses on these sites, the residential zoning had created a substantial burden on some of these businesses and the residential zoning discourages further investment in these nonconforming uses. Some believe that the zoning, particularly along major arterial streets, was inappropriately applied and is hurting business development, neighborhood stability and neighborhood livability.”

In response to this assertion the Bureau of Planning conducted a limited study that assessed the prevalence of nonconforming uses and helped define the locations and work scope of future efforts to address the question. Single-dwelling zones were excluded from the analysis. The report describes the policy and historic context of legislative rezoning decisions as well as the study’s methodology and findings. No specific recommendations are made as a result of this study, however the Bureau is following up on the study through more comprehensive work on Main Streets and the Division Vision project.

By comparing the Standard Industrial Code (SIC) reported to the State of Oregon, Department of Labor to the allowed, conditional, and prohibited uses on each property, Staff was able to draw generalized conclusions about the prevalence of nonconforming uses. The study reports the occurrence of nonconforming uses by specific Region 2040 design type areas, i.e., Central City, Regional Center, Town Center, Station Area, Main Street, Corridor, and Industrial Areas.

The report is available at:

http://www.planning.ci.portland.or.us/cp_reg_over.html

G.  Attachments

White Papers

1.  Columbia South Shore groundwater wellfield improvement nonconforming upgrades exemption  88

2.  Bicycle Parking Standards – Short Term  89

3.  Alternative Design Density ‘a’ overlay zone  90

4.  Awnings in design overlay zones  91

5.  Required Residential overlay in Central City Plan District  92

6.  Kenton Plan District Prohibition on Vehicle Sales  93

Annual Regulatory Improvement Work Program– Proposed Top Ten FY 03-04

Proposal for Code Improvement

Item #7 from ReCIL (Regulatory Code Improvement List) 03-04

Annual Regulatory Improvement Work Program– Top Ten FY 02-03

Proposal for Code Improvement

Annual Regulatory Improvement Work Program– Top Ten FY 02-03

Proposal for Code Improvement

Annual Regulatory Improvement Work Program– Top Ten FY 02-03

Proposal for Code Improvement

Annual Regulatory Improvement Work Program– Top Ten FY 02-03

Proposal for Code Improvement

Annual Regulatory Improvement Work Program– Proposed Top Ten FY 03-04

Proposal for Code Improvement

Item #9 from ReCIL (Regulatory Code Improvement List) 03-04

1900 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 4100

Portland, Oregon 97201

Phone: 503-823-7700

Fax: 503/823-7800

TDD: 503/823-6868

Internet: http://www.planning.ci.portland.or.us/