The URL can be used to link to this page

July 9, 2018 Agenda FIGLEY,MAYOR HRYN CITY OF W OO D B U R N JUAN SERRATOS,TCOUNCILOR WARD 1 LISA ELLSWORTH,COUNCILOR WARD II CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ROBERT CARNEY,COUNCILOR WARD III SHARON SCHAUB,COUNCILOR WARD IV FRANK LONERGAN,COUNCILOR WARD V JULY 9, 2018- 7.00 P.M. ERIC MORRIS,COUNCILOR WARD VI CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS-270 MONTGOMERY STREET 1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. The July 23 City Council meeting/Community Barbecue will take place at Centennial Park at 5:30 p.m. Appointments: None. 4. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY 5. 15 MINUTE RECESS 6. COMMUNITY/GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS None. 7. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None. Presentations: None. 8. COMMUNICATIONS None. 9. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda. This facility is ADA accessible. If you need special accommodation, please contact the City Recorder at 503-980- 6318 at least 24 hours prior to this meeting. **Habrd int6rpretes disponibles para aquellas personas que no hablan Ingl6s, previo acuerdo. Comunfquese al (503) 980-2485.** July 9, 2018 Council Agenda Page i 10. CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be adopted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A. Woodburn City Council minutes of June 25, 2018 1 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. B. Building Activity for June 2018 5 Recommended Action: Receive the report. 11. TABLED BUSINESS None. 12. PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS-Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. A. Council Bill No. 3072 - A Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2017 6 Water System Master Plan for the City of Woodburn Recommended Action: Adopt the 2017 Water Master Plan by Resolution. B. PUBLIC HEARING 59 New Water System Development Charges Based Upon Methodology Report. C. Council Bill No. 3073 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 2070 61 (The System Development Charge Ordinance) to Include New Water System Development Charges Based Upon an Updated SDC Methodology Report and Setting an Effective Date Recommended Action:That the City Council, after a public hearing, consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance 2070 (An Ordinance Establishing System Development Charges for Water and Sewer), effective September 17, 2018. D. Council Bill No. 3074 - A Resolution Adopting a New Fee Schedule for 74 City of Woodburn Water System Development Charges; Repealing Resolution 1658; and Setting an Effective Date Recommended Action:Adopt a resolution establishing Water System Development Charges (SDCs) pursuant to the recently updated Water SDC Methodology as adopted by the City Council. E. PUBLIC HEARING 78 LA 2018-01, Amending the Planned Unit Development Provisions of July 9, 2018 Council Agenda Page ii the WDO F. Council Bill No. 3075 - An Ordinance Amending Woodburn 106 Development Ordinance (WDO) Section 3.09.06 Planned Unit Developments (LA 2018-01) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached ordinance implementing LA 2018-01 amending the planned unit development (PUD) provisions in the WDO. G. PUBLIC HEARING 118 LA 2018-02,Amending the WDO to Allow for Accessory Dwelling Units and Certain Affordable Housing Projects as required by State Statute. H. Council Bill No. 3076 - An Ordinance Amending Woodburn 184 Development Ordinance(WDO)Sections 1.02,2.02,2.06,2.07, and 4.01.05 to Allow for Accessory Dwelling Units and Certain Affordable Housing Projects (LA 2018-02) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached ordinance implementing LA 2018-02, amending the WDO to allow for ADUs and certain affordable housing projects as required by state statute. I. Leasing Specialists LLC Contract Award 211 Recommended Action: That the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, award a police vehicle lease contract to Auto Leasing Specialists LLC (dba Leasing Specialists LLC) and authorize the City Administrator to sign the police vehicle lease contract. J. Temporary Encroachment Easement 214 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Administrator to grant a Temporary Encroachment Easement to Andrey Feoktistov. 13. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up by the City Council. A. Call-Up Briefing: Planning Commission Approval of Design Review 222 and Variance Applications for Salem Health Clinic at Woodburn Station, 105 Arney Rd Ste 130 (DR 2018-03 & VAR 2018-01) Recommended Action: Staff recommends no action and briefs the Council on this item pursuant to Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section 4.02.02. The Council may call up this item for review if desired and, by majority vote, initiate a review of this decision. 14. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT July 9, 2018 Council Agenda Page iii 15. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 16. ADJOURNMENT July 9, 2018 Council Agenda Page iv COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2018 0:00 DATE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JUNE 25, 2018 CONVENED The meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL Mayor Figley Present Councilor Carney Absent Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor Schaub Present Councilor Morris Present via telephone Councilor Ellsworth Present Councilor Serratos Absent Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, Assistant City Administrator Row, Community Development Director Kerr, Police Chief Ferraris, Public Works Director Liljequist, Economic Development Director Johnk, Community Relations Manager Gutierrez-Gomez, City Recorder Pierson ANNOUNCEMENTS In observance of Independence Day, City Hall offices, the Library, and Transit services will be closed Wednesday, July 4, 2018. The Aquatic Center will be open 7:00 a.m. —4:00 p.m. with organized activities for kids starting at noon. Woodburn Parks and Recreation would like to invite the Mayor and City Council along with all Woodburn residents to the annual 4th of July Celebration sponsored by Cox Electric. This year's event will kick off at 5:30 p.m. at Centennial Park with a band lineup that includes Reedy 300, Red Diesel and American Idol Contestant Jacob Westfall along with great food and games for all. Fireworks begin at 10:00 p.m. Fiesta Grand Marshal -Mayor Figley and Elida Sifuentez announced that Nancy Kirksey has been chosen to be the Fiesta Grand Marshal. PRESENTATIONS Project Update: Accessory Dwelling Units - Community Development Director Kerr provided an overview of the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission in regards to accessory dwelling units. Economic Development Video - Economic Development Director Johnk showed the City Council a marketing video for the City of Woodburn. CONSENT AGENDA A. Woodburn City Council minutes of June 11, 2018, B. Woodburn City Council Work Session minutes of June 11, 2018, C. Woodburn City Council Executive Session minutes of June 11, 2018, D. Crime Statistics through May 2018. Lonergan/Schaub... adopt the Consent Agenda. The motion passed unanimously. Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2018 1 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2018 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3069—AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO DATAVISION COMMUNICATIONS,LLC.AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Lonergan introduced Council Bill No. 3069. City Recorder Pierson read the bill twice by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Assistant City Administrator Row provided a staff report. On roll call vote for final passage,the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 3069 duly passed. COUNCIL BILL NO. 3070 — AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 2032 (MUNICIPAL OFFENSES) AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE REVIEW/REVISION PROJECT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Lonergan introduced Council Bill No. 3070. City Recorder Pierson read the bill twice by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 3070 duly passed. COUNCIL BILL NO.3071 -A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT STOP SIGNS AND STOP PAVEMENT MARKINGS BE INSTALLED ON MCNAUGHT STREET AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF WILLOW AVENUE AND WOODLAND AVENUE. Lonergan introduced Council Bill No. 3071. City Recorder Pierson read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 3071 duly passed. 2:26 LEASE AGREEMENT FOR 970-990 N. CASCADE DR. Councilor Lonergan declared that he knows the owners of the building. He added that he has no personal interest in the building, was not a part of the negotiations and he feels qualified and comfortable voting on this agenda item. Councilor Ellsworth declared that the owners of the building were her attorney's and are her neighbors but she has no interest in the property and can make a judgement on the facts. Mayor Figley stated that she also knows the owners but has no financial ties with them. Assistant City Administrator Row provided a staff report. Lonergan/Schaub... authorize the City Administrator execute the enclosed lease agreement for the building located at 970-990 N. Cascade Dr. The motion passed unanimously. FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH FHDC Assistant City Administrator Row provided a staff report. Lonergan/Ellsworth...authorize the City Administrator to execute the enclosed First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Farmworker Housing Development Corporation(FHDC). The motion passed unanimously. ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Assistant City Administrator Row provided a staff report. Lonergan/Ellsworth... authorize the City Administrator to sign the enclosed Assignment and Assumption of Purchase and Sale Agreement. The motion passed unanimously. ACCEPTANCE OF A STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT 1750 PARK AVENUE, WOODBURN, OR 97071 (TAX LOT 051W08CA02800) Lonergan/Ellsworth... authorize the future acceptance of a Right-of-Way dedication and a Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2018 2 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2018 Public Utility Easement to be granted by CUE Limited Partnership,pending the closing of the purchase and sale of property located at 1750 Park Avenue, Woodburn, OR 97071 (Tax Lot 051W08CA02800). The dedications will be made during the closing process whereby the subject City-owned property will be conveyed to CUE Limited Partnership. The motion passed unanimously. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS Morris/Ellsworth... authorize the City Administrator to sign an agreement with Woodburn School District for School Resource Officer services. The motion passed unanimously. REDFLEX CONTRACT EXTENSION AMENDMENT Lonergan/Schaub... authorize the City Administrator to sign the attached Fourth Extension of the Agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems,Inc.to provide Red Light Photo Enforcement Services. The motion passed unanimously. ALTERNATE RATE CALCULATION FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDCS) SUBMITTED BY FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA Public Works Director Liljequist provided a staff report. Lonergan/Schaub... accept the alternate rate calculation of sanitary sewer SDC fees pursuant to Ordinance No. 2070 submitted by Food Services of America. The motion passed unanimously. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT City Administrator Derickson had nothing to report. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS Councilor Morris stated that he has been watching the live feed on the City's webpage as well as on the City's Facebook page and commented that the Facebook page has a much clearer picture. Councilor Schaub wished everyone a happy and safe Fourth of July and that she looks forward to going to Centennial Park and enjoying the fireworks. Councilor Ellsworth stated that she is looking forward to the Relay for Life coming up this weekend, the Chuck wagon breakfast and the Fourth of July celebration. Mayor Figley stated that it is not too late to start the Relay for Life scavenger hunt and she looks forward to the Fourth of July Celebrations. She added that the lights on the overpass will remain orange until the Beavers bring the championship home. Councilor Lonergan thanked Councilor Morris for calling in to attend the meeting by phone despite not feeling well. ADJOURNMENT Ellsworth/Schaub... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. APPROVED Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2018 3 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2018 KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2018 4 CITY URN Community Development Department MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503)982-5246 Date: July 2, 2018 To: Chris Kerr, Community Development Department Director From: Ted Cuno, Building Divisio Subject: Building Activity for June 2018 2016 2017 2018 No. Dollar Amount No.. Dollar Amount No. Dollar Amount .. ..... _. .�..... ....... .. ........._.... ..._' ............................ Single-Family Residential 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 . .................� . Multi-Family Residential 8 $1,999,999 0 $0 1 $13,000 Assisted Living Facilities 0 $0 ........0 $0 0 $0 .......................... _____....... .................— Residential Adds &Alts 8 $123,861 4 $47,047 5 $70,323 _.........._. ... .. ........ ................................................. Industrial 1 $2,500 4 $1,223,355 0 $0 Commercial _ 13mmmmmITITITITITITITIT $729,253 11 $1,037,236 8 $671,708 Signs and Fences 2 $32,600 1 $5,830 1 $23,200 _.... . Manufactured Homes 0 $0 0 $0 3 . . $85,481 ...... ....... �.. .._ ....... .......... .......................... ...... .................. TOTALS 32 $2,888,213 20 $2,313,468 18 $863,712 Fiscal Year to Date(July 1 – $25,592,070 $21,352,902 $49,429,664 June 30 I:\Community Development\Building\Building Activity\B1dgAct-2018\BIdg Activity-MemOS\-memo-2018-6 June.doc 5 �'I'1�r I Iii♦ r} Y 9M& Item BU Pri,,�<;rrt rr rf aA'!R7 July 9, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Eric Liljequist, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Adoption of the 2017 Water Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the 2017 Water Master Plan by Resolution. BACKGROUND: The 1997 Water Master Plan was amended/updated in 2001 , this is a 20-year plan that is technically sufficient in many regards, but requires review and an update to adjust future expansion requirements based upon current planning criteria. The updated 2017 water master plan just completed by Murray Smith incorporates the Urban Growth Boundary expansion approved in January of 2016 and updates the Financial Plan for operations and maintenance costs and the capital improvement plan. DISCUSSION: The 2017 Water Master Plan is substantially complete, with the exception of an additional master plan component required by revised Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 333-061-0060 (5)(J) which became effective January 10, 2018 that requires all new water master plans to include an analysis of seismic resilience. This work in currently underway and should be completed in the next few months. After this final component of the Water Master Plan is completed, an amendment to the Water Master Plan will be brought to Council for approval this fall after final approval is obtained from the Oregon Health Authority. No other components of the Water Master Plan are anticipated to change, and staff believes that is important to adopt the current Water Master Plan prior to the adoption and implementation of the new water system development charges. The 2017 Water Master Plan includes documentation of water system upgrades completed since the 2001 update, estimation of future water requirements, recommendation for water facility improvements to correct existing deficiencies Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_X City Attorney_X Finance—X- 6 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 9, 2018 Page 2 and to provide for future growth, and an updated water system capital improvement program (CIP). FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact identified with the recommended action. 7 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3072 RESOLUTION NO. 2120 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE 2017 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF WOODBURN WHEREAS, the current Water System Master Plan was adopted in December 1997 and amended in July 2001 by the Woodburn City Council; and WHEREAS, since the completion of this plan, the new Urban Growth Boundary expansion has been approved, thus requiring a water system plan update to adjust future expansion requirements based upon current planning criteria for full development buildout conditions; and WHEREAS, in view of such projected development growth, the City has updated the Water System Master Plan, including proposed capital improvements needed to serve the City's water system anticipated growth; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts and approves the 2017 Woodburn Water System Master Plan, which is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder Page 1 - Council Bill No. 3072 Resolution No. 2120 8 ATTEST: Heather Pierson, City Recorder Page 2 - Council Bill No. 3072 Resolution No. 2120 9 EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 49 �r �O O D.1_,7 U RN Incorporated ? 889 r murraysmilh i r Pr �, D � goo I i IIIIIIIII� i V ,cul 10 EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 49 Water System Master Plan City of WoodbUrn June 2018 �S��G6NEF �ati� PROF IN f9 34PE 62947 lul A Y 10- - ON OREGON Y2 M. RENEWS: Murraysmith 888 SW 5th Avenue Suite 1170 Portland,OR 97204 EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 49 Table of Contents 1. introduction and Existing Water System 1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Study Area........................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Water System Background .............................................................................................1-2 1.4 Supply Facilities ...............................................................................................................1-2 1.4.1 Groundwater Wells.............................................................................................1-2 1.4.2 Water Treatment Plants.....................................................................................1-4 1.5 Pressure Zones ................................................................................................................1-5 1.6 Storage Reservoirs...........................................................................................................1-5 1.6.1 Elevated Tank......................................................................................................1-6 1.6.2 Ground Level Reservoirs......................................................................................1-6 1.7 Pump Stations..................................................................................................................1-6 1.8 Distribution System.........................................................................................................1-6 1.9 SCADA System .................................................................................................................1-7 2. WaterRequirements 2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Planning Period................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Service Area .....................................................................................................................2-1 2.4 Historical Population.......................................................................................................2-1 2.5 Historical Water Demand................................................................................................2-1 2.5.1 Water Consumption by Customer Type.............................................................2-2 2.5.2 Per Capita Water Consumption..........................................................................2-3 2.5.3 Typical Water Consumption by Zoning..............................................................2-3 2.6 Future Population and Water Demand Forecast...........................................................2-4 2.6.1 Future Water Demand Forecast Assumptions...................................................2-4 2.6.2 Buildout Demand Assumptions..........................................................................2-5 16-1934 Page i Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 12 EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 49 3. Planning and Analysis Criteria 3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Water Supply Capacity....................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Distribution Storage and Pumping .................................................................................3-2 3.3.1 Storage Volume...................................................................................................3-2 3.3.2 Pumping Capacity...............................................................................................3-3 3.4 Fire Flow Recommendation............................................................................................3-4 3.5 Service Pressures.............................................................................................................3-4 3.5.1 Normal Service Pressure.....................................................................................3-4 3.5.2 Service Pressure in an Emergency......................................................................3-5 3.5.3 Distribution Main Criteria...................................................................................3-5 3.6 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................3-5 3.6.1 Source Water.......................................................................................................3-5 3.6.2 Distribution System.............................................................................................3-5 4, Water System Analysis 4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Water Supply Capacity....................................................................................................4-1 4.2.1 Well Capacity......................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Service Area and Pressure Zones ...................................................................................4-3 4.3.1 Existing................................................................................................................4-3 4.3.2 Future..................................................................................................................4-3 4.4 Closed System Operation................................................................................................4-3 4.5 Storage Capacity Analysis ...............................................................................................4-4 4.6 Pumping Capacity Analysis..............................................................................................4-4 4.7 Distribution Capacity and hydraulic Performance.........................................................4-5 4.7.1 Hydraulic Model..................................................................................................4-5 5. Recommendations and CI113 5.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Cost Estimating Data.......................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Water System Capital Improvement Program...............................................................5-2 16-1934 Page ii Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 13 EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 49 5.3.1 CIP Cost Allocation to Growth ............................................................................5-2 5.4 Water Source and Treatment.........................................................................................5-2 5.4.1 On-going Well Rehabilitation.............................................................................5-2 5.4.2 National Way Water Treatment Plant(WTP)....................................................5-3 5.4.3 Supply Expansion.................................................................................................5-3 5.4.4 Treatment Expansion..........................................................................................5-3 5.5 Pump Stations..................................................................................................................5-4 5.5.1 Pumping Capacity Upgrade................................................................................5-4 5.5.2 Parr Road SCADA.................................................................................................5-4 5.6 Reservoirs ........................................................................................................................5-4 5.6.1 Elevated Reservoir...............................................................................................5-4 5.7 Distribution Mains...........................................................................................................5-4 5.7.1 Routine Main Replacement Program.................................................................5-7 5.8 CIP Funding......................................................................................................................5-7 1:igures u 1-1 Study Area........................................................................................................................1-3 1-2 Water System Schematic................................................................................................1-8 2-1 Current Annual Water Consumption by Customer Type ..............................................2-3 4-1 Demand and Well Supply Capacity.................................................................................4-2 4-2 Fire Flow Deficiency Map................................................................................................4-7 Plate1..........................................................................................................................Appendix A ables 1-1 Groundwater Well Summary..........................................................................................1-4 1-2 WTP Capacity Summary..................................................................................................1-5 1-3 Reservoir Summary.........................................................................................................1-5 1-4 Pump Station Summary ..................................................................................................1-6 1-5 Distribution System Pipe Summary................................................................................1-7 2-1 Historical Water Demand Summary...............................................................................2-2 2-2 Typical Water Use by Zoning ..........................................................................................2-4 16-1934 Page iii Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 14 EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 49 2-3 Future Water Demand Summary ...................................................................................2-5 3-1 Summary of Recommended Fire Flows .........................................................................3-4 3-2 Water System Planning Criteria......................................................................................3-7 4-1 Source Capacity Summary ..............................................................................................4-2 4-2 Treatment Capacity Summary........................................................................................4-3 4-3 Storage Capacity Summary.............................................................................................4-4 4-4 Pumping Capacity Summary...........................................................................................4-5 5-1 Unit Cost for Water Main Projects .................................................................................5-5 5-2 Distribution Main Projects..............................................................................................5-6 5-3 Distribution Main Replacement Cost Summary ............................................................5-7 5-4 CIP Summary....................................................................................................................5-8 16-1934 Page iv Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 15 EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 49 c III oIn I,,. �Introduction and Existing Water System 1.1 Introduction The purpose of this Water System Master Plan Update is to perform an analysis of the City of Woodburn's (City's) water system and: ■ Document water system upgrades, including significant changes in water supply completed since the 2001 Update to the Water System Master Plan ■ Estimate future water requirements including potential water system expansion areas ■ Identify deficiencies and recommend water facility improvements that correct deficiencies and provide for growth ■ Update the City's water system capital improvement program (CIP) To identify system deficiencies, existing water infrastructure inventoried in this section is assessed based on estimated existing and future water needs developed in Section 2 and water system performance criteria described in Section 3. The results of this analysis are presented in Section 4. Section S identifies improvement projects to mitigate existing and projected future deficiencies and provide for system expansion including a prioritized CIP and discussion of utility funding. The planning and analysis efforts presented in this Master Plan Update are intended to provide the City with the information needed to inform long-term water infrastructure decisions. This plan complies with water system master planning requirements established under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) for Public Water Systems, Chapter 333, Division 61. 1.2 Study Area The City's current water service area includes all areas within the current city limits. The study area of this planning effort includes the current city limits, areas outside the city limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the Chateau Ranchettes Subdivision outside of the UGB, and the City's Urban Reserve Areas (URAs). The current UGB includes the planned Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR) development area mostly west of the Interstate 5 freeway (1-5). Development of the URA is considered in the future water system analysis to inform facility sizing needs for long- 16-1934 Page 1-1 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 17 EXHIBIT A Page 9 of 49 term growth. However, growth in the URA is not directly incorporated in the water demand forecast in Section 2. The study area is illustrated in Figure 1-1. 1.3 Water System Background The City owns and operates a public water system that supplies potable water to all residents, businesses and public institutions within the city limits. This section describes the water service area and inventories the City's water system facilities including existing supply sources, pressure zones, finished-water storage reservoirs, pump stations, and distribution system piping. Plate 1 in AppendixA illustrates the City's water system service area limits, water system facilities, and distribution system piping. The water system schematic, Figure 1-2, at the end of this section shows the existing configuration of water system facilities and pressure zones. Supply 1:acilities Six active wells supply the City with groundwater from the Troutdale sand and gravel aquifer. The six wells are distributed across the City and pump in pairs to one of three independent water treatment plants (WTPs). In summer months and during peak demand, both wells operate simultaneously to supply each WTP. During normal, non-peak operation, either well can supply the treatment facility. Emergency valving is available at each well to bypass their respective WTP and directly supply distribution, if needed. An additional emergency well, Well No. 7, can similarly pump directly into the distribution system. If used as a backup, these systems need a chlorine feed system to maintain a disinfectant residual before connection to the system. Due to the redundancy of having three treatment plants in the system, it is not likely that the plants will need to be bypassed. Primary supply is provided by six groundwater wells with a combined maximum capacity of 4,250 gallons per minute (gpm). Individual well capacities range from 400 to 1,350 gpm. Emergency Well No. 7 can supply 1,000 gpm directly to the distribution system, without treatment. Currently, Wells No. 9 and 11, pump sand out of the aquifer if operated at more than 650 gpm each, and 13 operates at reduced capacity due to well screen biofouling. The City is planning to rehabilitate these wells in the near future. Well 12 was recently rehabilitated in 2017 resulting in a partial recovery of the well's capacity, followed by a rapid capacity decline. The summer well production at the City's wells often is reduced by nearby irrigation wells, particularly in the Parr Rd. WTP wells. Iron bacteria has also started to form in small quantities in the wells. Well details are summarized in Table 1-1 and locations are shown on Plate 1 in Appendix A. 16-1934 Page 1-2 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 18 I sa�,� n�nsss geek; age I U OT 4U �a Legend Woodburn City Limits Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) Water Service Area (;roeK Jen Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR) Urban Reserve Area Gre r L J11, y< I 1 f, t I / �; . �d � a r 1 HOODA i K u� , _;.- � i � m ree HWY 21 R- Tid, L>'� MT VE �fU0L LL�)RD NE C i Ili � City of i 01 Woodburnx-' � i c PARR RD NE �u of IIIIII �i �y _ m PARR RD NE f tr i - w a .i iii r w y N 4 rt rS QRO t N QOIS" 1�_ I w E Layer Credits:Sources:Esn,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,N Robinson,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen, 0 3,000 Feet Rijkswaterstaat,GSA,Geoland,FEMA,Intennap and the GIS user community,City of Woodburn and Manion County GIS 1 1 � City of Woodburn Figure 1-1 s Water System Study Area WQODBURN murraysmi-th Master Plan June 2018 16-1934 19 EXHIBIT A Page 11 of 49 GrowIin waterIIII S ull' II' airy � � ILII m IlpuumlllLll IIIIIIIIVII II 1111111IVI � I VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV II 11�111� I ` � uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu iuuuul ii 7 Robin&Woodland Ave 100 1967 ' 1,000 1,0001 None 9 Country Club WTP 100 1979 1,000 650 Country Club 10 National Way WTP 100 1988 1,000 800 National Way 11 1108 Astor Way 100 1989 1,000 650 Country Club 12 Parr Road WTP 125 2003 1,200 650 Parr Roads 13 555 S Settlemier Rd 75 2003 600 400 Parr Road 14 Pacific Highway 150 2004 1,400 1,000 National Way .... .... TOTAL NON-EMERGENCY CAPACITY 6,200 4,150 1. Emergency supply only Water from the Troutdale aquifer is naturally high in iron, manganese, arsenic, and radon. Iron, manganese, and radon are considered secondary contaminants under the Clean Water Act. These contaminants may affect water taste and odor but have no documented negative health effects. Arsenic is classified as a primary contaminant and must be kept below maximum contaminant levels (MCLS) for human health. Historically, the City did not treat its groundwater. Due to increasing taste and odor complaints, in 2001 the City built three WTPs in conjunction with well improvements, ground level reservoirs, and increased pumping to improve water quality. In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Groundwater Rule (GWR), the City is not required to disinfect its groundwater prior to supplying the distribution system. In 2009 an outbreak of midge fly larvae at one of the WTP ground level storage reservoirs caused a system wide response that necessitated flushing the entire system. The problem was controlled and remedied, but this event provided the initiative to begin regular disinfection. In 2011, chloramination was added at each of the three WTPs. Added chlorine combines with naturally occurring ammonia in the raw groundwater to form an effective residual disinfectant, monochloramines, in the water system. The current treatment process includes coagulation, filtration, and disinfection, and is identical at each of the treatment sites. Potassium permanganate is generated onsite and added to raw well water to aid with coagulation. Treated water is then filtered through green sand and anthracite coal pressure filters. The water is next treated with chloramines for disinfection and cascaded into ground level storage tanks for radon removal. 16-1934 Page 1-4 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 20 EXHIBIT A Page 12 of 49 Treatment capacity at each WTP is summarized in Table 1-2. Finished water is stored at each ground level reservoir and pumped to the distribution system as necessary to maintain water level in the elevated tank described later in the section. Ta b II a I- lll Cal adty Swinrnary "�" " """"""IIUIII I_ w ullu IIIIII�U I VIII IU911 � Parr Road 12 & 13 2.3 2.9 5.8 National Way 10 & 14 3.5 2.7 2.7 Country Club 9 & 11 1.7 2.7 27 .III Pressure Zones The City's existing distribution system operates as a single pressure zone. Pressure zone boundaries are typically defined by ground topography to maintain acceptable service pressures for all customers in the zone. However, elevations within the City vary so little that a single zone can adequately supply the entire system.The hydraulic grade line (HGL) of a zone is set by overflow elevations of water storage facilities or discharge pressures of pump stations serving the zone. In Woodburn, both modes of operation exist:the three pump stations, one at each WTP, can provide pressure by pumping directly into the system, or the elevated tank can provide pressure when pumps are "off". The two operational modes are cycled throughout the day to maintain water levels in the elevated tank. Water system facilities are illustrated on Figure 1-2 at the end of this section. 1.6 Storage Reservoirs Woodburn's water system has one elevated reservoir near the City center and three additional ground-level reservoirs, one at each of the WTPs. Table 1-3 presents a summary of the City's existing storage reservoirs. TaII Ila I-3 lf' eservoa r yaII II airy pluum ion w Elevated Tank Broadway and Front St 0.75 Multi-leg elevated steel Parr Road 828 Parr Road NE 2.90 Welded steel National Way 2225 National Way', 1.70 Welded steel Country Club 1084 Country Club Rd 0.30 Welded steel 16-1934 Page 1-5 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 21 EXHIBIT A Page 13 of 49 Elevated IIIk Woodburn's Elevated Tank provides the only gravity service to the City at a maximum HGL of 310 feet. It is centrally located in the City at the corner of Broadway and Front Street. The tank is kept at a fill level of approximately 95% by the pump stations at each of the three WTPs which provides system-wide service pressure between 53.5 pounds per square inch (psi) and 55 psi. Currently the altitude valve on the reservoir is stuck in the open position. This valve should be rehabilitated or replaced. This reservoir exterior is slated to be repainted in fiscal year 2018-2019. Ground Levd IReserv6rs The three ground level reservoirs were built in 2001 as part of each WTP. They range in capacity from 0.30 MG at Country Club Road to 2.90 MG at Parr Road. The three reservoirs provide suction for their respective pump stations and finished water storage for each WTP. 1.7 Pump Woodburn's water system includes three booster pump stations, one at each of the WTPs. Under normal conditions, each station operates lead-lag, running a single pump with the second pump available if the elevated tank water level continues to drop. Pumps are activated to maintain elevated tank water levels between 35.5 and 39 feet which provides system pressure between 53.5 and 55 psi. During normal operation, pumps at individual pump stations, are set to mirror each other with a typical running range of 1,200-1,300 gpm for each pump station. When demand exceeds 3,900 gpm,the pumps will ramp up to their full capacities.Table 1-4 summarizes the City's existing pump stations. ll'urnp Staban Swinrnary �I OMMI � �� w� � d�� u�� Parr Road 828 Parr Road NE 2 75 1,819 National Way 2225 National Way 2 60 1,650 Country Club 1084 Country Club Rd' 2 601.8 1,150 Distribution The City's distribution system is composed of various pipe materials in sizes up to 20 inches in diameter. The total length of piping in the service area is approximately 97 miles. Pipe materials include cast iron, ductile iron, PVC, steel, galvanized steel, and asbestos cement. Most of the piping in the system is ductile or cast iron. Table 1-5 presents a summary of pipe lengths by diameter. 16-1934 Page 1-6 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 22 EXHIBIT A Page 14 of 49 Tablslre I-5 Nsbi-iillsuban Systern flllip e Swi-m it VIII.L 11 11 "�� i��l��puuuul 11111111m�III I� III 1 4-inch or Less 2.6 6-inch 30.4 8-inch 41.2 10-inch 4.3 12-inch 15.1 14-inch 1.6 16-inch 0.4 18-inch 1.3 20-inch 0.1 Total Length 97.0 1.9 SCADA System Woodburn's supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system monitors all storage reservoirs, pump stations, and wells within the City's water system and provides for manual or automatic control of certain facilities and operations. The SCADA system also collects and stores system status and performance data. All facilities are equipped with remote telemetry units (RTUs) that monitor reservoir water levels, system pressure, pump station on/off status and pump station flow rates. In addition, some sites are equipped with intrusion, overflow warning and fire alarms which alert staff to unauthorized access, flooding or fire. All signals from the RTUs are collected and transmitted to the water system control center near the elevated tank which enables City staff to view the status of the water system in real time. The system is also capable of automatically dialing City officials 24 hours a day in the event that one of the alarms is triggered at any of the sites. Many of the City's telemetry system facilities have recently been upgraded. There have been some issues at the Parr Road Booster Station. Sometimes when the booster station is idle,the lead pump will not active until the lag pump set point is hit, and then both pumps will kick on. The City has hired a consultant to troubleshoot the problem but has been unable to remedy the issue to date. Update of SCADA hardware and/or software may be needed at that booster station to correct the issue. 16-1934 Page 1-7 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 23 CV V Cl) O v 8 8 g R M 8 8 1 a N 8 8 3 80 8 8 9 a O r p LU C5 Q m o z u- J U W Z a � IU co H m J w CL CnD Q 0 a � o /%w L � AM ao � L Rrm �• z V rt lP-9 ' ��M� Z LU o� c7 o NIM cn o � w � � ❑ 0 z ..................................I I N C7 J w 11 �, Z � O N a ❑ z a O z i� � o f' z z z Q L F w d nnnnnnnnnnni id QQ a nnnnn. Q C 3 z a [C d a d = O z a cn 11, a {V _ d o d z o z g s z LU LU a LU w F LU W W � 1Z 1333 NI 3NIl:icivdJ Di-invdci kH W a v O a � 8 8 S A 00 8 8 9 8 00 8 8 8 8 C 8 8 g 8 0 W J M N r murraysm�rth Section 2 EXHIBIT A Page 17 of 49 S c III oIIri 2 Water Requirements 2.1 introduction This section presents existing and projected future water demands for the City of Woodburn's (City's) water service area. Demand forecasts are developed from future population projections and historical water consumption and water production records. 2.2 Planning Period The planning period for this Water System Master Plan (WSMP) is 20 years,through the year 2037, consistent with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) requirements for Water System Master Plans (OAR 333-061). 2.3 Service As presented in Figure 1-1, the City's current water service area includes all properties within the city limits and a small number of customers outside the city limits. The future service area and the study area for this WSMP includes all areas within the city limits and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) including the Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR), and Chateau Ranchettes Estates which is served outside the UGB. Analysis does not include areas designated as Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) by the City's comprehensive plan. These areas are outside the UGB and anticipated to develop outside of the 20-year planning horizon. II11o1olilI Population � Woodburn currently supplies water to approximately 24,795 residents. Current and historical population estimates for Woodburn are taken from the Portland State University Population Research Center's (PSU PRC) 2016 Oregon Certified Annual Population Estimates. The PRC reports have historically been used for population estimates and projections and can be relied upon by the City for planning purposes per OAR 660-032-0040. Historical population estimates are summarized in Table 2-1. 2.5 11-1-listorical Water Demand Water demand refers to all potable water required by the system including residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Potable water demands are described using three 16-1934 Page 2-1 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 26 EXHIBIT A Page 18 of 49 water use metrics: average daily demand (ADD), maximum day demand (MDD), and peak hour demand (PHD). Each of these metrics are stated in gallons per unit of time such as million gallons per day (mgd) and in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). ADD is the total annual water volume used system-wide divided by 365 days per year. MDD is the largest 24-hour water volume for a given year. In western Oregon, MDD usually occurs each year between July 1st and September 30th. PHD is the estimated largest hour of demand on the maximum water use day. Water demand can be calculated using either water consumption or water production data. Water consumption data is taken from the City's customer billing records and includes all revenue metered uses. Water production is measured as the water supplied to the distribution system from the City's Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) plus the water volume supplied from the elevated tank. Water production includes unaccounted-for water like water loss through minor leaks and unmetered, non-revenue uses such as hydrant flushing. For the purposes of this WSMP, water production data is used to calculate total water demand. This approach accounts for all water use, including unmetered use. 2016 customer consumption and billing records are used to distribute current water demands throughout the water system hydraulic model, discussed in Section 4.Table 2-1 summarizes the City's current system-wide ADD and MDD based on water production data. Data was unavailable to calculate PHD thus a PHD:MDD peaking factor of 2 is used, consistent with water use patterns at other Willamette Valley water providers. Historic water demand in Woodburn has been much higher as recently as 2006, but in 2007, the City first implemented sewer rates based on water consumption, and the water usage in the city has decreased significantly due to conservation efforts, increased fixture efficiency, and as a response to the financial impacts to users. It is expected that water use will follow he trend of the last 5 years into the future. TaII Ila 2-I II...hstaIcall Water DalrrnalnSul-mi-nary ' ""' � ul" � IIIIIIVIIIIIIV �.�i IIIIIIV IIIIIIV �.�I ""' IIIIIIV �.�I � I ISI III IIIA II �� 2012 24,090 2.2 4.5 9.0 2013 24,330 2.2 3.9 7.8 2014 24,455 2.3 4.2+ 8.4 2015 24,670 2.4 4.5 9.0 2016 24,795 2.3 4.0 8.0 The City's water utility billing records are categorized by service type and meter size. For purposes of this WSMP, records were summarized into five divisions: Residential, Commercial < 1-inch 16-1934 Page 2-2 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 27 EXHIBIT A Page 19 of 49 diameter, Commercial > 1-inch diameter, Industrial, and Sprinkler. Sprinkler consumption includes irrigation services supplied from the drinking water system at many of the City's public parks and schools. Percentages of current water consumption by customer type are calculated based on 2016 City water billing records. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, approximately 61% of Water consumption in Woodburn is by residential customers. fFl i u it -11.. Current N nilnuII Water Canswrnpban Il y Custarner Type Sprinkler,6% Industrial, 1% , Commercial<= 1",8% Per capita water consumption is a typical metric used to quantify system water use. Both residential and non-residential demands are included, allowing for system demand projections based on population alone. Projections based on per capita consumption are more reliable if development is expected to be evenly divided among customer classes. Based on historical data presented in Table 2-1, the average per capita water consumption for the past 5 years in 92 gpcd. This is within the range expected for similar communities in this region. . .TypicaIl Water Cansumpdat it i it Typical water use, in gallons per day (gpd), per acre, or per metered connection, if applicable, was developed for each of the City's zoning categories using sample areas of each zoning type and 2016 meter data within those areas. Estimated typical demands (ADD) based on zoning are summarized in Table 2-2. 16-1934 Page 2-3 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 28 EXHIBIT A Page 20 of 49 Tallslla 2- Tyl icall Water Use by y inhin Single Family Residential Retirement Single Family Residential Nodal Single Family Residential - 187' Medium Density Residential - 159 Nodal Medium Density - 136 Mixed Use Village 874 Commercial General 850 - Commercial Office 368 - Downtown Core 1732 - Public and Semi-Public 56 - Light Industrial 118 - Industrial Park 184 - 1:uture Population1:orecast Estimates of future growth and related water demand within the Woodburn UGB are developed for 5-year increments to the year 2037 and a buildout condition. Population projections and the per capita water use developed earlier in this section are used to estimate demands for each 5- year increment, while current water use by zoning and comprehensive planning maps are used to estimate buildout demands. Buildout or saturation development occurs when all available land is developed to the maximum extent practical under current zoning and land use guidelines. For the purposes of this WSMP, buildout demands are used to check the ultimate capacity need for recommended improvement projects, so they are sized correctly for future growth. AFuture Water Demand II Forecast im pfl it Population estimates for the City are developed from PSU's PRC projections. For the period between 2017 and 2037, the City's average annual growth rate (AAGR) ranged from 1.22% to 1.56%. Average daily water demand for the 20-year period is estimated using the population estimates and the average per capita water use developed earlier in this section. It is assumed that within this timeframe, growth in the city will be distributed among residential and industrial uses and the historic per capita water use will remain a reasonable estimate. 16-1934 Page 2-4 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 29 EXHIBIT A Page 21 of 49 Future maximum day and peak hour demands are estimated using historical peaking factors. The 5-year average historical MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.9 is calculated based on the data in Table 2-1. This is on the low end of the normal range of peaking factors of similar water systems in the region. The assumed PHD:MDD peaking factor of 2.0 is used to estimate future PHD. Estimated 5- year water demands for the years 2017 through 2037 are presented in Table 2-3. Buildout demand is calculated to include all demands within the UGB, including current vacant land. Buildout ADD is estimated using the water demand by zoning classification as presented in Table 2-2 and applied to taxlots from zoning and comprehensive plan mapping developed by the City. Along with vacant lots, it is assumed that existing taxlots greater than 1 acre will redevelop to maximum densities based on current zoning. The same peaking factors applied to 20-year water demand projections are applied to buildout demand projections. Ta ll:3 Ila 2.3 fFlatoii a Water Dernwid Suinrnary W. Hill, uu uuuu m �I ��....�� i itFINIONERIM 1111196 2017 26,211 2.4 46 9.2 2022 28,262 2.6 4.9 9.8 2027 30,513 2.8 53 10.6 2037 35,025 3.2 61 12.2 Buildout 38 7.2 14.4 16-1934 Page 2-5 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 30 EXHIBIT A Page 23 of 49 SectloIn Planning and Analysis Criteria 3.1 introduction This section presents the planning and analysis criteria used to analyze performance of the City of Woodburn (City) water system. Criteria are presented for water supply, distribution system piping, service pressures, storage, and pumping facilities. Recommended water needs for emergency fire suppression are also presented. These criteria are used in conjunction with the water demand forecasts developed in Section 2 to complete analysis of the City's water system presented in Section 4. The recommendations of this plan are based on the following performance guidelines, which have been developed through a review of State requirements, American Water Works Association (AWWA) acceptable practice guidelines, Ten States Standards, and the Washington Water System Design Manual. 3.2 Water Supply As described in Section 1, the City draws its supply from a series of wells located within the city limits. Water is supplied from each active well to one of three Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) through raw water transmission mains. Each WTP is served by two wells. At each WTP, raw water is treated through oxidation and pressure tank filtration with adsorptive green sand media to reduce iron, manganese, arsenic, and radon. Finished water at each WTP is stored in a ground level reservoir, then pumped to distribution and a single elevated storage tank. For the purposes of this plan, supply capacity will be evaluated for each step in the supply system: source and treatment. Pumping and storage will be evaluated later in this section. Source capacity is evaluated based on firm capacity, the total capacity with the largest component out of service. Building facilities to provide firm capacity allows critical system components, like wells, to be taken offline for maintenance or repair without affecting service. The City's WTPs are evaluated based on total capacity. Under normal operating conditions, each supply step should have adequate capacity to provide maximum day demand (MDD). The following criteria are used to evaluate supply capacity: 1. Source: MDD with largest system-wide well (Well No. 14) out of service and emergency Well No. 7 not in operation 2. Treatment: System-wide MDD with all WTPs operating Each WTP should also have adequate capacity to treat the maximum well capacity for that plant. 16-1934 Page 3-1 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 32 EXHIBIT A Page 24 of 49 3.3 Distribution Pumping Due to the relatively flat topography throughout the City of Woodburn, the entire water service area can be served from a single pressure zone. Water system pressure zones are generally evaluated as either "open" or "closed". Open zones are those served by gravity storage facilities which provide pressure to customers. In closed zones customers receive constant pressure from booster pump stations without the benefit of gravity storage. Although the City's system can be considered a combination of both gravity storage (open system) and continuous pumping (closed system), for the purposes of this plan, storage and pumping capacity are evaluated based on Washington Water System Design Manual guidelines for closed zones. 0Ira O Vdlume Water storage facilities are typically provided for four purposes: operational storage, equalization storage, fire storage, and emergency storage. Recommended storage volume is the sum of these four components. In a closed system, storage volume must be provided at the suction side of the pump, and additional consideration must be given to pump sizing to meet emergency and fire storage needs. A brief discussion of each storage element is provided below. 3.3.1.1 Operational Storage Operational storage is the volume of water dedicated to normal operation of the reservoirs. It is calculated as the volume of water stored in a reservoir between the on/off set-points for the supplying pumps. In this case, the operational settings for the wells which supply each WTP determine operational storage in the WTP reservoirs, approximately 3 feet of reservoir level based on current set-points. Operational storage in the elevated reservoir is the volume of water in approximately 3.5 feet of reservoir level. Reservoir levels with operational storage depleted represent the critical analysis condition. For instance, fire flow availability is tested with operational storage depleted,just before the "on" setpoint for the supplying pump(s) is reached. 3.3.1.2 Equalization Storage Equalization storage is the volume of water needed to meet demands in excess of delivery capacity. Typically, booster pumps or supply facilities serving the system are sized to meet maximum day demands. Equalization storage is provided to supply water to the system when instantaneous demands exceed this pumping capacity. For Woodburn, a volume of 25% of MDD is sufficient for equalization storage. 3.3.1.3 Fire Storage Fire storage should be adequate to meet the total volume required by the single most severe fire flow demand. The fire storage volume is determined by multiplying the recommended fire flow rate by the expected duration of that flow consistent with the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Specific fire flow and duration recommendations are discussed later in this section. 16-1934 Page 3-2 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 33 EXHIBIT A Page 25 of 49 3.3.1.4 W °? rg ri y Storage Emergency storage is available to supply water from storage in the event of a supply disruption. This is typically provided for emergencies such as pipeline failures, equipment failures, or natural disasters. The amount of emergency storage can be highly variable depending on an assessment of risk and the desired degree of system reliability. Provisions for emergency storage in other systems vary from none to a volume that would supply a maximum day demand or higher. For the City of Woodburn, the emergency storage criterion is two times the difference between average daily demand (ADD) and firm source capacity over a 24-hour period. Firm source capacity is the current operational capacity of all wells with the largest system-wide well out of service and emergency Well No. 7 not in operation. Emergency capacity represents the average sustained customer demand during a short-term emergency which is approximately 50 to 80 gallons per person in the Willamette Valley. Emergency storage should be no less than this minimum demand. For the purposes of this analysis the minimum emergency storage for Woodburn is calculated as 64 gallons per person. PumpingCapadty Although it is desirable to serve water system customers by gravity from storage, in a relatively flat service area like Woodburn's it may not be economically feasible to provide adequate elevated storage capacity. To mitigate storage challenges, constant pressure pumping may be used to provide service pressure. The existing distribution pump stations at each WTP help to maintain service pressures.The pumps at each WTP: 1. supply the distribution system — customers can receive pressure through pumping even with the elevated tank out of service 2. can operate in response to downstream pressure— pumps can respond to fire when the elevated tank water level (system pressure) drops below the set point 3. have on-site back-up power — pumps can continue to provide service during a power outage 4. have suction-side storage in ground level reservoirs at each WTP — storage capacity is available for delivery to customers through pumping It is recommended that these constant pressure stations have adequate total capacity to supply peak hour demand (PHD) to the system. 3.3.2.1 Staridby POWer Standby power should be provided for all wells and pump stations to provide reliable firm capacity in the event of a loss of power. Standby power is typically provided in the form of an on-site backup generator sized to operate the pump station at firm capacity with automatic transfer switches and on-site fuel storage. 16-1934 Page 3-3 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 34 EXHIBIT A Page 26 of 49 1:ire llow Recommendations The amount of water recommended for fire suppression purposes is typically associated with the local building type or land use of a specific location within the distribution system. Fire flow recommendations are typically much greater in magnitude than the MDD in any local area. Adequate hydraulic capacity must be provided for these potentially large fire flow demands. Fire protection within the current water service area is provided by the Woodburn Fire District. Fire flow requirements for individual facilities are determined by the Fire Marshal consistent with the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. A summary of fire flow the City plans to proide (after completion of the 20-year CIP) for each land use type and approximate fire duration is presented in Table 3-1. Properties needing additional fire flow will need to supplement City-provided fire protection in order to meet the Fire Code requirements, such as homes over 3,600 sq. ft or some commercial and industrial facilities. It should be noted that short dead-end lines, lines supplying parks, areas where established existing facilities don't match zoning, (such as a residential neighborhood in a commercial zone), and hydrants that are redundant to other hydrants in the area providing enough flow, were excluded from necessitating improvements. Tallslle 3A S uinirrn a lry of Ilf' a s Il Ii- n e ln d e d Ill,,I re IIIW II W s 11111 loom Low Density Residential: (RS R1S, RSN) 1,000 2 Medium Density Residential: (RMN) 3,000 3 Commercial (CG, CO, DDC) 3,000 3 Public (P/SP) 3,000 3 Industrial (IP, LI) 3,000 3 .ul Service Pressures O riIm II Service Pressure The desired service pressure range under ADD and normal operating conditions is 40 to 80 pounds per square inch (psi). Whenever feasible, it is desirable to achieve the 40 psi lower limit at the highest fixture within a structure. The maximum 80 psi service pressure limit is required by the Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSC) 608.2. If mainline pressures exceed 80 psi, service connections should be equipped with individual PRVs. Average pressure across the Woodburn water system is currently maintained at approximately 55 psi. 16-1934 Page 3-4 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 35 EXHIBIT A Page 27 of 49 Service Pressure in anIImer e II C During a fire flow event or emergency, the minimum service pressure is 20 psi as required by Oregon Health Authority, Drinking Water Services, and OAR 333-061-0025(7). The system should be capable of providing fire flow capacity while simultaneously delivering MDD and maintaining 20 psi throughout the distribution system. The system should meet this criterion with operational storage depleted and firm pumping capacity(one pump supplying distribution) at each of the City's three WTPs. Per the 2008 City of Woodburn Standard Specifications, Class 52 ductile iron is the City's standard water main pipe material. The minimum pipe size is 8-inch diameter for new permanently dead ended residential water mains and primary feeder mains in residential areas. 3.6 Water Quality In Oregon, drinking water quality standards for 95 primary and 12 secondary contaminants are established under the Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act (OAR 333-061) which includes implementation of national drinking water quality standards. To maintain public health, each contaminant has either an established maximum contaminant level (MCL) or a recommended treatment technique. Source Water Potential for pathogens in groundwater sources like the City's wells are regulated by the Groundwater Rule (GWR). The City's existing wells have high levels of dissolved iron, manganese, arsenic, and radon. Iron and manganese are both secondary contaminants which cause metallic taste, discoloration, sediment, and staining but are not threats to human health. Arsenic is a primary contaminant and known carcinogen. In its gaseous form, radon is also a known carcinogen and although it has not been regulated as a drinking water contaminant, the City limits customer exposure through treatment. The City's WTPs were constructed to meet all state and national drinking water standards, including reducing secondary contaminants to meet standards.This is the criteria for source water quality in this WSMP. DIIstObudan System There are three drinking water quality standards and potential contaminants that may be exacerbated or originate in the distribution system. Specifically, microbial contaminants (Total Coliform Rule), lead and copper (Lead and Copper Rule), and disinfection byproducts (Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule). 16-1934 Page 3-5 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 36 EXHIBIT A Page 28 of 49 3EZ1 Total Colitorn? 11 There are a variety of bacteria, parasites, and viruses which can cause health problems when ingested. Testing water for each of these germs would be difficult and expensive. Instead, total coliform levels are measured. The presence of any coliforms in the drinking water suggests that there may also be disease-causing agents in the water. A positive coliform sample may indicate that the water treatment system isn't working properly or that there is a problem in the distribution system. Although many types of coliform bacteria are harmless, some can cause gastroenteritis including diarrhea, cramps, nausea, and vomiting. This is not usually serious for a healthy person, but it can lead to more serious health problems for people with weakened immune systems. The Total Coliform Rule (TCR) applies to all public water systems. Total coliforms include both fecal coliforms and E. coli. Compliance with the MCL is based initially on the presence or absence of total coliforms in a sample, then a focus on the presence or absence of E.coli. To achieve total compliance with the TCR, a positive chlorine residual throughout the distribution system must be maintained and required compliance monitoring must be performed. 3.6.2.2 Lead and Copper and Corro5ion Control Lead and copper enter drinking water primarily through corrosion of plumbing materials most commonly caused by a chemical reaction with the water which may be due to dissolved oxygen, low pH or low mineral content. Exposure to lead and copper may cause health problems ranging from gastroenteritis to brain damage. In 1991,the national Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) established action levels for lead and copper concentrations in drinking water. Under the Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act, water utilities are required to implement optimal corrosion control treatment that minimizes the lead and copper concentrations at customers' taps, while ensuring that the treatment efforts do not cause the water system to violate other existing water regulations. It should be noted that an update to the LCR is currently being considered, though implications to the City's water system are anticipated to be minimal. Utilities are required to conduct monitoring for lead and copper from taps in customers' homes. To achieve compliance with the LCR, compliance monitoring must be completed with contaminant levels below the action level. 3.6.2.3 Di5infectont5 and t.1'on BIrodt. (DBP) 11 DBPs form when disinfectants, such as chlorine, used to control pathogens in drinking water react with naturally occurring organic materials in source water. DBPs have been associated with increased cancer risk. Compliance with the stage 1 and 2 DBP Rules is based on the results of an Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) and ongoing compliance monitoring to ensure DBP levels are below the MCL. 16-1934 Page 3-6 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 37 Q _ _ H � °o O m CF) X04 Q O c v Y w a O J) O Cin n U co v' >Ln �Q) - p m > QI 73 p Q) ID v> 4- > d M 4) C L/) QI v C E c M E O n E ' fl '01 -w E 0 rn E i E > ca N O 00 cC O u Q) O ca Q + f o o V) Q) 4� N N O N ate- C0 c +�-+ � _0 -o Ln '�"'' M M •+-+ M to O C6 c E U 2 1 Q Q N < 4E �o E 73 Q Q u Q o � C o u v d o ° o v> U. (D v v c Q) tao Q o4 o u u N t Q) O Q) 0 Q) O Q) O p2$ O .� µ ti-- u 4N - 4- O U O O C ° c a-+ RS f2 4 Ln v O U Q) Q � 4U v 0 OD Q) >- _0 -U q-- - v ° Q � O c Q) 0. O +vi -0d on W O x Nm CO .o E Q) p Q) M Q L O O v a o 4 n QI irs � 6 p Q z O Q Q v o Q p n3 - - E (nO r c p 0 lR O 'in •in U a Q - O O Q) O O o °' o p p w 00 Q Q O c \ a X v p �' O 0 CD O v C .4 00 � oa -C Ln f� N � c, on a < an: --i rn > o v > Q) v � o = •C6 o 3 p ° ° 41 E Q QI Q) -6 > o C On p 0O p Q) 4, v p = C2 L aJ Q) + O CC d E UU' Q) Cin S� 4) �mul 0'; E c .o O v asp U � E E •� N nn Q i n3 O 6 E O n3 O E o Q Ln I- m Z 4 O w l w �- m Ln U a. O _0 v tn C ` C �rn E ° dH C O O LL ZZ Vf d) :3 � � � Q� VIII U L N Q ® o 0 0 L cr � Q a 00 ii�•.W .... ... ' N.... ..... ...® (� .... .... �....; '..�� ......... ti N m � o EXHIBIT A Page 31 of 49 SectloIn Water System Analysis 4.1 introduction This section presents an analysis of the City of Woodburn's (City's)water distribution system based on criteria outlined in Section 3. The water demand forecasts summarized in Section 2 are used in conjunction with analysis criteria to assess water system characteristics including service pressures, storage and pumping capacity and emergency fire flow availability. This section provides the basis for recommended distribution system improvements presented in Section 5. 4.2 Water Supply Capacity As described in previous sections, City water is supplied from three watertreatment plants (WTPs), Parr Road, National Way and Country Club. Each of these WTPs is supplied by two wells.The supply capacity analysis is summarized in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. The capacity of each supply step, source and treatment, should be adequate to provide maximum day demand (MDD) as follows: ■ Source: MDD with largest system-wide well (Well No. 14) out of service and emergency Well No. 7 not in operation ■ Treatment: o System-wide MDD with all WTPs operating o Adequate capacity at each WTP to treat all well capacity serving that plant Historically, the City's well operational capacities have declined due to well screen biofouling. When wells in this area are rehabilitated, the anticipated recovery of production capacity is approximately 90 percent of the well's nominal design capacity. Not all wells respond the same to rehabilitation, so the timing of new wells may need to be adjusted earlier or later depending on actual initial and residual results of rehabilitation. For example, Well 12 has already been rehabilitated with multiple technologies, but continues to decline, and is expected to decline to negligible capacity within the next few years. As can be seen in Figure 4-1, demand will exceed projected total well capcity in approximately 2021. Additional wells will be needed to address the declines in existing wells as well as to provide for future growth needs. 16-1934 Page 4-1 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 40 EXHIBIT A Page 32 of 49 For the purposes of the 20-year projected supply analysis, a straight-line reduction in future well capacity is assumed based on nominal capacity at construction and current operating capacity. Each well is assumed to be rehabilitated when it reaches 70 percent of nominal capacity. After rehabilitation each well is assumed to recover 90 percent of nominal capacity. Well 12 is anticipated to be taken out of service around 2020, due to continually declining production even after multiple rehabilitations. Assumed future well capacities are summarized in Figure 4-1 and Table4-1. Due to variability in rehabilitation results, rehabilitation is not accounted for in the table and Figure. Successful rehabilitations will result in a delay of a need for additional supply. f.Wil g all a 4.-I Delrn&nd ainIIII yaI I IIy Capadty 4500 4000 3500 Demand 3000 zscc 2000 , :1500 .1000 'TUU � JJ Ir" 00 C 1) 0 'q dV M '�'" Ln rD If"'+ 00 U) 0 e"'i dV ty '�'" Ln rD If"'+ e"'i dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV dV Ta IIb II a yl•-1. Source Capadty Sall nll nalry II III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uiiiiiii°iii IllillIIIIIIIIIIIlll�lll�llilllll 111111 IlllllellllllIIIII1121111111=3111 VIII IIIIII III�IIIIII I '°��Illli�l�ll II 1111111111111111 VIVID VIS III I MVI I "VI�� IIIA �V �� IIIWII�VIVIIIVI�VIVO@IV VIII Il�gldlll I�IVIVIIIIIIIII w I � VIIIII�I�IIIIIIIIIII 111111 II��IJIIIIIIII I 9 9 2018 650 605 560 470 10 3 - 900 885 870 840 11 13 2018 & 2034 650 585 520 390 12 25 - 650 0 0 0 13 14 2019, 2027 &2036 400 330 260 120 14 31 2018 & 2028 1,000 845 690 380 uuuuu u�l uuuuu I I luau I ul ul luuuuuul I I u all uuu ul uuul cull uul a ul ulll uul ul uu ulll III 14u lel iiiilll�ISI II liiiilll�iiiiiii IIVI 1141 IIIVu uiiiiiilk u I IIIA I4ul ul�il�ltliiiuu I ii a IVulil li�u Iluilol I uuulVuiuu�� ul II uulPllllouuuuuuuuu°°°°°ISI 1111111 lu ppu I „ r 1 16-1934 Page 4-2 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 41 EXHIBIT A Page 33 of 49 Ta IIS II a y,.-2 Treabi naint Cal2adty 5aii iinairy ��N , . Parr Road 2.9 12 & 13 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.8" - National Way 2.7 10 & 14 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.6 0.2 Country Club 2.7 9 & 11 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.3 uuuu�uiiulu�i1111111�1111111 � Di�i�ii m 4.3 Service Area and Pressure 3 1 Exisflng The City's current water service area includes all properties within the city limits and a small number of customers outside the city limits. The entire system is served through a single pressure zone. Three pump stations, one at each of the City's three WTPs, and an elevated reservoir work together to supply steady pressure to the system. Since the service area has little change in elevation, pressures are consistent throughout the water system with a maximum pressure of 59 pounds per square inch (psi) and a minimum pressure of 50 psi under peak hour demand (PHD) conditions. 3 2Future The 20-year future service area for this planning effort is the current Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) including the planned Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR) development area mostly west of the Interstate 5 freeway (I-5). Development of the City's Urban Reserve Area (URA) is used to inform facility sizing needs for long-term growth, however,this area is assumed to develop beyond the 20-year planning horizon of this Water System Master Plan (WSMP). Based on existing topography within the City's UGB and URA, it is assumed that the water system will continue to operate as a single pressure zone in the future. 4.4 Closed Although it is desirable to serve water system customers by gravity from storage, in a relatively flat service area like Woodburn's it may not be economically feasible to provide adequate elevated storage capacity. To mitigate storage challenges, constant pressure pumping may be used to provide service pressure. This approach is referred to as a "closed pressure zone" or closed system. Woodburn's existing distribution pump stations at each WTP help to maintain service pressures by pumping through the distribution system to fill the elevated reservoir. Even though these 16-1934 Page 4-3 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 42 EXHIBIT A Page 34 of 49 pumps are not configured to act as a true closed system, which responds to changes in downstream pressure rather than the elevated reservoir water level, the pumps come on quickly under fire conditions due to the rapid drawdown of the elevated reservoir due to its low storage volume. For the following storage and pumping capacity analysis, it is assumed the pumps come on quick enough to be considered a closed system. 4.5 Storage Capacity Analysis Water storage facilities are typically provided for four purposes: operational storage, equalization storage, fire storage, and emergency storage. As presented in Section 3,the total storage required is the sum of these four elements. In a closed system, storage volume must be provided at the suction side of the pump, and additional consideration must be given to pump sizing to meet emergency and fire storage needs. The storage analysis is summarized in Table 4-3. TaII Ila y._y Storage Cal adty Swim airy II�III �IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIII� iiiui" IIIIIIII � II I 81111 2017 0.44 1.1 0.54 1.7 3.78 5.65 - 2022 0.44 1.2 0.54 1.8 3.98 5.65 - 2027 0.44 1.3 0.54 2.0 4.28 5.65 - 2037 0.44 1.5 0.54 2.2 4.68 5.65 - 4.6 Pumping lI As previously discussed, it is assumed that the City's WTP booster pump stations operate as a closed system. Pump stations supplying constant pressure service to a closed system should have total pumping capacity adequate to meet PHD while simultaneously supplying the largest fire flow demand. The pumping capacity analysis is summarized in Table 4-4. 16-1934 Page 4-4 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 43 EXHIBIT A Page 35 of 49 Ta b II a 4........4 ll'aIl Ip itlin g C a lp acILy S u im im ally IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II"iii IIIIIIIIIII II II 1111111 II ILII IIIIIIIIIII II VIII.� � w Ilm VIII m Ilm � u VIII IVVV III � 2017 9,238 9,264 26 2022 9,238 9,750 512 2027 9,238 10,292 1,054 2037 9,238 11,368 2,130 4.7 Distribution' IIIU000la lI' Performance .3 1 I-Iydrauhc Modd A steady-state hydraulic network analysis model was used to evaluate the performance of the City's existing distribution system and identify proposed piping improvements based on hydraulic performance criteria, such as system pressure, described in Section 3. The purpose of the model is to determine pressure and flow relationships throughout the distribution system for average and peak water demands under existing and projected future conditions. Modeled pipes are shown as "links" between "nodes" which represent pipeline junctions, fire hydrants, or pipe size changes. Diameter, length, and head loss coefficients are specified for each pipe and an approximate ground elevation is specified for each node. The hydraulic model was developed using the InfoWater modeling software platform, AutoCAD water system mapping from the City and geographic information systems (GIS) base mapping, such as, elevation contours and taxlot data. The model was calibrated using fire hydrant flow test results and operations data provided by the City. Analysis scenarios were created to evaluate existing and projected 20-year water demands. For distribution system modeling, it is assumed that one pump is supplying distribution at each of the City's three WTPs and the elevated reservoir is approximately 3 feet below overflow. 4.7.1.1 Modeled Water ease°naarid Existing and projected future demands are summarized in Section 2,Table 2-3. Within the existing water service area, demands are assigned to the model based on current customer billing address and billed water consumption. Most future demand growth is anticipated to occur through infill development, thus these existing demands are scaled for projected future system-wide demand. Future demands for SWIR are estimated based on an average demand per acre by land use type. 16-1934 Page 4-5 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 44 EXHIBIT A Page 36 of 49 4.7.1.2Model Calibratiori Model calibration typically involves adjusting the model parameters such that pressure and flow results from the model more closely reflect those measured at the City's fire hydrants. This calibration process tests the accuracy of model pipeline friction factors, demand distribution,valve status, network configuration, and facility parameters such as tank elevations and pump curves. The required level of model accuracy can vary according to the intended use of the model, the type and size of water system, the available data, and the way the system is controlled and operated. Pressure and flow measurements are recorded for the City's fire hydrants through a process called fire flow testing. 4.7..:1.2..:1 lmmlre lmmlo Testing Fire flow testing consists of recording static pressure at a fire hydrant and then "stressing" the system by flowing an adjacent hydrant. While the adjacent hydrant is flowing, residual pressure is measured at the first hydrant to determine the pressure drop that occurs when the system is "stressed". Boundary condition data, such as reservoir levels and pump on/off status, must also be known to accurately model the system conditions during the time of the flow test. For this WSMP, hydrant flow tests were conducted in March 2017. The recorded time of each fire hydrant flow test was used to collect boundary condition information from the City's supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. 4.7..:1.2.2St�ady� ...,Seats Calibration Results For any water system, a portion of the data describing the distribution system will be missing or inaccurate and assumptions will be required. This does not necessarily mean the accuracy of the hydraulic model will be significantly compromised. Models which do not meet the highest degree of calibration can still be useful for planning purposes. In general, the Woodburn water system hydraulic model calculates slightly higher pressures (+2 percent) than observed field pressures. 4.7.1.3 Fire RoViArwly5i5 Fire flow scenarios test the distribution system's ability to provide required fire flows at a given location while simultaneously supplying MDD and maintaining a minimum residual service pressure of 20 psi at all services. Required fire flows are assigned based on the zoning surrounding each node as summarized in Section 3, Table 3-1. Figure 4-2 at the end of this section illustrates areas with fire flow deficiencies. Distribution system pressures were evaluated under peak hour demand conditions to confirm identified piping improvements. As described in Section 2, peak hour demands were estimated as 2 times MDD. No additional pressure deficiencies were identified under these conditions. 16-1934 Page 4-6 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 45 qT 0 LL IML 41 LL LL E E a a oll 11 ally E K IC1e-0 r SDI7� JI f( Ax -p 11 it mLLik; CL 'T� 0 (A in ll�—Mnrl)l�ljjjl 91 � I�77777T h, ul ........ It pavlb, I Ic q-4] NO I'll, 0 EXHIBIT A Page 39 of 49 C' III oIri Recommendations and Ca ��pital �1 m �p rove m ent Program 5.1 introduction This section presents recommended improvements for the City of Woodburn's (City's) water distribution system based on the analysis and findings presented in Section 4.These improvements include well, pump station, reservoir, and water main projects. The capital improvement program (CIP) presented in Table 5-4 later in this section summarizes recommended improvements and provides an approximate timeframe for project completion. Proposed distribution system improvements are illustrated on Plate 1 Water System Map in Appendix A. 5.2 Cost Estimating An estimated project cost has been developed for each improvement project recommended in this section. Cost estimates represent opinions of cost only, acknowledging that final costs of individual projects will vary depending on actual labor and material costs, market conditions for construction, regulatory factors, final project scope, project schedule and other factors. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE) classifies cost estimates depending on project definition, end usage and other factors. The cost estimates presented here are considered Class 4 with an end use being a study or feasibility evaluation and an expected accuracy range of-30 percent to +50 percent. As the project is better defined, the accuracy level of the estimates can be narrowed. Estimated project costs are based upon recent experience with construction costs for similar work in Oregon and southwest Washington and assume improvements will be accomplished by private contractors. Estimated project costs include approximate construction costs and an aggregate 45 percent allowance for administrative, engineering and other project related costs. Estimates do not include the cost of property acquisition. Since construction costs change periodically, an indexing method to adjust present estimates in the future is useful. The Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) is a commonly used index for this purpose. For purposes of future cost estimate updating; the current ENR CCI for Seattle, Washington is 11443 (December 2017). 16-1934 Page 5-1 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 48 EXHIBIT A Page 40 of 49 5.3 Water System Capital improvement Program A summary of all recommended improvement projects and estimated project costs is presented in Table 5-4 at the end of this section. This CIP table provides for project sequencing by showing prioritized projects for the 5-year, 10-year and 20-year timeframes defined as follows: ■ 5-year timeframe - recommended completion between 2017 and 2022 ■ 10-year timeframe - recommended completion between 2023 and 2027 ■ 20-year timeframe - recommended completion between 2028 and 2037 OP Cosi Xlbcadon to Growth Water system improvement projects are recommended to mitigate existing system deficiencies and to provide capacity to accommodate growth and water service area expansion. Projects that benefit future water system customers by providing capacity for growth may be funded through system development charges (SDCs). SDCs are sources of funding generated through development and water system growth and are typically used by utilities to support capital funding needs. SDCs are determined as part of a financial evaluation and are based in part on a utility's current CIP. To facilitate this financial evaluation a preliminary percentage of the cost of each project which benefits future water system growth is allocated in the CIP Table 5-4. Well rehabilitation, transmission replacement, and routine pipe replacement are all considered water system performance improvements which benefit all customers. Their estimated costs are allocated 25 percent to future growth based on the ratio of current to projected 20-year system- wide maximum day demands. Pump station projects are allocated to growth based on the ratio of current pumping capacity to 20-year estimated pumping capacity deficiency. 5A Water Source As presented in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 the City has adequate system-wide source and treatment capacity to meet projected maximum day demand (MDD) through the 20-year planning horizon. It is recommended that the City continue their current program of well rehabilitation to mitigate the effects of well screen biofouling and maintain existing well capacity to the extent possible. Well rehabilitation costs included in the recommended CIP Table 5-4 are based on an assumed well rehabilitation at 70 percent of design capacity, approximately in the years listed for each well in Section 4, Table 4-1. It is assumed that the City will recover approximately 90 percent of design capacity. Timing of new wells depends on the success or failure of rehabilitation. 16-1934 Page 5-2 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 49 EXHIBIT A Page 41 of 49 Wells 9 & 11 have issues with pulling up sand, requiring remediation of the liner and/or filter pack during remediation. Well 11 also needs a new sample port for level measurement. Well 7 should be continually maintained as a backup, as a minimum, a chlorine addition system should be added, but cost estimates anticipate a total overhaul including well house and pump upgrades as well as construction of a local green sand filter in the well house for treatment of iron and managanese. A chlorine system installation could be less than $10,000 if installed by the City. There is a small deficit in the National Way WTP's ability to treat the total capacity of supplying Well Nos. 10 and 14. Well 14 is the City's highest capacity well and was completed after National Way WTP was constructed. As there is ground level storage available at the WTP and adequate source capacity in other parts of the system there is no immediate value in modifying the built- out National Way WTP to address this 0.2 million gallons per day (mgd) local treatment deficit after expected rehab results. Current summer well capacity is less than treatment capacity. City staff have expressed concerns with the water system's ability to supply significant future service area expansion expected to occur on the west side of the Interstate 5 (1-5) freeway. Currently only emergency Well No. 7 is located west of 1-5 with all other source,treatment, storage and pumping facilities on the east side. Water system hydraulic modeling did not show a need for additional supply west of 1-5. Existing 12-inch mains provide adequate looping to meet MDD and fire flow demands through three existing 1-5 crossings and a fourth crossing planned at the southern edge of the service area between Parr Road WTP and the anticipated Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR) area. Future development is expected to occur in the vicinity of Stubb Road and Linfield Avenue within the next couple years. The City would like to construct a new well in the new subdivision, adding to the capacity of the Parr Road facility. The first well will provide for immediate need, and a second well to be sited in the future will replace Well 12 as it continues to decline. A hydrogeological study should be performed for siting the second well. It is anticipated that at least in small part, other wells in the vicinity are contributing to the decline of Well 12, so the site of a new well should be carefully planed out. If water needs are still not satisfied by the new wells, well 7 should be reconfigured with a green sand filter and disinfection to pump water directly to the system as described above. 5 4 4. .Treatment Expit i a it The City's existing treatment is adequate to meet the estimated 7.2 mgd projected max day water demand at buildout of the current Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), but the existing wells cannot provide that much supply. Should this demand projection continue, it is recommended that the City invest in source and treatment expansion at the Parr Road WTP. This WTP can be expanded 16-1934 Page 5-3 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 50 EXHIBIT A Page 42 of 49 to an ultimate capacity of 5.8 mgd, double its current capacity and has the shortest large-diameter distribution path to anticipated future customers west of 1-5. 5.5 Pump Stations Pump6ng Capad L) rade Based on the pumping capacity analysis presented in Section 4, Table 4-4, it is recommended that the City expand capacity at existing WTP pump stations. Each of these pump stations has a pedestal, plant piping, electrical and controls to add a third identical pump. It is recommended that the Parr Road WTP pump station be upgraded first to mitigate existing deficiencies with an additional 1,819 gallons per minute (gpm) pump. Parr Road has the shortest large-diameter distribution path to the City's elevated storage reservoir. This WTP will also be a key supply facility for potentially large industrial demands and fire flows in the SWIR development area. Second, it is recommended the National Way WTP pump station be upgraded between 10 and 20 years (2027 to 2037) to add an additional 1,650 gpm pump and mitigate projected 20-year pumping capacity deficiencies beyond those served by the Parr Road WTP pump expansion. Parr IRoad SCADA The existing SCADA system at the Parr Road Pump station often malfunctions when the pump station goes idle. The lead pump will not come on until the lag pump is triggered to come on. It is believed to be a programming issue that was not decipherable by a SCADA consultant the City hired to investigate. Budgeting for hardware and/or software upgrades is recommended to address this issue. IIIR . Reservoirs The elevated reservoir needs exterior coating. It was originally constructed in 1967 and has only been recoated once. The City has already made plans to complete this within the next year. In addition, the altitiude valve has failed and been permanently locked in the open position to allow use of the reservoir volume to meet system demands. Repalcement of the altitidue valve is recommended to protect the City from overflow of the reservoir. 16-1934 Page 5-4 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 51 EXHIBIT A Page 43 of 49 5.7 Distribution ut Table 5-2 presents recommended water main projects for transmission replacement, to serve future development including the SWIR area and to improve fire flow capacity. All recommended water main projects are illustrated on Plate 1 in Appendix A. Water main project costs are estimated based on unit costs by diameter shown in Table 5-1. TaII Ila 5A Uiniit dost for a.taii, IlMaj in Ill1rojeat 8-inch $230 10-inch $285 12-inch $345 14-inch & larger $460 Assumptions: • Includes approximately 45 percent allowance for administrative, engineering and other project related costs • Ductile iron pipe with an allowance for fittings, valves and services • Surface restoration is assumed to be asphalt paving • No rock excavation • No dewatering • No property or easement acquisitions • No specialty construction included 16-1934 Page 5-5 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 52 EXHIBIT A l..U c, 5.2 Page 44 of 49 A li mtlrlillruto n IlMan IIIro�ect m loon II- II "� m: Transmission Replacement M-42 Country Club to elevated tank transmission replacement 14"16"18" 7,573 $ 3,484,000 Projects for Future Development M-38A SWIR 10"12"14" 13,612 $ 3,827,000+ M-38B 1-5 Waterline Crossing(SWIR) 12" $ 1,200,000 M-39 OR-99E Southern Extension 8" 927 $ 214,000 M-40 i OR99E:'Aztec St to Blaine St 8" 389 $ 90,000 M-41 OR-99E:Lincoln St South to Existing Stubout 8" 271 $ 63,000 01. 11 / i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , 5-Year Fire Flow Projects M-1 Reconnect:Brown St to Vine St 12" 54 $ 40,000', M-2 Front St:Stonehedge to Newberg Hwy&Newberg Hwy:Front St to Bulldog Dr 12" 1,817 $ 627,000 M-3 Park Ave:Hardcastle Ave to Lincoln St&East/West sections of Woodpark Ter 8" 1,852 $ 426,000', M-4 Lincoln St:Park Ave to hydrant west of Bryant St 8" 756 $ 174,000 M-5 Nuevo Amencer. 8" 1104 $ 254,000', M-6 Loop Front St to Salud Medical Center 8'' 706 $ 163,000 f l 10-Year Fire Flow Projects M-7 Southeast Industrial Area Improvements 8"10" 5,390 $ 1,520,000' M-9 Front St: hydrant east of Hardcastle Ave to hydrant west of Hardcastle Ave 10" 569 $ 163,000 i 20-Year Fire Flow Projects M-8 OR-99E:Tomlin Ave to Young St 8" 459 $ 106,000', M-10 Loop.Barclay Sq to Harvard Dr 8" 166 $ 39,000 M-11 Loop:High St to Settlemier Ave 8" 234 $ 54,000 M-12 James St:Legion Park to east end of Apts.&Park Ave:Parkview Ct to James St 8"10" 1,390 $ 339,000 M-13 Woodburn RV Park:North Leg 8" 348 $ 81,000', M-14 French Prairie Middle School:Hwy 214&Boones Ferry Rd 8" 907 $ 209,000 M-15 OR-214:Tomlin Ave to Cascade Factory Homes 6"8" 759 $ 150,000', M-16 Blaine St&McKinlet St:OR-99E west to hydrant 8"10" 882 $ 229,000 M-17 Glatt Cir:North and South legs 8"10" 561 $ 143,000', M-18 Loop:2213 Country Club Ct to Country Club Rd 8" 226 $ 52,000 M-19 Loop:Industrial area at end of Shenandoah Ln 10" 703 $ 201,000', M-20 Loop:Northernmost Driveway on Commerce Way 8" 762 $ 176,000 M-21 West ends of Hayes St and Young St 8" 381 $ 88,000+ M-22 Park Cir:Park Ave to hydrant,south leg 8" 315 $ 73,000 M-23 Yew St across 3rd 8" 35 $ 9,000! M-24 Loop:Lincoln Rd to North Pacific Plaza 8'' 515 $ 119,000 M-25 Line West of Wellspring ConfrenceiCenter 8" 253 $ 59,000', M-26 Rainier Rd:Randolph Rd to Cascade Dr 8" 381 $ 88,000 M-27 Charles St:Charles Ct to Corby St 6" 342 $ 60,000', M-28 Greenview Ct:Greenview Dr.to hydrant 8" 220 $ 51,000 M-29 Oak St:2nd St to 1st St 8" 190 $ 44,000', M-30 Nuevo Amencer extention:5th St to 6th St 8'' 423 $ 98,000 M-31 Safeway on OR-99E 8" 649 $ 150,000', M-32 Loop:Apartments South of Stonehenge 8"10" 1,114 $ 288,000 M-33 Line to Kerr Contractors 10" 159 $ 46,000', M-34 Newberg Hwy Dairy Queen 6'' 193 $ 34,000 M-35 Evergreen Rd to line to North and Evergreen Estates to hydrant east 10" 307 $ 88,000', M-36 Lincoln St.OR-99E to first hydrant north on Carol St 8" 493 $ 114,000 M-37 Stacy Allison Way:West end of Walmart Parking Lot8" 512 $ 118,000 Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll � lnnn��nnnmllnn�n��nlllnn��nm�nllll�� n 16-1934 Page 5-6 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 53 EXHIBIT A Page 45 of 49 5,3 IIIRo u flne Main I: e I II Ce ilm e it Program In addition to distribution main projects to address capacity deficiencies, the City should plan for replacement of pipes based on a 100-year life cycle to maintain reliable operation, without significant unexpected main breaks and leaks. Table 5-3 summarizes the total length of pipe for each diameter(size),the replacement diameter and estimated cost to replace all the mains of that size. While costs will vary for each individual main depending on the piping location, surface conditions, and other constructability issues, this analysis provides a preliminary estimate of the required capital budget to execute an effective and proactive water main replacement program. The cost for routine main replacement included in this plan is based on the average annual cost for the first 20 years of a 100-year program, approximately $800,000 annually. While it is understood that funding at this level for pipeline replacement may not be feasible, it should be recognized that an adequately funded main replacement program is necessary to minimize the risk of failure for critical water system components that will result in significantly greater costs to repair and replace in the future. Based on the concurrent analysis of rates and SDCs, the initial 10 years of the CIP include funding for $400,000 per year in main replacements followed by an increase to the recommended long-term funding level in the future. Ta b 11 e 5-3 strip aria n IlMahn Ilf' al Ilaaallirnaln.r Cost Sall Ili-nalry <=6" 174,240' 8 $230 $14,800,000 8 217,536 10 22,704 10 $285 $300,000 12 79,728 12 $345 $1,100,000 16 2,112 16 $460 $40,000 18 6,864 20 $460 $140,000 20 ' 528 IIIIIIiiIIu 1' u�lu � o� I �° uuuii ui�up pui 'm u Im illllul uui iuoi i uuui uu uu� 5.8 C 1 P 1' u The City may fund the water system CIP from a variety of sources including; governmental grant and loan programs, publicly issued debt and cash resources and revenue.The City's cash resources and revenue available for water system capital projects include water rate funding, cash reserves, and SDCs. An evaluation of water rates and SDCs in support of the water system CIP will be completed as follow-on work to this Water System Master Plan. 16-1934 Page 5-7 Water System Master Plan June 2018 City of Woodburn 54 Q CF) 1�rNull ill "i 0 ZP Ot e DO 0eg 0, C� =5 a (0 r X w 0) Cu 0- 8, 01 0 01 C:� 8 1 ixz�, C C) m ll (L� lz-.� c%j m LO 0 E 0 o Q) 1 69 fA W (0 'Q, 00 0, 01 Q III U �IIrZ �k l 0 c 01 D U11i 0 0, 11A I mllf 0, '1d I'1ff.) CIO C.1 hil Cl, loll I s up, a k, 091 'fA M rI'l W IN to VIM k1l, T" CIN LO eq OP LO i-n (Ord 1�� QQII IN R, R CL cn a 2 a & � c p4 1 1 0 E JQ 0 CIL 15 C .......... -OL 0 L77L In N11 r? 't m 112L la� No n E In E 00 0 (Y) A k /AkQ e AS II aid Vol 4 n jj Yaw- 7i, W. i Aj.tv A" MY S,n 11 X oil EXHIBIT A Page 49 of 49 � u11 murraysmilh vvvvvv.r77urroy"I]]it -1.us IAC0MA / I Vi /I I .I / Si AI I I 1 / VAI'IC0—)VI:f' / S1)0KAI'11 0 / I L Ai-)C,1 I'11: , I401"Si 58 D B V'L .'49M& Item July 9, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Eric Liljequist, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Ordinance 2070 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, after a public hearing, consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance 2070 (An Ordinance Establishing System Development Charges for Water and Sewer), effective September 17, 2018. BACKGROUND: Oregon legislation establishes guidelines for the calculation of system development charges (SDCs). Within these guidelines, local governments have latitude in selecting technical approaches and establishing policies related to the development and administration of SDCs. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 223.297-223.314 authorizes local governments to impose system development charges for water supply, treatment, and distribution. DISCUSSION: In conjunction with the Water System Master Plan update, the City hired a consultant to complete a methodology report to review and update water SDCs. The updated water system development charges are to be implemented as set forth in the May 7, 2018 SDC Methodology Report produced by the Galardi Rothstein Group. This Methodology Report presents the updated water SDC methodology and calculations based on the City's recently updated Water System Master Plan (Master Plan). The general methodology included an analysis of system planning and design criteria to determine growth's capacity needs, and how they will be met through existing system available capacity and capacity expansion. Additionally, the existing and future facilities needed to serve growth over the planning period were valued to determine the "cost basis" for the SDCs. The cost basis was then spread over the total growth capacity to determine the system wide unit costs of capacity. The final step culminated in the updated SDC fee schedule (shown in the Methodology Report), Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_X City Attorney_X Finance—X- 59 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 9, 2018 Page 2 which identified how different developments were charged, based on their estimated capacity requirements. The Methodology Report reflects a uniform and equitable imposition of water SDCs based on Equivalent Dwelling Units and water meter sizes. The ordinance presented for your consideration amends Ordinance 2070 to do the following: • Adopts the Water SDC Methodology Report dated May 7, 2018 as the statutory basis for increasing any system development charges. • Amends the existing ordinance language to allow for an annual system development charges review based on the regional construction cost index. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Methodology Report supports adequate SDC funding for future water capacity improvements. 60 COUNCIL BILL NO.3073 ORDINANCE NO. 2560 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2070 (THE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ORDINANCE) TO INCLUDE NEW WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BASED UPON AN UPDATED SDC METHODOLOGY REPORT AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, ORS 223.297-223.314, authorizes local governments to impose System Development Charges (SDCs) for water supply, treatment, and distribution; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2070, establishing SDCs for water and placing certain restrictions on their use; and WHEREAS, the City last increased water SDCs by Resolution 1658 on October 23, 2001 ; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018 the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of a Water System Development Charges Methodology Report dated May 7, 2018 by the Galardi Rothstein Group ("The Methodology Report"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council now wants to amend Ordinance 2070 in order to implement new water SDCs as supported by the Methodology Report; and WHEREAS, the Methodology Report reflects a uniform and equitable imposition of water SDCs based on Equivalent Dwelling Unit and water meter sizes; and WHEREAS, new water SDCs need to be established to more accurately reflect the cost of providing water capacity for new customers; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 3 (B) of Ordinance 2070 is hereby amended to read as follows: (B) Rates of Charges: Page - 1 - Council Bill No. 3073 Ordinance No. 2560 61 1 ) The City hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the study entitled "System Development Charges for Woodburn, Oregon", dated July 29, 1991 , particularly the assumptions, conclusions and findings in such study as to the determination of anticipated costs of capital improvements required to accommodate growth and the rates for system development charges to reimburse the City for such capital improvements. 1 A) Notwithstanding subsection (1 ) above, for the purpose of setting new Water System Development Charges, the City adopts the May 7, 2018 Methodology Report for Water System Development Charges prepared by the Galardi Rothstein Group, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 2) System development charges shall be imposed and calculated for the alteration, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit if such alteration, expansion or replacement results in an increase in the use of capital improvements compared to the present use of the development. The amount of the system development charge to be paid shall be the difference between the rate for the proposed development and the rate that would be imposed for the development prior to the alteration, expansion or replacement. 3) The City shall, based upon the studies referred to above, adopt by resolution the amounts of system development charges. These resolutions may contain language applying a specific cost index in compliance with ORS 223.304 8(b). Section 2. For the purposes of ORS 223.304 (7) (b) this Ordinance is adopted on the date it is signed by the Mayor and becomes effective on September 17, 2018. Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Page - 2 - Council Bill No. 3073 Ordinance No. 2560 62 Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page - 3 - Council Bill No. 3073 Ordinance No. 2560 63 Exhibit A Page 1 of 10 Methodology Report Water System Development Gharges Prepared For O,DB�URN May 7,2018 64 Exhibit A Page 2 of 10 SECTION 1 Introduction Oregon legislation establishes guidelines for the calculation of system development charges (SDCs). Within these guidelines,local governments have latitude in selecting technical approaches and establishing policies related to the development and administration of SDCs. A discussion of key aspects of this legislation follows. SDC Legislation in Oregon In the 1989 Oregon state legislative session, a bill was passed that created a uniform framework for the imposition of SDCs statewide. This legislation(Oregon Revised Statute [ORS] 223.297-223.314),which became effective on July 1, 1991, (with subsequent amendments), authorizes local governments to assess SDCs for the following types of capital improvements: • Drainage and flood control • Water supply,treatment, and distribution • Wastewater collection,transmission,treatment, and disposal • Transportation • Parks and recreation The legislation provides guidelines on the calculation and modification of SDCs, accounting requirements to track SDC revenues, and the adoption of administrative review procedures. SDC Structure SDCs can be developed around two concepts: (1) a reimbursement fee, and (2) an improvement fee, or a combination of the two. The reimbursement fee is based on the costs of capital improvements already constructed or under construction. The legislation requires the reimbursement fee to be established or modified by an ordinance or resolution setting forth the methodology used to calculate the charge. This methodology must consider the cost of existing facilities,prior contributions by existing users, gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons,the value of unused capacity available for future system users,rate-making principles employed to finance the capital improvements,and other relevant factors. The objective of the methodology must be that future system users contribute no more than an equitable share of the capital costs of existing facilities. Reimbursement fee revenues are restricted only to capital expenditures for the specific system with which they are assessed,including debt service. The methodology for establishing or modifying an improvement fee must be specified in an ordinance or resolution that demonstrates consideration of the projected costs of capital improvements identified in an adopted plan and list,that are needed to increase capacity in the system to meet the demands of new development. Revenues generated through improvement fees are dedicated to capacity-increasing capital improvements or the repayment of debt on such improvements. An increase in capacity is established if an 2 65 Exhibit A Page 3 of 10 improvement increases the level of service provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities. In many systems, growth needs will be met through a combination of existing available capacity and future capacity-enhancing improvements. Therefore,the law provides for a combined fee (reimbursement plus improvement component). However,when such a fee is developed,the methodology must demonstrate that the charge is not based on providing the same system capacity. Credits The legislation requires that a credit be provided against the improvement fee for the construction of"qualified public improvements." Qualified public improvements are improvements that are required as a condition of development approval,identified in the system's capital improvement program, and either (1) not located on or contiguous to the property being developed, or (2) located in whole or in part, on or contiguous to,property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related. Update and Review The methodology for establishing or modifying improvement or reimbursement fees shall be available for public inspection. The local government must maintain a list of persons who have made a written request for notification prior to the adoption or amendment of such fees. The legislation includes provisions regarding notification of hearings and filing for reviews. The notification requirements for changes to the fees that represent a modification to the methodology are 90-day written notice prior to first public hearing,with the SDC methodology available for review 60 days prior to public hearing. Other Provisions Other provisions of the legislation require: • Preparation of a capital improvement program(CIP) or comparable plan (prior to the establishment of a SDC),that includes a list of the improvements that the jurisdiction intends to fund with improvement fee revenues and the estimated timing,cost, and eligible portion of each improvement. • Deposit of SDC revenues into dedicated accounts and annual accounting of revenues and expenditures,including a list of the amount spent on each project funded,in whole or in part,by SDC revenues. • Creation of an administrative appeals procedure,in accordance with the legislation, whereby a citizen or other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues. The provisions of the legislation are invalidated if they are construed to impair the local government's bond obligations or the ability of the local government to issue new bonds or other financing. 3 66 Exhibit A Page 4 of 10 SECTION 2 Water SDC Methodology This section presents the updated water system development charge (SDC) methodology, and calculations based on the City's recently updated Water System Master Plan(Master Plan). The general methodology begins with an analysis of system planning and design criteria to determine growth's capacity needs, and how they will be met through existing system available capacity and capacity expansion. Then,the existing and future facilities needed to serve growth over the planning period are valued to determine the"cost basis" for the SDCs. The cost basis is then spread over the total growth capacity to determine the system wide unit costs of capacity. The final step is to determine the SDC schedule,which identifies how different developments will be charged,based on their estimated capacity requirements. Determine Capacity Needs Table 1 shows the relevant planning assumptions for the water system through 2037 and buildout. Capacity requirements are generally evaluated based on the following system design criteria: ■ Maximum Day Demand (MDD) --The highest daily recorded rate of water production in a year. Used for allocating source,pumping and delivery facilities. ■ Storage Requirements -Stored water capacity used for operational (or equalization) and emergency and fire protection needs. Used for allocating storage facility costs. Table 1 City of Woodburn Water System Development Charge Analysis Capacity Requirements MDD(mgd) Storage(mg) Current 4.6 3.8 Future-20 Year(2037) 6.1 4.7 Future—Buildout 7.2 na Growth-20 Year(2037) 1.5 0.9 Growth-Buildout 2.6 na Growth %-20 year(2037) 25% 19% Growth %-Buildout 36% na Source: Water System Master Plan As shown in Table 1, system MDD is currently about 4.6 million gallons per day (mgd). Future MDD is projected to be about 6.1 mgd over the 20-year period. Storage requirements are 3.8 million gallons (mg) currently, and are projected to increase to 4.7 mg over the planning period. As pipelines are generally sized for buildout conditions,the 4 67 Exhibit A Page 5 of 10 projected MDD at buildout(7.2 mgd) is also provided in Table 1. As a percent of total future MDD, growth represents 25 percent at 2037, and 36 percent at buildout. Develop Cost Basis The capacity needed to serve new development will be met through a combination of existing available system capacity and additional capacity from planned system improvements. As discussed in Section 1,the reimbursement fee is intended to recover the costs associated with the growth-related capacity in the existing system;the improvement fee is based on the costs of capacity-increasing future improvements needed to meet the demands of growth. The value of capacity needed to serve growth in aggregate within the planning period is referred to as the"cost basis'. Reimbursement Fee Table 2 shows the reimbursement fee cost basis calculations based on the acquisition cost of existing facilities, as provided by the City. Table 2 City of Woodburn Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis Total Growth Share Value % $ Wells $1,659,204 0% - Treatment $2,345,962 18% $423,969 Pumping $0 0% $0 Storage $427,080 19% $82,131 Distribution - Water Mains $12,973,461 36% $4,684,861 General $760,926 36% $274,779 Total $18,166,633 $5,465,740 The growth share reflects the following considerations with respect to capacity available to growth: • Production capacity at existing wells is projected to decline over the planning period, such that future operational capacity of existing facilities may approximate existing requirements. Future well capacity is needed to meet growth requirements, so existing well value is excluded from the reimbursement fee. • Similarly,current system-wide pumping capacity is not sufficient to meet total existing needs, so the costs of these facilities is also excluded. • The system-wide treatment facilities have a total capacity of about 8.3 mgd which is sufficient to serve existing customers and projected growth beyond the 20-year planning period. The reimbursement fee cost basis includes 18 percent of treatment facility costs,which represents the 20-year growth need of 1.5 mgd (MDD) divided by the 8.3 mgd capacity. 5 68 Exhibit A Page 6 of 10 • Storage facilities are projected to meet the needs of existing and future development through 2037;the growth share (19 percent) is based on the growth storage requirement of 0.9 mg divided by total future 2037 requirement of 4.7 mg. • Pipelines are generally sized for buildout conditions, so the reimbursement cost basis for distribution(36 percent) is equal to the projected growth in MDD through buildout (2.6 mgd) divided by the total future MDD (7.2 mgd). • General facility costs are allocated to growth in proportion to buildout MDD (36 percent) As show in Table 2, of the total asset value of$18.2 million, approximately$5.5 million is associated with meeting the capacity requirements of future development, and therefore included in the reimbursement fee cost basis. Improvement Fee Table 3 shows the improvement fee cost basis calculations. As discussed previously,the well capacity requirements for growth are assumed to be met entirely by new wells. Rehabilitation of existing wells is assumed to preserve capacity for existing development. Well 7 provides emergency supply and redundancy in the system for existing and future growth, so is allocated in proportion to MDD over the 20-year planning period. Pumping costs are almost entirely related to future growth needs,with the exception of a small portion of the Parr Rd. improvements which will remedy the existing pumping deficiency. Storage improvement costs are excluded from the improvement fee cost basis as the improvements relate to replacement and rehabilitation of existing capacity, as opposed to providing for additional capacity. Transmission and distribution system improvements include about$1.5 million of new pipelines needed entirely for serving growth areas, as well as upsizing of pipelines to provide fire flow needs for both existing and future development. Both fire flow-related improvements and replacement of transmission main capacity is allocated to future growth in proportion to buildout MDD. As shown in Table 3,the improvement fee cost basis is about$8.5 million, or 51 percent of the total CIP. 6 69 Exhibit A Page 7 of 10 Table 3 City of Woodburn Water System Development Charge Capital Improvement Plan (SDC Project List) Time Master Plan SDC Portion PROJECT Period Cost % $ Water Supply Well rehabilitation Annual $600,000 0% $0 New wells 2019, 20-year $2,600,000 100% $2,600,000 Hydrogeological Study 2019 $100,000 100% $100,000 Well 7Improvements 20-year $1,000,000 25% $245,902 Subtotal $4,300,000 $2,945,902 Pumping Parr Rd 3rd Booster Pump&SCADA 2023 $175,000 99% $172,499 National Way 3rd Booster Pum 20-year $150,000 100% $150,000 Subtotal $325,000 $322,499 Storage Coating Elevated 2019 $400,000 0% $0 Altitude Valve Replacement-Elevated 2025 $80,000 0% $0 Subtotal $480,000 $0 Transmission &Distribution Transmission Replacement 2027 $3,484,000 36.1% $1,258,111 SWIR system extension* 2021 $1,200,000 100.0% $1,200,000 OR-99 E network connections 20-year $367,000 100.0% $367,000 Fire flow improvements Annual $6,673,000 36.1% $2,409,694 Subtotal $11,724,000 $5,234,806 Total $16,829,000 51% $8,503,206 *Excludes estimated developer funded cost portion Develop Unit Costs The unit costs of capacity are determined by dividing the respective cost bases by the growth capacity requirements presented in Table 1. Transmission and distribution facilities are spread over growth capacity needs through buildout,while other facilities reflect the 20- year growth increment. The system-wide unit costs are multiplied by the capacity requirements per equivalent dwelling unit(EDU) to yield the fees per EDU. Table 4 shows these calculations. 7 70 Exhibit A Page 8 of 10 Table 4 City of Woodburn Water System Development Charge Unit Cost Calculations System Component Transmission &Distribution Water Supply Storage &General Total Cost Basis Reimbursement $423,969 $82,131 $4,959,640 $5,465,740 Improvement $3,268,400 $5,234,806 $8,503,206 Growth units (gpd) 1,500,000 900,000 2,600,000 Unit cost ($/gpd) Reimbursement $0.28 $0.09 $1.91 Improvement $2.18 $0.00 $2.01 Capacity per EDU 567 466 567 Reimbursement Fee $160 $43 $1,082 $1,284 Improvement Fee $1,235 $0 $1,142 $2,377 EDU capacity requirements are estimated based on current system MDD and the total number of meter equivalents in the system. Water utilities have different standards with respect to installation of meters,but generally residential dwelling units are served by either a 5/8-in or 3/4-inch meter. Therefore,the base service unit for the water system is based on the hydraulic capacity of a 3/4-inch meter (30 gpm). The meter equivalents for larger meter sizes represent the equivalent hydraulic capacity relative to 30 gpm capacity. Table 5 shows the meter equivalency factors for each meter size. Based on the existing MDD and meter equivalents,the estimated capacity requirement per EDU is 567 gallons per day (0.000567 mgd), and 466 gallons (0.000466 mg) for storage. Multiplying the capacity requirement per EDU by the unit costs of capacity yields reimbursement and improvement costs per EDU of$1,284 and$2,377,respectively,for a total of$3,661. 8 71 Exhibit A Page 9 of 10 SDC Schedule Table 5 shows the base SDC per EDU, and the SDC for each meter size larger than 3/4-inch. The total SDC per EDU,including compliance costs of$95 per EDU,is $3,756. Table 5 City of Woodburn Water System Development Charge SDC Schedule Meter Meter Size SDCr SDCi Compliance SDC Equivalent' Base(up to 3/-inch) $1,284 $2,377 $95 $3,756 1.00 1-inch $2,141 $3,962 $158 $6,260 1.67 11/2-inch $4,281 $7,923 $316 $12,521 3.33 2-inch $6,850 $12,677 $506 $20,033 5.33 3-inch $14,984 $27,732 $1,108 $43,823 11.67 4-inch $26,971 $49,917 $1,994 $78,882 21.00 6-inch $55,654 $103,003 $4,114 $162,771 43.33 8-inch $68,498 $126,773 $5,063 $200,334 53.33 10-inch $98,466 $182,236 $7,278 $287,980 76.67 'AWWA Standards(Turbine Meters) Compliance Costs Local governments are entitled to include in the SDCs, a charge to recover costs associated with complying with the SDC statutes. Compliance costs include costs related to developing the SDC methodology and project list(i.e., a portion of master planning costs),and annual accounting and budgeting. The estimated compliance cost per equivalent meter is $95 (about 2.5 percent of the total SDC). Table 6 City of Woodburn Compliance Charge Component Years Total Growth Annualized SDC Study 5 $10,000 100% $2,000 Master Planning 10 $110,000 51% $5,558 Auditing/Accounting/Legal/Development 1 $5,000 100% $5,000 Total Annual Costs $130,000 $12,558 Estimated Annual EDUs 132 Compliance Charge/EDU $95 9 72 Exhibit A Page 10 of 10 Inflationary Adjustments In accordance with Oregon statutes,it is recommended that the SDCs be adjusted annually based on a standard inflationary index. Specifically,the City currently uses the Engineering News Record Northwest Construction Cost Index as the basis for adjusting the SDCs annually. 10 73 D B V'L -,49M& Item July 9, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Eric Liljequist, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting a New Fee Schedule for Water System Development Charges RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution establishing Water System Development Charges (SDCs) pursuant to the recently updated Water SDC Methodology as adopted by the City Council. BACKGROUND: In conjunction with the Water System Master Plan update, the City hired a consultant to complete a methodology report to review and update water system development charges. The updated Water SDCs are to be implemented as set forth in the May 7, 2018 SDC Methodology Report produced by the Galardi Rothstein Group. DISCUSSION: This Methodology Report bases its calculations on the City's recently updated Water System Master Plan (Master Plan). The general methodology includes an analysis of system planning and design criteria to determine growth's capacity needs, and how they will be met through existing system available capacity and capacity expansion. Additionally, the existing and future facilities needed to serve growth over the planning period were valued to determine the "cost basis" for the SDCs. The cost basis was then spread over the total growth capacity to determine the system wide unit costs of capacity. The final step culminated in the updated SDC fee schedule The Methodology Report reflects a uniform and equitable imposition of water SDCs based on Equivalent Dwelling Units and water meter sizes. The amount of the Water System Development Charge shall be $3,756.00 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit for new development. One Equivalent Dwelling Unit represents a base (up to 3/4-inch) water meter size. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_X City Attorney_X Finance—X- 74 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 9, 2018 Page 2 The proposed resolution includes an "index provision" as specifically permitted by Oregon SDC statute. This provides that SDC rates shall be adjusted annually by resolution at the beginning of each fiscal year to account for changes in construction costs as reflected in the Construction Cost Index published in the Engineering News Record. The adjustment shall be based upon the most recent Construction Cost Index available as of April 1 stand in compliance with ORS 223.304(8)(b). FINANCIAL IMPACT: The new Water SDC rates allow for adequate funding of future water capacity improvements. 75 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3074 RESOLUTION NO. 2121 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY OF WOODBURN WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES; REPEALING RESOLUTION 1658; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, ORS 223.297-223.314, authorizes local governments to impose System Development Charges (SDCs) for water supply, treatment, and distribution; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2070, establishing SDCs for water and placing certain restrictions on their use; and WHEREAS, the City amended Ordinance 2070 so that water SDCs could be based on a the Water System Development Charges Methodology Report dated May 7, 2018 by the Galardi Rothstein Group, which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2070 provides that the amounts of SDCs shall be set by resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Water SDCs are adopted as listed on the following SDC Schedule: Water System Development Charge SDC Schedule Meter Meter Size SDCr SDO Compliance SDC Equivalent Base (up to 3/4-inch) $1,284 $2,377 $95 $3,756 1.00 1-inch $2,141 $3,962 $158 $6,260 1.67 1 1/2-inch $4,281 $7,923 $316 $12,521 3.33 2-inch $6,850 $12,677 $506 $20,033 5.33 3-inch $14,984 $27,732 $1,108 $43,823 11 .67 4-inch $26,971 $49,917 $1,994 $78,882 21 .00 6-inch $55,654 $103,003 $4,114 $162,7711 43.33 Page 1 - Council Bill No. 3074 Resolution No. 2121 76 8-inch $68,498 $126,773 $5,0631 $200,3341 53.33 10-inch $98,466 $182,236 $7,2781 $287,980 76.67 'AWWA Standards (Turbine Meters) Section 2. SDC rates shall be adjusted annually by Resolution at the beginning of each fiscal year to account for changes in construction costs as reflected in the Construction Cost Index published in the Engineering News Record. The adjustment shall be based upon the most recent Construction Cost Index available as of April 1 St and in compliance with ORS 223.304(8)(b). Section 3. For the purposes of ORS 223.304 (7) (b) this Resolution is adopted on the date it is signed by the Mayor and becomes effective on September 17, 2018. Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Heather Pierson, City Recorder Page 1 - Council Bill No. 3074 Resolution No. 2121 77 �'I'1�r I Iii♦ r} Y 9M& Its BU Pri,,�<;rrt rr rf aA'!87 July 9, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director Colin Cortes, AICP, CNU-A, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Legislative Amendment to Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) 3.09 Planned Unit Developments (LA 2018-01) RECOMMENDATION: After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Council adopt the ordinance implementing LA 2018-01 amending the planned unit development (PUD) provisions in the WDO. BACKGROUND: The item before the Council is action on Legislative Amendment LA 2018-0, amending the planned unit development (PUD) provisions to expand the scope of development standards that a developer may request to modify from the underlying zoning district provisions and to correct minor incongruities about density provisions. The amendment would not affect other areas of the WDO, and revisions are limited to the following: a. Amend 3.09.06 to allow modification by PUD of development standards in WDO Sections 2.02, 2.03, and 2.04, such as minimum lot sizes and setbacks. Currently, an applicant proposing a PUD can only request to modify said provisions through a variance process; and b. Amend Table 3.09A. residential minimum and maximum densities to default to those of the City Comprehensive Plan. The stated purpose of the PUD is to "allow flexible development standards, unique street cross-sections and more variety in permitted uses. . . . They also encourage innovation and creative approaches for developing land." However, WDO 3.09.06 does not currently allow modifications to basic Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x City Attorney_x_ Finance_x- 78 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 9, 2018 Page 2 development standards of Section 2 of the WDO, such as lot size, width, setbacks, height, and lot coverage. This is contrary to the purpose and intent of PUDs. Three primary reasons for this proposed amendment are that: 1 . The development standards of Section 2 are the standards that developers request to modify through an application for a PUD because PUD is a common zoning tool across the nation and it is conventional to propose and make such modifications through PUD; 2. WDO 3.09.06 is inconsistent with the purpose and intent set out for PUDs in the WDO and Policy Table 1 of the Comprehensive Plan which regulates residential density; 3. The City retains the ability and discretion to condition or deny any PUD development modification. This proposed amendment merely shifts the vehicle for such proposals from the more stringent variance process to the overall PUD review process. DISCUSSION: WDO 4.01 .09A. requires the Council to initiate by resolution consideration of a potential legislative amendment to the WDO. The Council did so via Resolution No. 2114 on May 14, 2018. In conformance with WDO 4.01 .09B. and 4.01 .1OB., the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment on June 14, 2018. During Commission deliberation, the Commissioners concluded that this was a needed change and that the amendment would result in more innovative development. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The adoption of this amendment may result in an increase in the number of applications for planned unit developments and a corresponding decrease in variance applications. Likely resulting in a net neutral or at least minimal, financial impact. 79 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 9, 2018 Page 3 Attachments: 1 . Letter of testimony in favor by Andrew H. Stamp, Esq., June 18, 2018 2. June 14, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments 80 ANDREW H. STAMP,P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW Kruse-Mercantile Professional Offices, Suite 16 4248 Galewood St. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Tele: 503.675.4318 Admitted in oiegon. Fax: 503.675.4319 andrewstampgcomcast.net 18 June 2018 VIA EMAIL City of Woodburn Mayor and City Council c/o: Chris Kerr, Planning Director 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Re: Support for Legislative Code Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments City File: LA-2018-01 Our File: 7078.4 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of Stafford Development Company, LLC in order to voice our strong support for two proposed Code Amendments to WDO 3.09 (Planned Developments). Staff has proposed two amendments: 1. Amend WDO 3.09.06 to expressly allow modification of development standards set forth in WDO 2.02, 2.03, and 2.04 without seeking a variance. 2. Amend Table 3.09A, which contains residential minimum and maximum densities, to make them correspond to the density limits set forth in the comprehensive plan. It is critical to note that we believe that the first of these two proposed amendments is not intended to make substantive policy changes to the existing code. Rather, it simply clarifies what is already implicit in the code. The proposed amendments to WDO 3.09.06 simply clarify the original policy intent by rewording ambiguous language in the existing code. Similarly, the second proposed amendment is not a major shift in policy, but rather is intended to make the PUD code consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Approving this change will help insulate City PUD land use decisions from potential appeals. .............................................................................. 81 Ltr to: City Council 18 June 2018 Page 2 The Big Picture: Overview of the Planned Development Process. To understand the original policy intent of WDO 3.09, it is important to recognize that the Planned Development process is alternative to applying the base zone standards. The typical base zone standards provide certainty and predictability to developers, but they have significant downsides: ❖ they result in uniform and monotonous developments, ❖ they do not incentivize the provision of open space, ❖ they do not factor in site-specific conditions, and therefore result in development inefficiency, and ❖ they disincentivize innovation and creativity. With the PUD process, a site undergoes the equivalent of a site-specific "rezone" to customize development standards to that specific property. The downside for the developer is that a PUD gives up the certainty and predictability and therefore the developer must convince the city that the proffered amenities and open space results in a better development than what is allowed by right under the base zone standards. A PUD process is desirable because it can result in a development approval that sets forth provisions to encourage clustering of buildings in exchange for protection of natural resources, designation of common open space, incorporation of a variety of building types and mixed land uses, a more efficient site design,preservation of amenities such as open space, lower costs for street construction and lower maintenance costs for the municipality. Reasons Why WDO 3.09.06 Needs To Be Amended to Carry Out the Original Intent of the PUD Process. Woodburn's PUD process allows flexibility both regarding the types of allowed uses and the application of specific development standards. The WDO defines the term "development standard" as "[t]he requirement of the City with respect to quality and quantity of an improvement or activity." WDO 1.02. Development standards for residential housing are set forth in both in Chapter 2 (See, for example, tables 2.02(B)-(F)) and in Chapter 3.01-3.10. Except as noted, virtually any development standard can be modified via the PUD process without the need for a variance. The PUD process sets forth five (5) specific sets of development standards which cannot be modified via the PUD process. See 3.09.06(A)-(E). These five topics include: ❖ Common area and density, ❖ Improved Common Area, ❖ Streets, ❖ Parking, and ❖ Signs. 82 Ltr to: City Council 18 June 2018 Page 3 It is therefore logical to assume that all other development standards can be modified. Had the drafters intended other development standards to be off-limits, those standards could have easily been added to the list. Unfortunately, WDO 3.09.06 potentially complicates that logical conclusion because it states that an applicant for a PUD may propose to modify applicable development standards set forth in WDO 3.01 to WDO 3.10 without a separate variance. In and of itself, that sentence is not confusing or unworkable. However, many development standards are found in WDO 2.02, 2.03, and 2.04. If you read a negative implication into WDO 3.09.06 (i.e. that development standards set forth in Chapter 2 of the WDO cannot be modified via the Planned Development Process because WDO 3.09.06 should be read as limiting language), then the code becomes confusing and unworkable. Some of the key development standards for single-family dwellings in the RS and NRS base zones are found in WDO 2.02. This includes setbacks, lot coverage, and lot width standards, among others. We have summarized some of the most critical development standards in a chart, below. Our position is that these requirements apply to standard subdivisions, as opposed to PUDs. However, if a PUD does have to comply with these development standards, the ability to transfer density becomes very restricted. Residential Minimum Lot Min Lot Min Lot Street Density Area Width Depth Frontage units/net acre Residential Single Family 5.2 6,000 50 90 40 (RS) Nodal Single Family (RSN) 5.2 6,000 50 90 40 Standard lot Nodal Single Family (RSN) 7.9 4,000 30 80 40 Small lot and Rowhouse These"minimum" dimensional standards work at cross purposes to the density standards: the former seeks to keep lots from being too small, while the latter is trying to encourage small lots. In order words, they don't work together. 83 Ltr to: City Council 18 June 2018 Page 4 The code simply needs to be amended as proposed to avoid a negative implication being read into WDO 3.09.06. This is true despite the fact that the City is well justified to simply interpret WDO 3.09.06 in a manner as to not limit developers from modifying development standards found in WDO 2.02, 2.03, and 2.04. Negative implications are recognized in law by the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. This common-law aid to the construction of statutes, "hold[s] that to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative." Black's Law Dictionary 620 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed 2004). See generally Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc., 330 Or 376, 382, 8 P3 200 (2000); Fisher Broadcasting v. Department ofRevenue, 321 Or 341, 353, 898 P2d 1333 (1995). However, both the court of appeals and the supreme court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that the maxim "is to be applied with caution and merely as an auxiliary rule to determine the legislative intention." Cabell v. Cottage Grove, 170 Or 256, 281, 130 P2d 1013 (1943). Because expressio unius is a rule of inference, it applies only in limited circumstances, and it gives way to stronger evidence of legislative intent if present. Cabell, 170 Or at 281. Thus, the City is well justified to simply interpret WDO 3.09.06 in a manner to not limit developers from modifying development standards in WDO 2.02, 2.03, and 2.04. Nonetheless, because some people will want to interpret WDO 3.09.06 with a negative inference, we agree with staff that the time is right to amend the Code to remove any doubt as to the breath of the allowed modifications. Again, we do not see this amendment as changing policy, but rather to clarify an ambiguity in the code. Failing to correct this ambiguity leaves the door open for an appeal which would simply defer the ultimate determination to LUBA and the courts. We see no reason to cede interpretive power to the state, which is effectively what happens when ambiguities are allowed to fester in a zoning code. The Minimum and Maximum Residential Density Standards Set Forth in the PUD Chapter Should Be Amended to Conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has proposed amending Table 3.09A so that the minimum and maximum residential density standards in a PUDs are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which we support. The PUD process requires the developer to designate 30% of the gross site area as "common area." After subtracting an additional 25% of the land mass for streets and easements, a developer is left with only 45% of the original site for the actual lots. As a result, it is not possible to meet the same minimum density requirement as the base zone when proposing a PUD. This is especially true since, the definitions of"net density" and"net acre" include common areas in private ownership. The definitions are the key to understanding of how density is calculated. The Zoning Code defines "density" as follows: 84 Ltr to: City Council 18 June 2018 Page 5 Density. • Gross Density or Units per Gross Acre: The number of dwelling units or living units per acre prior to the dedication of public right- of-way,irrevocable easements for private streets or access ways; and private streets in Manufactured Dwelling Parks. • Net Density or Units per Net Acre: The number of dwelling units or living units per acre based on the land area committed to housing and common, private ownership but excluding public right-of-way, irrevocable easements for private streets or access ways, and private streets in Manufactured Dwelling Parks. Critically, the WDO includes "common area in private ownership" in the definition of"net density/units per net area." The Comprehensive Plan, on the other hand, defines "Net Buildable Area" in a manner that differs from the way the Zoning Code defines "net acre." "The net buildable area of a parcel excludes land dedicated for public rights-of-way or stormwater easements, common open space, and unbuildable natural areas." Currently, the PUD chapter requires developers proposing PUDs to meet a minimum density standard of 5.2 units per net acre (where open space is included in the"net acre" number), whereas, the Comprehensive Plan demands that the density be 7.9 units per net acre, but open space is excluded from that"net acre" number. The chart below summarizes the current differences, as well as the proposed change (underlined and in yellow): Zoning Code WDO Zoning Code WDO Comprehensive Plan 2.02 (RSN Nodal 3.09A (RSN Nodal zone) Zone Current 7.9 units per acre 5.2 units per acre 7.9 units per acre Based on Definition Based on Definition Based on definition of of"Net Density" in of"Net Density" in "Units per Net Buildable WDO 1.02, which WDO 1.02, which Acre" at excludes ROW but excludes ROW but (Policy Table 1), which includes open space includes open space excludes ROW and open space. Proposed "Consistent with N/C Comprehensive Plan" N/C 85 Ltr to: City Council 18 June 2018 Page 6 The proposed amendment will restore consistency between the PUD Chapter of the Zoning Code and the comprehensive Plan by making the Comprehensive Plan standard the law for PUDs as well. We do not envision that this change will result in any significant substantive policy shift, since both calculations result in similar density results as a practical matter. In conclusion, we wish to thank the City Council for giving consideration to these important amendments. If City Council members have question or seek further clarification,please do not hesitate to call me at the above-listed number. Sincerely, ANDREW H. STAMP,P.C. Andrew H. Stamp Andrew H. Stamp AHS:ahs c: Stafford Development Company, LLC 86 J ; � -'- N Fn corpo, rraaed 1889 Staff Report To: Planning Commission Through: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director " From: Colin Cortes, AICP, CNU-A, Senior Planner Meeting Date: June 14, 2018 (Prepared June 7, 2018) Item: Legislative Amendment to WDO 3.09 Planned Unit Developments (LA 2018- 01) Table of Contents ISSUE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.....................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................2 BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................3 History and National Context............................................................................................ 3 RegionalContext.............................................................................................................. 3 LocalContext ................................................................................................................... 4 Chief Reasons for the Proposal ......................................................................................... 4 RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................5 ACTIONS .......................................................................................................................5 ATTACHMENT LIST.........................................................................................................6 87 Issue before the Planning Commission Recommendation on Legislative Amendment 2018-01 (Type V) amending Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) 3.09 Planned Unit Developments to address the scope of allowable modifications to certain development standards that an application for PUD may propose and to correct minor incongruities about density provisions. Executive Summary The proposal is to consider amending the planned unit development (PUD) provisions to expand the scope of development standards that a developer may request to modify from the underlying zoning district provisions and to correct minor incongruities about density provisions. The amendment would not affect other areas of the WDO, and revisions are limited to the following: a. Amend 3.09.06 to allow modification by PUD of development standards in WDO Sections 2.02, 2.03, and 2.04, such as minimum lot sizes and setbacks, that at present, an applicant proposing a PUD can only request with a corollary variance request or requests; and b. Amend Table 3.09A. residential minimum and maximum densities to default to those of the zoning district(s) underlying a PUD. WDO 3.09.06 excludes reference to Section 2, which contains the basic development standards for zoning districts: minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage. Three basic reasons for proposal part (a) are that: 1. These basic development standards are the very ones developers typically request to modify through an application for a PUD because the PUD is a common zoning tool across the nation and it is conventional to propose and make such modifications through PUD; and 2. WDO 3.09.06 is not consistent with the purposes and intent of the PUD; and 3. The City, through the Commission, still retains the ability and discretion to condition or deny any specific modification a planned unit developer might propose. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Page 2 of 6 88 Background What is a planned unit development? Also known as planned development, the term refers to both a form of land development and a regulatory process that creates it. Generally, it is master-planned development having multiple and mixed land uses and often accompanied with subdivision of a large area of land. Such development typically allows for more flexible design than is permitted under a standard zoning district and in return provides public benefits. History and National Context In 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case called Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., often referred to as Euclid v. Ambler, held that local government use of district zoning a constitutionally sound exercise of government police power. From that case, "Euclidean" became city planning shorthand for what the court affirmed: That cities have the authority and power to plan and establish conventional, single-use zoning, namely the establishment of districts limited to residential, commercial, industrial, and civic uses separated from each other. Urban planners sometimes refer to "Euclidean" zoning as contrasting with planned unit developments. Whereas Euclidean zoning is described as rigid and inflexible, PUDs arose as an alternate zoning tool to allow for cities to formally negotiate with developers to create custom developments and zoning specific to such developments when single-use zoning designations were poorly fitted; PUDs are responsive to factors such as lack of market demand, lack of interest from developers, conflicts with local government goals and policies, or land constrained by environmental protections or steep terrain. The tool remains conventional and common across the nation. Regional Context The table below lists several cities near Woodburn and whether or not each allows for PUDs and if there are any restrictions as to what development standards may or may not be modified via PUD: LA 2018-01 Staff Report Page 3 of 6 89 City Population Notes (2017) Canby 16,660 Yes, except minimum lot depth, maximum height, and maximum lot coverage (16.76.040) Happy Valley 19,985 Yes, except maximum height and maximum lot coverage (16.63.0) Keizer 38,345 Yes McMinnville 33,665 Yes Newberg 23,480 Yes Oregon City 34,610 Yes through "master planning", except minimum lot size, width, and depth (17.65) Sherwood 19,350 Yes, generally, except for residential uses (16.40) Silverton 10,070 Yes Tigard 50,985 Yes Tualatin 26,960 No,Tualatin doesn't allow for PUD Wilsonville 24,315 Yes, except setbacks (4.118; 4.140) Local Context WDO 3.09 establishes planned unit development as a highly discretionary land use review (Type III) subject to Planning Commission deliberation and either approval with conditions or denial. The opening statement of the section describes the purpose (italics indicate staff emphasis): "The purpose of this Section is to establish the requirements for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). PUDs allow flexible development standards, unique street cross-sections, and more variety in permitted uses.They are especially appropriate when developing properties with unique topographic,geotechnical, or other constraints.They also encourage innovation and creative approaches for developing land. In exchange for the ability to modify development and use standards, PUDs must provide common open space and enhanced public amenities." The Commission can exercise discretion to interpret what the statement means in detail and thereby negotiate obtaining public amenities from a developer in exchange for granting private benefits to a specific development. Chief Reasons for the Proposal At present, through WDO 3.09.06, a planned unit developer may request modifications only to Sections 3.01 through 3.10 of the WDO. These sections address development provisions such as, street improvements, utilities and easements, projections into minimum setbacks, driveways and drive aisles, off-street parking and loading, landscaping, architecture, land division, and signage. The text reads: "A PUD is intended to allow flexibility in the development standards of Sections 3.01 through 3.10.The Detailed Development Plan may propose modified standards without a separate Variance. Any standard that is not proposed for modification shall apply to the PUD." LA 2018-01 Staff Report Page 4 of 6 90 The text excludes Section 2, which contains the basic development standards for zoning districts: minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage. First, these are the standards that generally will require modifications in order to, "provide flexibility in development standards" as well as any transfer of residential density within the PUD area. These basic provisions are the very ones developers typically request to modify any or all of through PUD because across the nation and regionally it is the convention to do so. Second, the text as-is makes it impractical to meet the purposes of the PUD, including plans to cluster development away from steep terrain or the environmentally sensitive portion of a site, provide open space as common area, pool off-street parking, or to supply an undersupplied housing type such as small houses, duplexes on interior lots, row houses, and development of small houses sharing a commons (also known as bungalow courts, cottage clusters, or pocket neighborhoods). Third, even with the proposed amendment broadening the scope of allowable development modifications for PUDs, the City through the Commission retains ability and discretion to condition or deny any specific modification a planned unit developer might propose. Recommendation Approval: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the staff report, any testimony received, and all attachments and approve the legislative amendment as proposed. Actions The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on legislative amendments. The Commission should, by motion: 1. Approve as presented; 2. Approve with specific edits based on WDO provisions or other stated reasons; or 3. Deny, based on WDO provisions or other stated reasons. Staff will forward the Commission recommendation and any pertinent discussion items from the hearing to the City Council for its consideration. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Page 5 of 6 91 Attachment List 101. Strikethrough-and-Underlined Amending Text 102. Analyses & Findings LA 2018-01 Staff Report Page 6 of 6 92 Woodburn Development Ordinance WDO Adopted by Ordinance 2313 on April 9, 2002 Acknowledged by December 22, 2006 Amended by Ordinance 2423 on July 28, 2007 Amended by Ordinance 2446 on September 8, 2008 Amended by Ordinance 2465 on March 24, 2010 Amended by Ordinance 2473 on December 13, 2010 Amended by Ordinance 2480 on September 26, 2011 Amended by Ordinance 2492 on September 10, 2012 Reenacted by Ordinance 2509 on August 12, 2013 Amended by Ordinance 2520 on July 28, 2014 Amended by Ordinance 2538 on September 26, 2016 Amended by Ordinance 2541 on November 14, 2016 Amended by Ordinance 2544 on January 9, 2017 y ae� ti r � DBU I n c o r p crated 1889 a .IISiMe t....1.. .1....... 11 93 SECTION 1 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 1.01 Structure...............................................................................................................................1 1.02 Definitions............................................................................................................................4 1.03 Official Zoning Map ..........................................................................................................18 1.04 Nonconforming Uses and Development............................................................................20 1.05 Planning Commission........................................................................................................22 1.06 Design Review Board........................................................................................................25 SECTION 2 LAND USE ZONING AND SPECIFIED USE STANDARDS 2.01 General Provisions.............................................................................................................27 2.02 Residential Zones...............................................................................................................29 2.03 Commercial Zones.............................................................................................................41 2.04 Industrial and Public Zones ...............................................................................................51 2.05 Overlay Districts................................................................................................................60 2.06 Accessory Structures..........................................................................................................72 2.07 Special Uses.......................................................................................................................74 2.08 Specific Conditional Uses..................................................................................................84 SECTION 3 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 3.01 Streets.................................................................................................................................90 3.02 Utilities and Easements....................................................................................................101 3.03 Setbacks and Open Space ................................................................................................103 3.04 Vehicular Access .............................................................................................................108 3.05 Off-Street Parking and Loading.......................................................................................114 3.06 Landscaping.....................................................................................................................126 3.07 Architectural Design........................................................................................................135 3.08 Partitions and Subdivisions..............................................................................................154 3.09 Planned Unit Developments ............................................................................................155 3.10 Signs.................................................................................................................................158 SECTION 4 ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES 4.01 Decision-Making Procedures...........................................................................................182 4.02 Review, Interpretation and Enforcement.........................................................................195 SECTION 5 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 5.01 Type I (Administrative) Decisions...................................................................................203 5.02 Type II(Quasi-Administrative) Decisions.......................................................................210 5.03 Type III (Quasi-Judicial) Decisions.................................................................................215 5.04 Type IV (Quasi-Judicial) Decisions...................................................................................22 Woodburn Development Ordinance 94 3.09 Planned Unit Developments The purpose of this Section is to establish the requirements for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). PUDs allow flexible development standards, unique street cross-sections, and more variety in permitted uses. They are especially appropriate when developing properties with unique topographic, geotechnical, or other constraints. They also encourage innovation and creative approaches for developing land. In exchange for the ability to modify development and use standards, PUDs must provide common open space and enhanced public amenities. 3.09.01 Allowable Types and Minimum Area of PUDs 3.09.02 Allowed Uses 3.09.03 Density Transfer 3.09.04 Conceptual Development Plan 3.09.05 Detailed Development Plan 3.09.06 Development Standards 3.09.07 Modifications to an Approved Detailed Development Plan 3.09.08 Nullification 3.09.09 Owners/Tenants Association 3.09.10 Phasing 3.09.01 Allowable Types and Minimum Area of PUDs A. Transfer of Density PUD 1. A Transfer of Density PUD shall consist entirely of property in any residential zone, or in more than one residential zone. A Transfer of Density PUD may only be used to transfer residential density from undevelopable areas of a site (riparian corridor, floodplain, wetlands, unstable soils or slopes)to developable areas of a site, but not to increase the overall number of dwelling units allowed on the site. Note: This development option is often called cluster housing. 2. There is no minimum site area for a Transfer of Density PUD. B. Residential PUD 1. A Residential PUD shall consist entirely of property zoned RS, RM, RSN, RMN, R1 S, or P/SP, or in more than one such zone. A PUD is not allowed in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District(NCOD). 2. A Residential PUD shall contain a minimum of two acres. C. Mixed-Use PUD 1. A Mixed-Use PUD may consist of property in any zone or zones. A Mixed-Use PUD is not allowed in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District(NCOD). Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 3.09 Page 168 95 F. If the PUD plan proposes stormwater mitigation measures that exceed minimum City standards by at least 25 percent, the Commission may allow up to an additional 10 percent of the density to be transferred, upon a recommendation by the Public Works Department. G. If the PUD plan proposes other environmental, sustainability, or architectural enhancements, the Commission may allow up to an additional 10 percent of the density to be transferred, commensurate with the amount, quality, and community benefit of the enhancements. Such enhancements may include, but are not limited to, solar heating or electrical generation, community gardens,public art, mitigation of off-site stormwater, and greywater diversion. 3.09.04 Conceptual Development Plan A. PUDs require both a Conceptual Development Plan and a Detailed Development Plan. These reviews may be accomplished sequentially or as a consolidated review, at the applicant's discretion. B. A Conceptual Development Plan shall include drawings and a narrative describing the surrounding neighborhood, existing site conditions, general development areas, phasing, land uses, building envelopes, architectural theme, landscaping and buffering, streets, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, common areas, utility locations, sign theme, and other information the Director may deem necessary to convey the concept plan. 3.09.05 Detailed Development Plan A. PUDs require both a Conceptual Development Plan and a Detailed Development Plan. These reviews may be accomplished sequentially or as a consolidated review, at the applicant's discretion. B. No building, grading, access, or other development permit may be issued until a Detailed Development Plan has been approved for at least one phase of the project. C. Buildings shown on a Detailed Development Plan are exempt from Design Review if they are in substantial conformity to the Detailed Development Plan (see Section 3.07.01.13). D. A Detailed Development Plan shall include drawings and a narrative sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Conceptual Development Plan and any conditions of approval previously imposed. A Detailed Development Plan shall provide specific information regarding the site layout, architecture, and proposed amenities. A Detailed Development Plan that proposes land uses not in the Conceptual Development Plan or that deviates by more than ten percent from any development standard in the Conceptual Development Plan for any phase, or that does not meet the standards of this Section shall not be approved. The applicant may request that the decision-maker approve such a plan as an amended Conceptual Development Plan. 3.09.06 Development Standards A PUD is intended to allow flexibility in the development standards of Sections 2,02 �,P.4...,m(l 3.01 through 3.10. The Detailed Development Plan may propose modified standards Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 3.09 Page 170 96 without a separate Variance. Any standard that is not proposed for modification shall apply to the PUD. The development standards stated below shall not be modified through the PUD process. A. Common area and density shall comply with Table 3.09A. Common Area and Density Standards for Planned Unit Developments Table 3.09A Transfer Residential Mixed-Use of Density Common Four or fewer dwelling units All undevelopable site area Area, Five or more dwelling units, 30 percent of gross site area, including all Minimum or nonresidential uses undevelopable site area i Improved Four or fewer dwelling units None Common Five or more dwelling units 100 square feet per dwelling unit Area, Minimum Nonresidential uses None None None .5.,,. Residential Density, Minimum (units per net .2. acre) 51C ��. 2 5,2° "Is ��w bis(,:, ��i�uG.�`�.,�. Residential Density, Maximum (units per net Not specified 4 acre) Noiil 4. 1. At least one common area shall be sized to accommodate a circle 25 feet in diameter. 2. In residential zones only. There is no minimum for non-residential zones. 3. Child care facility for 13 or more children, group home for six or more persons. 4. The maximum density is determined by setbacks, off-street parking, open space, and other requirements ��ul:.� �uu ui� �:..:� u. u��G ��„i�� u G N'u i J1.oHc T.gVrIIG :.. N01c,..(p ) �L gVrk a . � �„ , u Gw°irum��,�IIGw°m a�u.w�u� .rGw° �r�c��Gw°uu�mGw°u ��u��uai�.�.�u 11J�� u r��Gw° ��k.Gw° a�u�u�,��a�uuaia�u�; � w ), B. Improved Common Area 1. Common areas are deemed improved if they are provided with benches,playground equipment, gazebos,picnic facilities, or similar amenities. Lawn area by itself does not constitute improvement. Trails or paths do not constitute improvement, unless they connect to the public trail system. 2. Common meeting or recreation rooms are deemed to be improved common areas. 3. Improved common areas are subject to the performance guarantee provisions of Section 4.02.08. C. Streets 1. A PUD shall conform to and, where possible, enhance existing or planned vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle networks, including connections and functionality. Note: See Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 3.09 Page 171 97 Attachment 102 Analyses & Findings This attachment to the staff report analyzes the application materials and finds through statements how the legislative amendment relates to and meets applicable provisions. Symbols aid locating and understanding categories of findings: Symbol Category Indication Requirement (or guideline) met No action needed Requirement (or guideline) not met Correction needed Requirement (or guideline) not applicable No action needed Other special circumstance benefitting from Revision needed attention ......................................................................."..............i .. " ...................................................."......(......................................). Section references are to the Woodburn rn C��Wvek)��rr„� ��„� ��: u��a�ice LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 1 of 8 98 Legislative Amendment Provisions Background 1.05.0313. establishes that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council on proposed or revised ordinances relating to the regulation of land use. A brief WDO history: • In 2002, the Council first adopted the WDO on April 9 via Ordinance No. 2313. • In 2007, the Council first amended the WDO on July 28 via Ordinance No. 2423. • In 2017, the Council adopted on January 9 the thirteenth and most recent amendment via Ordinance No. 2544. �...,.�.:�...,.��.1B,.outlines the purpose of the WDO. A useful and best urban planning practice particular to Oregon is dividing types of reviews and decisions relating to planning, land use, and zoning into several types designated by Roman numeral. Local governments tweak the exact terms of the basic types, and in Woodburn there are five types, Types I through V. The spectrum spans reviews and decisions that are simple, low-level, narrow, and straightforward — having "clear and objective" provisions— up to things that are complex, high- level, broad and open-ended — having "discretionary" provisions. It spans staff decisions on permits up to Council adoption o major policy decisions. WDO Sections 4,0and 5,0'1.through ... „ ,,, , 5.04 describe the types. Legislative Amendment Provisions 4.01 Decision-Making Procedures 4.01.02E.Type V Decisions(Legislative):Type V decisions involve legislative actions where the City Council enacts or amends the City's land use regulations, comprehensive plan, Official Zoning Map or some component of these documents.Type V decisions may only be initiated by the City Council.The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing on the proposal before making a recommendation to the City Council.The City Council then holds a final public hearing and renders a decision. Public notice is provided for all public hearings(Section 4.01.14).The City Council's decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days after it becomes final. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 2 of 8 99 4.01.09 Initiation of a Legislative Proposal A.The City Council may initiate the consideration of a legislative decision by resolution. B.Actions initiated by the Council shall be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation to the Council. 4.01.17 Types of Decisions Type V Legislative Decisions(Legislative):Type V decisions involve legislative actions where the City Council enacts or amends the City's land use regulations, comprehensive plan, Official Zoning Map or some other component of any of these documents where changes are such a size, diversity of ownership or interest as to be legislative in nature under State law. Large-scale annexations are included, as well as adopting or amending the Comprehensive Plan or the Woodburn Development Ordinance.The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing on the proposal prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.The City Council then holds a final de novo public hearing and makes the City's final decision. Public notice is provided for all public hearings.The City Council's decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days after it becomes final. A legislative amendment to the WDO is a Type V decision. The Council initiated consideration of the proposed legislative amendment on May 14, 2018 via Resolution No. 2114. Staff completed the public notices for the Commission hearing date of June 14, 2018, specifically a newspaper ad in the Woodburn Independent and mailed notice to select agencies — including Marion County, the Woodburn Fire and School Districts, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) —and the Downtown Neighborhood Association. Because by definition a legislative amendment is the opposite of a "quasi-judicial" land use action, it is not specific to any property or properties and so a greater degree of public notice is not required, including a B,a„I„I,o,t,M„ea„s„.„r,e 5 notice. (The 1998 measure requires cities and counties to provide affected property owners with notice of a change in zoning classification, adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, or adoption or change of an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits previously allowed uses. Senate Bull 1 � „ [2003] modified the notice requirements.) The provisions are met. Comprehensive Plan Policies & Statewide Planning Goals Staff identifies below applicable comprehensive or "comp” plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals to guide Commission deliberation. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 3 of 8 100 Comprehensive Plan Policies Staff cites relevant comp plan provisions below: Policy Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Designations and Implementing Zoning Districts Note: ... Allowable densities may be increased through the discretionary planned unit development review process. [Vol. I, p. 7] A.Comprehensive Plan Designations and Implementation Plan Implementation Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Ordinances The second mainstay of plan implementation are partition, subdivision, and planned unit development ordinances,which are also found in the WDO.These ordinances are designed to regulate the division of large parcels of land into smaller lots or parcels, mostly for residential developments.They are the main control the City has over neighborhood development, rights- of-way acquisition, and minimum lot sizes.The City should carefully review partition, subdivision, and PUD ordinances to ensure that they are consistent with present trends of the housing market and do not require more land than is reasonably required for public use. However, conversely, these ordinances should be designed to ensure that neighborhoods are well served by streets, parks, and in some cases, school sites. [Vol. I, p. 8] Growth Management Goals and Policies G-1.20 Woodburn shall apply a minimum density standard for new subdivisions and planned unit developments of approximately 80%of the allowed density in each residential zone. [Vol. I, p. 30] The proposal would not interfere with comp plan Policy Table 1 note allowing PUD increases to density. The proposal would amend the PUD process to be more consistent with comp plan Part A., better allowing developers to respond to and build in response to the housing market, and would not interfere with discretionary review and decision-making that can condition PUDs to construct street improvements and provide for other public facilities. The proposal would make WDO 3.09 comply better with Policy G-1.20 by clarifying that base zone minimum density applies. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 4 of 8 101 Statewide Planning Goals Of the 19 goals, staff cites relevant ones below. � Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Oregon Administrative Rules 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,jj To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with existing means of land use public notice that span the existence, structure, and purview of the Commission itself to case-specific required mailings, newspaper ads, and sign postings. Goal 2 Land Use Planning [OAR 660-015-0000„[ )] To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with the PUD discretionary review process itself. Goal 5 Natural Resources,Scenic and Historic Areas,and Open Spaces [OAR 660-015-0000„[51.] To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 5 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make practical clustering development with smaller lots away from steep terrain, the environmentally sensitive portion of a site, or a cultural or historic place. This thereby protects natural resources and aids conservation of areas that are scenic, historic, or upland open space. Goal 6 Air,Water and Land Resources Quality OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,i] To maintain and improve the quality of the air,water and land resources of the state. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 6 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical for development to cluster away from sensitive lands, increasing common areas, and allowing for smaller lots and dwelling types that by being attached and smaller make destinations closer to each other. This in turn induces walking and cycling; makes transit, carpooling, and car and ride sharing feasible; and reduces the number LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 5 of 8 102 and length of driving trips. These thereby reduce the need for land dedicated to surface parking and lessen air and water pollution from motor vehicle exhaust and fluid leaks. Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards [OAR 660-015-0000„[°1.] To protect people and property from natural hazards. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 7 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical for development to cluster away from steep terrain or the environmentally sensitive portion of a site such as a creek and adjacent wetlands. These kinds of constrained land often come with higher probabilities of flooding, landslides, and — in the case of earthquake—soil liquefaction. Goal 9 Economic Development OAR 660-015-00001.21.] To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with existing commercial and industrial comprehensive plan map designations and assigned zoning districts and the uses allowed therein. Goal 10 Housing OAR 660-015-0000 I.p To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 10 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical to cluster development and to have smaller lots and attached and smaller dwelling types. This thereby keeps housing out of areas with higher probabilities of flooding and landslides. It also increases the variety of housing within the PUD area, which might provide a better fit for various kinds of families and individuals depending on their physical needs and desires for dwelling types at market price points they can afford. Though not the only factor, supply is a major factor in housing price, and the greater the supply of various kinds of dwellings, generally the less each type of dwelling costs. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 6 of 8 103 (11.1)] Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To plan and develop a timely,orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 11 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD not only practical but also attractive to developers. By opting for discretionary review, a planned unit developer allows the City to negotiate and condition actions and improvements that provide public amenities including City facilities such as streets, roads, potable water and sanitary sewer pump stations, parks, civic and community buildings, and off-street cycling and walking paths. It also provides leverage through the City for partner agencies to secure sites for new public facilities such as schools, libraries, and fire stations. (1.2)] Goal 12 Transportation OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 12 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical for PUD to have smaller lots and dwelling types that by being attached and smaller make destinations closer to each other. This in turn induces walking and cycling; makes transit, carpooling, and car and ride sharing feasible; and reduces the number and length of driving trips. This in turn helps meet several provisions under the goal, " ...(4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation; (5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; (6) conserve energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services ...". The proposal reduces reliance on automobile travel, minimizes time and cost spent on travel among destinations and as examined for Goal 6 environmental harm, and makes transit, carpooling, and car and ride sharing feasible as well as feasible for a household to own fewer or no vehicles and more easily redirect income to savings and investment. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 7 of 8 104 Goal 13 Energy Conservation [OAR 660-015-0000CI... „)] To conserve energy. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 13 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical for PUD to have smaller lots and dwelling types that by being attached and smaller make destinations closer to each other. This in turn at the building level decreases energy spent for climate control because dwellings are smaller and have more common walls that lessen energy loss to the outside world. At the larger scale, it induces walking and cycling; makes transit, carpooling, and car and ride sharing feasible; and reduces the number and length of driving trips, all of which lessen the energy consumption of driving privately owned single-occupant vehicles. � )] Goal 14 Urbanization OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use,to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with the City meeting this goal, the City having undergone comp plan periodic review leading to the 2015 adoption of the urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) acknowledged. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 14 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage — make PUD both practical and attractive to developers, increasing the likelihood of efficient use of land and livable communities as understood by and acceptable to both developers and the City. The legislative provisions are met. Staff recommends approval of the proposal. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 8 of 8 105 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3075 ORDINANCE NO. 2561 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (WDO) SECTION 3.09.06 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (LA 2018-01) WHEREAS, on May 14, 2018, the Council in conformance with WDO 4.01 .09A., initiated this amendment via Resolution No. 2114; and WHEREAS, WDO 3.09.06 was determined to be inconsistent with the purposes and intent set out for PUDs in the WDO and Policy Table 1 of the Comprehensive Plan which regulates residential density; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2018, the Planning Commission in conformance with WDO 4.01 .0913. and 4.01 .1013. held a public hearing and recommended approval of this amendment; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing and requested this Ordinance effecting the amendment (LA 2018-01 ); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. For purposes of this ordinance amendment, all new text is shown as underlined (i.e. new text) and all deleted text is shown as stricken (i.e. deleted t ). After this ordinance amendment is adopted, the Community Development director shall correct the WDO to incorporate all revisions contained herein. Section 2. The WDO is amended as specified in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 3. The legislative action taken by the Ordinance is explained and justified by the findings and analysis in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Approved: Page - 1 - Council Bill No. 3075 Ordinance No. 2561 106 Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page - 2 - Council Bill No. 3075 Ordinance No. 2561 107 Exhibit A Page 1 of 2 F. If the PUD plan proposes stormwater mitigation measures that exceed minimum City standards by at least 25 percent, the Commission may allow up to an additional 10 percent of the density to be transferred, upon a recommendation by the Public Works Department. G. If the PUD plan proposes other environmental, sustainability, or architectural enhancements, the Commission may allow up to an additional 10 percent of the density to be transferred, commensurate with the amount, quality, and community benefit of the enhancements. Such enhancements may include, but are not limited to, solar heating or electrical generation, community gardens,public art, mitigation of off-site stormwater, and greywater diversion. 3.09.04 Conceptual Development Plan A. PUDs require both a Conceptual Development Plan and a Detailed Development Plan. These reviews may be accomplished sequentially or as a consolidated review, at the applicant's discretion. B. A Conceptual Development Plan shall include drawings and a narrative describing the surrounding neighborhood, existing site conditions, general development areas, phasing, land uses, building envelopes, architectural theme, landscaping and buffering, streets, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, common areas, utility locations, sign theme, and other information the Director may deem necessary to convey the concept plan. 3.09.05 Detailed Development Plan A. PUDs require both a Conceptual Development Plan and a Detailed Development Plan. These reviews may be accomplished sequentially or as a consolidated review, at the applicant's discretion. B. No building, grading, access, or other development permit may be issued until a Detailed Development Plan has been approved for at least one phase of the project. C. Buildings shown on a Detailed Development Plan are exempt from Design Review if they are in substantial conformity to the Detailed Development Plan (see Section 3.07.01.13). D. A Detailed Development Plan shall include drawings and a narrative sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Conceptual Development Plan and any conditions of approval previously imposed. A Detailed Development Plan shall provide specific information regarding the site layout, architecture, and proposed amenities. A Detailed Development Plan that proposes land uses not in the Conceptual Development Plan or that deviates by more than ten percent from any development standard in the Conceptual Development Plan for any phase, or that does not meet the standards of this Section shall not be approved. The applicant may request that the decision-maker approve such a plan as an amended Conceptual Development Plan. 3.09.06 Development Standards A PUD is intended to allow flexibility in the development standards of Sections 2,02 �,P.4...,m(l 3.01 through 3.10. The Detailed Development Plan may propose modified standards Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 3.09 Page 170 108 Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 without a separate Variance. Any standard that is not proposed for modification shall apply to the PUD. The development standards stated below shall not be modified through the PUD process. A. Common area and density shall comply with Table 3.09A. Common Area and Density Standards for Planned Unit Developments Table 3.09A Transfer Residential Mixed-Use of Density Common Four or fewer dwelling units All undevelopable site area Area, Five or more dwelling units, 30 percent of gross site area, including all Minimum or nonresidential uses undevelopable site area i Improved Four or fewer dwelling units None Common Five or more dwelling units 100 square feet per dwelling unit Area, Minimum Nonresidential uses None None None Residential Density, Minimum (units per net ' acre) 2 .� uaiauuaiuuuu Residential Density, Maximum (units per net Not specified 4 acre) �iV:'e e u i ut'�(,I . ii-N, (:�u�i t"1r 1. At least one common area shall be sized to accommodate a circle 25 feet in diameter. 2. In residential zones only. There is no minimum for non-residential zones. 3. Child care facility for 13 or more children, group home for six or more persons. 4. The maximum density is determined by setbacks, off-street parking, open space, and other requirements ��ul.� �uu a �:..�W (." Jlh ui J1oHc T.gVrIIG :.. 01c, (p ) �L gVrk a . � �„ , u Gw°irum��,�IIGw°m u�u.w�v .rGw° �rucu�Gw°uu�mGw°u Tl�uu��uai�.�.�u 11J�� u r��Gw° TI��k.Gw° u�u�u�,�iu�uuaiu�u�; � w ), B. Improved Common Area 1. Common areas are deemed improved if they are provided with benches,playground equipment, gazebos,picnic facilities, or similar amenities. Lawn area by itself does not constitute improvement. Trails or paths do not constitute improvement, unless they connect to the public trail system. 2. Common meeting or recreation rooms are deemed to be improved common areas. 3. Improved common areas are subject to the performance guarantee provisions of Section 4.02.08. C. Streets 1. A PUD shall conform to and, where possible, enhance existing or planned vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle networks, including connections and functionality. Note: See Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 3.09 Page 171 109 Exhibit B Page 1 of 8 Analyses & Findings This attachment to the staff report analyzes the application materials and finds through statements how the legislative amendment relates to and meets applicable provisions. Symbols aid locating and understanding categories of findings: Symbol Category Indication Requirement (or guideline) met No action needed Requirement (or guideline) not met Correction needed Requirement (or guideline) not applicable No action needed Other special circumstance benefitting from Revision needed attention .......................................................'.......... ...........p .. " ..............................................'.......(......................................). Section references are to the Woodburn D vele ��r� �� : u��a��c:�W LA 2018-01 Page 1 of 8 110 Exhibit B Page 2 of 8 Legislative Amendment Provisions Background 1.05.0313. establishes that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council on proposed or revised ordinances relating to the regulation of land use. A brief WDO history: • In 2002, the Council first adopted the WDO on April 9 via Ordinance No. 2313. • In 2007, the Council first amended the WDO on July 28 via Ordinance No. 2423. • In 2017, the Council adopted on January 9 the thirteenth and most recent amendment via Ordinance No. 2544. „�,,,,,,,��,,,,,,��,�,,, ,, outlines the purpose of the WDO. A useful and best urban planning practice particular to Oregon is dividing types of reviews and decisions relating to planning, land use, and zoning into several types designated by Roman numeral. Local governments tweak the exact terms of the basic types, and in Woodburn there are five types, Types I through V. The spectrum spans reviews and decisions that are simple, low-level, narrow, and straightforward — having "clear and objective" provisions— up to things that are complex, high- level, broad and open-ended — having "discretionary" provisions. It spans staff decisions on permits up to Council adoption o major policy decisions. WDO Sections4.�i. and �:�1. through ,�..: .. .. 5.04 describe the types. Legislative Amendment Provisions 4.01 Decision-Making Procedures 4.01.02E.Type V Decisions(Legislative):Type V decisions involve legislative actions where the City Council enacts or amends the City's land use regulations, comprehensive plan,Official Zoning Map or some component of these documents.Type V decisions may only be initiated by the City Council.The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing on the proposal before making a recommendation to the City Council.The City Council then holds a final public hearing and renders a decision. Public notice is provided for all public hearings(Section 4.01.14).The City Council's decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days after it becomes final. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 2 of 8 111 Exhibit B Page 3 of 8 4.01.09 Initiation of a Legislative Proposal A.The City Council may initiate the consideration of a legislative decision by resolution. B.Actions initiated by the Council shall be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation to the Council. 4.01.17 Types of Decisions Type V Legislative Decisions(Legislative):Type V decisions involve legislative actions where the City Council enacts or amends the City's land use regulations, comprehensive plan,Official Zoning Map or some other component of any of these documents where changes are such a size, diversity of ownership or interest as to be legislative in nature under State law. Large-scale annexations are included,as well as adopting or amending the Comprehensive Plan or the Woodburn Development Ordinance.The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing on the proposal prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.The City Council then holds a final de novo public hearing and makes the City's final decision. Public notice is provided for all public hearings.The City Council's decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days after it becomes final. A legislative amendment to the WDO is a Type V decision. The Council initiated consideration of the proposed legislative amendment on May 14, 2018 via Resolution No. 2114. Staff completed the public notices for the Commission hearing date of June 14, 2018, specifically a newspaper ad in the Woodburn Independent and mailed notice to select agencies — including Marion County, the Woodburn Fire and School Districts, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) —and the Downtown Neighborhood Association. Because by definition a legislative amendment is the opposite of a "quasi-judicial" land use action, it is not specific to any property or properties and so a greater degree of public notice is not required, including a �a_I..Iot Mea„s _r�„5 , notice. (The 1998 measure requires cities and counties to provide affected property owners with notice of a change in zoning classification, adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, or adoption or change of an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits previously allowed uses. e..n�a„t.e Bu„l„, [;.a�,” [2003] modified the notice requirements.) i#00` The provisions are met. Comprehensive Plan Policies & Statewide Planning Goals Staff identifies below applicable comprehensive or "comp” plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals to guide Commission deliberation. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 3 of 8 112 Exhibit B Page 4 of 8 Comprehensive Plan Policies Staff cites relevant comp plan provisions below: Policy Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Designations and Implementing Zoning Districts Note: ... Allowable densities may be increased through the discretionary planned unit development review process. [Vol. I, p. 7] A.Comprehensive Plan Designations and Implementation Plan Implementation Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Ordinances The second mainstay of plan implementation are partition, subdivision, and planned unit development ordinances,which are also found in the WDO.These ordinances are designed to regulate the division of large parcels of land into smaller lots or parcels, mostly for residential developments.They are the main control the City has over neighborhood development, rights- of-way acquisition, and minimum lot sizes.The City should carefully review partition, subdivision, and PUD ordinances to ensure that they are consistent with present trends of the housing market and do not require more land than is reasonably required for public use. However, conversely, these ordinances should be designed to ensure that neighborhoods are well served by streets, parks, and in some cases, school sites. [Vol. I, p. 8] Growth Management Goals and Policies G-1.20 Woodburn shall apply a minimum density standard for new subdivisions and planned unit developments of approximately 80%of the allowed density in each residential zone. [Vol. I, p. 30] The proposal would not interfere with comp plan Policy Table 1 note allowing PUD increases to density. The proposal would amend the PUD process to be more consistent with comp plan Part A., better allowing developers to respond to and build in response to the housing market, and would not interfere with discretionary review and decision-making that can condition PUDs to construct street improvements and provide for other public facilities. The proposal would make WDO 3.09 comply better with Policy G-1.20 by clarifying that base zone minimum density applies. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 4 of 8 113 Exhibit B Page 5 of 8 Statewide Planning Goals Of the 19 goals, staff cites relevant ones below. Goal 1 Citizen Involvement [Oregon Administrative Rules 660-015-00001,711] To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with existing means of land use public notice that span the existence, structure, and purview of the Commission itself to case-specific required mailings, newspaper ads, and sign postings. Goal 2 Land Use Planning[OAR 660-015-0000(.2. „)] To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with the PUD discretionary review process itself. Goal 5 Natural Resources,Scenic and Historic Areas,and Open Spaces [OAR 660-015-0000„(;; .b.] To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 5 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make practical clustering development with smaller lots away from steep terrain, the environmentally sensitive portion of a site, or a cultural or historic place. This thereby protects natural resources and aids conservation of areas that are scenic, historic, or upland open space. Goal 6 Air,Water and Land Resources Quality OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i] To maintain and improve the quality of the air,water and land resources of the state. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 6 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical for development to cluster away from sensitive lands, increasing common areas, and allowing for smaller lots and dwelling types that by being attached and smaller make destinations closer to each other. This in turn induces walking and cycling; makes transit, carpooling, and car and ride sharing feasible; and reduces the number LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 5 of 8 114 Exhibit B Page 6 of 8 and length of driving trips. These thereby reduce the need for land dedicated to surface parking and lessen air and water pollution from motor vehicle exhaust and fluid leaks. Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards [OAR 660-015-0000J;;; „] To protect people and property from natural hazards. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 7 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical for development to cluster away from steep terrain or the environmentally sensitive portion of a site such as a creek and adjacent wetlands. These kinds of constrained land often come with higher probabilities of flooding, landslides, and — in the case of earthquake—soil liquefaction. Goal 9 Economic Development OAR 660-015-0000 To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,welfare,and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with existing commercial and industrial comprehensive plan map designations and assigned zoning districts and the uses allowed therein. . Goal 10 Housing OAR 660-015-0000,,, , ,.,,,,,,L,,0.,,,,] To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 10 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical to cluster development and to have smaller lots and attached and smaller dwelling types. This thereby keeps housing out of areas with higher probabilities of flooding and landslides. It also increases the variety of housing within the PUD area, which might provide a better fit for various kinds of families and individuals depending on their physical needs and desires for dwelling types at market price points they can afford. Though not the only factor, supply is a major factor in housing price, and the greater the supply of various kinds of dwellings, generally the less each type of dwelling costs. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 6 of 8 115 Exhibit B Page 7 of 8 1.1i] Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To plan and develop a timely,orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 11 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD not only practical but also attractive to developers. By opting for discretionary review, a planned unit developer allows the City to negotiate and condition actions and improvements that provide public amenities including City facilities such as streets, roads, potable water and sanitary sewer pump stations, parks, civic and community buildings, and off-street cycling and walking paths. It also provides leverage through the City for partner agencies to secure sites for new public facilities such as schools, libraries, and fire stations. 1.2i] Goal 12 Transportation OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 12 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical for PUD to have smaller lots and dwelling types that by being attached and smaller make destinations closer to each other. This in turn induces walking and cycling; makes transit, carpooling, and car and ride sharing feasible; and reduces the number and length of driving trips. This in turn helps meet several provisions under the goal, " ...(4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation; (5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; (6) conserve energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services ...". The proposal reduces reliance on automobile travel, minimizes time and cost spent on travel among destinations and as examined for Goal 6 environmental harm, and makes transit, carpooling, and car and ride sharing feasible as well as feasible for a household to own fewer or no vehicles and more easily redirect income to savings and investment. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 7 of 8 116 Exhibit B Page 8 of 8 .,x)] Goal 13 Energy Conservation OAR 660-015-0000(1 ,, ,,,1,,,,,,,,,,,,, To conserve energy. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 13 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD practical. Specifically, it becomes practical for PUD to have smaller lots and dwelling types that by being attached and smaller make destinations closer to each other. This in turn at the building level decreases energy spent for climate control because dwellings are smaller and have more common walls that lessen energy loss to the outside world. At the larger scale, it induces walking and cycling; makes transit, carpooling, and car and ride sharing feasible; and reduces the number and length of driving trips, all of which lessen the energy consumption of driving privately owned single-occupant vehicles. (11.4)] Goal 14 Urbanization OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use,to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with the City meeting this goal, the City having undergone comp plan periodic review leading to the 2015 adoption of the urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) acknowledged. The proposal allows PUDs to better meet Goal 14 because allowing modification requests to the basic development standards for zoning districts— minimum lot size, width, and depth; minimum setbacks; maximum height; and maximum lot coverage— make PUD both practical and attractive to developers, increasing the likelihood of efficient use of land and livable communities as understood by and acceptable to both developers and the City. The legislative provisions are met. Staff recommends approval of the proposal. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 8 of 8 117 �'I'1�r I Iii♦ r} Y 9M& Its BU Pri,,�<;rrt rr rf aA'!87 July 9, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Legislative Amendments to the WDO related to SB 1051: including provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units ("ADU") as Special Uses under Section 2.07 (LA 2018-02) RECOMMENDATION: After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Council adopt the ordinance implementing LA 2018-02, amending the WDO to allow for ADUs and certain affordable housing projects as required by state statute. BACKGROUND: These proposed amendments to the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) are essential to addressing the requirements of Oregon State Senate Bill 1051 ("SB 1051 "). The most significant impacts for the City will be the provisions to allow ADUs on all lots where single-family homes are permitted. ADUs are currently prohibited in the WDO. The Planning Commission held three worksessions to discuss the requirements of SB 1051 and worked with Staff to prepare draft code amendments. The Commission spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the ADU regulations adopted by other cities and, in particular, how any proposed regulations would impact existing neighbors. Included with this report is the Planning Commission Staff Report with accompanying background memoranda and research documents reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission. Written testimony has been received from two parties: Ms. Eugenia Kojin and the Fair Housing Council of Oregon. Their letters are included herein. Verbal testimony was also provided at the Planning Commission meeting from a representative of the Willamette Valley Government Affairs Director. Her Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney_x Finance_x- 118 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 9, 2018 Page 2 comments included a request to expand the maximum size allowance for ADUs and to eliminate the parking requirement that the Planning Commission is recommending as part of this amendment. DISCUSSION: A brief summary of the amendment is provided below, with the exact language attached to the Ordinance and included with this report. The proposed amendment would: • Allow for one ADU on any property that permits a single-family home, consistent with the state requirements; • Limit the maximum size of ADUs to 725 square feet or 50% of the primary structure, whichever is less; • Require ADUs to be compatible in appearance with the primary structure with regard to both height and architectural style; • Require one additional off-street parking space per ADU; • Modify the maximum review time for specific affordable housing applications to 100 days (instead of 120 days); and • Allow specific affordable housing to be built in conjunction with a house of worship (consistent with SB 1051 ). WDO 4.01 .09A. requires the Council to initiate by resolution consideration of a potential legislative amendment to the WDO. The Council did so via Resolution 2102 on September 25, 2017. On June 14, 2018, in conformance with WDO 4.01 .09B. and 4.0 1 .1 OB., the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is none. Attachments: 1 . Written Public testimony received 2. June 14, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments 119 FAIR Houp RECEIVE,0 co JUN fit 20,18 June 14, 2018 0ONMAI [)Eva iTF l int" LXP/1 'rM6iT° Woodburn Planning Commission 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, OR 97071 Re® Legislative Amendments related to SB 1051: Including provisions for Acces oq Dwelling Units (LA 2019-02) Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is submitted jointly b ' HLA and t ` of Oregon (FHCO). Both FILA and FHCO are non-profit organizations that advocate for land use policies and practices that ensure an adequate and appropriate supply of affordable housing for all Oregonians. FECO'.s interests relate to a jurisdiction's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Please include these comments in the record for the above-referenced proposed amendment. As you may know, all arnerdnients to the Comprehensive Plap M end Zonin ma .nust comply with the Statewide Planning Goals. ORS 197.175(2)(a). When a decision is made, affecting the residential hand supply, the City must refer to its Housing deeds A ysis ("HNA") d Bilijaable Land Inventory (" ") to show that an adequate number of needed housing emits ('both housing type and affordability level)will be supported by the residential land supply after enactment of the proposed change. The staff report for the proposed amendment notes that the City intends to comply with Goal 10 by adding a housing type—ADUs—that do not currently exist but will add to the available affordable housing in the City. The report does not, however, refer to the City's ffNAor BLI to demonstrate the current state of residential land needs o the effects of this amendment on the community. Further, FHCO and HLA urge the City to make changes to the ADU code before adoption, both to comply with the letter and spirit of SB 1051, and to make ADUs a potential affordable housing opportunity within the City. Our main concerns involve the size limitation and the extreme and expensive parking requirements. First, while a limitation of 725 sq. ft. may be reasonable for detached ADUs, we see no need to limit internal ADUs to such a small footprint. 1 120 Chris Kerr From: Eugenia Kojin <ekojin7@gmai1.com> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2018 9:37 AM To: Chris Kerr Subject: ADUs Hello Chris Kerr. My name is Eugenia Kojin. I've talked to Kate Foster about Woodburn's consideration of possibly allowing ADUs in some capacity during these last few meetings. When calling her not too long ago, I was told you will now be the contact. So I'm contacting. What is the status on Woodburn and ADUs? We have a 32 yr old daughter who needs a supervised living arrangement due to brain injury sustained 11 years ago. As you may know, there simply is not enough of such facilities. She has been living with us since coming home in vegetative state directly from OHSU. We are now seniors, and she needs to grow more independent. And auxiliary dwelling unit would be the exact fit for her to do just that. I was extremely hopeful when Kate got back to me regarding such a possibility. Please reply with an update of progress. Thank you in advance. Soncerely, Eugenia Kojin i 121 J ; � -'- N Fn corpo, rraaed 1889 Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director " Meeting Date: June 14, 2018 (Prepared June 7, 2018) Item: Legislative Amendments related to SB 1051: Including provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units (LA 2018-02) Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................2 BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................2 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................3 RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................5 ACTIONS .......................................................................................................................5 ATTACHMENT LIST.........................................................................................................6 122 Executive Summary These are proposed amendments to the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) which are necessitated in order to address the requirements of Oregon Senate Bill 1051 ("SB 1051"). The most significant impactful modifications for the City will be the provisions to allow Accessory Dwelling Units ("ADU"). ADU are currently prohibited in the WDO. A summary of the amendments is provided below and the exact language proposed is attached to this report. • Add a new definition for ADU that is consistent with the state requirements; • Limit the size of ADU's to 725 square feet or 50% of the primary structure, whichever is less; • Require ADU's to be compatible in appearance with the primary structure • Require one additional off-street parking space per ADU; • Modify the maximum review time for specific affordable housing applications to 100 days (instead of 120 days) • Allow specific affordable housing to be built in conjunction with a house of worship, consistent with SB 1051. Background In 2017, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1051, a legislative policy bill meant to spur development that will meet Oregon's housing needs. The Bill requires most local jurisdictions (including Woodburn) to amend or modify their development codes to meet a variety of housing goals and policy standards, including: 1. Allowing for accessory dwelling units in single-family zones; 2. Providing for expedited review of certain affordable housing permits; and, 3. Allowing religious institutions to use their property to develop affordable housing. Currently, the City's development code does not allow for accessory dwelling units anywhere. On September 25, 2017, the City Council passed Resolution 2102 initiating these legislative amendments to specifically address SB 1051. ADU are often mischaracterized by the general public. Some appropriate synonyms for ADU include: • accessory unit • ancillary unit • backyard cottage • basement apartment • garden cottage (used to specify a detached ADU) LA 2018-02 Staff Report Page 2 of 6 123 • granny cottage • in-law unit ADUs are not to be confused with mobile homes, recreational vehicles (RVs), or residential trailers that some call "tiny houses". Builders can create ADUs in various ways, including conversion of a portion of an existing house, addition to an existing house, conversion of an existing garage, or the construction of an entirely new building. SB 1051 requires allowance for three physical manifestations of ADUs. The illustration below includes an example of each: What is an ACLU? Internal Attached �l a Ietahed Image courtesy of www.yimby.wiki 2/14/2018 Discussion The Planning Commission held three worksessions to discuss the requirements of SB 1051 and its impacts. The recommended draft text included in Attachment 101 represents the consensus direction provided as a result of those meetings. Background memoranda and research documents reviewed and discussed by the Commission are included in Attachments 103-105. The Commission directed Staff on the goals and objectives for drafting and implementing reasonable regulation of ADUs. The Commission focused primarily on the physical development standards for ADUs to ensure compatibility and to minimize the impacts on surrounding neighbors, while still meeting the legal requirements of SB 1051 and protecting individual property rights. Some of the issues that the Commission considered as part of their discussions (with their final recommendations in italics) were as follows: LA 2018-02 Staff Report Page 3 of 6 124 • Architecture Would attached ADUs be subject to the same, similar, or different architectural standards applicable to houses? What about detached ADUs? The proposed code includes architectural compatibility with the primary home for all AD U's. • Height Would a detached ADU be subject to the same height limit for a primary structure, i.e. a house (typically 35 feet), or for an accessory structure (typically 15 feet)? The proposed code limits the height of an ADU to the height of the primary home. • Lot coverage Most single-family homes are restricted to 35-40% maximum lot coverage. The WDO also has an additional 25% rear lot coverage restriction. The proposed code retains the overall lot coverage and exempts ADU from the 25% rear lot coverage requirement. • Parking: The WDO requires (typically ) four off-street parking spaces per single-family home. It also requires two of them to be garaged. The proposed code requires one off-street parking space per ADU, but does not require garage. • Setbacks The proposed code requires ADU to meet the underlying setbacks of the zoning district as any other detached accessory structure. • Size/ Living Area Determining the maximum size of the ADU is a critical factor in their successor failure. The proposed code limits ADU-s to a maximum floor area of 725 SF or 50% of the primary home, whichever is less. • Cost: Costs are obviously a determining factor in the construction of ADUs. While not included with these amendments (since it is beyond their purview) the Planning Commission did indicate a desire to have the required System Development Charges (SDC's)for ADU-s be proportionate to their impacts (presumably less than a LA 2018-02 Staff Report Page 4 of 6 125 standard single-family home). Staff recommends addressing this concurrent with the next SDC fee update. An important factor noted by the Commission was the fact that whatever the WDO allows regarding ADU, homeowner associations (HOAs) can adopt or might have already adopted covenants, conditions & restrictions (CC&Rs) that prohibit ADUs. For example, ADU are not currently permitted in the Woodburn Golf Estates or the Tukwila subdivisions; therefore, adoption of these code amendments will not result in the construction of any ADU's in those developments. Surrounding Cities A list of ADU regulations adopted by other cities is included as part of Attachment 104. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed these in detail. Generally, the amendments proposed are consistent with, if slightly more restrictive, than the ADU provisions adopted by these other cities. Staff is not anticipating a proliferation of ADU to be constructed in the City due to: (a) the financial costs of construction; and (b) the underlying factors that are required for existing sites to be eligible for construction of an ADU. These include a permissive HOA, a significantly sized lot and home, an existing home placement that allows for the development of an ADU, and financing to secure a new dwelling unit on the same property. Other requirements of 581051: The other required amendments to the WDO directed by SB 1051 clarify that single-family housing is permitted (with restrictions)on properties that have houses of worship and shortening the review period from 120 days to 100 days for certain (affordable) needed housing projects. Both of these requirements are quoted directly from the approved legislation and are not expected to impact the city. Recommendation Approval: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the staff report, any testimony received and all attachments and approve the legislative amendments as proposed. Actions The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on legislative amendments. The Commission should make a recommendation to the Council to: LA 2018-02 Staff Report Page 5 of 6 126 1. Approve as presented; or 2. Approve with specific edits based on WDO provisions or other stated reasons; or 3. Deny, based on WDO provisions or other stated reasons. Staff will forward the Commission's recommendation and any pertinent discussion from the hearing to the City Council for its consideration. Attachment List 101. Strikethrough-and-Underlined Amending Text 102. Analyses & Findings 103. Memorandum to Planning Commission; February 15, 2018 104. Memorandum to Planning Commission; April 7, 2018 105. DLCD Guidance on Implementing the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) requirement under Oregon Senate Bill 1051; March 2018 LA 2018-02 Staff Report Page 6 of 6 127 Woodburn Development Ordinance WDO Adopted by Ordinance 2313 on April 9,2002 Acknowledged by December 22,2006 Amended by Ordinance 2423 on July 28,2007 Amended by Ordinance 2446 on September 8,2008 Amended by Ordinance 2465 on March 24,2010 Amended by Ordinance 2473 on December 13,2010 Amended by Ordinance 2480 on September 26,2011 Amended by Ordinance 2492 on September 10,2012 Reenacted by Ordinance 2509 on August 12,2013 Amended by Ordinance 2520 on July 28,2014 Amended by Ordinance 2538 on September 26,2016 Amended by Ordinance 2541 on November 14,2016 Amended by Ordinance 2544 on January 9,2017 .QODBUR' N Incorporated 4889 .. .IIS irn ii '.t.....1... ..1.......� 128 1.02 Definitions Dwellings: 1a2E211 2vt�u!II'ul�U !21!t; An ii7t�,riur, Ott r„c;17,d,or dl of17e drosid, ntiimI strm tll,ro tl7 a is i o d in Formatted:Underline �unnn^(;,tion7 rnntfi., r th It Is Ic(o^^^^(,?ry t ui,ily ilrni,^Ih;,i7}., Uses Allowed in Residential Zones Table 2.02A Use Zone Accessory Uses(A) Conditional Uses(CU) Permitted Uses(P) Special Permitted Uses(S) Specific Conditional Uses(SCU) RS RSN R1S RM RMN A Dwellings i A((ossury ilrni,Hii7 in7i�l'. 9: 42 Duplex dwelling S S P P 23 Manufactured dwelling S1 S1 S S S 44 Manufactured dwelling park S S 45 Multiple-family dwelling P P 46 Row houses P P b7 Single-family detached dwellings P P P P P 2.06 Accessory Structures 2.06.01 Applicability g pp Y .\ , The following standards s are applicable e to accessory structures m a zones. Ar<,^^^^^�;�r r I arni,^ I„i„7, I li7it^^ in, r=. ,,....;t u7�!ir�s,^ u7�! �rr��,.. i�(r��:�t,t.(i�tfn m:!visi�n7 �;I:f:„(ti��i7.,�x 03 }f,?... 129 2.07 Special Uses Special Permitted Uses are allowed outright,but are subject to additional requirements designed to ensure their compatibility with,or mitigate their impact on,surrounding(usually residential) development. 2.07.11 House of Worship , Bus and Van Storage: Storage of buses and vans used by a house of worship shall be permitted if the vehicles are not parked closer than 20 feet to a property line abutting a residential zone or use. R. IIS siderlLm ilse^,,...t'o(os(�I:',AA/urshi r r7�,�y nr�i�rnrh^17�n�^�;,iii7t ��r nhi.�icn'f��r i7.(Hn�^,ii7f n2Lrnded h iind ^r OR,'), 227 ')00 ii7...I hi iildinf tl7 rt is iJ,'t n ln'd frurn tl �...l:xrrnvirh^&..-,. f the cosi 1. At..,'r,t'rfl..�"'ria^i7t�l�.. p.�v7U � ip..nil^,yr�wq,rin� 7n' {„;tf��ntor�^„t�� nn�^,�',yn�r^,rnn"„�7in(urnes �l to or...fess tl7 u1...Ufl ya'r(ont of the nn'rlon ir. for Manion r,(,nn7tyk� ni nin' .. f l n'r ialrali�wn7 u7rinn^,^t',tiny: 2. Y 7,, nn�^,ii7l,�,��r^,I�rEn�;', ��r nn�^,r!i7I ��ni�l,,r,i,^^,tnni�,,�raic r ..9 u7� i�^,.+ .. �nu`i...r+i"rc„ r,,� ��r n^^,ia�^i7li � i �;;v,'��aiirr`,d.rri ��r t r:r.v 3. Y h,,h(2n:JsinfV;r7�i�^,t r+p..^,i�rl,^�t,;t,o to ccaonrrrai7t ifrlal,,trU'irorrl L,7 rt n^^,tr:!.(t^,the owner u7r'..o i( a , iv, g;;Prnnur of the fiinlr'!„!;i7t,+2iiltrir ictei7L.mlin7it�,;.onriaiiu.a'"t.... n the fnrildint�trrr11 ..('r talaly'hunj,�;in71 rare ln.?��^,ii7r tl7 r,t is not lfflurd lble to r,itii7f u71!...n,,,i, �v7ti,� innt i,rl,^,it,i7 �lf'c r, iffordable .. w4G ia'aiu7t�..i�i �iin�i'. n,�„i,�^,�^n.r ^,..rniil 7 i�rcrpirins v<pi�;,,� t��r rx,,t 7 u7�,tl f`avrcnir;t�� t rf'ra.: r 1 ,r,rn'h�,r y hL'U,rLilk Ito tic; I\llrn��i7 r,�ii,pl7t� +nrri �,'rl�zr °nf..,Ufl y,'�r^;„. r+nii�the �� i. .. 0720Ftcev'=surylJ+n+,111hrrl, li7il^;, Al Ap rLa ]R Hft„y, th \LOO Formatted:Underline,Font color:Red rs trr+gynr ^d for in tMs ti,n7, Formatted:List Paragraph,Numbered+Level:1+ Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+Alignment: k Irla, arr„t,,,ily C�a,ta''„V„1 C�dwa',I,,,I„irnlr Lhe i2rirr ary,,,dwa(lirnlr,;;;;;;; Left+Aligned at: 0.25”+Indent at: 0.5” )rp„ acca tfrycfvnrrwVhirn, ai i r r a actio r.., rr gy Lkr g fromys 2ct if the-applic;,tara sl,H)w,s cXsrnp!ita,rKce wiLhLl'w folla;wi nv,cXiLerita and cr,ttarnd arcts, Formatted:List Paragraph .....: ....::: .....: .......: ......::: R.. tiUi7fi 7it i7r.�1 fr, deto( d to, ts�„;dIIJt,tr�:r„Iii t17� yri,(i�; Ery ilrm'llii7t,,,,,,, Formatted:Font color:Accent 1 ..�� r:'r,,.�6�lrnr, llii7fl',inM��In r! ai7 u( Itod wiffiin or itt 2(h7 ,d t�!th7 'hriii:I,pry ilrnr,^I,lii7t„��r rtl��17�^r!t�� u7 ��'^S �rystn� Formatted:List Paragraph,Numbered+Level:1+ Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+Alignment: °^., An l7iU'�„U�n' Il7q �',tU'n�'r(d the y,r��la��^,'rt '�n��'^ ��rrr,itrni,'llii7r;�;in7itmIl amu h the m NW(Umil Left+Aligned at: 0.25”+Indentat: 0.5” . i!es'E,it� t'7,'ilrnr,'lh„i'7r �2LL,�LEt ' lit U'riirri(d ft 7i'X17amtori fltt,,,n ( f yiU,,�„l7,triii�, r,ir', Formatted:Underline,Font color:Dark Red rnr,ii L�yzyr,��La �rLi n7,,.. 1 t to..:the siU'dev,'ulaiij,nt^,t nd,,in (d the d„Itn(t, 130 1 ril:t((: r, f,,l; A��: ,ssy�lrn LIIIIUIJ , L1Lfi,,, EL M:i! ful I � LLIL.,,y]rel L�L iiinir,m for..A.f..f...".::::.^.u.f:.A(...:L..t.[..!..�.d��a!n�?s.. 2. R4 Ji r imf, iniEIL^,sh,ill n(�t�x( tlnn^ na^iLL ..nrnn Ei ! ilrni,Jhi7f�'�V, sr r7 ft. S aLD iLy Le:� Lrry tif,,rzr Ihnf,i:H]1l Err M:�!iii Isrsf.!rl 2a!r�t tiu �L'D,,;ILy I,: iI�ti( m h:?.r tiu;'. f L��s,f1,",r in^i f th �,s^,��ry Ei�DIl'.^,haII n( x( d '),fl pr,r(� r I L tl7I y„nii�pry�lrni,^ffii7f,�'L 721)^,r , ^,h iff fr, x(Iui(fi d fr(,�,ni::l. srf(iiI,ai(rr7(�f tfn^fI(r( r in^i. pit^,�^I�rE�rsti�rrr Ic0tsnreen dut,(hed Y u,f�,skill� r,; �r7�ii7iir,�,ini�^,i,t h,.. ar7rl 111 o er stn 1(tsrn^^,on the sit,o .: i.�r�^^, v,^f7i;�f,^^,hr�^i7„�,,^rl fry tf,fp^f)rnp„+rr;f,l a,y�rE�rtrf,f,^ill��f I\ll„��Lrrr}4a^f7... les skill not,he G Volm ,^^, ,tri�c t . y,^nnit,Lo l,',is n(ess,(,2ry�lrnr,^f,f,ii7f,in7il^,.�. t-1-din n L �', �r�}r t” y } f� .,.� nlr�n�.dff n n.„M�. .�lh f �:7i1 �tln l �ttnc nnc €, .ir 7'�^ ��Ln a�rt r, ii7 ,irr' .:r ��r c�c� ,rrrr�rnr, d. � ..n .� ir....... �rom r vAr f,ff t n irrp„ri...fn�i7t n2E?, ,^rty hin^ „,7y n�^rnr i (;;�,�( r�^ntr�l„rn�^ r,^ii7f�,�, �� Et�^r �,xrr rrrr nnY. .... 1,...1''lrvii7f�..C1iu^��tf.,,tr�^,^L Yr�l,rvii7f^^,I�r r„�;�^i^;rnrl�,�irf^c in aS:r iUun7 to LIIl r it rni 7, 17 i n'rllsir�^rl her-t,lu^nnii��.f.A6.. i „f^,I�rEn�^ ^;r..n��l^,islci/ t t��LI2 ..Irn t�ti�n7...n^eyuirnii„�,omt,,��I \A/1)0”„^�tJ.� m S rnr,^ ii7t,i�„r7iL Y 7i^, sr r iU�n7 i ILL I....I`Jum.(ur:furr nU"'^!;t [r^p;r,ll}l..n�n7 ��xrrf+cni�ii7f }� r crcr ._rlrm turos I+ccntor,l,on7 n^^,irh=mti illy^STod hrid olnv, rte r'!'to u7 ,ccn.:J ury�'lrns,nllii7f,iani,;,t ID Iccn�,d un o rnr,itf7 the nl,1E[[ rnomts of„�:;,,t,ion7 1 fly: 131 4.01.05 120-Day Rule A. The City shall take final action on the application within 120 days of the date that the application was deemed complete,unless the applicant extends the 120 day period. Any continuance or extension of the record requested by an applicant shall result in a corresponding extension of the 120-day period. B. When the 120-day Rule is Not Applicable: The 120-day rule does not apply to: 1. Any Type I decision; 2. Any application for an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan;or 3. Any application for a permit,the approval of which depends upon a Comprehensive Plan amendment; 4. Any application that is not wholly within the City's authority and control; 5. Any Type V decision; b Any annexations ire Formatted:Underline f iI �7 I`�,^,^�,^� nn�^,ii7 �;;ra is �h�n7;; t 7 it r7n , l the c:rl;h^ri ��f C.. I ti(�ri nri t ^s,:, I r,frh� �ti(�ri s..\nntf7ii7 100(i IyP �}f iir�^(i Ite LhaL tial; I ti,on w r^il.q,',^sir �^ �;pLl iIrrL ex ^^tin' 10(;1 day I�a�Elcoi �ni�}rf,^t�'�..in7f,^^,^,ti,7. .. .. 132 Attachment 102 Analyses & Findings This attachment to the staff report analyzes the application materials and finds through statements how the legislative amendment relates to and meets applicable provisions. Symbols aid locating and understanding categories of findings: Symbol Category Indication Requirement (or guideline) met No action needed Requirement (or guideline) not met Correction needed Requirement (or guideline) not applicable No action needed Other special circumstance benefitting from Revision needed attention ......................................................................."..............i .. " ...................................................."......(......................................). Section references are to the Woodburn rn C��Wvek)��rr„� ��„� ��: u��a�ice LA 2018-02 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 1 of 6 133 Legislative Amendment Provisions Background 1.05.0313. establishes that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council on proposed or revised ordinances relating to the regulation of land use. A brief WDO history: • In 2002, the Council first adopted the WDO on April 9 via Ordinance No. 2313. • In 2007, the Council first amended the WDO on July 28 via Ordinance No. 2423. • In 2017, the Council adopted on January 9 the thirteenth and most recent amendment via Ordinance No. 2544. �...,.�.:�...,.��.1B,.outlines the purpose of the WDO. A useful and best urban planning practice particular to Oregon is dividing types of reviews and decisions relating to planning, land use, and zoning into several types designated by Roman numeral. Local governments tweak the exact terms of the basic types, and in Woodburn there are five types, Types I through V. The spectrum spans reviews and decisions that are simple, low-level, narrow, and straightforward — having "clear and objective" provisions— up to things that are complex, high- level, broad and open-ended — having "discretionary" provisions. It spans staff decisions on permits up to Council adoption o major policy decisions. WDO Sections 4,0and 5,0'1.through ... „ ,,, , 5.04 describe the types. Legislative Amendment Provisions 4.01 Decision-Making Procedures 4.01.02E.Type V Decisions(Legislative):Type V decisions involve legislative actions where the City Council enacts or amends the City's land use regulations, comprehensive plan, Official Zoning Map or some component of these documents.Type V decisions may only be initiated by the City Council.The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing on the proposal before making a recommendation to the City Council.The City Council then holds a final public hearing and renders a decision. Public notice is provided for all public hearings(Section 4.01.14).The City Council's decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days after it becomes final. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 2 of 6 134 4.01.09 Initiation of a Legislative Proposal A.The City Council may initiate the consideration of a legislative decision by resolution. B.Actions initiated by the Council shall be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation to the Council. 4.01.17 Types of Decisions Type V Legislative Decisions(Legislative):Type V decisions involve legislative actions where the City Council enacts or amends the City's land use regulations, comprehensive plan, Official Zoning Map or some other component of any of these documents where changes are such a size, diversity of ownership or interest as to be legislative in nature under State law. Large-scale annexations are included, as well as adopting or amending the Comprehensive Plan or the Woodburn Development Ordinance.The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing on the proposal prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.The City Council then holds a final de novo public hearing and makes the City's final decision. Public notice is provided for all public hearings.The City Council's decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days after it becomes final. A legislative amendment to the WDO is a Type V decision. The Council initiated consideration of the proposed legislative amendment on September 25, 2017 via Resolution 2102. Staff completed the public notices for the Commission hearing date of June 14, 2018, specifically a newspaper ad in the Woodburn Independent and mailed notice to select agencies — including Marion County, the Woodburn Fire and School Districts, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) —and the Downtown Neighborhood Association. It is not specific to any property or properties will not and so a greater degree of public notice is not required, including a Ballet Measure 56, because it does not that limit or prohibit land uses previously allowed in the affected zone notice. (The 1998 measure requires cities and counties to provide affected property owners with notice of a change in zoning classification, adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, or adoption or change of an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits previously allowed uses. S er].ate u_II I „] '!�� „ [2003] modified the notice requirements.) The provisions are met. Comprehensive Plan Policies, OAR's & Statewide Planning Goals Staff identifies below applicable comprehensive or "comp" plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals to guide Commission deliberation. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 3 of 6 135 Comprehensive Plan Policies Staff cites relevant comp plan provisions below: B-2. Woodburn shall coordinate with affected state agencies regarding proposed comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments, as required by state law. All state, county and regional entities were notified pursuant to state law. Draft Code language was also forwarded to the regional realtor association, 1,000 Friends Group as well as the DLCD representative responsible for coordinating and implementing SB 1051. D-2. The housing goal of the City is to ensure that adequate housing for all sectors of the community is provided. Allowing ADU's will help to ensure that housing opportunities for a specific sector of the community (family/elderly) can be accommodated. D-2.2 It is the policy of the City to encourage a variety of housing types to accommodate the demands of the local housing market. These amendments are an excellent example of providing a unique housing type for which there is a demand in the local housing market. D-2.3 To ensure that new concepts in housing are not restricted unduly by ordinances,the City shall periodically review its ordinances for applicability to the current trends in the housing market. These amendments are an excellent example of amending our WDO in order to provide a unique housing type for which there is a demand in the local housing market. G-1.2 Woodburn will encourage the optimum use of the residential land inventory providing opportunities for infill lots, intensifying development along transit corridors, and application of minimum densities. These amendments will help to ensure that the optimum use of the city's residential housing supply is being utilized. It will add housing in areas (lots) that already accommodate development . LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 4 of 6 136 Statewide Planning Goals Of the 19 goals, staff cites relevant ones below. � Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Oregon Administrative Rules 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,J] To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with existing means of land use public notice that span the existence, structure, and purview of the Commission itself to case-specific required mailings, newspaper ads, and sign postings. Goal 10 Housing OAR 660-015-0000 (I.p To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The proposal allows the City to further the intent of Goal 10 by allowing a housing type which is not currently permitted but which is in demand in the community. (�� )] Goal 14 Urbanization OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use,to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with the City meeting this goal, the City having undergone comp plan periodic review leading to the 2015 adoption of the urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) acknowledged. These amendments will help to ensure that the optimum use of the city's residential housing supply is being utilized. It will add housing in areas (lots) that already accommodate development. Oregon Administrative Rules: 660-008-0015 Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required (1) Except as provided in section(2)of this rule, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards,conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing on buildable land.The standards,conditions and procedures may not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively,of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay The proposal includes clear and objective standards for ADUs for needed housing. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 5 of 6 137 SENATE BILL 1051 Critically, the impetus for these Code amendments was the adoption of SB 1051. The Bill requires most local jurisdictions (including Woodburn) to amend or modify their development codes to meet a variety of housing goals and policy standards, including: 1. Allowing for accessory dwelling units in single-family neighborhoods 2. Providing for expedited review of certain affordable housing permits; and, 3. Allowing religious institutions to use their property to develop affordable housing. These amendments have been drafted for the express purpose of meeting the requirements of this Bill. The legislative provisions are met. Staff recommends approval of the proposal. LA 2018-01 Staff Report Attachment 102 Page 6 of 6 138 rrr rih„” Agenda Item �cOD UR lrFto,perwred x88,9 February 15, 2018 To: Planning Commission (February 22, 2018) From: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director Ck, Colin Cortes, AICP, CNU-A, Senior Planner Subject: Work Session on SB 1051: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Recommendation: Because no Commission action is yet needed, staff recommends none. This agenda item is a briefing on the need for a legislative amendment to the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) by July 1. Summary: In 2017, the legislature passed and the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1051 requiring cities including Woodburn by July 1, 2018 to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in any zoning district where single-family houses are permitted. Because Woodburn currently prohibits ADUs, the City needs to act to allow them. What's an ADU?: A good definition of an ADU is that of the City of Portland (Title 33.910): A second dwelling unit created on a lot with a house, attached house, or manufactured home. The second unit is created auxiliary to, and is always smaller than the house, attached house, or manufactured home. The unit includes its own independent living facilities including provision for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation, and is designed for residential occupancy by one or more people, independent of the primary dwelling unit. ... The unit may have a separate exterior entrance or an entrance to an internal common area accessible to the outside." Folk synonyms for ADU include: • accessory apartment • accessory dwelling • accessory unit ... . . ..IIS.. .°i ..t......... . .........� 139 • ancillary unit • backyard cottage • basement apartment • carriage house • garden cottage (used to specify a detached ADU) • granny cottage • granny flat • in-law suite • in-law unit • mother-in-law flat • multigenerational homes • secondary dwelling unit ADUs are not to be confused with mobile homes, recreational vehicles (RVs), or residential trailers that some call "tiny houses". Manifestations of ADUs: Builders can create ADUs in various ways, including conversion of a portion of an existing house, addition to an existing house, conversion of an existing garage, or the construction of an entirely new building. SB 1051 requires allowance for three physical manifestations of ADUs. The illustration below includes an example of each: What is ars .CDU? m m Internal Attached u� Detiched q rf f J/O/��lyJ d rl7ll,f -w Image courtesy of www.yimby.wiki 2/14/2018 Page 2 of 7 140 Topics to Consider& Discuss: The task before the Commission is to direct staff on goals and objectives for drafting and implementing reasonable regulation of ADUs by the deadline. Specifically, the Commission can best direct by advising on policy and physical development standards for ADUs. For policy, would the City implement only the minimum necessary regulations to comply with state law, accept ADUs given certain elaborated assumptions and contexts, or welcome and provide policy incentives for them? The same standards that shape the buildable envelope for a house affect an ADU too. Discussion of what designs come to the mind's eye can help make assumptions explicit and gather consensus on what ADUs should and shouldn't be, making it easier for staff to set specific development standards in the WDO. Development standards categories include (alphabetically): A. Architecture • Would attached ADUs be subject to the same, similar, or different architectural standards applicable to houses? What about detached ADUs — what architectural standards might apply? For example, would any of recessed entries, balconies, patios, or porches be required? Would there be minimum window area on facades along streets? B. Density • Would it be confirmed that ADUs wouldn't count towards maximum density? Advantages are increasing the overall supply of housing and the likelihood of housing affordable to more people as well as easier WDO administration. (To summarize, any of the yellow or brown symbol zones on the attached zoning map would allow ADUs because they are residential zones that allow by right single-family houses.) • Would each single-family house lot be allowed one ADU, or would single-family corner lots be allowed up to two, such as one detached and one either internal or attached? C. Height • Would a detached ADU be subject to the same height limit for a primary structure, i.e. a house (typically 35 feet), or for an accessory structure (typically 15 feet)? D. Lot coverage • Many houses are in zoning districts allowing 35-40% maximum lot coverage. Would there be a blanket increase of allowable maximum lot coverage to accommodate attached and detached ADUs? Older and historic inner Woodburn house lots tend to be 5,000 square feet and are more restricted, whatever the percentage, than newer, conventional suburban lots. Would coverage expand only for attached and detached ADUs (apart from detached structures for other uses), and how would staff track and administer over time what additions or accessory structures are or aren't ADUs? (Based on Page 3 of 7 141 experience with City of Portland code, itself revised after a learning experience, a recommendation of staff is to regulate all detached accessory structures consistently. Otherwise, determining whether a structure is an ADU, garage, garden folly, shed, studio, or something else becomes administratively infeasible and with changes in use can suddenly make conforming structures nonconforming.) E. Nonconformance • There exist nonconforming houses and detached accessory structures within Woodburn, a number predating zoning and site development regulation. For example, would conversion into an ADU of a detached garage that is within the minimum side and rear setbacks be allowed? If so, would there be restrictions on window on the encroaching walls? Would nonconformance provisions need to address ADUs in particular? F. Parking: Amount, placement, and size of any off-street parking • New houses require three or four off-street parking spaces because the WDO requires two off-street stalls and a driveway along the garage entrance. The code allows tandem garages. The combined result is either a stacked or tandem garage with a one-car wide driveway (3 stalls total) or a conventional garage with a two-car wide driveway (4 stalls total). Requiring additional stalls for an ADU would preclude ADUs on many, if not most, existing house lots. Note that this de facto prohibition against ADUs in particular would likely incur state scrutiny about whether Woodburn ADU regulations meet SB 1051. G. Purpose Statement: • Any adopted regulations should open with a purpose statement. An example is, "This section regulates detached structures that are incidental to primary buildings to prevent them from becoming the predominant element of the site. The standards limit the height and bulk of the structures, promote compatibility of design for larger structures, provide for necessary access around larger structures, help maintain privacy to abutting lots, and maintain open front setbacks." What does the Commission see as the purpose of ADU regulation? H. Setbacks 1. Detached accessory structures are subject to shallower side and rear setbacks than houses. Would this remain as is for detached ADUs? 2. Could lots in certain contexts be allowed to have attached or detached ADUs closer to the street than houses? Consider that contexts such as older or newer areas of Woodburn and whether ADUs are adaptions of existing structures or built new influence outcomes. Page 4 of 7 142 Beyond the WDO: Cost: Cost also affects ADUs. A policy question is whether the City would charge the usual system development charges (SDCs), or charge lesser amounts and if so whether indefinitely or until date certain. Building, right-of-way, and utility permit fees are also considerations. CC&Rs: Note that whatever a City ordinance would allow, homeowner associations (HOAs) as private corporate entities could adopt or might have already adopted covenants, conditions & restrictions (CC&Rs) that prohibit ADUs. More about Parking: Parking is a strong factor on the likelihood — or not — of an ADU being built, and so requires much attention and discussion. The Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) report „�,;,�,;,es ,( ,r, ,,,,,, ,�",l„�„u„ng,,,,,,,�j..n,a,;t,,,,,, ,��„r;y,��, ,,,,,;�;�2, a adi n a lMethod( fa ) rM,,,,,,,, ir ) a ,,,, ,,,,,,,, , l��,g,� �a:��,,,,,,C��a I.a,,,,,,S!W 1��a�'” of September 2013 <https://accessorydwellings.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/adu repo rtfrev.pdf> contains these excerpts that can guide consideration and discussion of parking and other ADU barriers: Tallk,: e 21µ hn tot.4, IIwvv, urnainy ca iirs do tllhue cuaurureint ADU occualpa,int(s) owurqu ( „tt. f°ortllla,urqu� ) (in=205) ) Frequency , Percent None 39 19.0% 1 130 63.4% 2 24 11.7 3 3 1.5% Don't know 7 3.4% Missing/Refused 2 1.0% Total 205 100.0 Tallk,: e 22: Uf'tllhue occualpa,ints do owin ca iirs,wllhueire do tllhuey a suaalllllly IIpaurlllk? (Q,tta Pourt.1ain ) (urq=159) Frequency , Percent On the street 73 45.9% Off the street (e.g. garage, driveway, parking pad) 79 49.7% Other 5 3.1% Missing/Refused 2 1.3% Total 159 100.0% Page 5 of 7 143 Tallk,: e 47µ Wimt weire tliile two biggest cIlh4l1l inges your faced Viin IbuVillldlfung your ADU.R [Chech o to two](Q,25 tl°ourtlllain ) (urg=2 0) Frequency, Percent Design constraints or challenges 83 34.6% Paying for the cost of construction 78 32.5% Permitting fees 66 27.5% Lot setbacks or height limits 48 20.0% Utility connections 36 15.0% Obtaining financing 16 6.7% Minimum parking requirementsl (Eugene and Ashland only) 1 0.4% Don't know 11 4.6% Other 62 25.8% Missing/Refused 1 0.4% An additional DEQ report, "Accesso. dwell lliiin uiniits in If)c�irti:llaind Oire oIn: Evaluation and p ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.............................. linter reti:ati:ii0111 of a suirve cif AII::�LJ owineii is also available at ...............................p,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...............................I <http://www.oregon.gov/deq/Filterpocs/ADU-surveyinterpret.pdf>. Additional Tasks: Additionally, the bill requires additional code revisions not relating to ADUs. The bill sections that apply to cities (and not counties) establish: • Sect. 3: That cities are to approve housing developments that meet clear and objective standards, with few exceptions such as housing within historic districts in which discretionary land use review would be required. • Sect. 4: Amendment of the statutory definition of "needed housing” to include all housing on land zoned for residential or mixed residential and commercial use that meets housing need within an urban growth boundary (UGB) at particular price ranges and rent levels. • Sect. 5: Prohibition against attempts to hinder affordable housing development through conditioning lesser density or height than otherwise permitted by right by local code. • Sect. 8: That zoning districts that allow houses of worship must also allow housing (apart from sanctuary buildings themselves) if the housing is affordable as defined and meets local code. • Sect. 11: An exception to the 120-day land use review final decision deadline: a 100- day final decision deadline for needed housing meeting certain criteria. Page 6 of 7 144 Conclusion: Many Oregon cities prior to SB 1051 adopted and revised ADU regulations, so there are many models to mimic and customize. Staff can also look further into graphics and photos to help the Commission see and understand the likely outcomes of amended WDO provisions. Attachments: • Zoning Map • SB 1051 Page 7 of 7 145 0 p ao I E E E 3 « E E o 3 E E L �f W 3 a / o s o E E « J v t 0 o t 3 m s v z z 2 2 z 0d 0000©0000©O � �� N � II�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ®Of..II I� ag w r i �/ �: a Il t 1�' S �� s;•� I. '� '- !�Po31� �d�li R✓�� f>4wa ti / f� [ lz �. ` i w" a 79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER ................................................. AN ACT Relating to use of real property; creating new provisions; amending ORS 197.178, 197.303, 197.307, 197.312, 215.416, 215.427, 215.441, 227.175, 227.178 and 227.500; and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. (1) As used in this section: (a) "Affordable housing" means housing that is affordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 60 percent of the median family income for the county in which the development is built or for the state, whichever is greater. (b) "Multifamily residential building" means a building in which three or more residential units each have space for eating, living and sleeping and permanent provisions for cooking and sanitation. (2) Notwithstanding ORS 215.427 (1) or ORS 227.178 (1), a city with a population greater than 5,000 or a county with a population greater than 25,000 shall take final action on an application qualifying under subsection (3) of this section, including resolution of all local appeals under ORS 215.422 or 227.180, within 100 days after the application is deemed com- plete. (3) An application qualifies for final action within the timeline described in subsection (2) of this section if: (a) The application is submitted to the city or the county under ORS 215.416 or 227.175; (b) The application is for development of a multifamily residential building containing five or more residential units within the urban growth boundary; (c) At least 50 percent of the residential units included in the development will be sold or rented as affordable housing, and (d) The development is subject to a covenant appurtenant that restricts the owner and each successive owner of the development or a residential unit within the development from selling or renting any residential unit described in paragraph (c) of this subsection as hous- ing that is not affordable housing for a period of 60 years from the date of the certificate of occupancy. (4) A city or a county shall take final action within the time allowed under ORS 215.427 or 227.178 on any application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change that does not qualify for review and decision under subsection (3) of this section, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422 or 227.180, as provided by ORS 215.427 and 215.435 or by ORS 227.178 and 227.181. SECTION 2. ORS 215.416 is amended to read: Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 1 147 215.416. (1) When required or authorized by the ordinances, rules and regulations of a county, an owner of land may apply in writing to such persons as the governing body designates, for a permit, in the manner prescribed by the governing body. The governing body shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service. (2) The governing body shall establish a consolidated procedure by which an applicant may ap- ply at one time for all permits or zone changes needed for a development project. The consolidated procedure shall be subject to the time limitations set out in ORS 215.427. The consolidated proce- dure shall be available for use at the option of the applicant no later than the time of the first pe- riodic review of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. (3) Except as provided in subsection (11) of this section, the hearings officer shall hold at least one public hearing on the application. (4)(a) [The application shall not be approved] A county may not approve an application if the proposed use of land is found to be in conflict with the comprehensive plan of the county and other applicable land use regulation or ordinance provisions. The approval may include such conditions as are authorized by statute or county legislation. (b)(A) A county may not deny an application for a housing development located within the urban growth boundary if the development complies with clear and objective standards, including but not limited to clear and objective design standards contained in the county comprehensive plan or land use regulations. (B) This paragraph does not apply to: (i) Applications or permits for residential development in areas described in ORS 197.307 (5); or (ii) Applications or permits reviewed under an alternative approval process adopted under ORS 197.307 (6). (c) A county may not reduce the density of an application for a housing development ih (A) The density applied for is at or below the authorized density level under the local land use regulations; and (B) At least 75 percent of the floor area applied for is reserved for housing. (d) A county may not reduce the height of an application for a housing development ih (A) The height applied for is at or below the authorized height level under the local land use regulations; (B) At least 75 percent of the floor area applied for is reserved for housing; and (C) Reducing the height has the effect of reducing the authorized density level under lo- cal land use regulations. (e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection, a county may reduce the density or height of an application for a housing development if the reduction is necessary to resolve a health, safety or habitability issue or to comply with a protective measure adopted pursuant to a statewide land use planning goal. (f) As used in this subsection: (A) "Authorized density level" means the maximum number of lots or dwelling units or the maximum floor area ratio that is permitted under local land use regulations. (B) "Authorized height level" means the maximum height of a structure that is permit- ted under local land use regulations. (C) "Habitability" means being in compliance with the applicable provisions of the state building code under ORS chapter 455 and the rules adopted thereunder. (5) Hearings under this section shall be held only after notice to the applicant and also notice to other persons as otherwise provided by law and shall otherwise be conducted in conformance with the provisions of ORS 197.763. (6) Notice of a public hearing on an application submitted under this section shall be provided to the owner of an airport defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation as a "public use airport" if. Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 2 148 (a) The name and address of the airport owner has been provided by the Oregon Department of Aviation to the county planning authority; and (b) The property subject to the land use hearing is: (A) Within 5,000 feet of the side or end of a runway of an airport determined by the Oregon Department of Aviation to be a "visual airport"; or (B) Within 10,000 feet of the side or end of the runway of an airport determined by the Oregon Department of Aviation to be an "instrument airport." (7) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, notice of a land use hearing need not be provided as set forth in subsection (6) of this section if the zoning permit would only allow a structure less than 35 feet in height and the property is located outside the runway "ap- proach surface" as defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation. (8)(a) Approval or denial of a permit application shall be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the county and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning ordinance and com- prehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would occur and to the zoning or- dinance and comprehensive plan for the county as a whole. (b) When an ordinance establishing approval standards is required under ORS 197.307 to provide only clear and objective standards, the standards must be clear and objective on the face of the ordinance. (9) Approval or denial of a permit or expedited land division shall be based upon and accompa- nied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the deci- sion, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth. (10) Written notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to the proceeding. (11)(a)(A) The hearings officer or such other person as the governing body designates may ap- prove or deny an application for a permit without a hearing if the hearings officer or other desig- nated person gives notice of the decision and provides an opportunity for any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved, or who is entitled to notice under paragraph (c) of this subsection, to file an appeal. (B) Written notice of the decision shall be mailed to those persons described in paragraph (c) of this subsection. (C) Notice under this subsection shall comply with ORS 197.763 (3)(a), (c), (g) and (h) and shall describe the nature of the decision. In addition, the notice shall state that any person who is ad- versely affected or aggrieved or who is entitled to written notice under paragraph (c) of this sub- section may appeal the decision by filing a written appeal in the manner and within the time period provided in the county's land use regulations. A county may not establish an appeal period that is less than 12 days from the date the written notice of decision required by this subsection was mailed. The notice shall state that the decision will not become final until the period for filing a local appeal has expired. The notice also shall state that a person who is mailed written notice of the decision cannot appeal the decision directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS 197.830. (D) An appeal from a hearings officer's decision made without hearing under this subsection shall be to the planning commission or governing body of the county. An appeal from such other person as the governing body designates shall be to a hearings officer, the planning commission or the governing body. In either case, the appeal shall be to a de novo hearing. (E) The de novo hearing required by subparagraph (D) of this paragraph shall be the initial evidentiary hearing required under ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. At the de novo hearing: (i) The applicant and other parties shall have the same opportunity to present testimony, argu- ments and evidence as they would have had in a hearing under subsection (3) of this section before the decision; Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 3 149 (ii) The presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence shall not be limited to issues raised in a notice of appeal; and (iii) The decision maker shall consider all relevant testimony, arguments and evidence that are accepted at the hearing. (b) If a local government provides only a notice of the opportunity to request a hearing, the local government may charge a fee for the initial hearing. The maximum fee for an initial hearing shall be the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the appeal, or $250, whichever is less. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee allowed in this paragraph shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the governing body and whose bounda- ries include the site. (c)(A) Notice of a decision under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be provided to the ap- plicant and to the owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll where such property is located: (i) Within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is wholly or in part within an urban growth boundary; (ii) Within 250 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone; or (iii) Within 750 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is within a farm or forest zone. (B) Notice shall also be provided to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site. (C) At the discretion of the applicant, the local government also shall provide notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. (12) A decision described in ORS 215.402 (4)(b) shall: (a) Be entered in a registry available to the public setting forth: (A) The street address or other easily understood geographic reference to the subject property; (B) The date of the decision; and (C) A description of the decision made. (b) Be subject to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals in the same manner as a limited land use decision. (c) Be subject to the appeal period described in ORS 197.830 (5)(b). (13) At the option of the applicant, the local government shall provide notice of the decision described in ORS 215.402 (4)(b) in the manner required by ORS 197.763 (2), in which case an appeal to the board shall be filed within 21 days of the decision. The notice shall include an explanation of appeal rights. (14) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, a limited land use decision shall be sub- ject to the requirements set forth in ORS 197.195 and 197.828. SECTION 3. ORS 227.175 is amended to read: 227.175. (1) When required or authorized by a city, an owner of land may apply in writing to the hearings officer, or such other person as the city council designates, for a permit or zone change, upon such forms and in such a manner as the city council prescribes. The governing body shall es- tablish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service. (2) The governing body of the city shall establish a consolidated procedure by which an appli- cant may apply at one time for all permits or zone changes needed for a development project. The consolidated procedure shall be subject to the time limitations set out in ORS 227.178. The consol- idated procedure shall be available for use at the option of the applicant no later than the time of the first periodic review of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. (3) Except as provided in subsection (10) of this section, the hearings officer shall hold at least one public hearing on the application. Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 4 150 (4)(a) [The application shall not be approved] A city may not approve an application unless the proposed development of land would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the city and other applicable land use regulation or ordinance provisions. The approval may include such conditions as are authorized by ORS 227.215 or any city legislation. (b)(A) A city may not deny an application for a housing development located within the urban growth boundary if the development complies with clear and objective standards, in- cluding but not limited to clear and objective design standards contained in the city com- prehensive plan or land use regulations. (B) This paragraph does not apply to: (i) Applications or permits for residential development in areas described in ORS 197.307 (5); or (ii) Applications or permits reviewed under an alternative approval process adopted under ORS 197.307 (6). (c) A city may not reduce the density of an application for a housing development ih (A) The density applied for is at or below the authorized density level under the local land use regulations; and (B) At least 75 percent of the floor area applied for is reserved for housing. (d) A city may not reduce the height of an application for a housing development ih (A) The height applied for is at or below the authorized height level under the local land use regulations; (B) At least 75 percent of the floor area applied for is reserved for housing; and (C) Reducing the height has the effect of reducing the authorized density level under lo- cal land use regulations. (e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection, a city may reduce the density or height of an application for a housing development if the reduction is necessary to resolve a health, safety or habitability issue or to comply with a protective measure adopted pursuant to a statewide land use planning goal. (f) As used in this subsection: (A) "Authorized density level" means the maximum number of lots or dwelling units or the maximum floor area ratio that is permitted under local land use regulations. (B) "Authorized height level" means the maximum height of a structure that is permit- ted under local land use regulations. (C) "Habitability" means being in compliance with the applicable provisions of the state building code under ORS chapter 455 and the rules adopted thereunder. (5) Hearings under this section may be held only after notice to the applicant and other inter- ested persons and shall otherwise be conducted in conformance with the provisions of ORS 197.763. (6) Notice of a public hearing on a zone use application shall be provided to the owner of an airport, defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation as a "public use airport" if: (a) The name and address of the airport owner has been provided by the Oregon Department of Aviation to the city planning authority; and (b) The property subject to the zone use hearing is: (A) Within 5,000 feet of the side or end of a runway of an airport determined by the Oregon Department of Aviation to be a "visual airport"; or (B) Within 10,000 feet of the side or end of the runway of an airport determined by the Oregon Department of Aviation to be an "instrument airport." (7) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, notice of a zone use hearing need only be provided as set forth in subsection (6) of this section if the permit or zone change would only allow a structure less than 35 feet in height and the property is located outside of the runway "approach surface" as defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation. (8) If an application would change the zone of property that includes all or part of a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park as defined in ORS 446.003, the governing body shall give written notice by first class mail to each existing mailing address for tenants of the mobile home Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 5 151 or manufactured dwelling park at least 20 days but not more than 40 days before the date of the first hearing on the application. The governing body may require an applicant for such a zone change to pay the costs of such notice. (9) The failure of a tenant or an airport owner to receive a notice which was mailed shall not invalidate any zone change. (10)(a)(A) The hearings officer or such other person as the governing body designates may ap- prove or deny an application for a permit without a hearing if the hearings officer or other desig- nated person gives notice of the decision and provides an opportunity for any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved, or who is entitled to notice under paragraph (c) of this subsection, to file an appeal. (B) Written notice of the decision shall be mailed to those persons described in paragraph (c) of this subsection. (C) Notice under this subsection shall comply with ORS 197.763 (3)(a), (c), (g) and (h) and shall describe the nature of the decision. In addition, the notice shall state that any person who is ad- versely affected or aggrieved or who is entitled to written notice under paragraph (c) of this sub- section may appeal the decision by filing a written appeal in the manner and within the time period provided in the city's land use regulations. A city may not establish an appeal period that is less than 12 days from the date the written notice of decision required by this subsection was mailed. The notice shall state that the decision will not become final until the period for filing a local ap- peal has expired. The notice also shall state that a person who is mailed written notice of the de- cision cannot appeal the decision directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS 197.830. (D) An appeal from a hearings officer's decision made without hearing under this subsection shall be to the planning commission or governing body of the city. An appeal from such other person as the governing body designates shall be to a hearings officer, the planning commission or the governing body. In either case, the appeal shall be to a de novo hearing. (E) The de novo hearing required by subparagraph (D) of this paragraph shall be the initial evidentiary hearing required under ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. At the de novo hearing: (i) The applicant and other parties shall have the same opportunity to present testimony, argu- ments and evidence as they would have had in a hearing under subsection (3) of this section before the decision; (ii) The presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence shall not be limited to issues raised in a notice of appeal; and (iii) The decision maker shall consider all relevant testimony, arguments and evidence that are accepted at the hearing. (b) If a local government provides only a notice of the opportunity to request a hearing, the local government may charge a fee for the initial hearing. The maximum fee for an initial hearing shall be the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the appeal, or $250, whichever is less. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee allowed in this paragraph shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the governing body and whose bounda- ries include the site. (c)(A) Notice of a decision under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be provided to the ap- plicant and to the owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll where such property is located: (i) Within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is wholly or in part within an urban growth boundary; (ii) Within 250 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone; or (iii) Within 750 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is within a farm or forest zone. Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 6 152 (B) Notice shall also be provided to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site. (C) At the discretion of the applicant, the local government also shall provide notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. (11) A decision described in ORS 227.160 (2)(b) shall: (a) Be entered in a registry available to the public setting forth: (A) The street address or other easily understood geographic reference to the subject property; (B) The date of the decision; and (C) A description of the decision made. (b) Be subject to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals in the same manner as a limited land use decision. (c) Be subject to the appeal period described in ORS 197.830 (5)(b). (12) At the option of the applicant, the local government shall provide notice of the decision described in ORS 227.160 (2)(b) in the manner required by ORS 197.763 (2), in which case an appeal to the board shall be filed within 21 days of the decision. The notice shall include an explanation of appeal rights. (13) Notwithstanding other requirements of this section, limited land use decisions shall be subject to the requirements set forth in ORS 197.195 and 197.828. SECTION 4. ORS 197.303 is amended to read: 197.303. (1) As used in ORS 197.307, "needed housing" means all housing [types] on land zoned for residential use or mixed residential and commercial use that is determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at [particular] price ranges and rent levels[, including] that are affordable to households within the county with a variety of incomes, in- cluding but not limited to households with low incomes, very low incomes and extremely low incomes, as those terms are defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under 42 U.S.C. 1437a. "Needed housing" includes [at least] the following housing types: (a) Attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; (b) Government assisted housing; (c) Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to 197.490; (d) Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions; and (e) Housing for farmworkers. (2) Subsection (1)(a) and (d) of this section [shall] does not apply to: (a) A city with a population of less than 2,500. (b) A county with a population of less than 15,000. (3) A local government may take an exception under ORS 197.732 to the definition of "needed housing" in subsection (1) of this section in the same manner that an exception may be taken under the goals. SECTION 5. ORS 197.307 is amended to read: 197.307. (1) The availability of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities for persons of lower, middle and fixed income, including housing for farmworkers, is a matter of state- wide concern. (2) Many persons of lower, middle and fixed income depend on government assisted housing as a source of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing. (3) When a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, needed housing shall be permitted in one or more zoning districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans as overlay zones with sufficient buildable land to satisfy that need. (4) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of hous- Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 7 153 ing, including needed housing [on buildable land described in subsection (3) of this section]. The standards, conditions and procedures: (a) May include, but are not limited to, one or more provisions regulating the density or height of a development. (b) May not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. (5) The provisions of subsection (4) of this section do not apply to: (a) An application or permit for residential development in an area identified in a formally adopted central city plan, or a regional center as defined by Metro, in a city with a population of 500,000 or more. (b) An application or permit for residential development in historic areas designated for pro- tection under a land use planning goal protecting historic areas. (6) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective stand- ards, conditions and procedures as provided in subsection (4) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply an alternative approval process for applications and permits for residential devel- opment based on approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, appearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if: (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of subsection (4) of this section; (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules; and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in subsection (4) of this section. (7) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, this section does not infringe on a local government's prerogative to: (a) Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright; (b) Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal; or (c) Establish approval procedures. (8) In accordance with subsection (4) of this section and ORS 197.314, a jurisdiction may adopt any or all of the following placement standards, or any less restrictive standard, for the approval of manufactured homes located outside mobile home parks: (a) The manufactured home shall be multisectional and enclose a space of not less than 1,000 square feet. (b) The manufactured home shall be placed on an excavated and back-filled foundation and en- closed at the perimeter such that the manufactured home is located not more than 12 inches above grade. (c) The manufactured home shall have a pitched roof, except that no standard shall require a slope of greater than a nominal three feet in height for each 12 feet in width. (d) The manufactured home shall have exterior siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellings within the community or which is comparable to the predominant materials used on sur- rounding dwellings as determined by the local permit approval authority. (e) The manufactured home shall be certified by the manufacturer to have an exterior thermal envelope meeting performance standards which reduce levels equivalent to the performance stand- ards required of single-family dwellings constructed under the state building code as defined in ORS 455.010. (f) The manufactured home shall have a garage or carport constructed of like materials. A ju- risdiction may require an attached or detached garage in lieu of a carport where such is consistent with the predominant construction of immediately surrounding dwellings. (g) In addition to the provisions in paragraphs (a) to (f) of this subsection, a city or county may subject a manufactured home and the lot upon which it is sited to any development standard, ar- Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 8 154 chitectural requirement and minimum size requirement to which a conventional single-family resi- dential dwelling on the same lot would be subject. SECTION 6. ORS 197.312 is amended to read: 197.312. (1) A city or county may not by charter prohibit from all residential zones attached or detached single-family housing, multifamily housing for both owner and renter occupancy or manu- factured homes. A city or county may not by charter prohibit government assisted housing or impose additional approval standards on government assisted housing that are not applied to similar but unassisted housing. (2)(a) A single-family dwelling for a farmworker and the farmworker's immediate family is a permitted use in any residential or commercial zone that allows single-family dwellings as a per- mitted use. (b) A city or county may not impose a zoning requirement on the establishment and maintenance of a single-family dwelling for a farmworker and the farmworker's immediate family in a residential or commercial zone described in paragraph (a) of this subsection that is more restrictive than a zoning requirement imposed on other single-family dwellings in the same zone. (3)(a) Multifamily housing for farmworkers and farmworkers' immediate families is a permitted use in any residential or commercial zone that allows multifamily housing generally as a permitted use. (b) A city or county may not impose a zoning requirement on the establishment and maintenance of multifamily housing for farmworkers and farmworkers' immediate families in a residential or commercial zone described in paragraph (a) of this subsection that is more restrictive than a zoning requirement imposed on other multifamily housing in the same zone. (4) A city or county may not prohibit a property owner or developer from maintaining a real estate sales office in a subdivision or planned community containing more than 50 lots or dwelling units for the sale of lots or dwelling units that remain available for sale to the public. (5)(a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design. (b) As used in this subsection, "accessory dwelling unit" means an interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling. SECTION 7. ORS 215.441 is amended to read: 215.441. (1) If a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, chapel, meeting house or other nonresiden- tial place of worship is allowed on real property under state law and rules and local zoning ordi- nances and regulations, a county shall allow the reasonable use of the real property for activities customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity, including [worship services, reli- gion classes, weddings, funerals, child care and meal programs, but not including private or parochial school education for prekindergarten through grade 12 or higher education.]: (a) Worship services. (b) Religion classes. (c) Weddings. (d) Funerals. (e) Meal programs. (f) Child care, but not including private or parochial school education for prekindergarten through grade 12 or higher education. (g) Providing housing or space for housing in a building that is detached from the place of worship, provided: (A) At least 50 percent of the residential units provided under this paragraph are af- fordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 60 percent of the median family income for the county in which the real property is located; Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 9 155 (B) The real property is in an area zoned for residential use that is located within the urban growth boundary; and (C) The housing or space for housing complies with applicable land use regulations and meets the standards and criteria for residential development for the underlying zone. (2) A county may: (a) Subject real property described in subsection (1) of this section to reasonable regulations, including site review or design review, concerning the physical characteristics of the uses author- ized under subsection (1) of this section; or (b) Prohibit or restrict the use of real property by a place of worship described in subsection (1) of this section if the county finds that the level of service of public facilities, including trans- portation, water supply, sewer and storm drain systems is not adequate to serve the place of worship described in subsection (1) of this section. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a county may allow a private or paro- chial school for prekindergarten through grade 12 or higher education to be sited under applicable state law and rules and local zoning ordinances and regulations. (4) Housing and space for housing provided under subsection (1)(g) of this section must be subject to a covenant appurtenant that restricts the owner and each successive owner of the building or any residential unit contained in the building from selling or renting any residential unit described in subsection (1)(g)(A) of this section as housing that is not af- fordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 60 percent of the median family income for the county in which the real property is located for a period of 60 years from the date of the certificate of occupancy. SECTION 8. ORS 227.500 is amended to read: 227.500. (1) If a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, chapel, meeting house or other nonresiden- tial place of worship is allowed on real property under state law and rules and local zoning ordi- nances and regulations, a city shall allow the reasonable use of the real property for activities customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity, including [worship services, reli- gion classes, weddings, funerals, child care and meal programs, but not including private or parochial school education for prekindergarten through grade 12 or higher education.]: (a) Worship services. (b) Religion classes. (c) Weddings. (d) Funerals. (e) Meal programs. (f) Child care, but not including private or parochial school education for prekindergarten through grade 12 or higher education. (g) Providing housing or space for housing in a building that is detached from the place of worship, provided: (A) At least 50 percent of the residential units provided under this paragraph are af- fordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 60 percent of the median family income for the county in which the real property is located; (B) The real property is in an area zoned for residential use that is located within the urban growth boundary; and (C) The housing or space for housing complies with applicable land use regulations and meets the standards and criteria for residential development for the underlying zone. (2) A city may: (a) Subject real property described in subsection (1) of this section to reasonable regulations, including site review and design review, concerning the physical characteristics of the uses au- thorized under subsection (1) of this section; or (b) Prohibit or regulate the use of real property by a place of worship described in subsection (1) of this section if the city finds that the level of service of public facilities, including transporta- Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 10 156 tion, water supply, sewer and storm drain systems is not adequate to serve the place of worship described in subsection (1) of this section. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a city may allow a private or parochial school for prekindergarten through grade 12 or higher education to be sited under applicable state law and rules and local zoning ordinances and regulations. (4) Housing and space for housing provided under subsection (1)(g) of this section must be subject to a covenant appurtenant that restricts the owner and each successive owner of the building or any residential unit contained in the building from selling or renting any residential unit described in subsection (1)(g)(A) of this section as housing that is not af- fordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 60 percent of the median family income for the county in which the real property is located for a period of 60 years from the date of the certificate of occupancy. SECTION 9. ORS 197.178 is amended to read: 197.178. (1) Local governments with comprehensive plans or functional plans that are identified in ORS 197.296 (1) shall compile and report annually to the Department of Land Conservation and Development the following information for all applications received under ORS 227.175 for residen- tial permits and residential zone changes: (a) The total number of complete applications received for residential development, [including the net residential density proposed in the application and the maximum allowed net residential density for the subject zone] and the number of applications approved; [(b) The number of applications approved, including the approved net density; and] [(c) The date each application was received and the date it was approved or denied.] (b) The total number of complete applications received for development of housing con- taining one or more housing units that are sold or rented below market rate as part of a local, state or federal housing assistance program, and the number of applications approved; and (c) For each complete application received: (A) The date the application was received; (B) The date the application was approved or denied; (C) The net residential density proposed in the application; (D) The maximum allowed net residential density for the subject zone; and (E) If approved, the approved net residential density. (2) The report required by this section may be submitted electronically. SECTION 10. ORS 215.427 is amended to read: 215.427. (1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (5) and (10) of this section, for land within an urban growth boundary and applications for mineral aggregate extraction, the governing body of a county or its designee shall take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use deci- sion or zone change, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422, within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. The governing body of a county or its designee shall take final action on all other applications for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422, within 150 days after the application is deemed com- plete, except as provided in subsections (3), (5) and (10) of this section. (2) If an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change is incomplete, the governing body or its designee shall notify the applicant in writing of exactly what information is missing within 30 days of receipt of the application and allow the applicant to submit the missing information. The application shall be deemed complete for the purpose of subsection (1) of this sec- tion and section 1 of this 2017 Act upon receipt by the governing body or its designee of: (a) All of the missing information; (b) Some of the missing information and written notice from the applicant that no other infor- mation will be provided; or (c) Written notice from the applicant that none of the missing information will be provided. Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 11 157 (3)(a) If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits additional information, as described in subsection (2) of this section, within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted and the county has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251, approval or denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted. (b) If the application is for industrial or traded sector development of a site identified under section 12, chapter 800, Oregon Laws 2003, and proposes an amendment to the comprehensive plan, approval or denial of the application must be based upon the standards and criteria that were ap- plicable at the time the application was first submitted, provided the application complies with paragraph (a) of this subsection. (4) On the 181st day after first being submitted, the application is void if the applicant has been notified of the missing information as required under subsection (2) of this section and has not submitted: (a) All of the missing information; (b) Some of the missing information and written notice that no other information will be pro- vided; or (c) Written notice that none of the missing information will be provided. (5) The period set in subsection (1) of this section or the 100-day period set in section 1 of this 2017 Act may be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total of all extensions, except as provided in subsection (10) of this section for mediation, may not exceed 215 days. (6) The period set in subsection (1) of this section applies: (a) Only to decisions wholly within the authority and control of the governing body of the county; and (b) Unless the parties have agreed to mediation as described in subsection (10) of this section or ORS 197.319 (2)(b). (7) Notwithstanding subsection (6) of this section, the period set in subsection (1) of this section and the 100-day period set in section 1 of this 2017 Act do [does] not apply to a decision of the county making a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation that is submitted to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development under ORS 197.610. (8) Except when an applicant requests an extension under subsection (5) of this section, if the governing body of the county or its designee does not take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 120 days or 150 days, as applicable, after the application is deemed complete, the county shall refund to the applicant either the unexpended portion of any application fees or deposits previously paid or 50 percent of the total amount of such fees or deposits, whichever is greater. The applicant is not liable for additional governmental fees incurred subsequent to the payment of such fees or deposits. However, the applicant is responsible for the costs of providing sufficient additional information to address relevant issues identified in the consideration of the application. (9) A county may not compel an applicant to waive the period set in subsection (1) of this sec- tion or to waive the provisions of subsection (8) of this section or ORS 215.429 or section 1 of this 2017 Act as a condition for taking any action on an application for a permit, limited land use de- cision or zone change except when such applications are filed concurrently and considered jointly with a plan amendment. (10) The periods set forth in [subsection (1)] subsections (1) and (5) of this section and section 1 of this 2017 Act [and the period set forth in subsection (5) of this section] may be extended by up to 90 additional days, if the applicant and the county agree that a dispute concerning the application will be mediated. SECTION 11. ORS 227.178 is amended to read: 227.178. (1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (5) and (11) of this section, the governing body of a city or its designee shall take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use de- Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 12 158 cision or zone change, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 227.180, within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. (2) If an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change is incomplete, the governing body or its designee shall notify the applicant in writing of exactly what information is missing within 30 days of receipt of the application and allow the applicant to submit the missing information. The application shall be deemed complete for the purpose of subsection (1) of this sec- tion or section 1 of this 2017 Act upon receipt by the governing body or its designee of: (a) All of the missing information; (b) Some of the missing information and written notice from the applicant that no other infor- mation will be provided; or (c) Written notice from the applicant that none of the missing information will be provided. (3)(a) If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits the re- quested additional information within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted and the city has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251, ap- proval or denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were appli- cable at the time the application was first submitted. (b) If the application is for industrial or traded sector development of a site identified under section 12, chapter 800, Oregon Laws 2003, and proposes an amendment to the comprehensive plan, approval or denial of the application must be based upon the standards and criteria that were ap- plicable at the time the application was first submitted, provided the application complies with paragraph (a) of this subsection. (4) On the 181st day after first being submitted, the application is void if the applicant has been notified of the missing information as required under subsection (2) of this section and has not submitted: (a) All of the missing information; (b) Some of the missing information and written notice that no other information will be pro- vided; or (c) Written notice that none of the missing information will be provided. (5) The 120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section or the 100-day period set in section 1 of this 2017 Act may be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the ap- plicant. The total of all extensions, except as provided in subsection (11) of this section for medi- ation, may not exceed 245 days. (6) The 120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section applies: (a) Only to decisions wholly within the authority and control of the governing body of the city; and (b) Unless the parties have agreed to mediation as described in subsection (11) of this section or ORS 197.319 (2)(b). (7) Notwithstanding subsection (6) of this section, the 120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section and the 100-day period set in section 1 of this 2017 Act do [does] not apply to a decision of the city making a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation that is submitted to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development under ORS 197.610. (8) Except when an applicant requests an extension under subsection (5) of this section, if the governing body of the city or its designee does not take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, the city shall refund to the applicant, subject to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section, ei- ther the unexpended portion of any application fees or deposits previously paid or 50 percent of the total amount of such fees or deposits, whichever is greater. The applicant is not liable for additional governmental fees incurred subsequent to the payment of such fees or deposits. However, the ap- plicant is responsible for the costs of providing sufficient additional information to address relevant issues identified in the consideration of the application. (9)(a) To obtain a refund under subsection (8) of this section, the applicant may either: Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 13 159 (A) Submit a written request for payment, either by mail or in person, to the city or its designee; or (B) Include the amount claimed in a mandamus petition filed under ORS 227.179. The court shall award an amount owed under this section in its final order on the petition. (b) Within seven calendar days of receiving a request for a refund, the city or its designee shall determine the amount of any refund owed. Payment, or notice that no payment is due, shall be made to the applicant within 30 calendar days of receiving the request. Any amount due and not paid within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request shall be subject to interest charges at the rate of one percent per month, or a portion thereof. (c) If payment due under paragraph (b) of this subsection is not paid within 120 days after the city or its designee receives the refund request, the applicant may file an action for recovery of the unpaid refund. In an action brought by a person under this paragraph, the court shall award to a prevailing applicant, in addition to the relief provided in this section, reasonable attorney fees and costs at trial and on appeal. If the city or its designee prevails, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs at trial and on appeal if the court finds the petition to be frivolous. (10) A city may not compel an applicant to waive the 120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section or to waive the provisions of subsection (8) of this section or ORS 227.179 or section 1 of this 2017 Act as a condition for taking any action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change except when such applications are filed concurrently and considered jointly with a plan amendment. (11) The [period] periods set forth in [subsection (1)] subsections (1) and (5) of this section and section 1 of this 2017 Act [and the period set forth in subsection (5) of this section] may be extended by up to 90 additional days, if the applicant and the city agree that a dispute concerning the ap- plication will be mediated. SECTION 12. The amendments to ORS 197.312, 215.416 and 227.175 by sections 2, 3 and 6 of this 2017 Act become operative on July 1, 2018. SECTION 13. (1) Section 1 of this 2017 Act and the amendments to ORS 197.178, 197.303, 197.307, 215.427, 215.441, 227.178 and 227.500 by sections 4, 5 and 7 to 11 of this 2017 Act apply to permit applications submitted for review on or after the effective date of this 2017 Act. (2) The amendments to ORS 215.416 and 227.175 by sections 2 and 3 of this 2017 Act apply to applications for housing development submitted for review on or after July 1, 2018. (3) The amendments to ORS 197.312 by section 6 of this 2017 Act apply to permit appli- cations for accessory dwelling units submitted for review on or after July 1, 2018. SECTION 14. This 2017 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2017 Act takes effect on its passage. Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 14 160 Passed by Senate April 19, 2017 Received by Governor: Repassed by Senate July 7, 2017 ........................M.,........................................................., 2017 Approved: .................................................................................. ........................M.,........................................................., 2017 Lori L. Brocker, Secretary of Senate .................................................................................. ............................................................... Kate Brown, Governor Peter Courtney, President of Senate Filed in Office of Secretary of State: Passed by House July 6, 2017 ........................M.,.........................................................1 2017 .................................................................................. Tina Kotek, Speaker of House .................................................................................. Dennis Richardson, Secretary of State Enrolled Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051-A) Page 15 161 W , BU nd Item I nca rp nr at Cd ?889 Date: April 7, 2018 To: Planning Commission From: Chris Kerr, Community Development Dir cto Subject: Background and discussion points regar , Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) The purpose to the April 12th Workshop is to continue the Commission's discussion of crafting ADU regulations to meet the State's legislative mandate to permit ADU's in the City. Staff is looking for additional direction on the "Major Issues" summarized below and which were introduced and discussed during last month's meeting on this topic). The "Major Issues" include: A. Architecture B. Height C. Lot coverage D. Nonconformance E. Parking F. Size/ Living Area G. Cost For context, Staff has assembled the two attachments for your review. Attachment "A" is a general summary of how other similar or nearby cities have addressed these same major issues in their ADU regulations. Attachment "B" includes the exact ADU provisions from eight cities. I will bring copies of these documents to the meeting on Thursday night. attachments 162 ............... 4 0 LA cz (u LO V0 w U Z 0 �z 66 (= �= — 0 W Lnu u 5 :z t4 Ln CU E m ap s. 0 C 0 bn E E r Q) E 0 w 4 E 0 Ln Q) CU 0 Ul 0 o o C) N 0 -a cu ;Z N w L. on O u Ln cu 4:1 t 1-4 .1 0) 0 cz C) !� E- Q) �o = oma m $.. " m cu z w -0 0 �j bD W m ca V) 0 C E E Lf) c) E z L,) w W c) w , 0) Q) > > Q) .0uc O 4 o ........... ....... w CU 0 Q) W V) �: z 0 w (u 0 0 m 0 Cu w a, E V, w 0Z 0 w p cpr wd C vOr Q) V) tz m w 'm co E o W V Q.) 0 m V) > E U 0, w Q) W 0 0 0 0 w w o w Htisdm o I on as cu r. cn V) 0 on o m -a a) w 0 rl 44 E = a) I'Dw oro m ns (u CO Ln W " " W 0 r. V) Ln Q) C, cr m m m M > w -, tu 0 C, 2, m E 0 w U CL U 0) W w ct m �o ada t4 IJ E Ln 9 0 r. r- cz r rz m 0 W w W ct o - Qi 4� :Z tA (u u roN v w = q m Z� (u cr Ca 0 V� En E t! > C) L6 :5 A :i� ux (D tb In CD a, 0. > (u W z 0 0 2 �,u (v <u T w u 0 4� u cz cl� W tn 0 C:, m r. W M 0 0) W M a) V) z Ln L, CL (n 0 0 .0 Cl, Ln z 'm z O LI) b V) Q ................... ................. ......... ........ m (1) co Ln vs 0 0 V) U -R CU M (A C) W Z cr 0 > a) (u = (3) 14 e 0 C� 0 En V— m > C) W Ln 5 0 W 0 u = - = z 0 (1) m 0 Ln C) C) 7= > TJ E a) w 0 a) Q) w oho ct w V, Wu Em 75 M " -, B 00 > 0 ® C:, U V) a) M Lf) LO " 4) I'D co 00 cu Q) �E :z u W C, u m a) u a) J3 E 5 x x U cu a) > (A > 5 L, 'S "q 0 0 (D C;� 7z 0 m m 5 E w E 0 'o V, 0 CD 0 E 00 El a) e Q) 5� .2 r� x ct . a) W M CZ ca N o C) 0 N =C, z m u 0.co V) (3) (t m ca wL) .................... ............. ............. ................ ....................................... V) 0 C) o ro (U Baa M >, 121, 0 m E :�4 Own w om U a 1:4 -u r, >, 0 0 to r. _Sd U 0 'Cl m U W @ _b'_'p......... ..... ........... ...............-->,..................... . 4 jE� r_ _B -5 $1 u 0 >, >, m wrw 0 m 0 0 ti, o V) Q) to u z z ............ ................. OD Q1 Q1 C Im, W m bio A 12� 4 0 m C� X, Ul o cz > Q) c u bb E co m Z bn> ;� o Q) w V, o w u Q o o m 04 o 0 0 > L. V) 0� 114 0 cr M In w o cu m L. (D (2) m CZ W 0 ca M0 a)�: 0 0 04 > E 2 cu u0 r- 0 (n (Z (t m -5 L2 m z 0V) ro E- ................... ........... . . ........ 0 CD W cu w m .14 U 0 E 'm 0 W s. U 0 'a all 0 IC-U. 0 00 0 z -R m o > cr 't-I Q) d-, c:l aoi 0 w co '0 bn (1) C as V= m 0 u W 0 m x CD 0 OD C) 0) X c as C a o V a C R C 10 C, m 0 0 M M :z 0 m Ln u m a It 0 Ln w o w r.1 m r > cr m m W 0Q (n I " 0 E c 0 0 w J5 w mro u w V3 'P E m '5� 0 0 M 0 cu 0 0 m CV W 0 ro m o u m 0 m i. s. m C:, CO On 0 w (6 in a LO "C'n! w EL m ............ ............. ........... ......._. .m.............__........... . V .C7 to 0 cyi = 0 — Wm (1) �n u aj r 4W u En -0 (2) u 0 0 a W a s ro tv as a (3) Ca M. s = 0 rq 0) E� (U WU E (1) as as M > tn , > 0 0 as o 0 0 0 C xi 0) V) 0 ro E w 0 0 0 0W w r-c >, >,:,,:� CD bD > M M cz I �A In4 U u V) u cu 0 vi w 0 U 04 O w CZ O o. E 0 C) u C, w cz CU C, w < Ei 0 a) LO 0 U a) m Q) w as x C) ry) u M,5 =) 'A r, (1) = (.D 0 Q) Ca > 0 r- u 0 0 OD r ' C'3 m 140 o x m (u Q) a) cu W CD U CAu cz .0 w U 0 0 w 91 th w � as a m 'uo p u to o Ca rn 0 CO 0 C-0 w QJ sr oz B 0m V) a) m 0 v5 v)W 7� w CTJ M a) cuW C -x o as co a> as a w 0 C m a as (U (U r V) - cr -L m *z o 0 >m, W 0 on 0 o bl- 0 0 Z;, Z � w CL (U 0 0 v Q) 0 r. m R r. > 0 1 W 0 ;- -5 12 C, -Z i3 0 .......... .. ............ (U -0 m C) w 0 = " 0 M 0 CO C) m (n �c -0 0 e a) cz 0 m .. W - v) E— C:) 0 w w " > 4i Cry U 0 >, I-H q? V >, a) -B 0 (u o 0 cu 0 C) w co m cz u C, -C, • E " � = u 0 o a (n Q) C� W Ct 0 0 a) w —4 0 m I w E m 0 to 1, = — w a) > a) w C:� 0 C:) 0 w � = 4-7 :z oo — Ln Ln 4T 0 0 m aoaaa E CY) co E 1-7 0 00 'E M o ° F� ww CN a act1 0 (u 19 �A CL Q) cz O to -0 .5 -M 0 o :1 X M m 7-- < m u Q, '5� OR w L, 13 m .w ::3 rod 0 Q) . 0, V) 0 -5 c. �, as C) S, K, (A oz 0, I-H ll-U Ln .............. ..... .......... 0 > W Q) C) bo Q) w u cu m ..................................... ........................ o r= 4 Q) < 79 Q) 0 0 > 41 cu lulu o ro ro cli cu W Z CA ........... .......................... .................... m °J (u u Q) uuG cn ou � o0 N , r. 0 L'I Q) " 'n 0 W E ua, 0) �(Z C14 =3 "ZI (nCL w r- r ca cu 0 r- til a) cuQ) w ED CL wo 0 CU as cz a) Q) E Qc) -57 -5 Qc) w .orouw 'M R '0 o m, -5, 0. all ro ww acro um CL a) wm a) 01) V) m -X > In p m m CL cU CL CL WGr cu 0 20 P CA W 0. tD to 0 Q) > q) 1- 0 1� m �o In m (u 0 u" 0 do C O u. c 0 m C) 0 w ............. .......... W co 0 0 0 m (u on Q) bo N a) N cu u o m cD to C) -z;; > > o 0 r. 0 0 a) r- V.- (3) , C) m M 00 Z 0 a) tko Ln to w- 'DC5 N CL CS 401 0 0 o —0 0 CL w Ln W w W w �: �: , co w m cu w 0 Ln u 0 X Zm -0 0 0 cz aj r z (U Q) (5 C w I c u -0 16 0 0) u .4.; >1 v5 < og m m 0 Ij 04 C) Z u .- w v Q) (mu in u E: w m CD w u 0 w w w w a) w 00 w 0 CO E S :9 i� z 000 Ln 'm C) V) ............................- CL aj Q) ro ca cn on in ✓ cA ................. ............................. .......................... .......... WMiIUYWWMNYWMMXMY�WINMMIFKAMY.YYYAI ATTACHMENT B ADU provisions from: • Salem • Keizer • Oregon City • Tualatin • Canby • Gresham • Canby • Springfield City of Salem 700.006.Accessory Dwelling Unit.Where designated as a special use, accessory dwelling units shall comply with the standards set forth in this section. Where the standards in this section conflict with other standards in the UDC, the standards in this section shall be the applicable standard. Standards for accessory structures elsewhere in the UDC shall not apply to accessory dwelling units. (a)All Accessory Dwelling Units.The standards set forth in this subsection shall apply to all accessory dwelling units. (1) Number. Only one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed per lot. (2)Size.Accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 900 square feet, or 75 percent of the main building gross area, whichever is less. (3)Types of Structures Allowed. Accessory dwelling units shall only be allowed in lawfully-built dwelling units that meet building code requirements.Accessory dwelling units shall not be allowed in: (A)A recreational vehicle, travel trailer, or similar structure; (B)A motor vehicle; (C)Any structure not intended for permanent human occupancy. (4)Condominium Ownership.Accessory dwelling units shall not be separated in ownership from the underlying property on which it and the main house to which it is accessory are located. Attached accessory dwelling units shall not be separated in ownership from the main house to which it is accessory. (5)Other Uses. Accessory dwelling units shall be prohibited from being used as short-term rentals or accessory short-term rentals. 167 (6) Exemptions. Accessory dwelling units are exempt from the following standards required elsewhere in the UDC: (A) Dwelling unit density requirements, including requirements for a minimum or maximum number of dwelling units; (B) Development standards, design review guidelines, and design review standards within overlay zones; (C) Requirements to build garages. (b) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units.The standards set forth in this subsection shall apply to all detached accessory dwelling units and are in addition to the standards in subsection 700.006(a). (1)Location. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located in the side yard or rear yard. U mita thons&Qualiffiotions lrsairecsnr'a ��u _�. _ _ ...... ...,.... _,,,, Min IiNqqfliu aNe Amu,IF„Ikjj dM'A (^0^s,. pa i a(huu ah K Ca;r oro al ONIg 11 rout — — — Ncna. d:11Ft. AppWahhv,ahng a dh,o mii:ua+ir aaherW Arvet" Wnt tp*�na.IluunVpr+umx�atupw�uNhouuh nasnuh � Itd�nwu I6hh IIII IR&,N Win 5 01.. h,a�::hrouah mi.ua<,„ nun alln, Ngquut„oiia�nt �dhpau `II u4 a Ni �; V�i,ru^ 'n:h .h �u aa Y ullom1fing III HAS,drrhim'I'qua au vin IaVNo',r't'. (3)Lot Coverage.The total lot coverage for buildings, accessory structures, and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed a maximum lot coverage of 60 percent. (4)Height. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be no more than 25 feet in height. 168 CITY OF KEIZER 2.403.02 Accessory Residential Housing Where permitted as a special use, accessory residential housing shall meet the following use and development standards. A. Location.The accessory residence shall be located within the side or rear yard and physically separated from the primary residence by a minimum distance of 5 feet. A covered walkway, which contains no habitable space, may connect the two buildings without violation of the setback requirements. B.An accessory residence may be located in the front yard only if approved through an alternative design review process as specified in Section 3.101.01.The applicant must show that the design of the accessory residential housing unit will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and adjoining properties through architectural features, landscaping and orientation, as well as meeting the requirements set forth below. C. All accessory housing units shall meet the following development standards: 1. Parking—The accessory residential unit shall share the same driveway as the primary residential unit plus shall provide 1 additional parking space. 2. Design -The accessory residential unit shall generally match the design, color, material and textures of the primary residential unit. 3.Screening-The accessory residential unit shall be screened from the street and adjacent properties by a combination of landscaping and trees. 4. Orientation-The accessory residential unit shall be oriented to face the street or an access easement. 5.The accessory residential unit shall be physically separated from the primary residence by a minimum distance of 5 feet.A covered walkway, which contains no habitable space, may connect the two buildings without violation of the setback requirements. D. Design.The accessory residence must be residential in character with an exterior finish similar to the primary residence. A separate address shall be required for each residence. E. Area.The accessory residence shall be no larger than 750 square feet. F. Setbacks and Height. The minimum rear yard setback shall be 10 feet unless located on an alley in which case the setback shall be 1 foot;the minimum side yard setback shall 5 feet.The maximum height shall be 25 feet. G. Ownership. Accessory residential housing under this section shall not be separated in ownership under the provision of ORS Chapter 94 or any other law or ordinance allowing unit ownership of a portion of a building. H. Dwelling Units. The lot or property shall contain no more than 2 dwelling units. 169 Oregon Cit An accessory dwelling unit(ADU) is defined as a self-contained residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling, but is not a recreational vehicle. The habitable living unit provides basic living requirements including permanent cooking, and toilet facilities. It may be located either within the same building as the single-family dwelling unit or in a detached building. A. The purpose of allowing an ADU is to: 1. Provide homeowners with a means of obtaining, through tenants in the ADU or the principal dwelling unit, rental income, companionship, security, and services. 2. Add affordable housing units to the existing housing inventory. 3. Make housing units available to moderate-income people who might otherwise have difficulty finding homes within the city. 4. Develop housing units in single-family neighborhoods that are appropriate for people at a variety of stages in the life cycle. 5. Protect neighborhood stability, property values, and the single-family residential appearance of the neighborhood by ensuring that ADUs are installed under the conditions of this Section. B. Standards and Criteria. An ADU shall meet the following standards and criteria: 1. The design and size of the ADU shall conform to all applicable standards in the building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical,fire, health, and any other applicable codes. 2. Any additions to the existing dwelling unit shall not encroach into the existing setbacks in the underlying zone. However, access structures(e.g. stairs or ramps) may be allowed within the setback if no access can be provided to the unit without encroaching into the setback area. 3. The ADU may be attached to, or detached from,the principal dwelling unit. 4. Only one ADU may be created per lot or parcel. 5. The installation of an ADU shall be allowed in single-family zones subject to the specific development, design, and owner-occupancy standards in this section. ADUs are not permitted on the same lot as a nonconforming use. 6. The ADU shall not exceed the height of the principal dwelling unit. 7. The property owner, which shall include title holders and contract purchasers, must occupy either the principal dwelling unit or the ADU as their permanent residence,for at least seven months out of the year, and at no time receive rent for the owner-occupied unit. 8. In no case shall an ADU: a. Be more than forty percent of the principal dwelling unit's total floor area; nor 170 b. Be more than eight hundred square feet; nor c. Be less than three hundred square feet; nor d. Have more than two sleeping areas. 9. Detached ADUs: a. Shall comply with the requirements OCMCmmNlpter 1 .5 .01 —Accessory Buildings and Uses including building footprint, height, placement, exterior building materials, etc. b. In the historic overlay district pursuant to OCMC Chi [_ Z. , shall be subject to the Design Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts. 10. The ADU shall be compatible with the principal dwelling unit, specifically in: a. Exterior finish materials. 1. The exterior finish material must be the same as the principal dwelling unit; or 2.Visually match in type, size and placement the exterior finish material of the principal dwelling unit. b.Trim must be the same in type, size, and location as the trim used on the principal dwelling unit. c. Windows must match those in the principal dwelling unit in proportion (relationship of width to height) and orientation (horizontal or vertical). d. Eaves must project from the building walls at the same proportion as the eaves on the principal dwelling unit. 11. Parking. a. Purpose.The parking requirements balance the need to provide adequate parking while maintaining the character of single-dwelling neighborhoods and reducing the amount of impervious surface on a site. b.The following parking requirements apply to accessory dwelling units. 1. No additional parking space is required for the accessory dwelling unit if it is created on a site with a principal dwelling unit and the roadway for at least one abutting street is at least twenty-eight feet wide. 2. One additional parking space is required for the accessory dwelling unit as follows: i. When none of the roadways in abutting streets are at least twenty-eight feet wide; or ii. When the accessory dwelling unit is created at the same time as the principal dwelling unit. 171 CITY OF TUALITAN Section 34.310 Standards. (1) An accessory dwelling unit shall be within a detached single-family dwelling or be in, or partly in, an addition to a detached single-family dwelling in the RL Planning District or in the RML Planning District in a Small Lot Subdivision. (2)There shall be no more than one accessory dwelling unit per lot. (3) An accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50%of the gross floor area (house and garage) of the existing detached single-family dwelling up to a maximum of 800 square feet. (4) Neither a garage or a former garage shall be converted to an accessory dwelling unit. (5) In addition to the parking spaces required in TDC 73,370 for the detached single-family dwelling, one paved on-site parking space shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit and the space shall not be within five feet of a side or rear property line. (6)The accessory dwelling unit' s front door shall not be located on the same street frontage as the detached single family dwelling' s front door unless the door for the accessory dwelling unit already exists. (7)The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separate from the single family dwelling or as a condominium. (8)The accessory dwelling unit shall be served by the same water meter as the single family dwelling. (9)The accessory dwelling unit shall be served by the same electric meter as the single family dwelling, unless other applicable requirements, such as building codes, prohibit it. (10)The accessory dwelling unit shall be served by the same natural gas meter as the single family dwelling, unless other applicable requirements, such as building codes, prohibit it. (11)The accessory dwelling unit shall be connected to the single family dwelling by an internal doorway. (12) If the gross floor area of the existing single family dwelling is to be enlarged when an accessory dwelling unit is created,the proposed enlargement shall not increase the gross floor area of the single family dwelling more than 10%and it shall be of the same or similar architectural design, exterior materials, color and roof slope as the single family dwelling.The enlargement shall be reviewed through the Architectural Review process to ensure compliance with Subsections 1-6 and 8-12 of this section. (13)When the accessory dwelling unit is proposed to be created and if no enlargement of the existing single family dwelling is proposed, the owner of the single family dwelling within which the accessory dwelling unit is to be located shall notify the Community Development Director by letter that an accessory dwelling unit is proposed.The letter shall state the owners name and mailing address, address of the accessory dwelling unit, the gross square footage of the single family dwelling and the gross square footage of the accessory dwelling unit. 172 City of Gresham SECTION 10.0100 ACCESSORY DWELLINGS 10.0102 Development Permit for an Accessory Dwelling An application for an accessory dwelling shall be reviewed by the Manager under the Type I procedure and subject to the standards in Section 10.0120. If these criteria cannot be met, the application will also be subject to the Variance Criteria outlined in Section 10.1500. 10.0120 Standards The Manager shall approve an application for not more than one accessory dwelling per existing primary single-family dwelling if the applicant shows compliance with the following criteria and standards: A.The proposed accessory dwelling may be freestanding, located either within or added to a single- family detached dwelling;over or attached to a garage; or over or attached to a garage which is under construction. The accessory dwelling will be occupied no sooner than the primary dwelling. B.The exterior of the proposed accessory dwelling unit shall match the main residence or garage if attached to a garage; in terms of finish materials, roof pitch, trim, and window proportion and orientation. C. Accessory dwellings will be located on the same lot as an existing single-family home. D.Accessory dwellings shall be consistent with the applicable setback, height and lot coverage standards of the land use district, except in the case of non-conforming single family homes, where the LDR setbacks and height requirements shall apply to the proposed accessory dwelling. E An accessory dwelling shall have a maximum floor area of 900 square feet if attached to or included within a single-family home. Free-standing accessory dwelling units shall have a maximum floor area of 750 square feet. When attached to an existing accessory structure (such as a garage), the combined total square footage of the accessory structure and accessory dwelling shall not exceed 750 square feet, In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit exceed 80%of the floor area of the primary dwelling on the site. F There shall be a minimum 6' separation between stand-alone accessory dwellings and all other structures on the site. G. Stand-alone accessory dwellings shall not exceed the height of the existing single-family dwelling and may not be located in front of the single-family dwelling. In the case of corner lots, the accessory dwelling shall be no closer to the side street than the single family home. H. Structures/vehicles licensed by the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles shall not be permitted as accessory dwellings. 173 I.An accessory dwelling attached to a single-family home shall not result in any new door entrance on an exterior wall facing a front yard property line. J One off-street parking space, in addition to that which is required by the Development Code for the primary dwelling unit, shall be provided. Parking spaces include garage, carports or other off-street areas reserved for vehicles. However, other than being located in a driveway in front of a garage or carport, parking shall not be located in a required yard or setback area. All existing and proposed on site parking must be paved. K.A proposed accessory dwelling need not comply with Appendix 5.000 of the Community Development Code, except as required to serve the site of the proposed accessory dwelling. L.A proposed accessory dwelling is not subject to the standards of Section 10.0200 and its square footage is not included as part of the size limitations of accessory residential structures. 174 CAIBY (only currently allow attached D. Accessory dwellings attached to a primary dwelling(sharing a common wall) are permitted only when approved through administrative review, in conformance with Chapter 16.48.The administrative approval shall be based on findings that all of the following standards are met: 1. Compliance with the Oregon Structural Specialty Code; 2. Attached accessory dwellings are considered to be part of the primary dwelling for the purpose of meeting the development standards in Section 16.16.030; 3.The accessory dwelling does not exceed 800 square feet of floor area; 4. Not more than one accessory dwelling unit per lot; 5. One off-street parking space provided (i.e., in addition to any off-street parking required for other uses on the same lot); 6. Exterior siding and roofing must be similar in color, material and appearance to that used on the primary dwelling. Different siding or roofing may be approved by the planning commission if it finds that the proposed design is more compatible with surrounding residences; 7.The property owner resides on the subject property and uses it as his/her primary residence. It is the property owner's on-going responsibility to provide evidence showing that this standard is met; 8. Utility connections and metering comply with applicable city standards and those of utility providers; 175 SPRINGFIELD summar Amendments to the Springfield Development Code to Encourage Accessory Dwelling Units The amendments expand options for accessory dwelling units in the following ways: Id Allow an existing small dwelling to become an ADU (if it is less than 750 square feet), and build a primary dwelling unit. 0 Allow ADUs on properties zoned medium and high density residential. M Allow ADUs in the Washburne Historic District, subject to the requirements of Springfield Development Code Section 3.3-900(Historic Overlay District). 0 Remove the minimum size requirement of 300 square feet for an ADU. 0 Remove the ratio requirement(currently an ADU cannot exceed 40 percent of the size of the primary dwelling),while maintaining the maximum ADU size requirement of 750 square feet. 0 Allow more flexibility in the location of the entrance to the ADU. 0 Waive the on-site parking requirement if there is on-street parking available directly abutting the property (and there are no adopted plans to remove the on-street parking). 0 Allow an unpaved parking space on-site, if there is a paved driveway(at least 18 feet long measured from the property line)that serves the parking space for the ADU. M Remove requirement for the property owner to live on site. 0 Allow more options for meeting design standards, including removing requirements that exterior finish materials,trim, roof pitch,windows, and eaves be essentially the same as the primary dwelling. 0 Allow manufactured homes (Type 2) and approved towable structures as ADUs so long as they are permitted, inspected, and approved by the local authority. 176 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTING THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) REQUIREMENT UNDER OREGON SENATE BILL 1051 i I ,oj mow, WP M. Klepinger's backyard detached ADU, Richmond neighborhood, Portland, OR. (Photo courtesy of Ellen Bassett and accessorydwellings.org.) OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT MARCH 2018 rr Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development ... . . ..l .). .° ..t......... . ...... 177 Introduction As housing prices in Oregon go up, outpacing employment and wage growth, the availability of affordable housing is decreasing in cities throughout the state. While Oregon's population continues to expand, the supply of housing, already impacted by less building during the recession, has not kept up.To address the lack of housing supply, House Speaker Tina Kotek introduced House Bill 2007 during the 2017 legislative session to, as she stated, "remove barriers to development." Through the legislative process, legislators placed much of the content of House Bill 2007 into Senate Bill 1051, which then passed, and was signed into law by Governor Brown on August 15, 2017. In addition, a scrivener's errors was corrected through the passage of HB 4031 in 2018. Among the provisions of SB 1051 and HB 4031 is the requirement that cities and counties of a certain population allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as described below: a) A city with a population greater than 2500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas within the urban growth boundary that are zoned for detached single- family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design. b) As used in this subsection, "accessory dwelling unit"means an interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling. This new requirement becomes effective on July 1, 2018 and subject cities and counties must accept applications for ADUs inside urban growth boundaries (UGBs) starting July 1, 2018. Many local governments in Oregon already have ADU regulations that meet the requirements of SB 1051, however, some do not. Still others have regulations that, given the overall legislative direction to encourage the construction of ADUs to meet the housing needs of Oregon's cities, are not "reasonable."The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is issuing this guidance and model code language to help local governments comply with the legislation. The model code language is included on its own page at the end of this document. 1 The scrivener's error in 581051 removed the words "within the urban growth boundary."HB 4031 added the words into statute and thus limited the siting of ADUs to within UGBs. ADU Guidance -1- March 2018 178 Guidance by Topic The purpose of the following guidance is to help cities and counties implement the ADU requirement in a manner that meets the letter and spirit of the law: to create more housing in Oregon by removing barriers to development. Number of Units The law requires subject cities and counties to allow "at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling." While local governments must allow one ADU where required, DLCD encourages them to consider allowing two units. For example, a city or county could allow one detached ADU and allow another as an attached or interior unit (such as a basement conversion). Because ADUs blend in well with single-family neighborhoods, allowing two units can help increase housing supply while not having a significant visual impact. Vancouver, BC is a successful example of such an approach. Siting Standards In order to simplify standards and not create barriers to development of ADUs, DLCD recommends applying the same or less restrictive development standards to ADUs as those for other accessory buildings. Typically that would mean that an ADU could be developed on any legal lot or parcel as long as it met the required setbacks and lot coverage limits; local governments should not mandate a minimum lot size for ADUs. So that lot coverage requirements do not preclude ADUs from being built on smaller lots, local governments should review their lot coverage standards to make sure they don't create a barrier to development. To address storm water concerns, consider limits to impermeable surfaces rather than simply coverage by structures. In addition, any legal nonconforming structure (such as a house or outbuilding that doesn't meet current setback requirements) should be allowed to contain, or be converted to, an ADU as long as the development does not increase the nonconformity. Design Standards Any design standards required of ADUs must be clear and objective (ORS 197.307[41). Clear and objective standards do not contain words like "compatible" or "character." With the exception of ADUs that are in historic districts and must follow the historic district regulations, DLCD does not recommend any special design standards for ADUs. Requirements that ADUs match the materials, roof pitch, windows, etc. of the primary dwelling can create additional barriers to development and sometimes backfire if the design and materials of the proposed ADU Guidance -2- March 2018 179 ADU would have been of superior quality to those of the primary dwelling, had they been allowed. Parking Requiring off-street parking is one of the biggest barriers to developing ADUs and it is recommended that jurisdictions not include an off-street parking requirement in their ADU standards. Adding off-street parking on many properties, especially in older centrally-located areas where more housing should be encouraged, is often either very expensive or physically impossible. In addition, when adding an additional off-street parking space requires a new or widened curb cut, it removes existing on-street parking, resulting in no net gain of parking supply. As an alternative to requiring off-street parking for ADUs, local governments can implement a residential parking district if there is an on-street parking supply shortage. For more help on parking issues, visit www.oregon.gov/lcd/tgm/pages/parking.aspx or contact DLCD. Owner Occupancy Owner-occupancy requirements, in which the property owner is required to live on the property in either the primary or accessory dwelling unit, are difficult to enforce and not recommended.They may be a barrier to property owners constructing ADUs, but will more likely simply be ignored and constitute an on-going enforcement headache for local governments. Public Utilities Development codes that require ADUs to have separate sewer and water connections create barriers to building ADUs. In some cases, a property owner may want to provide separate connections, but in other cases doing so may be prohibitively expensive. System Development Charges (SDCs) While SDCs are not part of the development code and SB 1051 does not require them to be updated, local governments should consider revising their SDCs to match the true impact of ADUs in order to remove barriers to their development. ADUs are generally able to house fewer people than average single-family dwellings, so their fiscal impact would be expected to be less than a single-family dwelling. Accordingly, it makes sense that they should be charged lower SDCs than primary detached single- family dwellings. ADU Guidance -3- March 2018 180 This page intentionally left blank. ADU Guidance -4- March 2018 181 Accessory Dwellings (model code) Note. ORS 197.312 requires that at least one accessory dwelling be allowed per detached single-family dwelling in every zone within an urban growth boundary that allows detached single-family dwellings.Accessory dwellings are an economical way to provide additional housing choices, particularly in communities with high land prices or a lack of investment in affordable housing. They provide an opportunity to increase housing supply in developed neighborhoods and can blend in well with single-family detached dwellings.Accessory dwelling regulations can be difficult to enforce when local codes specify who can own or occupy the homes. Requirements that accessory dwellings have separate connections to and pay system development charges for water and sewer services can pose barriers to development. Concerns about neighborhood compatibility, parking, and other factors should be considered and balanced against the need to address Oregon's housing shortage by removing barriers to development. The model development code language below provides recommended language for accessory dwellings. The italicized sections in brackets indicate options to be selected or suggested numerical standards that communities can adjust to meet their needs. Local housing providers should be consulted when drafting standards for accessory j dwellings, and the following standards should be tailored to fit the needs of your community. Accessory dwellings, where allowed, are subject to review and approval through a Type I procedure[, pursuant to Section ] and shall conform to all of the following standards: [A. One Unit. A maximum of one Accessory Dwelling is allowed per legal single-family dwelling. The unit may be a detached building, in a portion of a detached accessory building (e.g., above a garage or workshop), or a unit attached or interior to the primary dwelling (e.g., an addition or the conversion of an existing floor). A. Two Units. A maximum of two Accessory Dwellings are allowed per legal single-family dwelling. One unit must be a detached Accessory Dwelling, or in a portion of a detached accessory building (e.g., above a garage or workshop), and one unit must be attached or interior to the primary dwelling (e.g., an addition or the conversion of an existing floor).] B. Floor Area. . A detached Accessory Dwelling shall not exceed [800-900] square feet of floor area, or [75] percent of the primary dwelling's floor area, whichever is smaller. 2. An attached or interior Accessory Dwelling shall not exceed [800-900] square feet of floor area, or [75] percent of the primary dwelling's floor area, whichever is smaller. However, Accessory Dwellings that result from the conversion of a level or floor (e.g., basement, attic, or second story) of the primary dwelling may occupy the entire level or floor, even if the floor area of the Accessory Dwelling would be more than [800-900] square feet. C. Other Development Standards. Accessory Dwellings shall meet all other development standards (e.g., height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) for buildings in the zoning district, except that: I. Conversion of an existing legal non-conforming structure to an Accessory Dwelling is allowed, provided that the conversion does not increase the non-conformity; and ADU Guidance -5- March 2018 182 2. No off-street parking is required for an Accessory Dwelling. Definition (This should be included in the "definitions" section of the zoning ordinance. It matches the definition for Accessory Dwelling found in ORS 197.312) Accessory Dwelling—An interior, attached, or detached residential structure that is used in connection with, or that is accessory to, a single-family dwelling. ADU Guidance -6- March 2018 183 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3076 ORDINANCE NO. 2562 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (WDO) SECTIONS 1.02, 2.02, 2.06, 2.07, AND 4.01.05 TO ALLOW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND CERTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS (LA 2018-02) WHEREAS, ORS 197.312 limits the City's authority to prohibit certain kinds of housing and requires that at least one accessory dwelling be allowed per detached single-family dwelling in every zone that allows detached single- family dwellings; and WHEREAS, the WDO was found to be inconsistent with the statute as it relates to accessory dwelling units and certain affordable housing projects; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2017, the Council in conformance with WDO 4.01 .09A., initiated this amendment via Resolution No. 2102; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2018, the Planning Commission in conformance with WDO 4.01 .0913. and 4.01 .1013. held a public hearing and recommended approval of this amendment; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing and requested this Ordinance effecting the amendment (LA 2018-02); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. For purposes of this ordinance amendment, all new text is shown as underlined (i.e. new text) and all deleted text is shown as stricken (i.e. ,dojo+o,d +o„+). After this ordinance amendment is adopted, the Community Development director shall correct the WDO to incorporate all revisions contained herein. Section 2. The WDO is amended as specified in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 3. The legislative action taken by the Ordinance is explained and justified by the findings and analysis in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Page - 1 - Council Bill No. 3076 Ordinance No. 2562 184 Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page - 2 - Council Bill No. 3076 Ordinance No. 2562 185 Exhibit A Page 1 of 19 1.02 Definitions Dwellings: Unft-An interior attached or detached residential structure that iS Used in ... ... ..... ....... . . .... ............9.................................................................................. ....................I......... .............. ...............I........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... S Ltjor�..wit.h or that is acces or t a s r� L. a.rni.1 dw .1.1' ............................................... .................................................................................................................Y.......2 ............... 9............................................Y....................2 111.9.�. 2.02 Residential Zones (Tables 2.02B-F) Residential Single-Family (RS) - Site Development Standards Table 2.0213 Interior,flag or cul-de-sac lot 6,000' Lot Area, Minimum Single-family dwelling, child care (square feet) Corner lot facility or group home 2 8,000' Any other use 10,0001 Lot Width, Minimum Interior,flag or cul-de-sac lot 50 (feet) Corner lot 80 Lot Depth, Average Interior,flag or cul-de-sac lot 90 (feet) Corner lot 90 Interior or cul-de-sac lot 40 Street Frontage Single-family dwelling 40 Corner lot Minimum (feet) Any other use 50 Flag lot 20-24 I Residential Density, Minimum (units per net acre) 5.2 Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street, Minimum (feet) 20 4,5,6 186 Exhibit A Page 2 of 19 Residential Single-Family (RS) - Site Development Standards Table 2.0213 Side Setback, Primary structure 5 5-9 Minimum (feet) Accessory structure Same as primary structure 16 or less 24 7 Rear Setback, Primary Building more than 16 and 30 7 Average structure height (feet) less than 28 (feet) 28 or more 36 7 Accessory structure 5 Setback to a Private Access Easement, Minimum (feet) 5 187 Exhibit A Page 3 of 19 Residential Single-Family (RS) - Site Development Standards Table 2.0213 Primary building height 16 feet or less 40 Lot Coverage, Primary building height greater than 16 feet 35 Maximum (percent) Accessory structure 25 of rear yard Primary Outside Gateway subarea 35 structure Gateway subarea 40 Building Height, Y Maximum (feet) Features not used for habitation 70 Accessory structure 15 1. Excluding easements for private streets or driveways (See Section 1.02, Lot area) 2. Child care facility for 12 or fewer children, group home for five or fewer persons 3. See Table 3.04A, Flag Lot Access Width 4. Measured from the Special Setback(Section 3.03.02), if any 5. Except for flag lots under the option that all setbacks are 12 feet 6. Infill lots between developed lots: average of abutting residential buildings, plus or minus 5 feet, but not less than 10 feet 7. With a maximum deviation of five feet from the setback standard 8. Accessory structures are included in the total lot coverage. AeeesseFy s4uwuet ull es a 11 e @ &() 4w44e 9. A house of worship shall be set back at least 20 feet from a property line abutting a residential zone or use. 1.0..... ccus„Z)irm al llli� �� .. 0 �au�.U..a �� db � �4SI' IS4�4 �:b.�II"141�..��rr1 standards �44s4 ��Iib� � �.�k Sp4�.I.i.ifl 188 Exhibit A Page 4 of 19 Nodal Residential Single-Family(RSN) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02C Interior or cul-de-sac lot 6,0001 Single-family dwelling, child Lot Area, Standard lot care facility or group home 8,000 Minimum Corner lot 2 (square feet) Any other use 10,000 Interior or cul-de-sac lot 4,0001 Small lot and row house Corner lot 5,000 Interior or cul-de-sac lot 50 Standard lot Lot Width, Corner lot 80 Minimum (feet) Interior or cul-de-sac lot 30 Small lot and row house Corner lot 50 Lot Depth, Standard lot 90 Average (feet) Small lot and row house 80 Standard lot Residential Density, Minimum (units per net acre) 5.2 Small lot and row house Residential Density, Minimum (units per net acre) 7.9 Interior or cul-de-sac lot 40 Single-family dwelling, child Standard lot care facility or group home 40 Street Corner lot 2 Frontage, Any other use 50 Minimum (feet) Interior lot 40 Small lot and row house Corner lot 50 Cul-de-sac lot 30 Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street, Minimum (feet) 20 3,4 189 Exhibit A Page 5 of 19 Nodal Residential Single-Family(RSN) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02C Front Porch Setback, Maximum (feet) 10 Side Setback, Minimum (feet) 5'-s Rear Setback, Average Primary structure 20 or 0 5,7,10 (feet) Accessory structure 5 Setback to a Private Access Easement, Minimum (feet) 5 190 Exhibit A Page 6 of 19 Nodal Residential Single-Family(RSN) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02C Primary building height 16 feet or less 409 Lot Coverage, Primary building height more than 16 feet 359 Maximum (percent) Accessory structure 25 of rear yard 6 9,-' Primary structure 35 Building Height, Features not used for habitation 70 Maximum (feet) Accessory structure 15,.!?,. 1. Flag lots are not allowed in the RSN zone. 2. Child care facility for 12 or fewer children, group home for five or fewer persons 3. Measured from the Special Setback(Section 3.03.02), if any 4. Infill lots between developed lots: average of abutting residential buildings, plus or minus 5 feet, but not less than 10 feet 5. With a maximum deviation of five feet from the setback standard 6. Accessory structures are included in the total lot coverage. AeeesseFy s4uw'u"et ull es"""'a 11 e @ll'&() 4w44'ed ue 25%°'Gia Ve age a f t"h°e F 4,."a ...%Wall4 7. A house of worship shall be set back at least 20 feet from a property line abutting a residential zone or use. 8. Row houses have a 0 foot side setback on interior lots 9. Lot coverage limitations determined by setbacks for small lot and row house development 10. Garages have a 20 ft or 0 ft setback 1.L... ��2ss()I'y D.du^Il llliui. � " � .11u:"�� a:b � " " "I..abp�un�a u1'... �;. i)IT u �awu„ " � �I�u7 ::.�u � �„a a Su ��.!Ia:bn 2,07, s pa �liifl.. 191 Exhibit A Page 7 of 19 Retirement Community Single-Family Residential (111S) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02D Lot Area, Minimum (square feet) 3,600 1 Lot Width, Minimum (feet) 50 Lot Depth, Average (feet) Not specified Interior or corner lot 50 Street Frontage, Minimum (feet) Flag lot 24-3 0 2 Cul-de-sac lot 40 Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street, Minimum (feet) 20 s Primary structure 56 Side Setback, Minimum (feet) Accessory structure 5 4 Rear Setback, Minimum Primary structure 56 (feet) Accessory structure 5 Setback to a Private Access Easement, Minimum (feet) 5 192 Exhibit A Page 8 of 19 Retirement Community Single-Family Residential (111S) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02D Primary building height 14 feet or less 40 Lot Coverage, Maximum (percent) Primary building height more than 14 feet 35 Accessory structure 25 of rear yard 5-' Primary structure 35 Building Height, Maximum (feet) Features not used for habitation 70 Accessory structure 15' 1. Excluding easements for private streets or driveways (See Section 1.02, Lot area) 2. See Table 3.04A, Flag Lot Access Width 3. Measured from the Special Setback(Section 3.03.02), if any 4. Five feet if located in the rear yard 5. Accessory structures are included in the total lot coverage. Accessory structures are also limited to 25%coverage of the rear yard. 6. A house of worship shall be set back at least 20 feet from a property line abutting a residential zone or use. 7 cc4's.. m Qw6IIlg...�lllllt:u alre SLRb.I4'Lj IQ... p4 LIIfiIc d4"v4'"IIDpII"f(14'"II1.... "4:.4 s4'��.I.. rill � � IoII"1 2 07r sp4'LIlrrfl.... 193 Exhibit A Page 9 of 19 Medium Density Residential (RM) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02E Single-family dwelling, Interior,flag or cul-de-sac lot 6,0001 child care facility or Lot Area, Minimum group home Corner lot 8,0002 (square feet) Duplex 8,000 Any other use Not specified s Lot Width, Minimum Interior,flag or cul-de-sac lot 50 (feet) Corner lot 80 Lot Depth, Average All lots 90 (feet) Street Frontage, Interior, corner or cul-de-sac lot 40 Minimum (feet) Flag lot 24-304 Duplex, Single-family dwelling 5.2 Minimum Any other use 12.8 Multiple-family dwelling 16 Residential Density (units per net acre) Child care facility, group care facility or 32' Maximum nursing home Manufactured dwelling park 12 Any other use Not specified 8 Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street, Minimum (feet) 205,10 194 Exhibit A Page 10 of 19 Medium Density Residential (RM) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02E Single-family dwelling, duplex, child care 5 2, 6,7 Primary facility or group home Side Setback, structure Minimum (feet) Any other use Same as rear Accessory structure Same as primary 16 or less 24 2,6 Single-family dwelling, Building more than 16 duplex, child care height 302,6 and less than 28 facility or group home (feet) 28 or more 36 2,6 16 or less 24 Primary Any other use except Rear Setback, structure Building Minimum (feet) nonresidential use height more than 16 30 abutting DDC, NNC, and less than 28 CG, IP, SWIR, or IL zone (feet) 28 or more 36 Nonresidential use abutting DDC, NNC, or CG zone 109 Nonresidential use abutting IP, SWIR, or IL zone 159 Accessory structure 5 Setback to a Private Access Easement, Minimum (feet) 5 Primary building height 16 40 Single-family dwelling, duplex, feet or less Lot Coverage, child care facility or group home h z Primary building height Maximum 35 (percent) more than 16 feet or less Any other use Not specified 8 Primary structure 35 Building Height, Features not used for habitation 70 Maximum (feet) Accessory structure 1511 1. Excluding easements for private streets or driveways (See Section 1.02, Lot area) 195 Exhibit A Page 11 of 19 Medium Density Residential (RM) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02E 2. Child care facility for 12 or fewer children, group home for five or fewer persons 3. Child care facility for 13 or more children, group home for six or more persons 4. See Table 3.04A, Flag Lot Access Width 5. Measured from the Special Setback(Section 3.03.02), if any 6. Except for flag lots under the option that all setbacks are 12 feet 7. For row houses, there is no side setback along common lot lines. See table 2.02C for row house development standards 8. The minimum lot dimensions, maximum density, and maximum lot coverage are determined by setbacks, off-street parking, and landscaping requirements. 9. A house of worship shall be set back at least 20 feet from a property line abutting a residential zone or use. 10. Infill lots between developed lots: average of abutting residential buildings, plus or minus 5 feet, but not less than 10 feet 1.I...... Accessory gvvp 11 iiIng. i)IT SLflbVpct to...spgb iic deveIl.�bporr pint standards (ape Section 2,07, Sppc.i ll. 196 Exhibit A Page 12 of 19 Nodal Medium Density Residential(RMN) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02F Single-family dwelling, child Interior or cul-de-sac lot 4, 0001,2 care facility or group home Corner lot 5, 0002 Interior lot 3, 000 1 Lot Area, Row house Corner or cul-de-sac lot 3,600 Minimum (square feet) Duplex 8 000 1 Multiple-family dwelling, child care facility, group home or 87,120 1,s nursing home Any other use Not specified 7 Interior or cul-de-sac Lot 45 2 Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group home Corner lot 602 Interior lot 20 Row house Lot Width, Corner or cul-de-sac lot 35 Minimum (feet) Duplex 80 Multiple-family dwelling, child care facility, group home or 200 s nursing home Any other use Not specified 7 Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group home or 802 row house Lot Depth, Duplex 90 Average (feet) Multiple-family dwelling, child care facility, group home or s 200 nursing home Any other use Not specified 7 Street Frontage, Interior lot 20 Minimum (feet) Corner lot 35 197 Exhibit A Page 13 of 19 Nodal Medium Density Residential(RMN) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02F Single-family dwelling, child care facility, group home,or Cul-de-sac lot 30 multiple-family dwelling z Interior lot 20 Row house Corner or cul-de-sac lot 35 Duplex 80 Any other use 200 Single-family dwelling 7.9 Duplex or row houses 10 Minimum Multiple-family dwelling 19 Residential Any other use Not specified 7 Density(units Multiple-family dwelling 24 7 per net acre) Child care facility, group care facility or 32 3,7 Maximum nursing home Manufactured dwelling park 12 7 Any other use Not specified 7 Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group 20 2,4 home Front Setback Abutting an arterial street 20 4 and Setback Row house Abutting a Not abutting an arterial street 104 Street, Minimum (feet) Abutting commercial or industrial 20 4 zone, or collector or arterial street Any other use Not abutting commercial or industrial 4 10 zone, or collector or arterial street 198 Exhibit A Page 14 of 19 Nodal Medium Density Residential(RMN) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02F Abutting an RS zone 10 plus 5 fo 4each story over 1 Row houses To front porch 10 Front Setback Abutting commercial or industrial s Duplex, multiple- Not specified and Setback family dwelling, zone, or collector or arterial street Abutting a Street, group home or Not abutting commercial or industrial s nursing home 15 Maximum (feet) zone, or collector or arterial street Any other use Not specified Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group 52 home Row house 15 5,9 Abutting RS, RM, or 16 or less 24 P/SP zone, or an Building more than 16 Side Setback, existing single- height 30 Minimum (feet) All family, duplex, or (feet) and less than 28 other multiple-family uses dwelling 28 or more 36 Abutting NNC, or CG zone 108 Abutting SWIR zone 15 Accessory structure Same as primary 16 or less 24 2,6 Single-family dwelling, Building child care facility or height more than 16 and 302,6 group home (feet) less than 28 Rear Setback, 28 or more 36 2,6 Minimum (feet) Row houses 20 or 011 Any other use Same as side Accessory structure 5 199 Exhibit A Page 15 of 19 Nodal Medium Density Residential(RMN) - Site Development Standards Table 2.02F Setback to a Private Access Easement, Minimum (feet) 5 Single-family Primary building height 16 feet or less 40' Lot Coverage, dwelling, child care facility or Primary building height more than 16 feet 35 z Maximum group home or less (percent) Any other use Not specified 7,'0 Primary structure 45 Building Height, Features not used for habitation 70 Maximum (feet) Accessory structure 151^' 1. Flag lots are not allowed in the RMN zone. 2. Child care facility for 12 or fewer children, group home for five or fewer persons 3. Child care facility for 13 or more children, group home for six or more persons 4. Measured from the Special Setback(Section 3.03.02), if any 5. For row houses, there is no side setback along common lot lines. 6. With a maximum deviation of five feet from the setback standard 7. The minimum lot dimensions, maximum density, and maximum lot coverage are determined by setbacks, off-street parking, and landscaping requirements. 8. A house of worship shall be set back at least 20 feet from a property line abutting a residential zone or use. 9. Row houses have a 0 foot side setback on interior lots 10. Lot coverage limitations determined by setbacks for small lot and row house development 11. Garages have a 20 ft or 0 ft setback 1: ...PYPIlliIn �.) llltSrri)I SL.R.��4 �� 4�I..�I� �4�,4, �S �II"14.I standards g �g.L jIIg1 ..s.07.M. 200 Exhibit Page 16Of19 Uses Allowed in Residential Zones Table 2.02A Use Zone Accessory Uses(A) Conditional Uses(CU) Permitted Uses(P) Special Permitted Uses(S) Specific Conditional Uses(SCU) RS RSN RIS RM RMN A Dwellings 3 S1 S1 -34 Manufactured dwelling park S S Row houses P P — 2.06 Accessory Structures 2.06.01 Applicability The following standards are applicable to accessory structures in all zones. g2�!2.! pt frorn these standards and are SLA.b e t h 2 f Section 2.03.20. 2.07 Special Uses Special Permitted Uses are allowed outright, but are subject to additional requirements designed to ensure their compatibility with, or mitigate their impact on, surrounding (usually residential) development. � 2.07.11 House of Worship 201 Exhibit Page 17Of19 | | A- =Bus and Van Storage: Storage ofbuses and vans used byahouse ofworship shall bepermitted ifthe vehicles are not parked closer than 20 feet to a property line abutting a residential zone or use. B. Residential Ljses:� Places of Worship 0 L S'In o r sp e..for h LA i L�2yided for Under ORS 1. _ 3. � 1, tin !�k,2,s ",!!i attached to a in terrns of finish rnateria.lS roof pitch trirn and D. Accessory g jj.!2.its shall be SLAbj�2...Lj to the site dev lop 1. jj.!j.its are not SLAbjeLLp Z. | ��t 202 Exhibit A Page 18 of 19 . . D l.sit A c ssor d ellirl Units are rI0tj.l.Cl.LAded p s i t fj je !Is y io�i for the �PD...............y..... .........L 2.........................y �L..........................III..........................................................................................I......................................... .... ...................................................................... 21I.J.P.I.I.YJ D.9 LIneL E................Floor A r e a The g.[2s.- s 0 1 c e 0 s !o.!2.L g Lea of the acce s .[M j.��.!Jj.� g g.!2.it shall not ex e d 5 p ..................................... ........................................................................................................... ......... ............................................................................................................................... pEi�-nar dwelli� g,gE-25 sggpL�� 2t.,��hicheyer is less, The gpEgg��gEg2 shall be exclLAded frorn ............................y.......................................I ......................................................................................... ....................... ............................................................................................................................................ .c..a I C L.A.I a tJ o Lr...oaf t h e o o r a r..e a., F. .5o g Epl..i o)::..........There shall b e a LO i JI-D L..A.I.-D s i x f..o o t se. p Eg t.J.Q r b e t w e e detached a c c e.ss.o. .ry cl�we.l.l i.r)..g..L..A L)i t S. and all other strLACtLAres on the site. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... G. Vehicles:: S r Ac LAr s vehicles licen ed b the Orosgg!� Cho., ent of Motor Vehicles shall not be .................................................................s..... ........ 1............t..............g Z..................................................................................s.........................y...................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. pe ...................................................................................s......... . .....I .................. IJ.......E....l.]t..r a....l..]c e:.: A l..] a...c. es....!2..r..y dwe.l IJ all not reSAlt irl 9D n�2..�L�Oor entrance b in located on an exterior wallf cing a I'Lont pEgpp!jj!irIe. ............................................................................................�p...........9....................................................................................................................................................................... a......... ...................... I. 2.L.kin :: One off-strove p.g LAired in addition to that which is r ..q ...........9............................................................................... t. ... ....LIE s.p..D Is e II.i.red fo.r..t.he p Le..q ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................... .....L�..l]22.Ly ........ ... obwo�llirr jj.!j.it. This additiona.1 s p..p Le i s rI.0 t SL.bj�2 A to the location re.g.11.irernents of WDO Section 3.05.02 ........... .................................................................................................................... ................................................... ......................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. J..... .No o-..c o to r1n.j tJ e s...........Le.. ned land -nents of Section 1.04 DY!Z.2 !��2.nverted to an..ac ess r d ellirl LArlit in accordance with the roe qq.gjrer ..................................................................................................L...................2 y �L..........................9.................................................................................................................................................................................. .. ....................................................................................................................................................... 203 Exhibit A Page 19 of 19 4.01.05 120-Day Rule A. The City shall take final action on the application within 120 days of the date that the application was deemed complete, unless the applicant extends the 120 day period. Any continuance or extension of the record requested by an applicant shall result in a corresponding extension of the 120-day period. B. When the 120-day Rule is Not Applicable: The 120-day rule does not apply to: 1. Any Type I decision; 2. Any application for an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan; or 3. Any application for a permit, the approval of which depends upon a Comprehensive Plan amendment; 4. Any application that is not wholly within the City's authority and control; 5. Any Type V decision; L Any annexations car 7, Needed h()USIn appl Ca fi()lIns that a'Tle t the ci 1tei ii„a of ORS 109.31 1 i.11he Clty�bh 111 j1;11ke finil.11. gCfiI()In CSII1', these a llCat I()ills MMNIII 100 days gf the date that the appllllcafilc)n was d4"4i"Irl(14'd °bu ill .^^ .^ urrl� thy., lic rrt extends thy., Y00 d !2 iod. L......................P...............................................................................p.p..............................................................................................................................................................V........p..................................... 204 Exhibit B Page 1 of 6 Analyses & Findings This attachment to the staff report analyzes the application materials and finds through statements how the legislative amendment relates to and meets applicable provisions. Symbols aid locating and understanding categories of findings: Symbol Category Indication Requirement (or guideline) met No action needed Requirement (or guideline) not met Correction needed Requirement (or guideline) not applicable No action needed Other special circumstance benefitting from Revision needed attention .................................................................................::..............::.................p ... : . ........................................................::........(......................................). Section references are to the Woodburn I[)evel.o. ii inti iiFldiiii°� ince 205 Exhibit B Page 2 of 6 Legislative Amendment Provisions Background 1.05.036. establishes that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council on proposed or revised ordinances relating to the regulation of land use. A brief WDO history: • In 2002, the Council first adopted the WDO on April 9 via Ordinance No. 2313. • In 2007, the Council first amended the WDO on July 28 via Ordinance No. 2423. • In 2017, the Council adopted on January 9 the thirteenth and most recent amendment via Ordinance No. 2544. :9...0:9...0:9..13. outlines the purpose of the WDO. A useful and best urban planning practice particular to Oregon is dividing types of reviews and decisions relating to planning, land use, and zoning into several types designated by Roman numeral. Local governments tweak the exact terms of the basic types, and in Woodburn there are five types, Types I through V. The spectrum spans reviews and decisions that are simple, low-level, narrow, and straightforward — having "clear and objective" provisions— up to things that are complex, high- level, broad and open-ended — having "discretionary" provisions. It spans staff decisions on permits up to Council adoption o major policy decisions. WDO Sections and x01: through _. ... _ ..:: 5.04 describe the types. Legislative Amendment Provisions 4.01 Decision-Making Procedures 4.01.02E.Type V Decisions(Legislative):Type V decisions involve legislative actions where the City Council enacts or amends the City's land use regulations, comprehensive plan, Official Zoning Map or some component of these documents.Type V decisions may only be initiated by the City Council.The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing on the proposal before making a recommendation to the City Council.The City Council then holds a final public hearing and renders a decision. Public notice is provided for all public hearings(Section 4.01.14).The City Council's decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days after it becomes final. 206 Exhibit B Page 3 of 6 4.01.09 Initiation of a Legislative Proposal A.The City Council may initiate the consideration of a legislative decision by resolution. B.Actions initiated by the Council shall be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation to the Council. 4.01.17 Types of Decisions Type V Legislative Decisions(Legislative):Type V decisions involve legislative actions where the City Council enacts or amends the City's land use regulations, comprehensive plan, Official Zoning Map or some other component of any of these documents where changes are such a size, diversity of ownership or interest as to be legislative in nature under State law. Large-scale annexations are included, as well as adopting or amending the Comprehensive Plan or the Woodburn Development Ordinance.The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing on the proposal prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.The City Council then holds a final de novo public hearing and makes the City's final decision. Public notice is provided for all public hearings.The City Council's decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days after it becomes final. A legislative amendment to the WDO is a Type V decision. The Council initiated consideration of the proposed legislative amendment on September 25, 2017 via Resolution 2102. Staff completed the public notices for the Commission hearing date of June 14, 2018, specifically a newspaper ad in the Woodburn Independent and mailed notice to select agencies — including Marion County, the Woodburn Fire and School Districts, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) —and the Downtown Neighborhood Association. It is not specific to any property or properties will not and so a greater degree of public notice is not required, including a Ballet Measure 56, because it does not that limit or prohibit land uses previously allowed in the affected zone notice. (The 1998 measure requires cities and counties to provide affected property owners with notice of a change in zoning classification, adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, or adoption or change of an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits previously allowed uses. ,g�, „ti,;e,B.iI..1, [,J ],!!„ , [2003] modified the notice requirements.) se The provisions are met. Comprehensive Plan Policies, OAR's & Statewide Planning Goals Staff identifies below applicable comprehensive or "comp" plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals to guide Commission deliberation. 207 Exhibit B Page 4 of 6 Comprehensive Plan Policies Staff cites relevant comp plan provisions below: B-2. Woodburn shall coordinate with affected state agencies regarding proposed comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments, as required by state law. All state, county and regional entities were notified pursuant to state law. Draft Code language was also forwarded to the regional realtor association, 1,000 Friends Group as well as the DLCD representative responsible for coordinating and implementing SB 1051. D-2.The housing goal of the City is to ensure that adequate housing for all sectors of the community is provided. Allowing ADU's will help to ensure that housing opportunities for a specific sector of the community (family/elderly) can be accommodated. D-2.2 It is the policy of the City to encourage a variety of housing types to accommodate the demands of the local housing market. These amendments are an excellent example of providing a unique housing type for which there is a demand in the local housing market. D-2.3 To ensure that new concepts in housing are not restricted unduly by ordinances,the City shall periodically review its ordinances for applicability to the current trends in the housing market. These amendments are an excellent example of amending our WDO in order to provide a unique housing type for which there is a demand in the local housing market. G-1.2 Woodburn will encourage the optimum use of the residential land inventory providing opportunities for infill lots, intensifying development along transit corridors, and application of minimum densities. These amendments will help to ensure that the optimum use of the city's residential housing supply is being utilized. It will add housing in areas (lots) that already accommodate development . 208 Exhibit B Page 5 of 6 Statewide Planning Goals Of the 19 goals, staff cites relevant ones below. Goal 1 Citizen Involvement [Oregon Administrative Rules 660-015-0000011] To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with existing means of land use public notice that span the existence, structure, and purview of the Commission itself to case-specific required mailings, newspaper ads, and sign postings. Goal 10 Housing [OAR 660-015-0000(,;j;p)] To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The proposal allows the City to further the intent of Goal 10 by allowing a housing type which is not currently permitted but which is in demand in the community. ( ,111 Goal 14 Urbanization OAR 660-015-0000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use,to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Staff confirms that the proposal does not interfere with the City meeting this goal, the City having undergone comp plan periodic review leading to the 2015 adoption of the urban growth boundary(UGB) expansion that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) acknowledged. These amendments will help to ensure that the optimum use of the city's residential housing supply is being utilized. It will add housing in areas (lots) that already accommodate development. Oregon Administrative Rules: 660-008-0015 Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required (1) Except as provided in section (2)of this rule, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing on buildable land.The standards, conditions and procedures may not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay The proposal includes clear and objective standards for ADUs for needed housing. 209 Exhibit B Page 6 of 6 SENATE BILL 1051 ORS 197.312(5) Critically, the impetus for these Code amendments was the adoption of SB 1051. The Bill, codified as ORS 197.312(5) requires most local jurisdictions (including Woodburn) to amend or modify their development codes to meet a variety of housing goals and policy standards, including: 1. Allowing for accessory dwelling units in single-family neighborhoods 2. Providing for expedited review of certain affordable housing permits; and, 3. Allowing religious institutions to use their property to develop affordable housing. These amendments have been drafted for the express purpose of meeting the requirements of the ORS. V The legislative provisions are met. Staff recommends approval of the proposal. 210 �'I'1�r I Iii♦ r} B V' July 9, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council and Scott Derickson, City Administrator THROUGH: James C. Ferraris, Chief of Police FROM: Jason Millican, Lieutenant SUBJECT: Leasing Specialists LLC Contract Award RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, award a police vehicle lease contract to Auto Leasing Specialists LLC (dba Leasing Specialists LLC) and authorize the City Administrator to sign the police vehicle lease contract. BACKGROUND: The Police Department currently has (10) vehicles leased through Enterprise Fleet Management. Starting in June of 2018, the vehicles will have to be returned due to the 3-year lease for the vehicles ending. In January 2018, our Department began looking at a variety of options to replace our current inventory of leased vehicles. Because our entire patrol fleet currently consists of Ford Products we made the decision to continue leasing Ford products for our detectives and command staff. A benefit to obtaining Ford products is that a local dealer already provides competitive rates on Ford vehicle parts and services to the City of Woodburn. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to ORS 279A.215, the City may utilize a price agreement established through a permissive cooperative procurement to award a contract for goods and services. This process is in lieu of the City pursuing its own formal competitive selection process. Employing the Oregon Cooperative Purchasing Program, which provided established competitive price quotes for Ford vehicle leases, the City identified Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney_x_ Finance—x- 211 Mayor and City Council July 9, 2018 Page 2 Leasing Specialists LLC. as a suitable vendor for leasing police vehicles. Leasing Specialists LLC. was able to offer the vehicle lease to the City at the Oregon State contracted price with a competitive interest rate and stipulate to the ability to take delivery and make the first payment after the beginning of the 2018/2019 fiscal year. The other benefit is that at the end of the lease, the City will only have to pay $1 .00 to possess the titles of all the vehicles leased. The Police Department will be leasing 9 vehicles through this program. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City will pay a total vehicle lease rate of $53,403.50 per year for the next four years ($213,614.00 total contract price). The Police Department's existing budget will cover the expenses. 212 O O � ' O O � � o ~ ° o W � a a w � Qn oo it co O "+ o lull o �o Qj a � c cn DC cn cn Qn W DC o o kr) o o N p" y CC Sir O G a 4 M Q .i dawv� ,� w Zd ad �'I'1�r I Iii♦ r} Y 9M& Its BU Pri,,�<;rrt rr rf aA'!87 July 9, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Row, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Temporary Encroachment Easement RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Administrator to grant a Temporary Encroachment Easement to Andrey Feoktistov. BACKGROUND: FHDC recently completed a property boundary survey of City owned property, located at 1750 Park Ave,which they are purchasing from the City for the purpose of constructing and operating a workforce and farmworker housing development. The survey revealed that a storage shed owned by Mr. Feoktistov encroaches less than two feet onto the City's property. Mr. Feoktistov's property is located at 1340 Amy Ct., which is immediately north of the City's parcel. DISCUSSION: The City engaged in discussions with Mr. Feoktistov regarding his ability to relocate or remove the structure. However, the structure was built in a permanent manner upon a concrete slab, and is not mobile. Given this challenge, FHDC determined that it would be acceptable to them for the shed to remain in its current location, provided a temporary encroachment easement is granted to Mr. Feoktistov. Since FHDC's lender requires this issue to be resolved prior to closing on the sale, the City agreed to grant the easement before selling the property to FHDC. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_X_ City Attorney_X_ Finance—X- 214 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Woodburn City Recorder City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT (SHED EASEMENT) THIS Agreement Granting a Temporary Encroachment Easement (this "Agreement") is made effective this_day of , 2018, by and between the City of Woodburn, an Oregon Municipal Corporation ("Grantor"), and Andrey Feoktistov, an individual ("Grantee"). BACKGROUND a. Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located at 1750 Park Avenue, Woodburn, Oregon 97017, shown on Assessors Map as Tax Lot 051W08CA02800 and described in the Marion County Registry Deed Book 514, Page 544 ("Grantor's Property"); b. Grantee is the owner of that certain real property that adjoins a portion of Grantor's Property, located at 1340 Amy Court, Woodburn, Oregon 97017, shown on Assessors Map as Tax Lot 051W08CA02300 and described as Kevin Addition, Lot 10 ("Grantee's Property"); c. A portion of an accessory structure that functions as a shed/outbuilding, constructed by Grantee and primarily located on Grantee's Property, extends and encroaches onto the Grantor's Property as described in Exhibit "A" and illustrated and shown in Exhibit "B"; d. Due to the accessory structure's relatively permanent nature, Grantee desires to continue to occupy the encroached area until such time as the accessory structure is destroyed, removed, or exceeds its useful life; e. Grantor and Grantee have elected to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of setting forth the understanding of the Parties with respect to such an encroachment and so to enable and facilitate future transfers of their respective properties; and NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT Burdened Property: 1750 Park Avenue,Woodburn,Oregon Page 1 of 5 215 AGREEMENT 1. Grant of Encroachment Easement. In consideration of Grantee's payment to Grantor of one 0/100 dollar($1.00), Grantor hereby grants, assigns, and conveys to Grantee, its successor and assigns, a temporary encroachment easement ("Encroachment Easement") over, across, and within an area on Grantor's Property, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and as illustrated and shown in Exhibit "B" ("Easement Area"), attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. Description of Encroachment. The purpose of the Encroachment Easement is to allow Grantee to continue to occupy the Easement Area with a portion of an existing accessory structure that serves as a shed/outbuilding in Grantee's rear yard, and to enable Grantee to repair and maintain the accessory structure in good, clean, and safe condition. 3. Run with the Land. The provisions of this Agreement shall operate as a covenant running with both parcels of land described above for the duration of the life of the encroaching structure presently situated within the Easement Area. When and if the encroaching structure is destroyed, removed, or exceeds its useful life, this Agreement and all rights granted to Grantee herein, shall terminate and thereupon become null and void. For purposes of this Agreement, destruction of the structure situated within the Easement Area shall be construed to mean any damage, whether by weather, force majeure, fire, rot, disrepair or otherwise, necessitating repair of more than fifty percent (50%) of the structure. Useful life of the encroaching structure shall be defined as repairs in excess of$5,000.00 being required to maintain the structure in a safe and presentable fashion. Grantee expressly acknowledges that Grantee shall have no right or entitlement to construct, build, or place within the Easement Area or any other portion of the Grantor Property, a new structure that is later constructed or placed upon the Grantee Property to replace, enlarge, or supplement the shed structure currently situated on the Grantee Property from which the encroachment is a part. 4. Termination of Encroachment Easement upon Removal of the Structure. If Grantee removes the structure presently situated within the Easement Area, this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force or effect. 5. Responsibilities, Obligations, and Hold Harmless. (a) Grantee shall at all times conduct itself so as not to unreasonably interfere with the Grantor's Property and shall not enter upon or allow access to Grantor's Property from that portion of the shed structure situated within the Easement Area. Grantee shall be responsible for and covenants that at all times during this Agreement, Grantee shall maintain the Easement Area and the shed structure situated therein, in a safe, clean, and good condition. Grantee shall conduct all repairs and maintenance at its own expense. TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT Burdened Property: 1750 Park Avenue,Woodburn,Oregon Page 2 of 5 216 (b) Grantee shall not conduct any activity within the Easement Area that violates any federal, state, or municipal law or regulation. (c) Grantee shall indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from any and all claims, demands, and causes of action that may arise out of the existence and use of the Easement Area, including, but not limited to, damage to property, injury or death to persons. 6. Prohibited Activity. Grantee shall not enter upon any portion of the Grantor Property not otherwise situated exclusively within the Easement Area, for any purpose, without the express written consent of Grantor; and shall not remove trees, brush, bushes, rocks, or gravel from the Grantor Property, or excavate within the Easement Area without Grantor's written consent. 7. Hazardous Materials. Grantee agrees that it shall not, nor permit any of the other person to, release or dispose of any hazardous materials, hazardous substances, oil or other toxic materials on the Grantors Property, or bring onto, store, or use such substances and materials within the Easement Area, and shall defend, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Grantor from any and all claims, causes of action, administrative actions, administrative penalties, damages, fines,judgments, costs, liabilities or losses (including without limitation, any and all costs associated with the removal and clean-up of hazardous substances, attorneys' fees, consultant and expert fees) caused by or resulting from the presence, use, storage, generation or disposal of hazardous substances by Grantee on or about Grantor's Property. 8. Insurance. At the Grantor's reasonable request, Grantee shall maintain in full force for such period as the easement and rights herein granted are in existence, a policy of general liability insurance, including coverage for bodily injury, wrongful death and property damage, under which the Grantor is named as an additional insured, and in an amount sufficient in the Grantor's determination to support the obligations of Grantee under the terms of this Agreement to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Grantor. 9. Benefit. This Agreement is for the benefit of and deemed appurtenant to the Grantee Property. 10. Binding Agreement. This agreement shall bind both parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns. 11. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or any application thereof shall be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and any other application of such provision shall not be affected thereby. 12. Governing Law.This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with, and governed and enforced in all respects by the laws of the State of Oregon. TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT Burdened Property: 1750 Park Avenue,Woodburn,Oregon Page 3 of 5 217 13. Entire Agreement. The entire understanding of the Parties is set forth in this Agreement and the parties are not bound by any agreements, understandings, conditions, or inducements otherwise than what are expressly set forth and stipulated hereunder. No change, alteration, amendment, modification or waiver of any of the terms or provisions hereof shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by the Parties. The Parties have executed this Agreement Granting a Temporary Encroachment Easement, effective as of the date and year first written above. GRANTOR: CITY OF WOODBURN, an Oregon Municipal Corporation Scott Derickson, City Administrator STATE OF OREGON ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2018, by Scott Derickson, City Administrator of the City of Woodburn, acting under authority granted to him by the Woodburn City Council. (Print Name) Notary Public (seal) My appointment expires: TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT Burdened Property: 1750 Park Avenue,Woodburn,Oregon Page 4 of 5 218 GRANTEE: Andrey Feoktistov, an individual Andrey Feoktistov STATE OF OREGON ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this_day of , 2018, by (Print Name) Notary Public (seal) My appointment expires: TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT Burdened Property: 1750 Park Avenue,Woodburn,Oregon Page 5 of 5 219 Reppeto & Associates, Inc. Land Surveyors 12730 SE Stark St. Phone: 503-408-1507 Portland, OR 97233 www.reppetosurveying.com EXHIBIT "A" SHED EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF WOODBURN, MARION COUNTY, OREGON, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY DEED TO THE CITY OF WOODBURN, RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1958 IN BOOK 514, PAGE 544, DEED RECORDS OF MARION COUNTY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 15, KEVIN ADDITION, MARION COUNTY PLAT RECORDS; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID CITY OF WOODBURN TRACT AND THE SOUTH LINE OF LOTS 10 AND 11, SAID KEVIN ADDITION, NORTH 89°44'33" WEST, 81.41 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, SOUTH 01°05'41" WEST, 1.60 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 88°05'03" WEST, 21.66 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 01'22'48" EAST, 0.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID CITY OF WOODBURN TRACT, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF PARK VIEW VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS; THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE AND SOUTH LINE AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 10, SOUTH 89°44'33" EAST, 21.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ' OREGON ULY 17, 1986 STJE_�VB P. BUCKLES 2231 RENEWS: 12/31/19 F16034 SHED ESMT.docx 220 EXHIBI T "B" SHED EASEMENT 1N THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TSS, R 1 W, WM, CITY OF WOODBURN, MARION COUNTY, OREGON LQ TAX LOT 2300 CID OWNERS: ANATOL/Y & NADEZHDA FEOKTISTOV J R� ADDITION z �I LOT 10 KEVIN / \\ xc' TAX LOT 2200 LOT 11 � 0 ry P01NT OF BEGINNING 1 S89'44'33"E 21.66' SHED2N 89'44'33" W 81.41' NO1 722'48"E S01'05'41"W 0.97' 1.60' 0 N88'O5'03"W SHED LOT 15 21.66' EASEMENT � TAX LOT 1800 TAX LOT 2800 OWNER. CITY OF WOODBURN I DEED BOOK 514, PAGE 544 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ,LAND SURVEYOR REPPETO & ASSOCIATES, INC. GRAPHIC SCALE LAND SURVEYORS 30 0 15 30 PLAZA 125, BUILDING G t9m 12730 SE STARK STREET PORRAND, OREGON 97233 ST1 INCH = 30 FEET PHONE (503) 408-1507 RENEWS: 12/31 j19 RLE. F16O34-D(DWG 221 OFF I Iii♦ r} B V' July 9, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator From: Chris Kerr, AICP, Community Development Director Colin Cortes,Cortes, AICP, CNU-A, Senior Planner Subject: Call-Up Briefing: Planning Commission Approval of Design Review and Variance Applications for Salem Health Clinic at Woodburn Station, 105 Arney Rd Ste 130 (DR 2018-03 & VAR 2018-01) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends no action and briefs the Council on this item pursuant to Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section .4 02 02.,. The Council may call up this item for review if desired and, by majority vote, initiate a review of this decision. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 28, 2018 and unanimously approved the Design Review and Variance (Type III) with the conditions recommended by staff. No parties testified in opposition to the proposal. The proposal by Salem Health® Hospitals & Clinics is to build a two-story medical clinic of almost 30,700 square feet at the west side of the Woodburn Station strip mall on undeveloped adjacent Pads E & F. Woodburn Station is west of I-5 and covers an entire block that remains a single lot zoned Commercial General (CG). The site development area is the southwest area of the strip mall and includes the remaining undeveloped area of the mall bordered on the west by Woodland Avenue and south by Oregon Highway 219 / Newberg Highway. The proposal is also a major modification to a recent past Commission approval allowing initial development of Woodburn Station, Design Review DR 2015-02 (December 2015). The clinic replaces what would have been two adjacent retail buildings. The Commission heard the proposal both because of building 222 size and the proposal majorly modifying a site plan that the Commission had approved. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff anticipates no direct financial impact to the City by the decision. Page 2 of 2 223