STAFF REPORT. For the Sept.18, 2018 Board of Commissioners Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 10 a.m.)

Transcription

1 Sept. 10, 2018 To: From: Subject: Washington County Board of Commissioners Andy Back, Manager Planning and Development Services PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Adding a Flexible Design Option for Regulated Affordable Housing STAFF REPORT For the Sept.18, 2018 Board of Commissioners Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 10 a.m.) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing; at the conclusion of the hearing adopt Ordinance No. 841 as filed. II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission (PC) conducted a public hearing for Ordinance No. 841 Aug. 15, 2018 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board of Commissioners (Board) adopt Ordinance No. 841 as filed. PC deliberations that preceded the vote are discussed in the Analysis section and draft PC deliberations are included as attachment A to this report. III. OVERVIEW Recommendations from the County s recent Equitable Housing Site Barriers and Solutions Project have guided development of various ordinances aimed at facilitating and encouraging development of housing. Several related ordinances have been addressed this year and others will be proposed for consideration in Ordinance No. 841 is specifically intended to facilitate development of regulated affordable housing within urban unincorporated Washington County. It would amend the Community Development Code (CDC) to provide an alternative land use review option for certain housing proposals wherein all units are to be regulated as affordable. The proposed review option would accommodate several actions typical to the land use review process under one action, and allow increased design flexibility and density bonuses. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14, Hillsboro, OR phone: fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

2 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 2 of 14 Key Provisions: Allows increased density and building height; and reduced lot dimensions, setbacks and landscaping Allows greater flexibility in provisions for building façades and parking in certain districts Waives prohibition against ground floor residential uses in certain districts IV. BACKGROUND Affordable housing is a residential unit, owner-occupied or rented, for which monthly housing costs (mortgage/rent, taxes, insurance and basic utilities) are no more than 30 percent of a household s gross monthly income. The 30 percent affordability standard was established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A household at any income level paying more than 30 percent of its gross income for housing is considered cost-burdened. Higher-income households generally have access to a wider range of housing options provided by the private market. Lower-income households have fewer choices available, and may be forced to pay a larger portion of their income for housing that may or may not be adequate to meets their needs. Regulated affordable housing is housing for which affordability is ensured through a local, state or federal compliance agreement, and generally provides homes for households that otherwise could not afford adequate housing at market rates. For the purposes of this ordinance, regulated affordable housing must be affordable to households earning 80 percent of area median income or less. This is discussed further in the Analysis section. Regulated affordable housing may be owned and/or operated by a public agency (e.g., the Housing Authority of Washington County), a nonprofit agency (e.g., Beinestar), or a for-profit developer. Market rate housing is housing that is available in the open market without public subsidies. Like other communities in Oregon, Washington County currently faces a wide variety of housing needs, particularly for households with low incomes. As of 2016, the regional vacancy rate for owner occupancy housing was estimated at one percent, and the rental vacancy rate at 2.9 percent (down from 2.2 percent and 5.9 percent in 2010, respectively). 1 Rental costs are rising more quickly than the national average throughout the Metro region. The County estimates a shortage of 14,000 to 23,000 dwelling units needed to meet the housing needs of lower income community members in particular. One out of four county households earns under $35,000 a year less than 55 percent of the regional median family income. 2 In fact, 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates show over 15 percent of Washington County households (including those in cities) earn less than $25,000 per year. For such households, 1 Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis: Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, Oregon-Washington, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Policy Development and Research, May 1, Consolidated Plan for Washington County and the Cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro: and 2018 HUD AMI information.

3 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 3 of 14 affordable housing costs would be a maximum of about $625 per month. Regionally, 2018 fairmarket rents for one to three bedroom units ranged from $1,132 to $1,935 per month well beyond affordability levels for these households. Although affordable housing developers in Washington County have been actively seeking to increase the number of housing units affordable to low-income households, most of the recently developed regulated affordable housing units have been located within Washington County s incorporated cities. Over the last 10 years, an average of about five regulated affordable housing units per year has been built in unincorporated Washington County. 3 In order to help address the housing needs of low-income households in unincorporated Washington County, it may be beneficial to provide additional flexibility for affordable housing developers to encourage additional development. The County s Equitable Housing Barriers and Solutions Project 4 (EH Project), funded by a Metro grant, was initiated in fall The intent was to identify standards governing residential development that may create barriers to achieving needed housing. With input from a technical advisory group (TAG) 5 including developers of affordable housing, the EH Project team tested various residential development concepts against current CDC standards. In some cases standards were found to pose difficulties for residential development in general, while in others complications arising from various standards were dependent on housing type or land use district. Potential for such standards to hamper or preclude low-income housing development was of particular concern. Standards with potential to affect the feasibility of affordable housing were largely found to be those mandating minimum setbacks, yard areas, parking and landscaping, which often compete for space on-site. Density restrictions and standards allowing dwelling units only above nonresidential uses in some districts were also identified as challenging to affordable housing development. To address these constraints, the EH Project report recommended amendment of the CDC to allow density bonuses and more flexibility in site design for certain regulated affordable housing developments. Ordinance No. 841 seeks to implement that specific recommendation this year. In part, the impetus stems from concerns that actual proposals for regulated affordable housing within unincorporated Washington County were recently hindered or precluded due to conflicts with current standards. 3 Based on Affordable Housing Production, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Washington County Office of Community Development. 4 Washington County Equitable Housing Barriers and Solutions report (May 2018): 5 The TAG included representatives from: Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH), Rembold (real estate development), REACH (homeless resources/shelter), Bienestar (affordable housing communities), Scott Edwards Architects, Clean Water Services, and the following Washington County departments/divisions: Current Planning Services, Long Range Planning, Housing Services, Office of Community Development

4 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 4 of 14 Ordinance Notification Notice regarding proposed Ordinance No. 841 was mailed July 19, 2018, to parties on the General and Individual Notification Lists (Planning Commission, community participation organizations, cities, special service districts, and interested parties). A display advertisement regarding the ordinance was published July 27, 2018 in The Oregonian newspaper. V. ANALYSIS General Provisions of the Ordinance As noted above, the Flexible Design Option for Regulated Affordable Housing (Option) proposed through Ordinance No. 841 is intended to facilitate and encourage the development of regulated affordable housing by allowing design flexibility and density bonuses specifically for this type of housing. It applies only to developments wherein all proposed dwelling units will be affordable for at least 20 years, to households earning 80 percent of Area Median Income or less, as ensured through a local, state or federal compliance agreement. For such proposals the ordinance provides an optional consolidated review process that addresses development review, variations from typical standards, and/or preliminary review of subdivisions/partitions under one action. The ordinance provides for two review paths a Type II and a Type III as certain allowances will call for more discretion in the decision-making process than others. The state does not address review types by which a county must process applications for allowed/allowable uses. Generally, classification of review types is unique to each jurisdiction. Washington County categorizes development review procedures as Type I, II or III, depending on complexity/level of discretion needed within the decision-making process and whether notice, hearing requirements, or conditions apply. A Type I review is a director s decision that generally applies to a use allowed outright, for which criteria are clear and objective, no conditions of approval or public notice are required, and no discretion is exercised in the decision-making process. A Type II review, also a director s decision, generally applies to a use presumed appropriate in a district, for which criteria are reasonably objective, conditions of approval may be applied, public notice is required and determination of compliance may require some discretion. A Type III review, subject to decision by a hearings officer, generally applies to uses for which decision-making requires a higher level of discretion. Conditions of approval and denial criteria apply, and public notice is required. As required by state law, clear and objective standards applicable to housing are available within the CDC, and the review path proposed by Ordinance No. 841 provides an optional alternative to review under those clear and objective standards. As such, the proposed alternative review standards are permitted to and do contain some provisions that may be more subjective but provide additional flexibility. Washington County s existing Planned Development (PD) standards and North Bethany PD standards (Section ) provide significant dimensional flexibility for both residential and

5 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 5 of 14 commercial development, in part allowing reduction or elimination of yards, setbacks and lot sizes, and height increases of up to 100 feet. North Bethany provisions further allow for density bonuses in that area, ranging from 25 to 50 percent. In North Bethany, most residential PDs are addressed through a Type III review, while elsewhere in the county s urban area, most are a Type II. The ordinance proposes new subsection Flexible Design Option for Regulated Affordable Housing (Option) within the Master Planning section of the CDC. The Option draws significantly from existing PD provisions that allow dimensional flexibility and density bonuses, but otherwise differs from the PD process. A PD occurs as a supplemental action to a subdivision and/or development review, each of these actions incurring a separate fee. PD provisions also include certain disincentives to housing development according to the above noted EH Project report. The proposed Option differs in that it provides for land use review of many aspects of a regulated affordable housing proposal through one action as a means to simplify application preparation and reduce application costs; and it excludes provisions of the existing PD process deemed barriers to affordable housing development such as requirements for dedication of sizable buildable areas as open space, and highly prescriptive design criteria. When applied to eligible projects, the proposed new subsection would supersede PD standards. Provisions of community plan subarea/area of special concern requirements, and CDC provisions regarding sight distance or floodplains/resource areas would not be superseded by provisions of this ordinance. Type II Provisions This ordinance proposes to allow regulated affordable housing applicants to vary a number of dimensional standards, in most cases to the same degree that existing PD standards allow for any residential development, through a Type II process. Additionally Type II provisions would allow for a modest density bonus consistent with the percentage already allowed by the CDC in the R-6 NB district. Following is a discussion of proposed Type II allowances. Flexibility in Dimensional Requirements Washington County s existing PD standards (Section 404-4) and North Bethany PD (Section ) standards allow significant variation from minimum dimensional requirements that would otherwise apply to a development. This ordinance borrows from both existing CDC Sections. It reflects the same allowable reductions in required private roadway widths, yard dimensions, standard setbacks of the district, and lot sizes/dimensions; and permits height increases of no more than allowed under those existing provisions. Unique to the proposed ordinance, eligible regulated affordable housing developments are permitted to reduce additional setbacks required under Screening and Buffering Section 411. The additional setbacks are normally required when the land use designation of a site differs from that of neighboring land, and can range from five to 125 feet. This can translate to a significant loss of buildable land, reducing the amount of space available for parking, landscaping and other required improvements, and potentially limiting the quantity of housing units that can be

6 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 6 of 14 provided. Potential to reduce these additional setbacks may make development of affordable housing more spatially and economically feasible in certain cases. Applicants seeking to reduce the additional setback requirement of Section 411, however, cannot also reduce standard setbacks of the district. Parking Required parking can displace a significant amount of land that would otherwise be available for construction of housing. The EH Project report determined that parking is a major constraint for affordable housing, but acknowledged that updates to CDC Section 413 (Parking and Loading) by separate ordinance have recently expanded options for reduction of standard parking quantities within a development. Those reductions would remain available to developers seeking review through the provisions of Ordinance No This ordinance provides one additional benefit for regulated affordable housing developments that are subject to both off-street and on-street parking requirements. It allows, to the minimum extent necessary, substitution of required off-street spaces for on-street spaces and vice-versa, as long as the overall number of spaces provided meets the combined total of required spaces. This provision will also help facilitate cluster housing on individual lots (as currently allowed in North Bethany), where some lots might not immediately access road frontage and therefore could not accommodate off-street parking. Detached Dwellings on a Single Lot Outside of North Bethany, current CDC provisions do not clearly allow more than one detached dwelling on a single lot. Lack of clarity presents an obstacle to clustering of smaller and detached homes on one lot (as allowed in North Bethany), a concept that could help diversify affordable housing types. This ordinance allows such development for regulated affordable housing. Exemption from Ground-Floor Commercial Requirement In some districts, existing CDC standards allow for residential development only atop ground floor commercial development. For regulated affordable housing projects, this ordinance would allow that requirement to be waived. Affordable housing representatives who participated in the EH Project TAG reported that this requirement can pose a significant financial barrier to development and maintenance of affordable housing. They explained that buildings that include a commercial component are subject to higher construction wages under state Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) requirements. They also explained that current lack of demand for commercial space makes renting it difficult, resulting in vacant building square footage that could better be used for additional housing units or resident amenities. Density Bonus The EH Project found density restrictions to be barriers to development of affordable housing in some of the development concepts studied, and the resulting report recommended amendment of the CDC to allow for density bonuses. As part of the EH Project, an analysis by Johnson Economics linked increases in density to increases in affordability of housing. While the

7 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 7 of 14 additional units further add to needed housing supply, they may also help boost recovery of development cost over the long term. Clackamas County and the cities of Bend, Hood River, Canby, Grants Pass, Hillsboro, Tigard and Gresham allow density bonuses and flexible provisions in exchange for various community benefits (not necessarily specific to but often including affordable housing units). Of these, the cities of Hood River and Bend allow density bonuses particularly linked to affordable housing increases in density by up to 30 and 150 percent respectively. Washington County s existing North Bethany PD standards also allow for density bonuses, ranging from 25 to 50 percent depending on the district, in exchange for housing affordable to households earning no more than 80 percent of area median income. 6 Still other jurisdictions across Oregon are exploring adoption of density bonus provisions as they look to increase needed housing supply. Through a Type II review, this ordinance would allow applicants a density bonus of up to 30 percent beyond the standard district maximum. A bonus of 30 percent is consistent with the density increase allowed by Hood River in its urban residential zones (R-1 low density, R-2 standard density, and R-3 high density) through a quasi-judicial director s decision (comparable to Washington County s Type II process); and consistent with the bonus percentage allowed by Washington County for the R-6 NB district (Residential six units per acre North Bethany). 7 Considering a one-acre site, the table below compares unit counts for various districts, as developed to standard maximum density and as developed with a 30 percent density bonus. One-Acre Site Development at Standard Maximum Density Compared to 30% Bonus District Standard Max. Units per Acre Max. Units per Acre with 30% Bonus R-6 6 units 8 units R-9 9 units 12 units R units 20 units R units 31 units The following drawings show how development utilizing a 30 percent density bonus might compare visually to a development built at the standard maximum density of the district. In either case, the difference may be largely imperceptible. This may be especially true for attached units, where internal square footage of each unit, rather than number of units, would be the primary determinant of building mass. 6 North Bethany density bonuses by district: R-6 NB 30%; R-9 NB and R-15 NB 25%; R-25 + NB 50%. 7 North Bethany is a subarea within the Bethany Community Plan and this ordinance provides that subarea requirements would supersede the proposed new CDC provisions. As a newer planning area with ongoing refinement of community plan provisions and significant design criteria, density bonuses in North Bethany are treated as Type IIIs.

8 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 8 of 14 R-6 Example Drawings within Figure 1, below, are based on a development concept site designed as part of the aforementioned EH Project. It considered theoretical development of single-family detached homes, built to the standard maximum density in the R-6 district. Assuming an R-6 site measuring 1.3 acres, standard maximum density would allow for eight units on-site as shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. Figures 1.1 and 1.2: 1.3-acre site at standard R-6 maximum density Drawings in Figures 1.3 and 1.4 depict how development of single-family detached homes might look if built on the same R-6 site using a 30 percent density bonus (effectively increasing density to that normally allowed in the R-9 district). On this site, the result is an additional two units for a total of 10. Figures 1.3 and 1.4: 1.3-acre R-6 site with 30 percent density bonus R-15 Example Drawings within Figure 2, below, are based on another development concept site designed as part of the aforementioned EH Project. It considered theoretical development of attached singlefamily homes (townhomes), built to the standard maximum density in the R-15 district.

9 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 9 of 14 Assuming an R-15 site measuring 2.8 acres, standard maximum density would allow for 42 units on-site as shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. Figures 2.1 and 2.2: 2.8-acre site at standard R-15 maximum density Figures 2.3 and 2.4 depict how development of attached single-family homes might look if built on the same R-15 site using a 30 percent density bonus. The result is an additional 13 units for a total of 55. In this case the additional units create little difference in the development s exterior appearance. The same general design concept is used, but where all units in the standard density version are townhomes, the density bonus development turns some ground floor space into individual one-story flats. Further, the drawings assume that development to standard density is market rate housing, and as required by this ordinance, all units on a site developed with a density bonus are regulated affordable housing. CDC Section 413 requires less off-street parking for regulated affordable units than for market rate units, enabling comparable building square footage to accommodate additional units where it might otherwise be used for parking. Figures 2.3 and 2.4: 2.8-acre R-15 site with 30 percent density bonus

10 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 10 of 14 Depending on the developer s approach, allowing more units may result in more floor area on a site, or it may result in a similar overall floor area with smaller unit sizes. Additional density bonus drawings are addressed below within the discussion on Type III Provisions. Type III Provisions In addition to allowances provided through the Type II process, the ordinance provides for a more discretionary Type III review that allows for a larger density bonus and permits approval of alternatives to certain other design specifications of the CDC when proposed and justified in an application. Alternatives to Strict Compliance with Certain Design Standards Building façade standards currently apply to single-family attached and detached dwellings near transit routes in the R-9 through R-25+ districts. They allow a limited range of attached garage widths in relation to building façade, and required garage setbacks increase with garage width. Homes with the widest allowable garages are also subject to window placement criteria and can only be interspersed among other homes with narrower garages. Discussions with developers, both market rate and affordable, suggested that these requirements can create both financial and spatial barriers to new housing on smaller sites or at higher residential densities. They noted that the requirements increase complexity of home and overall development design, and impact lot area that is usable for living space on the ground floor of a dwelling. Additionally, developers indicated that transit-oriented parking design and building façade requirements can compound development complexity and cost. Façade standards were noted as often difficult to accommodate in a manner that meets structural requirements (for example, CDC glazing requirements may conflict with building code requirements for beam/support placement). Prescriptive design requirements for parking facilities were also indicated as adding complexity to building and site design in transit-oriented districts, thereby increasing development costs. Type III provisions of the ordinance allow applicants to propose alternatives to the above noted CDC requirements. Approval is subject to written findings and evidence from the applicant demonstrating that the proposed alternative otherwise provides for pedestrian-oriented or transitoriented/station community design consistent with the intent of the standard. Density Bonus As discussed earlier, the EH Project report recommended amendment of the CDC to allow for density bonuses, finding that density increases are linked to increases in housing affordability. While the Type II process allows for a moderate increase in density (up to 30 percent), the ordinance proposes review of applications for a larger bonus of up to 50 percent through the Type III process given higher levels of discretion that will likely be needed in the decisionmaking process.

11 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 11 of 14 Further, to ensure that open/gathering space is still available to residents, the ordinance makes a 50 percent bonus available only under the following conditions: The site is within one-quarter mile of a public park; or The development will include on-site gathering space (indoor, outdoor or a combination thereof) available for common use by all residents. A bonus of 50 percent is consistent with the density increase allowed by Washington County for the R-25+ NB district (Residential 25 units per acre North Bethany). Comparatively, the city of Bend allows density bonuses of 110 percent to 150 percent (based on percentage of units that will be provided as regulated affordable housing within a development). Considering a one-acre site, the table below compares unit counts for various districts, as developed to standard maximum density and as developed with a 50 percent density bonus. One-Acre Site Development at Standard Maximum Density Compared to 50% Bonus District Standard Max. Units per Acre Max. Units per Acre with 50% Bonus R-6 6 units 9 units R-9 9 units 14 units R units 23 units R units 36 units The following drawings show how development utilizing a 50 percent density bonus might compare visually to a development built at the standard maximum density of the district. As in previous examples, internal square footage of each unit is likely to play a large part in determining building mass, rather than unit numbers alone. Drawings within Figure 3, below, use a development concept from the aforementioned EH Project that considers attached multifamily units, built to the standard maximum density in the R-24 district. The same general low-rise design concept is used, but building height increases by one story to accommodate a 50 percent density bonus. As in the prior example, CDC Section 413 would not require affordable units as shown in Figure 3.4 to provide as much off-street parking as market rate units within Figure 3.2. As such, comparable building square footage could be used to accommodate additional units where it might otherwise be used for parking.

12 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 12 of 14 Assuming an R-24 site measuring 2.2 acres, standard maximum density would allow for 53 units onsite as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Figures 3.1 and 3.2: 2.2-acre site at standard R-24 maximum density Drawings in Figures 3.3 and 3.4 depict how development of attached multifamily homes might look if built on the same R-24 site using a 50 percent density bonus. On this site, the result is an additional 26 units for a total of 79. Figures 3.3 and 3.4: 2.2-acre R-24 site with 50 percent density bonus

13 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 13 of 14 Limited Denial Criteria As noted earlier, Type I uses are allowed outright and not subject to conditions or denial. Type II uses may be subject to conditions but generally not denied as long as they meet applicable criteria. For Type III uses the CDC allows conditions or denial. Section , however, currently specifies that Type III residential planned developments and subdivisions are presumed to be appropriate as long as they meet applicable criteria. Conditions of approval may be imposed to mitigate adverse impacts associated with such proposals, however denial is only allowed based on noncompliance with certain provisions of the CDC s Public Facility and Service Requirements (Article V). As similar residential developments, applications processed through Type III provisions of this ordinance would likewise be subject to denial only on the basis of Article V denial criteria. Planning Commission Deliberations At its Aug. 15, 2018 hearing and prior to the vote, the PC engaged in discussion about the potential for density bonus allowances that might likewise benefit market-rate and mixed income housing development, attached and detached. They further discussed potential to incentivize market-rate developers to provide housing affordable at lower income levels without requiring a government contract to ensure its ongoing affordability. Staff Response The key purpose of Ordinance No. 841 is to propose CDC amendments, for adoption in 2018, that provide flexibility specifically for regulated affordable housing development. While the ordinance allows for density bonuses as one way to provide such flexibility, the ordinance was not intended to address all potential for density bonuses in the county. As previously noted, a number of housing-related ordinances have been prepared or are planned as a result of the recent EH Project. Potential ordinance work for the 2019 work program includes possible development of standards to allow density bonuses more broadly. For example, staff intends to look at such bonuses for development wherein only a percentage of housing is to be made affordable to those earning less than area median income. In such cases, providing for affordability might be approached in various ways, including income-related agreements/contracts/deed restrictions or other measures such as home square footage caps and/or housing mix. Input from developers, residents and other stakeholders will be important to ensure that related 2019 ordinance provisions are adequate to incentivize increased construction and retention of more affordable housing while sufficiently addressing potential conflicts and community concerns. Summary of Proposed Changes Ordinance No. 841 proposes to amend the CDC to encourage and facilitate development of regulated affordable housing in urban unincorporated Washington County. The ordinance proposes an alternative review process, only for residential development wherein all dwellings will be regulated through a local, state, or federal compliance agreement, to ensure they are

14 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 841 Sept. 10, 2018 Page 14 of 14 affordable for at least 20 years to households earning 80 percent of Area Median Income or less. The process would allow for increased design flexibility and density bonuses as follows: Type II would allow: Up to 30 percent density increase Building height increase Reductions to lot dimensions and setbacks (as per existing PD/North Bethany PD standards) except no reduction to garage vehicle entrance Reductions to Additional Setbacks required under Screening and Buffering Section 411 (in lieu of reducing regular district setbacks cannot reduce both) Landscaping area reduction by up to 50 percent Increased flexibility in parking provisions More than one detached dwelling on a single lot (as with some cluster housing) Waiver of limitation allowing residential uses only above ground floor non-residential uses in districts where normally applies Type III would allow: All of the above, and Up to 50 percent density bonus In R-9, R-15, R-24 or R-25+ districts, applicant s proposal of alternatives to strict compliance with Building Façade standards, when alternative will otherwise provide for pedestrian-oriented façade design In Transit-Oriented districts, applicant s proposal of alternatives to principles/standards for Building Façades and/or Parking Areas, Garages and Parking Structures, when alternatives will otherwise provide for transit-oriented/station community pedestrianoriented design List of Attachments Attachment A: Draft Aug. 15, 2018 PC Deliberations S:\LRPLAN\Shared\PLNG\WPSHARE\2018 Ord\841_Flex_Opt_Stds\Staff_Reports_PPTs\Board \841_BOC_SR_ docx

15 Attachment A WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2018 Proposed Ordinance No An ordinance amending the Community Development Code adding a flexible design option for regulated affordable housing Draft Deliberations Planning Commission (PC) members present: Jeff Petrillo, Ed Bartholemy, Tegan Enloe, Deborah Lockwood, Anthony Mills, and Eric Urstadt. PC members absent: A. Richard Vial, Ian Beaty, and Eric Urstadt. Staff present: Andy Back, Theresa Cherniak, Kim Armstrong, Anne Kelly, Steve Kelley, Suzanne Savin, and Susan Aguilar, Long Range Planning (LRP); Jacquilyn Saito-Moore, County Counsel. Summary c. Ordinance No. 841 Equitable Housing Flexible Option Theresa Cherniak, principal planner and senior planners, Anne Kelly, and Kim Armstrong, all three from the Community Planning section of LRP provided the PC with a Power Point presentation. The proposed ordinance is one of several that seek to implement recommendations of the Equitable Housing Site Barriers and Solutions Project which was funded by Metro in 2016 and took place over 2017 and The proposed ordinance allows design flexibility and density bonuses, for regulated affordable housing that meet certain criteria. Staff provided a brief overview, including information regarding background, ordinance provisions, and recommendations. Recommendation Conduct the public hearing Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 841 to the Board of Commissioners (Board) PC comments Questions regarding the definition of a density bonus, and how it might be used. Questions regarding the 20 year timeframe requirement for regulated affordable housing, and how it might be implemented. A discussion regarding the potential to allow density bonuses for market rate developers who provide a portion of units as affordable, possibly without requiring a local, state, or federal compliance agreement to ensure the units remain affordable long term. Final Vote: Commissioner Mills moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 841 to the Board. Commissioner Wellner seconded the motion. Vote: 6 0. Motion passed. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave Suite 350 MS14 Hillsboro, OR Phone: Fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

16 Commissioner Bartholemy Beaty Enloe Lockwood Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote Yes Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Absent Absent Yes Planning Commission Deliberations August 15, 2018 Page 2 of 2 End of Deliberations.

17 PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 841 Individual and General Notice July 19, 2018 The Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners (Board) will soon consider proposed Ordinance No Listed below is a description of the ordinance, hearing dates and other relevant information. If you have any questions about the ordinance, or if you would like additional information, please contact Long Range Planning at lutplan@co.washington.or.us or ORDINANCE PURPOSE AND SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 841 proposes an alternative land use review option for certain regulated affordable housing. This is one of several ordinances intended to address recommendations of the County s recent Equitable Housing Site Barriers and Solutions Project. The ordinance, which borrows largely from existing Community Development Code (CDC) provisions for Planned Developments (Sections and ), would amend the CDC to provide both site development flexibility and density bonuses to encourage and facilitate regulated affordable housing development inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Who is Affected Residents and property owners in urban districts of unincorporated Washington County where residential uses are permitted. What Land is Affected Land in urban unincorporated Washington County where residential development is permitted. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION/LOCATION: Hearings are in the auditorium of the Charles D. Cameron Public Services Building, 155 N. First Ave., Hillsboro Planning Commission Board of Commissioners 6:30 p.m. 10 a.m. Aug. 15, 2018 Sept. 18, 2018 At its Sept. 18, 2018 public hearing, the Board may choose to adopt the ordinance, make changes to it, continue the hearing to a future date, or reject the ordinance. If adopted Sept. 18, it would become effective Nov. 23, Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14, Hillsboro, OR phone: fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

18 Individual/General Notice Proposed Ordinance No. 841 Page 2 of 2 KEY PROVISIONS: For certain developments that include regulated affordable housing, Ordinance No. 841 would provide an alternative land use review option that allows for the following: Through Type II review Density increase up to 30 percent Building height increase Lot dimension, setback and landscaping reductions Increased flexibility in parking provisions Waiver of limitation allowing residential uses only above ground floor non residential uses (in certain districts where normally applies) Through Type III review Density increase up to 50 percent Applicant s proposal of alternatives to certain district provisions of the CDC, regarding building façades and parking areas/structures, when alternatives will otherwise provide for pedestrian-oriented/transit-oriented design Exemption from certain denial criteria, consistent with exemptions for similar Type III uses AFFECTED LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENTS: Community Development Code Section 403 Applicability Section 404 Master Planning HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Submit oral or written testimony to the Planning Commission and/or the Board at one of the public hearings. Written testimony, including , may be sent to the Planning Commission or Board in advance of the public hearings at the address shown on the front of this notice. Include the author s name and address with any public testimony. Staff Contact Anne Kelly, Senior Planner, anne_kelly@co.washington.or.us, The ordinance is available for review at the following locations: Department of Land Use & Transportation o Physical address through July 26, 2018: Public Services Building, 155 N. First Ave., Hillsboro Offices will be closed for moving July 27-Aug. 1 o Physical address beginning Aug. 2, 2018: Adams Crossing, 161 NW Adams Ave., Hillsboro Cedar Mill Community Library and Tigard Public Library Community Participation Organizations (CPOs), call S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2018 Ord\841_Flex_Opt_Stds\Notices_MailingLabels_Affidavits\General Notice\841_GenNotice_ docx

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28