Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, we are happy to welcome Teresa Montalvo. She's our new planning manager. She's been here, I guess, it's a little over a month now. Mhmm. And Teresa comes to us from, most recently, the city of Hillsborough.

And she's got a lot of experience in land use, reviewing land use applications, writing code, just working with developers, and, being a planning commission liaison. So lots of experience that we're really excited to bring to to Wollaton. So and she, yeah, she will be your liaison, at Planning Commission. She'll also be the liaison at architecture review board, and her main duties are really overseeing the day to day of the planning division. So we're happy to have Teresa with us.

Mhmm. Thanks. We're happy to have you too, Teresa. Thanks.

Thank you. I look forward to working

with you. As Aquila said, I've I've worked with planning commissions, a lot in my professional life. In my personal life, I sat on the Sherwood Planning Commission for about a year and a half. So I've been in your seat for a bit,

so I understand and, look forward to working with you, and I'll make sure you have all my contact information. The main thing is communication. You have any questions about anything that's gonna be on future agendas, don't hesitate to give me a call. I wanna make sure we, stay in communications.

Okay. Put that in direction too, Aquila. That's great. Okay. Any communication from the public regarding items not on the agenda?

Fine. That's

Megan and Kate?

Yeah. Anybody online that has communications that's not on the agenda?

They are our consultants.

Oh, okay. Okay. Perfect. Okay. The first action item on the agenda is a staff presentation to provide an update on the project to amend development code for compliance with Oregon revised statutes, ORS one nine seven a dot four zero zero, clear and objective housing standards, one of the series of a state laws intended to address barriers to housing in Oregon. City staff will now provide the staff report relevant to the proposal.

Great. Thank you. So good evening. This item is a follow-up on the clear and objective code update project, which we introduced to the planning commission back in October. Since that meeting, we have completed a code audit, which identified sections of the 12 development code that do not have clear and objective standards related to housing.

The city's project consultant, Mig, will walk through the audit findings this evening and also outline some preliminary concepts that will inform future code amendments. This will be the first of several opportunities that the Planning Commission will be able to provide feedback on this project. We anticipate returning in the late spring with some draft code amendments for your review. If there's anything else from staff if not, I will turn it over to our MIG team who's joining us online this evening. We have Kate Rogers in Keegan.

Alright. Good evening, everyone. Nice to see you all. I'm Kate Rogers. I am a senior planner and project manager with MIG or MIG.

I'm joined by my colleague, Keegan Gulick, who is a planner with MIG, and, we've been busy working on the cleared objective code audit and are happy to, kinda give an overview of our audit findings this evening and talk about some kinda concepts for, for addressing those issues that we've identified. So I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. And I have to mention that I I have a bit of a cold, so if I'm gonna try not not to cough. At least I'll try to mute myself if I if I need to cough, but, bear bear with me. So the the beginning slides of this presentation are a little bit of an overview of, some of the content that staff presented at that sort of introductory meeting a couple months ago, but I figured we'd kinda refresh your memory on some of those items and then get into, our overview of the code audit and some of the recommendations that emerged from that.

And then, at the end of the session, we would like to ask you some specific questions where, kind of bigger, bigger picture questions or areas where we would really like some more policy input and direction from the planning commission. So we'll discuss those items and then, of course, open it up to questions and other discussion as well. So I think Madeleine already did a good job of of summarizing the purpose of this project, but really this is to bring the the development code into alignment with state law. So ORS one nine seven a 400. And just to point out that this project and our work supporting the city, is funded by a grant that the city received from the Department of Land Conservation and Development or DLCD.

So, again, just a reminder, the statute requires local governments to have, clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures for housing development. And this is part of, you know, a suite of legislation and and state laws intended to reduce, discretionary barriers, uncertainty, delay, and costs that discourage housing development. So this is kind of one of the things that the city and other jurisdictions in Oregon need to comply with to kinda meet that overall housing objective. But I'm sure you all know there are lots of other requirements, from state statute as well. And clear and objective standards are really intended to kind of reduce those barriers, provide more kind of certainty for developers because they know that if they meet the standards, their project will be approved, supporting housing needs, improving accessibility and equity to development.

So, what makes a standard clear and objective? Of course, the definition of clear and objective is not necessarily always really clear and it's kind of a little bit open interpretation, which which is always a fun challenge. But in general, standards that use terms and definitions and measurements that provide a consistent interpretation of a regulation are considered clear and objective. So a reviewer, an applicant, or a city staff wouldn't need to use any discretion or judgment in interpreting the standards. It should be like a yes, no, either you meet it or you don't.

The state statute does allow local governments to have an alternative discretionary review path that might offer a little bit more flexibility. So if you choose not to meet the, you know, the cleared objective standards, it is perfectly acceptable to offer, you know, an alternative path. And the Tualatin development code does currently offer, alternative paths in some in some areas. And just one thing to mention is that we heard from staff from the earlier planning commission meeting as well as the city council meeting, that there is, there is a desire to kind of retain some discretionary alternative path for developers that either can't meet the clear and objective standards or choose, you know, to do something a little bit different. So that is our intention is to retain, those kinda two pathways in the code.

But what those pathways look like exactly is is sort of one of the things that we would like to talk to you a little bit more about. So we'll get more into that, a little later on in the presentation. And, also, just to point out that the city has done a lot of work over the years to try to bring, the code into compliance with the with the statute. So the code already has a lot of standards that have been made clear and objective. But, you know, case law through LUBA, you know, court, the court that sort of reviews land use, cases that get appealed, has kind of clarified what what clear and objective really means and kind of narrowed the definition to be pretty strict.

So a lot of jurisdictions are kind of continuing to update their codes to sort of meet that standard. So this is just an example. I think this is a different example than the one that staff, showed you a couple months ago, but discretionary language, and I think this is this is an example from the existing code. So a private main entry area must be provided as a private extension of each dwelling unit. That might seem kinda straightforward, but then when you think about it, you know, what what really makes an a main entry area private or a private extension?

Sort of that's kind of open to interpretation, what that really means and what kind of size or features would be required to achieve that. So a clear and objective approach to achieve a similar outcome would be to say that the main entry area needs to be recessed at least five feet, and maybe you might have some other standards for, like, a a wall or some other landscaping that creates a sense of privacy. So you need to have those specific measurable and enforceable requirements to be clear and objective. So this is just an overview of our timeline and kinda where we're at right now. We, of course, have completed a draft of the code audit and code concepts.

We're meeting with you, and I think staff will be meeting separately with city council to discuss the findings and get your input. And then we'll, create a final version of the code audit, after that. And then we'll move into, the draft amendments to the code. And one thing I wanted to mention is that staff heard from you all and from the city council as well that there's interest in incorporating some more community engagement into the process. So, staff will be conducting, I think, two or three kind of focus group stakeholder meetings with folks involved in the development in development in Tualatin.

And that will be happening sometime over the next several months. The timing is has to be kind of nailed down, but they're imagining that there might be kind of an introductory meeting that reviews kind of the higher higher level concepts, kind of similar to what we're doing this evening. And then, once there's a draft of the of the code in place, then they might dig kind of more into the details and kind of run those proposed changes by by that group. So that should be really helpful for us to kind of test out some of our, potential changes and see if those will work. Okay.

So the code audit, of course, identifies areas of the the code where amendments might be needed to create a clear objective path for housing. It also provides initial initial recommendations or code concepts, which are just kind of higher level ideas for how the code could be updated, but, you know, not getting into sort of specific code amendment language just yet. That'll be the next step. So next, I'm gonna go through just a couple of examples. I don't wanna go into all the details of the code audit.

You received the, the summary of the audit in your packet. So if you wanna dig into the details, maybe you've already done that, that information is there. But we just kinda wanted to review, a few kind of frequent issues, kind of patterns or trends that we noticed in the code, or maybe just a couple different examples that illustrate different types of issues that we found. So, this first example is around requirements for conditional use approval for certain housing types in certain zones. So for example, in one of the lower density zones, multifamily housing is allowed, but it has to be reviewed through a conditional use process.

And that is a discretionary process that has approval criteria that are are very subjective, and it's really intended for uses that maybe, you know, could be okay in the zone, but they need sort of a higher level of review. Same thing for retirement housing in in certain zones require actually, in in many of their residential zones requires conditional use approval. Unfortunately, the challenge with that is that, if a housing type is allowed in a zone, it does need to have a clear and objective approval path. So allowing multifamily housing only through conditional use is not an option. So you need to either establish clear and objective standards for the housing type.

Those standards could be more restrictive than they would be maybe in other zones that are more kind of intended for multifamily housing or higher density housing. But there needs to be, you know, clear and objective standards. Alternatively, you know, the other option is you can prohibit the housing type, but, you know, that would be somewhat counter to sort of the intention of the clear and objective standards, which is to provide a straightforward clear path for housing development. So this is, you know, summarizing this issue at sort of a higher level, we'll get a little bit more into the potential considerations for specific zones later in the presentation. But there's a cup this this type of issue shows up in a couple different zones for a few different types of housing.

The next one is that, you know, architectural review, design review is required of most development in this in the city. And most of the standards are kind of stated in the development table. So minimum setbacks, maximum height, maximum walk coverage, things like that. But there are some standards for certain housing types that are

kind of

left to be determined through the architectural review process rather than providing a numeric standard. And this shows up quite a bit for minimum setbacks for townhouses. So there's in some places, it's a range, so it might be from 10 to 20, But, again, to be determined through architectural review, which, of course, opens that decision about what the required setback is, opens that up to discretion and interpretation by the architectural review board. So potential solutions here, it's perfectly okay for your clear and objective standard to be somewhat stricter, as long as it's not so strict that it would make the development completely impossible or infeasible. They have to be reasonable and they can't part of the statute is that your standards can't cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of housing.

But if the current code has a range, say from 10 feet, minimum 10 feet to minimum 20 feet set back from the street, then it's okay for your clear and objective standard to be kind of on the more restrictive end of that range. So you could say, okay, your minimum setback is 20 feet, but if you want to have a smaller setback, go through the kind of discretionary path, then that might be possible through architectural review. So kind of establishing those two options there. So that's another example. Again, this this one shows up, in several places often for townhouses, but there's there's some other, housing types that this is also required for.

Excuse me. This one is kind of a general category of of discretionary or undefined language. So, some of the building design standards, this this is an area where this type of language appears kinda more frequently than some others using terms like decorative or architectural. So again, these are terms that are pretty subjective. One person's decorative might be another person's, like, very plain.

And things like a recessed entry, again, if with without sort of a a dimension assigned to it. You know, any amount of recess would have to be accepted by the city. So, like, would a two inch recess meet the standard? I don't know. So potential solutions, adding, you know, adding dimensions to this.

So recessed entry, you know, you might say it has to be recessed at least four feet or five feet, something like that. It's best to kind of work with with staff and see what type of recess they would typically approve. So would they approve a two inch recess, or would they require something, you know, a little bit deeper and try to, oops, excuse me, try to match that, match the code to kinda current practice. And, you know, you could either remove words like decorative and architectural or try to rephrase it somehow so it's clear how the standard would be met. So, those are tricky ones.

I'm not sure offhand how exactly you would rephrase those, but there might be another way to list, like, the types of features that you would need to incorporate that would achieve kind of a decorative, doorway, embellishment or something like that. So that's another example. And then this one's kind of a different different issue in the access management standards, are in it's in the access management section of the code. So some of the provisions in that section, and that deals with things like driveway spacing and ensuring that you you know, your your your property's access to the public right of way is safe and kind of an adequate width, to meet the needs of of the project and to the city's standards for its streets. But there are several places in that section where, they it gives discretion to the city manager.

So this is an example that the city manager may restrict existing driveways to write in, write out. So because it says the city manager may restrict the existing driveways, you know, an applicant wouldn't necessarily know whether they would have that restriction or not, as they were going through the application process. So so one thing is that some of the access requirement standards in that in that section are really more applicable to larger scale kinda commercial development or industrial uses. So another example is a requirement or sort of a potential requirement for joint access, joint access for adjacent properties. That's a thing that's that's pretty typical for commercial development where you have two kind of larger developments and you need to have kind of a driveway access in between them so people don't have to go out onto the street and come back in.

Less that one's less applicable to residential development. So one potential solution is to just exempt housing from some of those standards that aren't really applicable to housing. So that's kind of an easy change. And then the nonresidential development is you know, it's perfectly fine to have nonclear and objective standards for for those types. And then when there are standards that are potentially applicable and, you know, important for for regulating housing, You could specify the exact conditions under which, for example, you might need to, the city might restrict driveway access.

So for example, you could state that access is restricted to right in and right out when accessing an arterial street that doesn't meet driveway spacing standards. So, again and and, you know, you could point to where those driveway spacing requirements are. So just being more specific about when that that would be required so you don't have to leave it kind of open to discretion. Okay. So we're gonna move on to the key findings and discussion items, but I wanna pause just for a second and see if folks have any questions about what I've discussed so far.

Looks like everybody's Nope. Good so far. Great.

Okay. So that we have two kind of bigger picture questions or, you know, more policy related questions that we wanna ask you all about. And one is the city's two track system of approval criteria. So for certain application types, which we've listed in this table here to try to

kinda

summarize, The development code includes a two track system of parallel, clear and objective, and discretionary criteria. So for example, for architectural review, for, you know, single family duplex, triplex, quadplex, and townhouse, there is one set of clear and objective standards in one section or in a couple of different sections, and then there is a separate set of discretionary guidelines in a different section. So an applicant can kind of choose one path or the other depending on, what they're looking for, whether they want the certainty of the clear and objective standards or the, you know, the flexibility of meeting the guidelines and, not necessarily following the strict requirements. Similarly, for land divisions, so partitions and subdivisions, there are two two tracks of approval criteria, in those sections as well. So you can you can have a clear and objective subdivision with using the clear and objective standards.

Multifamily housing is one where there isn't an existing fully clear and objective track. I would say the standards are mostly clear and objective, but, there are several places, like, in those kind of more design related areas where we identified some language that, needs to be amended to be fully clear and objective. So that's kind of the lay of the land right now. But one thing that we have been talking about with staff is a potential different approach to this kind of two track system. And this might be an option for streamlining stream streamlining the pathway for for applicants.

So the city could instead offer a single set of clear and objective standards and criteria for each of those application types, but then allow some flexibility through an option to kinda modify specific standards kind of on in a, like, an a la carte kind of a way. So you could say, okay. I'm I can meet all of these standards, except I can't meet or I don't I choose to do something different in terms of my building orientation. I wanna, you know, face this other street, but then I wouldn't meet the standard, but I can still demonstrate that I'm sort of meeting the intention of the requirement through these other design features of the site, for example. So some cities, many cities allow, what are called either adjustments or modifications.

It's usually through an administrative or staff level review, but a type two review, which is, it's a staff level review where notice is provided to nearby property owners, which, you know, allows folks the opportunity to to be aware of the the application and to comment. And and there are more opportunities for appeals through that that process. And as I mentioned, if you're requesting an adjustment to a certain standard, you would just need to demonstrate how the proposal equally or better meets the purpose of the standard. That's that's how cities often kinda phrase that, the approval criteria. There there's usually a couple other approval criteria or as well, but that's kind of, like, the main the main function of that review.

So, our first question is, if you have an opinion on on this, you think the code should be revised from its current two track system, for certain application types to a single set of development standards while adding these kind of new options for flexibility? So the pros here or is that it avoids this kind of all or nothing approach where you have to pick a path and you're you're stuck with that path. So applicants could kinda limit the amount of uncertainty in their application because they can have certainty for all the areas where they're meeting the clear and objective standards, and they're only introducing that kind of uncertainty of whether their, you know, their application will be approved in sort of limited areas, and only in those areas where they want more flexibility. The challenge with this is that the city doesn't currently have a an adjustment or a modification process that looks exactly or that works exactly this way. There there are variances in the code, but those have kind of a different you have to demonstrate that you have some kind of hardship with your property where, like, you really can't meet the standards because the configuration or size of your property, that kind of thing.

So we would need to develop kind of this new procedure type, this new process, new approval criteria, and also potentially new purpose statements that describe the intent behind each standard, which is something that doesn't currently exist in all places in the code. And that's that's kind of a a lot to it's a lot to do. It may not be entirely feasible within the scope of this project, at least not for every type of application where there's currently this two track system. So there's some some trade offs there. And I'll get to policy question two, and then maybe we can open it up to some discussion, and then I think we'll move on to the next question.

So question two is if we are retaining the two track approach, should a new two track system of standards and guidelines be crafted for multifamily housing? So I mentioned this earlier, but unlike single family and middle housing, multifamily only has a a single set of design standards, and many of the standards are not fully clear and objective. So as part of this project, we either need to ensure all the standards are clear and objective, or establish those kind of parallel tracks of standards and guidelines. That is also a little bit challenging to develop guidelines based on the more clear and objective standards, but that is that that kinda would be the task if we were gonna go down that route. So without the option of an adjustment or a modification, discretionary guidelines would enable some you know, a flexible pathway for multifamily.

I think that's, yeah, that's the end of that of this section. So I think I'll pause here and see if folks have responses to these two policy questions. So in general, are we keeping the current system or maybe considering this kind of new approach? And then the second part is if we do keep the current system, how can we update the the multifamily standards?

When you say that the, one of the pros here for revising from a two track system to a single set of development standards, you start off saying that it avoids an all or nothing approach. Is that from the perspective of the developers who are complying with this? Is this from the perspective of the city? It seems to me that collapsing it down into a single one would be the the all or nothing from from the city's perspective, at least.

I see your excuse me. I see your point. I'm thinking more from the from the applicant's perspective where they have to kind of they had they have to choose a one path or the other. So if you choose the clear and objective path, there's no opportunity to vary from those requirements unless you are requesting a variance, and then you're not really on the clear and objective path anymore, but it's a little bit of a different pathway. Whereas this kind of single track with it's like a single road with off ramps kind of approach where you're kind of starting from the assumption that, you know, these are the clear and objective standards.

But if you want to deviate from these, you have opportunities to do that as as much as you need to. I think, you know, there are there are trade offs with both of these approaches. Obviously, there's these pros and cons, but there's also I mean, some cities require developers to submit a separate adjustment application for every standard that they want to modify. Mhmm. And that can present its its own challenges to development.

Like, if you wanna vary from the standards a lot, then the single track approach might not work as well for you, but it might work well for many applicants that probably mostly wanna meet the standards, but they might want to adjust things a little bit here and there. Mhmm. And I I don't know if staff wants to weigh in on this as to whether applicants have expressed you know, which pathways they're they've been choosing so far and if they've expressed any desire to do things differently?

I would say to date, almost all of our applicants have chosen to follow the clear and objective pathway. We very rarely have someone that chooses the subjective options within the code just because of the ease to go through a type two option rather than having to go and have a hearing. I would say it's the most common path that our applicants have been working with.

When when you say almost all, do you mean just, like, there's a a nonsignificant did it have we had any that have chosen to go through the the more subjective version more recently?

Did they have to do one for Behind Horizon along Norwood?

I'm not sure. Was They were looking for a zone change. They were looking for a zone change. Yeah. No. No. It's different even from that. Yeah. It's

In the three years I've been here, I've never seen an application that shows the subjective route. I don't know historically, Aquila, if you've

No. I I can't think of one where somebody's chosen to go the subjective route. So and, we're specifically talking about housing and not the commercial. So commercial would still go through the discretionary process. There I think behind Horizon, I thought maybe they had to go through, like well, I don't I wasn't here, but there might have been, like, a small lot subdivision in order to or they might have had to go through some conditional use permit at the time to get some of the, smaller units that they have out there.

And so some of that kind of thing will change, where they will either they won't, have to go through the conditional use permit or we'll have to change the code entirely. But we started the clear and objective path for single family, I don't know, many years ago, and nobody had chosen to go through a a hearing. And I think partly that's because it wasn't it wasn't maybe what you're picturing is all or nothing. But, like, for single family, when somebody's expanding or building a new house, they basically have a menu of options that they can choose from. So it's not, like, build this one type of house.

It's here's your menu, and we need to see three items from this section and, you know, two different facades or or I can't remember exactly what they are, but they have to kinda go through and say which pieces they're gonna pick. So I think we built in enough choice into the clear and objective that they didn't feel like they needed to go ask for, a discretionary review.

On that same tangent, I think I heard Kate say that most of it already has Mhmm.

What what did she call it?

A reason or a a justification? Is would it be any huge effort to put that justification of whatever the menu options are onto them? Oh, I'm not even on? Oh my gosh. Okay. I'm gonna stop touching things. Okay. Okay. On that same vein, I apologize, Aquila. I was asking, in that menu that you have, I think I heard Kate say that most of them already have their, I don't know what she called, the justification for what the choices are and why they are what they are.

I don't think I've perused it well enough to know if it would be any big effort to add those justifications into the menu items that we already use if we are going to end up going with the second path. Because the second path requires that we have a what did she call it? Purpose. Sorry. Purpose, not a justification. I mean, you've created a menu from a reason. I understand.

Yeah. So

Yeah. So I I understand what you're saying. And I haven't looked at our menu in a long time, but I don't think that it would be a big lift Ask. To Okay. Match up those purpose statements.

Okay.

As long as we're asking about, you know, a big lift or not. You know? From my experience with these sorts of things on both sides of these sorts of projects, I like clear and objective. It makes it easy. It sounds like our subjective route is largely vestigial if it hasn't seen any real use in the last well, at least in our functional or organizational memory that's present here.

When you say may not be feasible within the scope of this project, how not feasible are we talking? Are we talking, you know, this is something that might stretch the timeline a little bit, or is that a, we would need to to really, like, step back and rethink the scope of what we're doing and and possibly approach it in a different way?

I can

I can chime in, and then maybe staff has has other thoughts? I mean, that's something that we would probably need to to work out with staff and and see, where all the changes would be needed. And and, I mean, there might be opportunities to kind of tackle some pieces of it as part of this project and put some some things on a future future work plan list. But I would say if we were going to do a whole new adjustment process and add the purpose statements where they don't exist, that in addition to having to fix the the parts of the code that aren't clear and objective to define the clear and objective path. Yeah.

I'm not I'm not sure that we could accomplish all of that within the scope of this project. So it's a little bit hard to say right now, but, yeah, we would need to to work work that through with staff. But I I would say my initial thought right now is that we probably couldn't achieve all of that within, you know, the timeline and, you know, the the budget that's associated with the grant.

Is there a timeline that we have to be finished with, like, meeting clear objective standards?

For the code, not the adjustment process. Yeah.

I you're state standards.

Yeah. You're supposed to have it right now.

So, you We're

already late is what you're

saying. Okay.

So does everyone. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, there there's a there's a timeline associated with the with the grant funding. So I think our our contract expires maybe midway through 2027, which is a is a ways out. So it might not be as much of an issue with the timeline, more so with the budget.

And so currently, we would have if if we got some application or housing that came in, where our code required a discretionary process, we would have to go back to whatever is kind of in state code. We kinda have to, like, make something up,

I guess. Okay. That's where you'd be at.

Yeah. Interesting.

Alright. I I guess, really, my question is, like, of the two questions we have, I like this one. I I I think this makes a lot of sense. But, you know, if if that con is it's not gonna be feasible, is this even really an option for us to consider, or is this just a hypothetical? Would it be nice if we could?

Well, I suppose, one way to think of it is if this if this is the best direction to go, I I guess I would hate for you to feel like you can't recommend that just because of, the grant timeline. Right? Like, if this is the best direction for the city, for the way we process developments, that let's go that direction and then kind of figure out what we need to do. Know? Do we need to go for another grant to finish it up?

Is it something that staff can do? Because a certain amount of this work at a certain point, like, staff may be able to, do the work. It may be a matter of, you know, what else is on the work plan. So at that point, do we need to hire a consultant? So I guess I wouldn't limit it to what can happen within this time frame if if you feel like that's the best policy choice.

Gotcha. Makes sense. Thank you.

I think you like so the question is what's gonna give you a better code in the long run Yes. With it. Yeah. And I think looking at from the developer standpoint, if they're all choosing to go with the clear and objective standards and they want to deviate from some of those standards, then they need to seek a variance, which can be problematic or more difficult as opposed to an adjustment. There's gonna be a more simpler process and easier process. So I think that alone, from the development standpoint is is a plan. I think devising the codes so that we have purpose statements underneath everything and and even possibly getting rid of the ingredients so that everything just follows and adjust the process to streamline that, making a simple process for staff.

Mhmm. But

the purpose statement's great for having there when we revise a code or change the code or state this code for the next fifty to a hundred years that we're looking at something like, where did this come from? Right? Here's a purpose statement. Right? Well, it's back in the days we had cars themselves. Something who knows?

Everyone's really cared about stoplights.

Yeah. In there, with that. And I think that will really give us a a better code down the way as opposed to having this two track system, especially if one track is just not. Yeah.

From what the developers want, that seems like a pretty powerful vote if if they're already choosing fundamentally a one track

objective system. Like, pretty little time in developed world was go for the easiest option. Yeah. Of course. Yeah. Time is money. So if you don't have an option that, you know, you're gonna get a little concrete, then you just don't go for that gamble.

And I imagine on the staff side too, it's probably a little bit reassuring to have some standards where you're like, it's yes or no. Oh, actually here. And so not having to figure out how to pick and choose and then justify and then write it down and then have a commissioner ask about whether or not the shape of a circle counts on a fish sign. Yeah. So it saves everybody being able to I you're totally right about that. I'm like, I didn't consider the circumference of it on the wall surface.

Your Randy Randy has a oh, he's

going to that kind of thing. Yeah. So I and I guess, I mean, having sat through having to rebuild my house when it burned down even just as a regular one and having to deal with putting an ADU on mine, you you're there's a lot of it, I think, that's already mostly there that you guys do. And when you come back, you say what you need and you point to stuff. So I guess I'm not as worried about the changes it would require to make it from a a variance to call it an adjustment or to change it from, you know, the requirements are because with the purpose things.

Because you wrote the purpose anyway when they're like, no. You can't have the b and b this big, and here's why. So it it when we got our paperwork back, it already had most of that in it. I'm I'm not as concerned. I understand, Mig, you may not get to do it. Sorry. But and you were saying, Randy? Have a study.

Go for it. Well, first, thanks for adding some time for developers to pitch in on this with the sessions that you're gonna hold. I still think that a discretionary path of some sort is important. And I was gonna ask the same question, what the experience has been with the city. It's there.

If it hasn't been used, I wouldn't waste any time trying to make any adjustments on it unless Kate sees some issue with the clear and objectivity of the discretionary approach. You know? If something needs to be adjusted in that regard, I wouldn't mess with it. But the bigger question comes up so we have a discretionary path for low density and medium low density residential, but not for the higher density residential. And it seems to me that the state and finance or banks, lenders are pushing more towards the higher density.

And so I think it would behoove us to have a discretionary path also for the higher density multifamily development. I kinda like this idea of adjustments, though. Adjustments or modifications rather than formulate another discretionary path like we have for the lower density residential. And, Kate, you said that there are cities. Does DLCD have a a model code that that could be adopted fairly quickly and easily to do to do that for the higher density stuff?

There is a there is a model code for small cities, which we actually happen to be working on updating right now. So I'm I'm pretty familiar with it. And there is an adjustment section of that code, so that would be a great starting place for developing a new procedure type. I think part of the challenge, and I mean, this is more of my assumption on staff side is that it's adding a process that staff would then have to kind of get familiar with and get everybody up to speed and have the application forms and all of those pieces, which I'm sure are doable, but it does add to the complexity of the changes. So it's certainly achievable.

We've we've done it for other jurisdictions where we've updated their code to be clear and objective, but they needed a new a new process. So it's it's possible for sure.

Yeah. Well, we have it we have it for lower residential. I think we're gonna have to deal with more high density residential. I don't even know where we're gonna do a whole lot more low density stuff in the city.

When they replace it, it'll come up.

And and the state's pushing higher density. So I I think it's probably necessary. Is there any issue with having the kind of discretionary approach we have for low density and a different method for the higher density going to this adjustment modification type thing? No inconsistency there problem?

I don't I don't think so. I mean, as long as you have cleared objective paths for

Yeah.

All housing types, those pathways can be different.

Yeah. And so this is essentially a lower level variance in essence, Isn't it a type two modification adjustment would Instead of a safety staff level rather than elevating a variance higher. Yeah. That that would be my suggestion.

Just make sure I have this down correctly. So you're talking about having still the clear objective, still the discretionary, but then within the clear objective and adjustment? No. No. Or just the adjustment being the discretionary?

No. You have clear objective for for low density, medium density, high density. You have clear objective for

that all of them.

For all of them. Currently, the city has a discretionary two track approach to low density and medium low density residential, but not for higher density. Okay. And so rather than rather than going through the steps of creating a similar discretionary review for for the higher density residential, let's explore this modification adjustment approach.

I see. So then switching more towards that.

For the higher density. Yeah. Okay.

And then oh, then leave the others alone.

Yeah. Because developers aren't dealing with it. No sense in wasting time trying to mess with it unless Kate sees some tripwire there that needs to be fixed. But I don't think so.

Question? Oh, yeah. Ray, go ahead.

Alright. Thanks. I'd have to say my main concern with that idea is the way that people are living is changing even in lower density. Kids commuting, you know, things like that, access to stuff, how people are connecting with their community. Do we want to switch up the system to adjust to how our community is living, not just to developmental with it? Because the development is supposed to support how people live day to day. Do we have updates that need to happen within that within our current structure?

For clear and objective?

Well Well That's where discretionary

would come in. What she said. Because if you're saying were you saying don't do the or the adjustment process should only be for high density?

Could you repeat that?

Yes. Yes. Because we already have a procedure for lower density. It's already there. Nobody's used it. We don't know if how messy it would be for somebody to use it. So if it's gonna take extra time on staff and and effort to try to to try to go through that when we already have a process for for developers to follow. Don't spend any time on that now. Let's focus on where we don't have an alternate path, and that's in the multifamily arena.

I don't know if they'd even take it on the multifamily path with that part. But I think the adjustment process that on its own is, like, a a piece that's phenomenal. It's great to have that, in the code. So if you're going down the clearing objective path, the option to take because it doesn't seem like it's an easy option to do the the Discretionary. Discretionary.

Yeah. So if you're on the clearing objective, having the option the variance is not an easy process or a simple process. So I think having the adjustment and, like, she's talking about infill in the low density zones, the option to do the adjustments on that versus going to discretionary route is gonna be a a far better easier for doable. It's not

On regardless of current use, I think I heard Kate asking, this is our policy for not fifty years. Maybe, like, let's go with, like, twenty five to say, you know, in the next twenty five, do we wanna still be doing something just because it works now and we don't have a problem and no one asks for it? Or should we figure out how to make a process that we are going to need and maybe get in front of it instead of catch

Okay.

Let's get in front of it for multifamily, see how it works first before we make the modification to something that nobody's using anyway.

To the others. K. Yeah. So I guess my question would be, though, if we I mean, let's say we did do something like that. They're already having to create a whole new procedure type and everything for the city, but it would just be multifamily. But you're saying that it's smaller. Does that make a difference?

In a single use, will it make a difference?

Like that's they're creating a procedure type for one use.

And could that procedure that you create for that one use But then it did then be applicable subsequently, ideally? Because I'm I'm assuming your purposes are gonna be similar no matter the use, whether it's low, medium.

Yeah. I mean, I I think that if we are going the route of establishing an adjustment process, which a lot of communities have Mhmm. We do it very narrowly. Yes. We could broaden it to other zones K. If we just wanted to have it. So I yes. It could be broadened in that way. The only thing I would add too is just harkening back to the all or nothing approach. That's that's the only drawback.

If we don't if we don't switch from the the two tier path, we still retain that kind of you gotta you gotta choose one, and it's all all or nothing. So that's just one thing to to keep in in mind. But at the same time, I've heard you say if it's not broke, don't fix it either. So, but I do want there is that judgment call the developer has to make in the lower densities of picking one or the other and going all in on that today.

I think I the question that I hear that I'm hearing from Commissioner Kuhn. So tell me if I'm Mhmm. Saying this right, but I think your question is if we make this adjustment process for multifamily

Mhmm.

Is it really any less work doing it just for multifamily than if we were to do it for all residential?

I guess that's my baseline assumption is if you're gonna have to figure it out for one use, it's gonna be applicable to other kinds of uses, at least at some baseline. And whatever that baseline is, you can make it more or less difficult to meet the clear and objective standards depending on your use of high density rather than medium. But the baseline isn't going anywhere for the process. And I think I heard Kate say that she was asking about a policy and if we wanna make a policy suggestion to make that process be the intent of where we're going. However, we do it if it's we start with one use and if it's we, you know, apply it and figure it out where we need some adjustments and then put it on the other ones.

Sure. I I didn't, like, think it out that far. I just was like, do we want to be able to come up with that baseline? Because a lot of it is already there with your purposes, with your requirements, with your menu, even if you have to make a form or change it or do whatever.

I mean, I didn't figure out the nitty gritty.

I just I was trying to think too big picture, I guess.

So I think what you the city's asking us, though. You guys are asking us what we think the right approach for the code in future is sort of all inclusive. So I guess the question is, do we think we wanna go the adjustment route? Right? Or do

we wanna stay in

the two separate routes? We could try the mixed, leave some, do some adjustment. But, ultimately, are we trying to all get to the adjustment route? Yes. So that's the thing. So I guess is that what you guys are asking is where we like, the future ignoring, like you said, the grant and everything, is that where we want to be? And that maybe is the is that the question that you want to hear from us versus, like, us trying to finagle to fit it all in? You know what I mean?

Yeah. I think

that would be helpful. Yeah. Definitely. Yes. I think the question we asked was maybe a little more specific, but it would be helpful to know, like, generally, where do you fall on that spectrum of adjustment process, no adjustment process.

Okay. So, yeah, so maybe we are looking at something that would be the adjustment process. But if that was not able to be accomplished in the scope, maybe we could try for just the multifamily adjustment process. Right? Right. Just one piece of that. Reduces the scope, and it's something you're able to accomplish.

And then we can build off of that.

And then we can build off of it. See what the Maybe that's kind of it gives you it gives you a little clarity as to, like, maybe we'd we'd like the adjustment process, the modification process, but we understand that it may not be feasible just yet, so we'd like to maybe go forward with the multifamily as a higher priority. And then Yeah.

Let's just It can work to

the others if you have time. That seem Yeah. That seems to be what I'm hearing at least.

Yeah. He put both both policy questions up. So can we see what question two reads?

Yeah. Right. Yeah. Great. So question two.

It was if we keep two

Policy two.

Yeah. Like, multifamily housing. Like Yeah. No. That's what I

definitely saw. Oh,

goodness. Oh, look. There's Randy's.

He read the slides, but he knew. So I guess maybe that is the does that Alan, does that I mean, you haven't had a chance of anything.

Think it jumps ahead in their presentations, and

I think it would be

it'd be valuable to keep in mind that in the next section of this, the issue of senior housing is is addressed. And as the token, senior citizen on the commission.

Wait. What is all of them?

They're random sign. Yeah.

Just I I think I more than you are.

Nope. Okay.

Think it I think it behooves us to pay attention to the advantages and potential advantages of the two tier two tier system. I would hate to see us lose that ability to or adjustment and modification Uh-huh. Legally.

Mhmm.

And dig ourselves into a a a too strict environment. I think you're I think latitude has something to be said for it even though it may get messy and leave the litigation.

Well, at any point, if they didn't meet clear and objective and wanted to make a modification, they can request why it meets the purpose even if it's not exactly the way in which it was available in the menu is my general understanding of what this adjustment process would be.

Maybe a

Is that right?

Good question would be

That's right.

Say somebody did come to you with a project and they wanted to go with the, non clear and objective option. What would the process look like for that? Are they are they needing to come to you and say, this is what we intend to do and why we think it meets your criteria? And then every all of those design decisions would have to then be reviewed by the city for individual compliance and approved by a body like the planning commission.

Uh-uh.

What does the what does the process of going through that second pathway actually look like?

So I think I it's just very similar to what you said. K. I don't think that it goes to planning commission.

Uh-uh. But does it actually provide extra flexibility, or is it just putting the onus on them to basically argue why what they're doing meets the criteria that we would have been applying in the other approach anyway? Like, are we actually losing the flexibility that that you're wanting to preserve by collapsing it down to a single set of criteria with the options for adjustment and variance?

I don't know if this would be the example that Zach is getting at, but let's say you have a clear and objective criteria for a subdivision, but somebody wanted to do cluster housing. Now could that be adjusted and modified, or would that have that have to be more of a a bigger discretionary approval process?

Well, I don't I don't think so because per the state's requirements, all permitted forms of housing have to have a clear and objective pathway to approval. So anything that we can permit, in that case, cluster housing, would have to have its own path. That wouldn't be subject to a variance.

What if? Does the zoning and the housing are different?

If it's a if it's a specific housing type, if we're talking about cottage cluster housing, which is a type that's defined by state statute, then the city does have to have a cleared objective path for that type of housing. But there's this other idea of of cluster housing, which kind of predated the idea of cottage clusters, which is more like it's like a subdivision, but instead of kinda standard lots, you kinda cluster your houses to a little bit closer together so that you can preserve open space in other areas. So that and, yeah, I will say that land divisions are a little bit of a different animal than architectural review and design standards. So this adjustment process might not work for land division criteria. You might need to retain I mean, we'll we'll wanna talk to staff about this.

But even if you wanna go the adjustment route for housing design review, that might not be the way to go with with land divisions. But I I think I'm generally hearing, maybe not consensus, but kind of a unified a voice of support for this adjustment notion at a minimum for the multifamily housing because you wanna have, more flexibility for for that type of development. And I do think it makes sense to develop an adjustment process as opposed to trying to craft a new set of guidelines for for multifamily. Really, the the I think the work in many ways would be somewhat similar because you have to you're either developing the the purpose statements that say, okay. This is this is what we want the outcomes to be.

This is the intention behind the standards. You either need to state that in purpose statements for the standards or in kind of the in the design guidelines. So either way, you might be doing similar things.

I think it would be beneficial to have a have me go Please process. Big process. And close the loop. And by getting into the the issue surrounding policy question three

Mhmm. Policy question three.

Sorry. So that's that's the rest of our presentation. Right?

That's the next topic. Are we

Are do you guys still have OCAM where we've kind

of oh, have we given

you guys enough specific information kind of a general

I I think so. And I think what commissioner Parentini is saying is, like, let's talk through policy question three and see

if that impact Backs it.

Yeah. Exactly.

That's great. Mhmm. K. Let's move forward with your presentation, Kate.

Alright. The next topic is about multifamily and retirement housing in certain residential zones. So in the low density residential or RL zone, multifamily, as I mentioned, requires, conditional use approval. That can't be the only pathway for that housing type in that zone. And then retirement housing facilities require conditional use in several of the residential zones.

And just to point out, there are kind of different types of retirement housing that in the current code are somewhat lumped together, But some types of retirement housing or senior housing are really just it's really just multifamily housing, but it's just age restricted. So you have to, you know, be 55. Someone in the in the household needs to be 55 and over. That's usually what the requirement is. But, otherwise, it's really just multifamily.

But then there's there's other types that are more like assisted living or, you know, they're sometimes called or in the in the code, they're called congregate care facilities, which kind of in a different category. So for today, we're really just talking about just sort of age restricted retirement housing. Okay. So and we we need to do a little bit of work in the code to kind of define those more clearly so that it's clear what standards apply and what procedures apply to which which type. So the policy question three, should the code be revised to allow certain multifamily and retirement housing developments by right, you know, kind of with that clear and objective path, Or the other option, unfortunately, is to to prohibit those in the in the lower density residential zones.

So oops. We kind of developed a couple different options for you to think about. There's sort of an option a and option b. And then within option a, there's kind of these different flavors. So option a is to allow kind of a allow these uses on a more limited basis.

So allow either a smaller scale or lower intensity forms of multifamily and retirement housing by right in the lower density residential zones. And then you could still provide that option of conditional use approval if you wanna do something bigger, more units, higher intensity, maybe taller or larger. So within that, if you wanna get into kind of the the specifics, you could allow these uses by right if they remain at a moderate density. So really focusing on kind of the units per acre requirement. And you could you could go with the density that's equivalent to densities in other zones.

So for example, the RML, which I think is residential medium medium low density, you could allow multifamily up to 10 that that allows multifamily up to 10 units per acre, which is really a pretty that's a pretty low density for multifamily. And it allows retirement housing up to 15 units per acre so that you could sort of match the RL zone allowance to the RML zone allowance. And then, again, you could allow higher densities through conditional use. Option two is you could focus more on the kind of size of the building or number of units, so you could allow up to a certain, say, 20 units on a site, or you could regulate the total square footage maybe, although that gets a little hard to pin down. So kind of focusing more on scale, and you get a lot larger developments, through conditional use.

Or you could kinda combine a a one and a two, and have both a density limit and a size limit or, you know, number of units or other kind of scale controls. So that's option a and the sub options within that. And then option b, prohibit multifamily housing in the RL zone. I mean, one thing to consider is that middle middle housing. So duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, townhouses, the city is required to allow those housing types in that zone.

So you could make the policy recommendation that multifamily doesn't need to be permitted or you don't recommend, allowing it in that zone, And you could maybe justify that by saying, well, no housing is allowed. So that's that's enough. One thing that should be considered is that, if you remove the allowance for multifamily housing from that zone, you would have to send measure 56 notice, which is kind of a postcard that goes to every property owner in that zone saying, you know, there's a change to your zoning that could affect the economic use of your property. I can't remember exactly what it says, but there's kind of required wording. So folks will get that notice, and that could stir up some, some more responses from from people rather than just establishing different kind of density or scale limitations on the use.

So I think those are the that's the question is, what do how do we how do we approach this? And then if you have suggestions about kind of the specific specific different approaches within the kind of two main options, be happy to hear that.

Support, Randy.

Yeah. Kate, before you mentioned that this was just age related, I was imagining I guess there's some reference to congregate housing where there are cafeterias and rec centers, things that maybe are creating greater staff needs. But if it's just age related, and I'm gonna defer to the elder statesman here, but but I'm I'm thinking where my folks lived for a while, it was just independent living, and it was either you could either rent a single family home or a duplex and then eventually move into a high rise where you have the cafeteria. So are you just talking about the single family living and the duplexes? And if you are, why make any distinction on the density?

I'm I'm trying to understand how residential development that's specifically just age related for people 55 and older is different for a residential development for people 54 and younger.

Yeah. Good question. So excuse me. So if it were if it were really just a single family dev like a subdivision that was like a senior housing community or something like that, that would really just be treated as a subdivision. It wouldn't be subject to a different standards.

What we're really we're talking more about kind of a retirement housing development that's a multifamily development. So, really, we would we, I think, are aiming to regulate senior multifamily housing the same way that non senior multifamily housing is regulated. So whether we have, you know, certain density limitation, essentially applying the same density limit or, you know, close to the same density limitation to to both of those types. And then congregate care facilities are kind of in another category.

Right.

Our understanding is they're not subject to the cleared objective requirements because it's not really housing in the typical sense.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah.

But but if okay. Back to the to the senior housing development, I'm thinking of an apartment complex that might have a swimming pool, might have a little recreation room or exercise room. How is that any different from the senior complex that doesn't have the swimming pool but has the recreation room for, you know, whatever. I'm trying to understand what the difference is, why there would have to be different requirements.

I think I think we're I'm on the same page with you. Right? I I don't think that there needs to be, and I I think staff is on the same page as well where the, I mean, the code says one thing, but I think the city's policy maybe is a little bit different. So I think we would like to match the code with what you're saying where senior housing that's really the same housing type that could look exactly the same, have the same impacts, is really treated the same way that, you know, typical multifamily housing is treated.

I I can see, though, once you introduce a cafeteria or some kind of memory care or medical, you know, care, then it it jumps to a different category, and that's probably commercial perhaps.

If it has on-site staff required Yeah. Functionality, and that's different from just housing.

Yep. Yep.

Well, I'm trying So, basically, you're

just I mean, if we just think of it as approaching it the same thing, multifamily retirement housing, because I think that

Yeah.

They just basically are.

Yeah.

Right? And that's how I think everybody's wanting to see that unless somebody feels differently about that.

But does that address Did

you wanna see it treated differently?

I'm just trying to avoid the inference of segregation, in in in terms of how at what at what point are the needs of people in a certain age or aging category relegated to second class treatment. I I hate to even think of losing of leaving assisted living people behind because some of them live in facilities that are quasi independent.

Yeah.

So it's it's I think it's really hard to to draw black black or and or red lines around certain age categories here without without taking account of what we're saying about the future of how the aging population is gonna be treated.

The issue, to me, comes back to the staff. Because then you've got you don't have just residents coming and going from an apartment facility.

Which is independent.

Which is independent. But now you have you have workers actually going to a place.

That are different than assistance. So I I guess I'm trying to think of a thing here where you could be independent but have a disability where you need assistance and a staff, but that staff is not part of a facility, and a facility is not what we're talking about. And I know that at some point wherever you are along your health journey, you may or may not need to transition into a facility. But before you get there, that whole range of things before you get to facility should be able to be offered to you regardless of age or health or disability or independence in that residential low zone in a multifamily way if possible. I I don't know that I can think that we would restrict your options before you get to that transition into a a whatever we're calling facility or congregate care or whatnot.

Because separate from that, I mean, even if I'm not 55, I can only tell you right now how difficult it is to find somewhere to be that's affordable.

Yeah.

Because there's not a lot of high density housing where I only need a space for me and my kids to share a front yard with someone. And and, yeah, I don't know that age would be any part of the clear and objective standard anywhere in here.

I can't fathom that that would be part of it.

I think what they're asking is if someone wanted to develop something to meet that need of of aging population housing.

Were.

Targeted to meet that need. Mhmm. And they wanted to develop it within an area that has traditionally been zoned for low density residential use. Are we going to allow that as a default use of that land permitted by that zoning

Yeah.

Or are we going to prohibit it? And if we are going to allow it, to what degree can it vary from the other housing that is already there by default?

Yeah. Well, I I would imagine that with the, bid allowances in there, the conditional use, why why would there be a conditional use requirement? So RL zone was single family housing. Remember And RL. The last few years where it switched, and and now we have the duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes coming in. So it wasn't meant to be a multicoid cell or else it would have been

Right.

RML. Already.

Mhmm. The argument. So that's what

the initial use is. Now if you're taking away that option, do and the conditional use just gives you that or the the city that, ability to require things. It's gonna be multi dwellings in the in the zones are gonna have a greater impact than low density. So we just keep the staff in the city more options to say, you know, these are other things that we need before we can approve your project to come in here. Is it gonna be the right fit here? So, if I think the question is now, are we gonna switch single family housing or single family zones, which really don't exist anymore, and say, beyond fourplexes now, you can go to multi dwelling.

Under the con under the condition that it is reserved for the use versus 55.

Well, think That's why think there's two questions in here. There's two questions. It's the multifamily and the senior living.

We just Yeah. City to just calls it out. There's two options. Multi dwelling or that

Yeah.

The the senior housing. I don't think it really would matter if they're both gonna be multi dwelling, whether

it's seniors

or not in there.

Yeah.

I think that part must be erased. Doesn't really matter. Multi dwelling. Unless

you wanted to give some additional flexibility. Sorry to interrupt. But if if you did wanna give some additional flexibility to senior housing that you wouldn't offer to just a standard

That is standard. Because we anticipate an aging population and more difficulty accessing housing for an aging aging individuals. We know that this is this is a problem, that as you age, housing access and stability becomes more and more difficult than loosening the requirements, may making it possible to develop more senior housing at a higher density in an otherwise more restricted zone would hopefully make it easier for people to access the housing because more of it would be developed.

That's that speaks in favor of retaining a two tier system.

Or it speaks in favor of saying that for for specific uses, we would if if we weren't comfortable saying, yeah, we're going to allow multifamily in this residential zone, which I'm not saying I'm in or oppose, you know, favor of, but saying that we would allow, instance, you know, a higher density development that is reserved for use by seniors than we would for, just, you know, open commercial housing.

I don't know. We can so

So my question is, let's say that we did put down a clear objective multifamily within RL. Does that is a change from where it currently is, but we don't even have to notify any of the RL people according to what we don't have to notify them if we removed multifamily. Correct? As a conditional use.

That's correct.

My my fear on this is that if we and I know Ursula's concerned about this. My fear is that if we do that, all of a sudden, everybody comes back to us and says, look. All a sudden, the city allowed multifamily in the RL zone.

Yes.

And that's a change to them because even even if they that's what I'm saying, though. If if all a sudden, all these people hear that we all of sudden allowed multifamily because that's essentially what we're doing. Even if we, like, scaled it down Mhmm. I mean, maybe we could find a way to scale it in such a way that's similar to I mean, it basically would be Yes. RL. That's that's my concern is that all of sudden everybody comes back, and then that's what we hear about is that we all of a sudden put multifamily without notifying anybody onto the RL district. And I think that if people heard about that, that would cause a lot of upset.

People are up in arms about the fourplexes being

Yes. So I think if we all of sudden did that, it would be a big deal. So And so that's my concern

about option on there is the option of not allowing them in the oral zones to begin with.

Yeah. I

don't know

how we would justify that.

How do we

How in the world would we justify that with the requirements Location

and residential.

Required to have or You're not required. Types in RL.

Required. They are required. We still have the triplex and the quadplexes and stuff.

RL zone.

It's it's not required to have multifamily in the RL. Okay. But we would have to notify everybody if we did it. Correct? Correct. Yeah. Saying that we're gonna do this, but I'm just tracking down our understanding of this.

But if you use option a three or one of those there and you put a low density already on what could go in as multi dwelling, then it's financially not feasible to do anything. Purposely. To the panel. The multi dwelling, but it's a board plants.

Yes. Exactly. Right. That's what I'm saying. You could do that in such that even if people got upset that you put multifamily in, you had made it small, you know, basically the same as single family, almost. You know what I mean? You would scale it down so it'd like a quadplex or something. Right? So that's my concern, I guess, on that one is just the overall people.

Like, I

can picture the article already if it comes out that we did that. So keep that in mind. Right? Okay. Ray, what's your comment?

Hi. So even if we allow this, it would still have to go through the approval process. Right?

Yes. Yes. There there's still architectural review, so it'd still be subject to those design standards that we were talking about. So you have to have, you know, certain details. You have to orient your entrance to the street. That kind of thing would still apply.

Okay. I just I picture young people moving out of their parents' house being able to stay close to home but have their own space. And I picture seniors who are needing more support from family being able to live closer to their families in Tualatin and not have to move further out with being able to have access to different types of housing within our community. And that sounds like a pretty good thing to me.

Just just to add one consideration, middle housing types often can look like like townhouses, for example. You know, they're they're they're built in in kinda rows of attached units. It it those could be on separate lots, and they would be townhouses, or they could be, all on the same lot, and then it's multifamily. So it's a it's a little bit of an arbitrary line between the the form could be the exact same. The density could be the exact same, but one could be allowed and one could not.

So that's that's something to keep in mind is that I don't think it would be much of a change to allow multifamily if it was limited in in density and scale in in that RL zone. I'm sure folks will get upset about anything that is perceived as a chain potential change or a threat to their neighborhood. I mean, we saw that a lot with the middle housing updates. Functionally, I don't think it would actually be much of a change. And it's a type of development that is less likely to get built because the it just probably wouldn't pencil out.

I think I I think I heard one of you mention that. But it would be it would be kind of in keeping with the way the code works today, except just today, we'd have to go through these extra hurdles of the conditional use process, but the outcomes might be like, the part of the conditions of the approval might be that you have to keep it to a a lower density anyway.

Right. That I to me, that feels like the right approach because then it's at least functionally basically keeping it with what we kind of already have. Even if people do I mean, people will see that we put multifamily in there, but it functionally, it goes down to the same size as what's already allowed. So it's not really changing anything

Right.

Per se. And I know it's not making a huge difference, but there are options. Like Ray was saying, there, I mean, there's ADUs. Right? There's other ways that people do want to live by parents. And, like, there's a lot more options than there used to be, and we're still allowing all of that. I think it's the terminology that's sensitive in town. Right.

So it sounds like we're

Yeah.

Kind of starting to coalesce towards option a three here.

Yes.

Right.

Yes. I think I think option a three, keeping it functionally as low as basically you could get without using a conditional use permit, and then move forward with that. So you'd allow it, but restrict it down. Super strict.

I agree. It allows for the control of keeping our community the way we want, but allow for more diversity for our diverse population.

That generally consensus Yeah. A three.

I can look for that.

Does that feel okay?

And Yeah.

You would include the senior living and the multifamily in that.

Yeah.

I mean, separate but yet together sort of.

I think the separate but together part is very important.

Yeah.

Standards are the same for the multi thousand of the single living. Call that out separately.

I think Alan wants it to be separate because then it feels like there's a distinction distinction in case maybe somebody comes back later and says, you know, we're doing senior living. Is that what you're feeling like?

Yeah.

Maybe keeping it just so there's a title, so there's a recognition of the years. But does it necessarily I mean, what is Not because there's a

percentage of the zoning that is reserved for No. And it's specifically this

Maybe where this is leaking in is from option a one. Yeah. Read that where, there would be a greater density permit for development if it is devoted to retirement housing, which was kind of what I was getting at earlier as something that I liked because that increases the accessibility of that kind of housing, which is increasingly needed. Right. And it it encourages its development because then there's a there's a financial incentive for developers to take advantage of that higher density

I've seen. Yeah.

And develop housing that is going to be kept available to, individuals of retirement age.

I mean, with a three, we can include that part

We can. With that.

I'm just saying I like it as someone who hopes to reach a tire retirement age someday and, you know, be able to live somewhere.

Agreed.

Well and I think it it helps too that it says there in a way that this makes sense, Alan. It it's like multifamily is only 10 units per acre, which is still more than whatever a quadplex is. But if it's a retirement housing, which is a kind of multifamily housing, it could be up to 15 in that same acre depending on how you organize it to do it. No. I'm not even 65, and I don't wanna mow my front yard.

But, you know, you'll put more units on it so that there's more people in theory, I'm assuming, is what the idea would be maybe with retirement. Or people will show of that, retirement or multifamily, you'll have someone's kids, someone's grandkids possibly available next to each other. And who knows? Maybe the zone over is also high density where then they'll transition from my kids' house and my house to, oh, well, guess I gotta go next door to the facility. I don't know.

Because I'm thinking I guess I'm thinking over on Boone's Ferry. They have it independent over on the pool side, but then dependent on this side, and you're still able to be near where you are. And it's very similar and can be on the south side of the highway. There's independent housing that's 55 and over, semi assisted, and full assisted, but they're all in, like, I don't know, five acres.

I feel like that's a that is a a wonderful thing, and I think that that's a picture of what we might hope would be developed. But this is going to be a more broad strokes question of what kind of development do we want to incentivize through through policy choices on a very broad scale. Do we want more more individual units developed for reserve just for senior housing or multifamily or single resident use? And if if we wanted to increase the the density that we permit, if it is serving a perceived public good of housing, the elderly, then that that's a good way for us to make it pencil out better for a developer to come in and make use of that land, by by meaning that it's they're going to get more units per acre than they would if they put it towards a different use.

So I I need to be clear. Is that what does that then kick in the discretionary tract? If a developer wants to just build quadplexes for 70 year olds, Clear an objective. Don't worry about the age. But if he wants to build 10 units per acre, is that the discretionary path that's gonna be required?

No. That would just be that would be by this would be by right.

Mhmm. All the the Fed, whatever the standard is.

I don't have

I can't

go that far

because whoever brought up the issue about all of a sudden, it's kind of a sneaky way to increase density in a low density residential areas.

It is. Right. That's exactly right. Yeah. I guess my question would be maybe that's the if if there's demand for any sort of senior housing might be be a good question for these work groups you guys are going into, see if that's even a reality that there's anybody out there that would even build that. Is there any in town? Does anybody know of any

in town?

I mean, I know there's assisted living places, but I don't know of any I'm trying to think. I don't think there is. Like, King City is what I think of.

There's Right? Yeah. There I mean, there's

But I don't know of any in town.

I guess the question would be, are there any in town because there's not a demand for it, or have none been developed because it's not been

A thing. Because there hasn't

been a place for it

to Like be

like a a mobile park, but not like a more permanent than that.

No. I I think it's important to remember that we were drifting towards option a three, and option a three does encompass bill allowed. That Yeah. With option a three.

It just doesn't give the extra lenient leniency.

Well, it it it could. Might. Just depending on how we word it.

Yeah. That's true. Do we like option a three? Maybe talk to when you guys go to this work meeting, discuss if there's anything out there, demand. Yeah. Anybody would build it, and come back and let us know what you find from that. That would be maybe my Mhmm. Where I feel like you would get some good information.

Well, let me ask

a question. On along Boones Ferry Road, there are a number of churches that are on very large lots.

There's a lot of divide.

And I know from other experience, sometimes churches like to get involved with retirement, senior living kind of developments. So I I don't know how those church properties are zoned right now. Are they exempt from certain regulations, or would they be low density residential? I I don't know how they would be zoned.

So there isn't a specific zone or a church property. So it would be, like, whatever is around it.

Okay. Well, let let's let's imagine those churches are on low density residential properties because they're surrounded by low density residential. And and they wanted to build a senior development, a retirement development, and they wanted to go to 10 units per acre to make it pencil out. I know we we would get a lot of re if they wanted to just build 10 units per acre for, you know, just apartments or whatever, I I think we'd have a lot of people show up at a hearing, and I'm not so sure that the same wouldn't happen with the just a retirement center.

That's what I think too. I think you would have the same feelings because the density is what people care about.

Not even knowing they're necessarily Yeah. If you

want a higher density, just go to higher density zone.

I Yeah.

I think so. Can restrict that to make it functionally the same. It's the thought. Right? Yes.

And that's what we'd go for. I think it needs to functionally be the same. Functionally. Yeah.

Like, yes, multifamily, but it's Functionally the same. Well, it's like like Kate was saying, if you wanna divide it into a lot into a townhouse or just make 20 of them beyond one lot because that's what you did. Because that's where units isn't gonna matter. Whatever the other one is is gonna matter. The the density is It's

not clear in my mind right now how that would work. I'm thinking we're going from four units per acre to

With option a three, it allows us to put a restriction on both limit density limit and size limit. So if we word it the way that keeps that from happening of being oversaturated in an area, it can they have to meet within certain limits to keep it under overcapacity for the neighborhood, for the road congestion, things like that, we can have it worded to keep those things from happening.

I will keep an open mind, and I would like to see the wording on how that works.

Yeah. That's true. I mean, it does depend on the wording of that and to make sure that it does actually functionally work the same. Like I said, that's my concern on that one is definitely if it comes back and people are like, you guys allowed something that you you changed it, and then they don't even have to be notified. People are gonna be relevant.

Yeah. I Yeah. Right now.

It's density based or a lot size based or a mix of

both? I think

it's both. It's it's

because you couldn't divide if it wasn't a Yeah. There's a size. And then once it was a size,

you could There's a a maximum of 6.4 units per acre, and then I think there is a there's a lot size, like, minimum.

Yeah. There's minimum lot size and then your setbacks, lot widths.

So you have to figure out density then depends on figuring out how what how much you can put in there single family

Right.

In that area or four plexes or whatever. And then to say because loss size is out when you're talking about multifamily developments

Right.

So that you're regulating that density by how many units per

Right.

It gives you the option because you got both.

Yeah. Yeah. You could do both.

But with the church property example, if it's I was trying to look up really quick one of the larger lots. Like, it's zoned RL, then the density for that multifamily use could be, right, based on what we're trying to decide, could be the 6.4 maximum.

Right. Yeah.

Let let me try and understand something real quick, and forgive me if this is glaringly obvious. But the question here that we started with was, do we want to permit it, or do we want to ban it, right, and just not permit it? Mhmm.

And it

sounds like in a way what we're coming around to is we want to permit it, but only in such a way that it doesn't actually happen.

Well or it could happen, but it basically fits the same size of anything else that could currently go there. So you're not allowing, like, a big multifamily. You I mean, could call it self multifamily, but it basically would be like a quadplex. And basically be a quadplex.

I think the whole idea with conditional use, those single family zones so that it didn't happen. Such rare occasions. Yeah. The CU gave you that option to say, like, there's a for whatever reason, it's still zoned r l. Let's go ahead and put this

So real so, really, the answer to the question is, do we want to have more development of multifamily or or higher density housing in these areas where it's currently not allowed is no. We don't. But we would like to do this in such a way that we don't have to give notice so we would permit it, but then regulate it in such a way that it's never actually going to happen, or anything that would happen is going to be indistinguishable from what's already there.

Or what could be currently go there. Under under the new rules. Yeah.

Yeah. I you know, at the corner of 103rd And IBAC right now, because of the new state requirements in a single family zone, there's gonna be 27 units on, what is it, four acres or something. And that has created a whole bunch of heartburn just like doesn't require zone change, doesn't require anything to come before us, but the neighborhood got just as fired up as the people out on Norwood. And I I think in this with these new requirements in single family zones, we're we're gonna hit densities that are higher than most people want in single family areas. I I gotta I think we gotta be real careful about this.

And I I think that's where I I I landed, same as Randy. We just, like, per state requirement, just opened up a lot of the RL land to a lot more. And if we try to take it even further than that, like, not be happy with us. Right.

But then we're losing the part we liked about being able to have more available housing for elderly, new, on the road. Think you're

not losing it because it's still there. That like, that's the thing is the undercurrent of the previous stuff has allowed more housing than is currently in RL. Right. We're just keeping with what currently even though it feels like it's not allowing it, it is there is more dense housing allowed in RL. To be

just the RL zone with this because there's a lot of different zones in the city. So it it doesn't mean that we're just saying that this is, yeah. There there's a lot of other options. I mean, that's the thing about zoning too is that as things start to increase in density, that's when you change the zoning of the lots, up zone them at some point.

Yeah. So But they could request a zoning chain, right, if they wanna

do this. Yes.

What they purchase. Purchase Yeah. The churches could request the exchange, which we did allow on the

That's right.

Right? That's right. Yeah.

Yep. And then that's the process that brings the community in instead of, you know, knowing this or Right. It makes sense. If you're looking at what happened on Norwood

Yes.

We're now seeing the impacts of that that's been really great about the proper service.

And we went from ultra high density to, what, medium density is where it finally landed in a in a really a low density area.

In which case to me, it seems like, really, what what what we ought to be doing is saying, no. We don't want to permit this. If someone wants to develop this sort of thing in this area, what they need to do is apply for a rezoning.

Yeah.

Think so.

And then what we ought to do then is let people know if you're gonna want to sell this to someone who's gonna do this or if you wanted to do this, you're going to have to ask. So we should send out the

So you're voting for the I'm whole restrictions, send out the notification.

If the if what we're coming around to is either, a, we want to permit it, but not really, or, b, just admit that we don't want to see this development in these places and that the remedy for that that we would like people to follow is to apply for a zoning change, then we should go through the option that actually provides that notice of what's functionally going to be true to the community and keep it as simple as possible. Yeah.

I I think people with a three is still fine.

If Mhmm.

If someone's gonna develop multifamily developers can read a if you put option a three in there with the density and stuff like that, multifamily developers know how to read that, figure

out what's gonna

go in there

or not. That's not gonna be, like, a a shocker for them.

Probably, must stick to make it there. I

mean, nobody's selling RL land right now with the idea that

And and I agree with you. I'm just I I I feel like it's It may be true that the that the developers can read that and understand it, but it's it still feels like we're it does not feel like an intellectually honest use of policy to say, yes. We're going to permit it, but then structure it in such a way that it will never actually happen when really what we want people to do is simply to change it to a different zone if that's the actual way that would be developed in that direction.

That's kind of what we got handed when they said you can't have a CU any longer.

That may be true, but then we ought to make the policy, I think, legible, readable, and understandable. I mean, I my job before Habitat was working in in affordable housing development management for the county. So, like, I I like policies that are straightforward and say what they mean.

How did multifamily end up on RL as a conditional use? Do we know? I don't even know when that happened. Was that during the housing redo, or has it always been there as a conditional use? Do you know, Akola? I don't know.

The pre board, they put those apartments across from the Southern Right. Water. They took out the mobile home.

No. I don't think so.

That was not then.

I was here. That was not then.

That wasn't then?

I mean, because they took

those ones out. No. There was that was a zoning change of

what was in

big area because one area was sent to be, like, commercial, and we had to bring it into being residential, but that was not when that happened. Okay. Okay. That was the zone. If we're worried about what the what

the public is going to think and we're our concern is the people that currently are living on low density housing.

Get a letter. I was gonna say if if they got if they're worried that sending out a

letter saying this land is not eligible to be developed into higher density housing, it sounds like that's just going to make them extremely happy.

Yeah.

Like Be in the streets.

Like, that that's not the most part that I'm worried about. Yeah.

It's true.

The the only thing is, like, Kate said, there's a chance that people be confused and be

like, yeah. This is the city doing what I wanted them to

do. And in that case, like, that that feels like the the the straightforward and actually, like, if that's what we're functionally wanting to happen, then we should just have the policy say that outright.

And then just send out the

And then just send out the letter saying this is what it's going to be. Yeah.

How do you guys feel over here? Which way are you gonna

I I'm I'm real leery about allowing higher density in the low density zone.

Yep. So you're liking just outright ban it with the with the with the letter?

Well

I I I could be fine with that too because you're right. I think people would feel positive about that, and it's basically what we're functionally doing anyways.

But without us having to figure out a way to write a complicated policy.

That it didn't cover everything or nothing.

And the reason for that is because of the house bill 2,001 or whatever it was, it increased the density allowable in the low density zones already. And I'm trying to imagine in the now that we've got autumn sunrise developed out where there are chunks of land, this is all gonna be infill stuff. And it's all gonna be in somebody's backyard, and that's gonna create privacy issues and congestion issues and the whole ball of wax. And I I just I'm leery of going down that road. If somebody wants to try a zone change, that's that's fine. But Yeah.

You get input on it. Yeah. As I said, if we start having end built, it's it's good to start it piecemeal, and it's smaller.

Yeah.

So I think putting that max at the fourplex is great. So as things start to change over to duplexes or fourplexes down the road, then it's not as bad saying that now we're gonna go to multi dwelling down the road. Yeah. The townhouse

No.

It's the main. You

got

a large enough lot to do a townhouse development. Just rezone it or do how they did it I don't like bike.

Okay. So how are we feeling about going with the outright removing multifamily, and it would be the senior too from RL and carrying forward with that. I think this will go to the city council, and they may struggle to figure out how we got to that conclusion. But I think maybe maybe you guys could explain how we kind of our rationale behind

getting there. Personally, I would like I would actually like to see these things opened up from for higher density development. I think it's going to be necessary, and I think it's going to be realistic that we have that kind of development moving forward. But if the plan is that if if and it doesn't sound like this body is largely in favor of that. If the plan is to move forward in the direction where we keep it restricted, I would just like that to be very, very clear and, you know Yeah. As straightforward

as possible. I I feel like taking that on is beyond I let me speak talking about beyond the scope of this project. I feel like taking on trying to add more housing to, like, lower residential as part of this feels beyond the scope of this project to me. And so Because we're trying to meet the state standards, all of sudden, we ended up with, like, you

know, through and tell people it's Walton, we're gonna up zone everybody's land, and we're gonna make you all RM or medium density, then they're gonna there's a lot of

people Yeah. And and there's there's

like I said, there's there's a lot of reasons not to do that, and and it like, I'm I'm not going to to fight against the rest of the commission just because I like the idea of playing with that. But if if if the if the direction we're going to go in is to functionally prevent that kind of development from happening, I'd rather see it happen as a straightforward you would have to change

Straightforward thing.

Yep. Rather than Yeah.

I agree with that. But if they're if you're gonna do it, do it straightforward as a as a thing that you're trying

to give permission and then make it functionally impossible through policy. That just doesn't strike me.

I would tell you, I was in a jurisdiction that the the jurisdiction rezoned an established R 1 neighborhood to R 2. And that was a fight, but it was a fight that the city won. Mhmm. And then the city increased later increased the density in R 2 citywide, and that created all kinds of issues. Because the folks thought they were getting R 2 at some level, suddenly it was changed to another level, and it's just it's not it's not honest, like you said, Zach. Yeah.

I feel like if we did it during this project, it's sort of slipping it in Yeah. Under the pretense of something else a little bit versus having its own thing where, like, we're gonna increase the density Let it let it the URL. I feel like that should be its own set thing if we're gonna do that, not slipped in under something like this.

And it's the clear and objective update that has surfaced this anomaly. And Yeah. Crazy. So yeah. Okay. Okay? So Although

it feels weird, I feel like ban it. Like like, the vote to

ban It does feel super weird because I didn't think we're gonna go there. But okay. So do we do we need to vote

on this or not really. You're sort of feeling our

Just wanna make sure that, there's basic consensus Yeah. Majority of you that Okay.

So Yeah.

What I'm hearing is is I think I've heard from an for sure, two, maybe three that you wanna go with, not allowing multifamily, striking it, prohibiting it from RL. And so if there's some head nods on that Like, not even a conditional use anymore?

Not even a conditional use removed because it's not clear objective.

That if they want to develop it in those areas Just

have to rezone.

To be a a change in zone.

They have to rezone.

I hear you.

Yeah. Which I I know. I know. It feels weird if we ended up there.

Right? I'm That was a way of doing things forever was you up zone it. And then that gives the the people that's the democratic process. It gives people around more of a chance to be part of that and to say, you know, this when you start allowing things in there by right to huge levels or something drastically different, like, around or accustomed to or used to. They forgot to go crazy about it.

I can't hear you.

Oh. Is your speaker

Sorry. Here.

Here. Hand this over.

It's all on. It's just distant here.

Terrible raspy voice today. So I I think that I mean, we're arguing about trying to upzone low density, and I don't think that from what I hear from people living in Tualatin and I'm I'm somebody I'm a planner, so I like density from Mhmm. So many different ways. But when I want to have density, I live in Portland. Living out here is low density. The majority of people out here right now, low density. So if we're gonna increase density, you do it slowly over time. For other reasons too is the infrastructure that needs to go in there from

along with it.

Yeah. It's all gotta be ready to go. I it's terrible to see the the development down there. You're out of Sunrise and and playing back with the

Incrementalism for the win.

Transportation down there is ridiculous.

So

It means that we're never gonna do this.

Right.

I think it means that at this moment, it doesn't feel like this is part of this project to increase. But that's what we're saying. And you could be saying something different, Ursula, and you can be feeling different about it because I No. I'm Yeah. I know. I know. Because Ursula, you and I are in the same position.

We would like to see greater density development occur that we think it's gonna be necessary, but just this isn't the way to do it. We should keep the zoning differences clear and and understandable.

I could keep the zoning differences clear and understandable if there is an inherent understanding that at some point, it is going to have to

We are going it is going to have to be rezoned. It can't stay the same.

It's inconvenient.

Yeah. Nobody wants to change. I get it. We got told we had to, so we figured out how. When we figured out how, then we're like, but, actually, no, which is here we still go back to. Well, we'll just prohibit it. And I'm like, okay. Well, so we're back where we started. I I

We are back where we started, but at least it's on an honest position rather than

Yeah.

I I can't Does it make you feel better to do the option three because at least it's in the code?

That That at some point, it's not happening.

Could it could

be altered within their code. I think it's

Oops. Sorry.

Go ahead, Greg.

I agree that if we're going if we did option a, any one of them, if we were going to make it so difficult that it was not actually functional, viable, or honest for people to developers or people, whoever, to make those changes to those properties, then it is a better choice and more honest to our city to do option b and not make a change now. But I fully agree that with population growth, with the density of just our community in Tualatin with people's families expanding, we are going to need higher density housing. But we are also gonna need the transportation to go with it. So if those things are outside of the scope of this project, then option b is what works best now. Focus on the other things we need to and then come back to it when it's time.

And we can make the recommendation to the city that they seriously consider upzoning these areas for future development.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And putting transportation and other community access in line to build up to this point.

With a date. Right? I mean, not a date, but, you know, ten years, fifteen years for the the five year plan, the ten year plan, the whatnot. Agree.

So I think that could go that could go to the city council, but we we would like to pursue that. We don't necessarily feel that this is a this project, But that there's some Bring

it to us.

There's some belief that they would like to see some change in so I do I do just wanna point out. There has been a change in RL. So you guys know that. Right? Okay. Okay. I just wanna make sure he's aware.

So We are aware.

Okay. Yeah. It So has changed. It's not all the way to multifamily, but it has changed where it was. But, yes, I think it's strict to take the city. And, I mean, if we all agree on that that say that, you know, understand there's fine. There needs to be some changes in the RL zone. I would like to see it in a way that gets more community involvement and not just snuck into

Right. Right.

A little bit. I don't like that.