North Bethany Workgroup Coordinating Committee Agenda · Concept Plan. Therefore, Section 410 and Section 426 will continue to apply in lieu of Proposed Section 831 (with the exception

North Bethany Workgroup Coordinating Committee Agenda

Thursday, June 17, 9:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. – Meeting #3

Washington County Sheriff's Office Training Rooms B & C 215 SW Adams Street, Hillsboro

Meeting Objectives:

Discuss Progress of Workgroups 1, 2 & 3 Review Agreements in Principle Address Overlapping Workgroup Issues Review Ordinance Implementation Draft Framework Provide Opportunity for Public Input

Agenda Items:

1. Welcome, Introductions, Agenda, and Updates

2. Workgroups’ Progress, Agreements in Principle and Overlapping Issues

3. Ordinance Implementation Draft Framework

4. Next Steps / Other Issues

5. Public Comment Period

Next Meeting:

Combined Workgroups Meeting – Tuesday, June 29, 9:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. Washington County Sheriff’s Office, 215 SW Adams, Training Rooms B&C,

Hillsboro

WORK GROUP 1 UPDATE Issues Where Consensus Has Been Reached 1. Designate the following lands with a residential district and apply a Protected Lands Overlay

denoting that, per Title 11 methodology, densities were not attributed to these lands and are therefore not buildable. Goal 5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Goal 5 wetlands CWS Vegetated Corridor Floodplain Drainage Hazard Area + 25% slopes (see Item #2 under Issues Remaining Under Discussion)

2. CWS Drainage Master Plan revision addresses coordination between CWS and THPRD

regarding trail and stormwater facility locations and land acquisition and easements. 3. Decision by Workgroup 2 to use the existing code when it is consistent with the adopted

Concept Plan. Therefore, Section 410 and Section 426 will continue to apply in lieu of Proposed Section 831 (with the exception of the section requiring Low Impact Development Approaches pursuant to the North Bethany Drainage Master Plan and Section 831-6 addressing potential landslide hazard susceptibility areas. Section 410 will be amended to incorporate these two sections).

4. Land development restrictions pertaining to slopes greater than 15% were removed from

Proposed Section 831 (lot size maximums no longer required on slopes greater than 15%) Issues Remaining Under Discussion 1. Potential Landslide Hazard Susceptibility Areas

Staff presented proposed Section 831 to the workgroup at meeting #3. Some participants requested staff to reconsider the disclosure statement and provide a

process to amend the maps. Other participants expressed interest in retaining the disclosure statement so that risks and mitigation steps are transparent to prospective purchasers. Staff continues to gather information regarding the disclosure statement and have said that they can consider removing the disclosure statement, unless a compelling reason exists to retain the statement.

The proposed applicability language references the potential to make map amendments, though the section does not prescribe a process for making the amendments. Staff is looking into whether and how map amendments can be made, but is hesitant to allow map amendments to these maps that are derived from DOGAMI studies and at a regional scale. In addition, the purpose of these maps is to identify areas that require an engineering and geology evaluation to determine if specific construction practices are needed to address site characteristics. The requirements are not intended to prevent development. They are intended to be proactive and identify design and/or construction solutions where any constraints exist. The maps assist the Building Services Division in deciding when to request such engineering and geologic evaluations. The maps do not identify actual risks nor do they prohibit development.

Status of Work Group 1 Issues June 14, 2010 Page 2

Actions: Staff will schedule a briefing with the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the role

of landslide hazard susceptibility mapping for North Bethany and other New Urban Areas (West Bull Mountain and Cooper Mountain)

Staff will provide a revised Section 831-6 to workgroup members for review and continued discussion.

2. Slopes greater than 25%

Upon review of the Draft Protected Lands Overlay, there was confusion whether greater than 25 percent slopes should be buildable and whether density transfers would be allowed. Staff are reviewing intent and purpose of the Protected Lands Overlay

Actions: Staff will confirm the Protected Lands Overlay intent and purpose with regard to greater

than 25 percent slopes and density transfers. (attached)

3. Park Location Criteria and Flexibility Staff and workgroup members have discussed neighborhood park location criteria at

meetings 4 and 5, and will discuss again at the sixth meeting. THPRD provided red-lined suggestions to the workgroup, which were discussed without final agreement at the fifth meeting. Concerns dealt with the level of flexibility and feasibility. The group recommended establishing two sets of location criteria: "shalls" are mandated and "shoulds" are guidelines.

Actions: County staff and THPRD will coordinate to develop draft location criteria. County staff will present revised draft criteria to workgroup members in advance of the

June 24th workgroup meeting. County staff will prepare a summary of the adopted Concept Plan requirements for parks

for the June 24th workgroup meeting

4. Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendment (PAPA) Some members commented on how land use designation boundaries can be adjusted and

whether minor adjustments anticipated in the North Bethany Subarea Plan would trigger a post acknowledgment plan amendment

Actions: County Counsel is discussing concerns with a West Hills attorney. Staff will present workgroup members with a written summary describing how

development can proceed without requiring a PAPA.

Issues To Be Discussed 1. Noise Mitigation and Building Orientation

Noise mitigation standards were an issue that was moved from Workgroup 2. The issue is how to mitigate for noise along arterials and collectors (general design element 3). Building orientation is a factor in how noise is mitigated and has been added to the discussion topic.

Actions:

Wpshare\NorthBethanyAdoption\S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\NorthBethanyAdoption\Workgroups\Coordinating Committee\June meeting\WordDocs\WG1_issue_summary061710.doc



Staff to prepare materials for distribution in advance of June 24 Workgroup 1 meeting. Discuss at June 24 workgroup meeting

2. Park and Ride Lots

This issue was moved from Workgroup 2 and is on the schedule for the June 24 Workgroup 1 meeting to discuss suitable locations and standards.

Actions: Staff to prepare materials for distribution in advance of June 24 Workgroup 1 meeting. Discuss at June 24 workgroup meeting

Attachment: Protected Lands Overlay - Follow Up Regarding Slopes Greater Than 25% Date: June 15, 2010 At the end of the June 10, 2010 Workgroup 1 meeting there was an outstanding issue related to the following questions: 1) Are slopes greater than 25% are buildable? and 2) Is density transfer permitted in the Protected Lands Overlay? A review of the meeting materials from the second workgroup meeting (when the topic of designations for constrained lands was initially discussed) yielded a staff conclusion that slopes greater than 25 percent are not buildable and density transfers are not allowed. A summary of this understanding is provided below. Please contact us and indicate whether you support this approach or if you have concerns. If the latter, please e-mail your comments along with an alternative proposed solution. You are also welcome to discuss this at the Coordinating Committee meeting on the 17th. Summary In reviewing the materials provided at the second workgroup meeting (May 13, 2010) staff concluded that slopes greater than 25 percent are not buildable and density transfers are not allowed. This is based on the following points:

The Planning Commission and Board decision to calculate net density using Title 11 methodology

Title 11 methodology considers slopes unbuildable No density is attributed to slopes greater than 25% for Title 11 purposes Therefore, density transfers are not appropriate (for all resources designated with the

Protected Lands Overlay) As shown in the Summary of Constrained Lands Table distributed at the May 13, 2020 workgroup meeting (and attached), constrained lands include floodplains, drainage hazard areas, CWS vegetated corridor, Goal 5 wetlands, Goal 5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and greater than 25% slopes. Workgroup members agreed in principle that these lands would have an underlying residential land use district, but development would be restricted through the use of an overlay. The alternative option consisted of applying the Institutional designation to these lands, which would clarify that residential densities were not attributed to these lands pursuant to the Title 11 density calculation methodology. The draft Protected Lands Overlay shared with the workgroup last week included a reference to Section 405 for the slopes greater than 25%. Section 405 may not be the appropriate code section to reference. Staff is looking into whether to incorporate standards into the code or the North Bethany Subarea Plan in order to address the following elements that are relevant to development adjacent to slopes greater than 25%:

The land associated with slopes greater than 25% does not need to be dedicated to the public or owned by a HOA. Instead, these areas could be included on the plat of a residential lot that is contiguous to the sloped area.



Ownership maintenance (Section 405-5) would apply if dedicated to a public agency or owned by an HOA. Private lots would not be subject to maintenance and ownership maintenance (Sections 405-4 and 405-5).

Lastly, while density transfer is not permitted in slopes greater than twenty-five percent, for slopes at twenty-five percent or less the density can be allocated to other areas of the same lot. Certain restrictions would apply, such as not allowing density to more than double on that portion of the site that receives the density allocation.

Summary Table of Constrained Land Areas in North Bethany and Discussion Options for Consideration

May 7, 2010

Feature Existing Comprehensive

Plan Representation (and

Relevant Regulations)

Refinement Process Adopted Ordinance

No. 712-A (including

Concept Plan)

October 2009

Concept Plan

Map Depiction

Ordinance No. 730:

Option A

Ordinance No. 730:

Option B

Land use

designation

approach

Underlying land use district (e.g.,

residential) with general location

of resource areas mapped in

Comprehensive Plan or

incorporated by reference.

Some features (i.e., Goal 5 habitat, floodplain, DHA)

carried over from existing Comprehensive Plan maps.

Other features (i.e., Goal 5 wetlands, steep slopes)

mapped using best available data.

Carry forward existing mapping

system for all designations, with

new data incorporated. Articulate

constrained lands with distinct

land use district that is non-

residential (e.g., Institutional).

Allow boundary refinements of

land use district at development

review stage.

Carry forward existing mapping

system for all designations, with

new data incorporated. Use

underlying base zoning and

articulate constrained lands with

restrictive overlays.

Allow boundary refinements of

overlays at development review

stage.

Floodplain FEMA 100-yr flood map,

incorporated by reference

(Community Plans & CDC

405, 421 apply)

Delineated at

development review

stage & reviewed by

County Drainage

Engineer

Designation & standards

carried over from existing

Comp. Plan

Not mapped* Current data incorporated

into selected land use

district boundary

Current data incorporated

into new Constrained Lands

Overlay

Drainage

Hazard Area

(DHA)

FEMA 25-yr flood map,

incorporated by reference


405, 421 apply)

Delineated at

development review

stage & reviewed by

County Drainage

Engineer



Comp. Plan

Not mapped* Current data incorporated


district boundary

(delineation for Bethany

Creek may be provided by

CWS)



Overlay

(delineation for Bethany

Creek may be provided by

CWS)

CWS

vegetated

corridor

(VC)

Not mapped; identified by

definition

(CWS Design & Construction

Standards apply)

Delineated at

development review

stage & reviewed by

CWS

Buffer area widths

estimated using most

recent topo data

Included within

Wetland (blue

stipple) area



district boundary



Overlay

o:\workgroups\workgroup 1\mtg2_051310\constr_lands_scenarios.doc






Concept Plan)

October 2009

Concept Plan

Map Depiction

Ordinance No. 730:

Option A

Ordinance No. 730:

Option B

utility

corridor for

planned

trails…

Addressed in TSP and

Community Plans

(TSP, Community Plans &

CDC Article V apply)

Shown on

“Park, Trails &

Pedestrian

Connections”

map

Preliminary facility locations

shown on “Park, Trails &

Pedestrian Connections”

map


shown on “Park, Trails &

Pedestrian Connections”

map

… and

regional WQ

facilities

Addressed on a site-by-site

basis

(CWS Design & Construction

Standards apply)

Determined at

development review

stage in cooperation

with CWS and THPRD

(land and/or

easements to be

purchased by THPRD

and/or CWS)

Assumed estimated 40-ft

width where facilities are

indicated

Shown in

Drainage

Master Plan


shown in Drainage Master

Plan


shown in Drainage Master

Plan

Goal 5

Wetlands

Water Areas and Wetlands

(light blue color) on SNCR

maps


405, 422 apply)

Delineated at

development review

stage & reviewed by

County Staff

Important wetlands

identified through Goal 5

analysis of LWI

(limited CDC 422 will

continue to apply for

stream crossings)

Wetland

(blue stipple)

(includes

wetland +

regulated VC

buffers)



district boundary



Overlay district boundary

Other

Wetlands

Federal NWI map used as

reference

(regulated by DSL)

Identified &

delineated on site-

by-site basis at

development review

stage & reviewed by

DSL

Not mapped

LWI map used as reference

and delineated on site-by-

site basis

Not mapped

(identified as

part of LWI)

Not mapped



site basis

Not mapped



site basis

o:\workgroups\workgroup 1\mtg2_051310\constr_lands_scenarios.doc






Concept Plan)

October 2009

Concept Plan

Map Depiction

Ordinance No. 730:

Option A

Ordinance No. 730:

Option B

Goal 5 Fish

and Wildlife

Habitat

Water Areas and Wetlands &

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

(dark blue color) on SNCR

maps

(Community Plan & CDC 405,

422 apply)

Delineated at

development review

stage & reviewed by

County Staff



Comp Plan; designation

refined based on 422 WHA

report

(limited CDC 422 will

continue to apply for

stream crossings)

Not mapped

(draft WHA

report was still

pending)



district boundary



Overlay

+25% slopes Not mapped


410 applies)

Identified at

development review

stage & reviewed by

County Building

Engineer

Not specifically addressed

(initially proposed as new

overlay via CDC 831-7)

+25% slopes

(red hatching)


into new Steep Slopes

Overlay

(future workgroup topic)



Overlay


Potential

Landslide

Hazard Areas

(PLHA)

Not mapped N/A Not specifically addressed

(initially proposed new

standards via CDC 831-6)

Not mapped

(DOGAMI data

was still

pending)

Data mapped by DOGAMI to

be incorporated into new

PLHA Overlay


Data mapped by DOGAMI to

be incorporated into new

PLHA Overlay


* Floodplain and drainage hazard areas are also considered Water Areas and Wetlands (CDC Section 422) acronyms used

CDC = Community Development Code CWS = Clean Water Services DHA = Drainage Hazard Areas DOGAMI = Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries DSL = Department of State Lands FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency LWI = Local Wetland Inventory NWI = National Wetland Inventory

PLHA = Potential Landslide Hazard Area SNCR = Significant Natural and Cultural Resources THPRD = Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District TSP = Transportation System Plan VC = Vegetated Corridor WHA = Wildlife Habitat Assessment WQ = Water Quality

WORK GROUP 2 UPDATE Issues Where Consensus Has Been Reached 1. Density

A. How density is tallied - use Metro Title 11 (no density in Title 11 land categories; however, density will be permitted in future streets)

B. Use density range of 3,755 to 4,653 units C. Use existing land use districts to implement the adopted Concept Plan and above density

range D. To implement A and B above, the LD1 and LD2 Concept Plan designations will be

designated as R-6 E. Allow "cluster housing" through a density bonus and a new Type III Planned

Development (PD) process in the LD2 and MD2 designations 2. Create a North Bethany Overlay District and use existing Code standards to the extent they

are consistent with the adopted Concept Plan 3. Circulation and Block Lengths

A. Use Section 408-6 for block lengths and street circulation/connections in conjunction with Primary Streets and Community Plan provisions. However, will allow block lengths that exceed 530 ft. when the street system of a Neighborhood Plan is used

B. Require smaller block lengths in the Park Blocks area by a Community Plan Area of Special Concern (ASC). The ASC will also allow one less north-south to be provided than shown on the Neighborhood Plan.

C. Require a gridded street system in the Northeast Neighborhood by a Community Plan ASC.

D. Use the existing plan amendment criteria in the Transportation Plan for requests to move the alignment of a Primary Street more than 25 ft.

4. Create a Community Service designation map for the Community Plan that shows which

properties are eligible for community service uses (e.g., day care, church, private school) The types of uses and review procedure have been identified. How to ensure these uses are

provided over time has not been resolved. Issues Under Discussion 1. Standards for the proposed Type III Planned Development for cluster housing in the LD2 (R-

6 District) and MD2 (R-15 District) designations Staff proposed to the Work Group substituting new requirements for part of the existing PD

open space requirement for this new process because there will be public parks and trails in the planning area. Staff asked the developers and CPO representatives to provide staff with recommendations about requirements to substitute for part of the open space standard.

Status of Work Group Issues June 15, 2010 Page 2

E:\Workgroups\Coordinating Committee\June meeting\WordDocs\Work_Grp2_issue_summary_6-17-10Mtg.doc

The Jensen's, CPO 7 representatives provided the following recommendations about cluster housing in the LD2 lands: A) limit the amount of LD2 land used for cluster housing to at least no more than 25% of the total LD2 land; B) limit application of PD in LD2 to locations where LD2 is contiguous to MD1; C) limit the size of each cluster housing development in order to protect adjacent R-6 development; D) livability is the primary issue in the LD2 lands, therefore good design is necessary so that these smaller homes/lots will fit in well with the larger detached homes/lots that will be the predominant use in these areas

Action Items

Outline of new Planned Development process/standards for cluster housing in the LD2 and MD2 designations (the outline will provide the general direction of staff's proposal)

• based upon the adopted Concept Plan design, including the density transect • dependent upon providing work force housing1 (reason for density bonus),

maintaining the Concept Plan (e.g., distinct neighborhoods, density transect, Primary Street system, good design)

• isn't dependent upon providing all of the open space currently required by the PD standards (e.g., 20% of site that is 10 acres or less)

2. Standards for cluster housing standards

• Staff's 2009 proposed standards are based upon other jurisdictions standards developed to allow this housing as infill in neighborhoods with existing larger homes and lots.

• K&R has proposed a denser detached housing type to be developed on a larger scale. Staff is reviewing the City of Beaverton's proposed standards for K&R's housing type they plan to build in a Beaverton Light Rail Station Area. Staff will provide the Work Group with information about the city's standards and staff's recommendations about this housing product in North Bethany for the June 22 meeting.

Action Item Outline of cluster housing standards (will address K&R's proposed product) 3. Request by K&R to move the location of both Neighborhood Routes north of Road A in the

Northwest Neighborhood (being reviewed by Washington County) Action Items A. Comments from Washington County's Engineering Division

B. Changes to the land use designations to accommodate revised street locations (if new locations are acceptable)

4. The developers have asked that a new Planned Development process/standards also be

applied to all the MD and HD designations (R-9. R-15, and R-24 Districts) and allow a density bonus in all of these districts

1 Not subsidized housing; addresses Metro's Title 11 provisions about home ownership and rentals for working households. E.g, in North Bethany targeted occupations include academic and technical support professionals at PCC.



Purpose: intended to allow flexibility in implementing the Concept Plan w/out clear and

objective standards Action Item

Staff will prepare an outline of a new Type III Planned Development process/standards for the R-9, R-15 and R-24 Districts (distinct from the PD standards for cluster housing) that would provide more flexibility in implementing the Concept Plan by the followinging:

• Implement the adopted Concept Plan, including maintaining its density transect, distinct neighborhoods, and fundamentals of the circulation system

• Be dependent upon requiring work force housing (reason for density bonus) • Be dependent upon providing exceptional site and building design • Would allow density to move between the MD1 and MD2 designations • Isn't dependent upon maintaining the full amount of the current PD open space

standard (20% for sites 10 acres or less; 15% for sites between 10 and 50 acres) Action Item

Staff will prepare an outline of its proposal for review by Work Group members in advance of the June 22 meeting. Members are to provide comments and alternative proposals before the June 22 meeting.

Issues to be Discussed 1. Building Design and Variety Standards (attached is the 2009 proposed Code Section 834) This issue will be discussed by the Work Group for the first time on June 22. In order to help

bring closure to this issue on June 22, staff will prepare proposed revisions to Section 834 that take into account K&R's cluster housing proposal, the proposed new Planned Development processes/standards, comments about design issues made at Work Group 2 meetings, Work Group 1 comments about building orientation and noise (including fencing and/or walls along collectors and arterials), and 2009 testimony about building design. For example, proposed changes to the LD1 and LD2 designations would limit the use of these standards to building facades on a Primary Street or across the street from a park site; standards for cluster housing would continue to be provided in separate standards for that housing product.

Action Item

Staff will prepare an outline of its proposal for review by Work Group 2 members in advance of the June 22 meeting. Members are to provide comments and alternative proposals before or at the June 22 meeting.

2. Permitted uses in non-residential districts (Corner Commercial, Mixed Use area, Institutional

District) Action Item



Staff will provide members a list of permitted uses for review by Work Group members and Roy Kim in advance of the June 22 meeting. Members and Mr. Kim are to provide comments and alternative proposals before or at the June 22 meeting.

Other Issues (standards that weren't changed last year) 1. Housing Diversity and Work Force Housing A key component of the Concept Plan that helps provide a diversity of housing types and

work force housing is the provision of multi-family units in the MD-2 (R-15) and HDR (R-24) designations. To ensure these units are provided, the HDR designation is proposed to continue to preclude detached single family dwellings. Detached dwellings, however, are proposed to continue to be permitted in the MD-2 designation.

2. Private streets may be used for alleys, cluster housing, and small constrained areas due to

access spacing issues and/or site constraints (topography, flood plain, wetlands). All public streets would be maintained by the county's Urban Road Maintenance District. Long-term on-going maintenance and repair of private streets would be the responsibility of individual property owners through home owners' associations.

3. In order to provide usable outdoor areas for multi-family developments, these developments

would continue to be required to provide usable outdoor space (active or passive) in the required landscaped areas (15% of a site). Play areas, plazas, and outdoor seating areas are permitted types of landscaping.

Work Group 2 Recommended Density Range with Existing Land Use DistrictsJune 15, 2010

Recommendation: Mid-Point Density Scenario- Showing special PD provisionsUsing Existing Districts

Land Use Category

Adopted Concept

Plan Notation

County Developable

Acres

Minimum Density

(80% max)Maximum Density

Projected Minimum Dwelling

Units

Projected Maximum Dwelling

UnitsPrimary

Housing Type

Lot Size for Detached Products

Average Lot Size for

Attached Products

Low DensityR-6

previously LD1 127 5 6 635 762 SFD, duplex 5,000 sf 3,500 sfR-6

previously LD2 139 5 6 695 834 SFD, duplex 5,000 sf 3,500 sf

R-6 / LD2 - PD 7 9

Cluster Housing

via Type III PD process

Medium Density

R-9 previously

MD1 56 7 9 392 504 SFD, SFA 2,800 sf 2,400 sfR-15

previously MD2 80 12 15 960 1200

SFA, multi-family n/a 1,600 sf

R-15 - PD 16 20Cluster Housing

via Type III PD process

High Density - Specialty

R-24 previously

HDR 47 19 24 893 1128SFA, multi-

family n/a n/aR25+

previously HDS 9 20 25+ 180 225

SFA, multi-family n/a n/a

TOTALS 458 3755 4653

C:\work\Bethany\Group 3\revised_density_wrksht-6-15-10_FIX.xls 1

Excerpt from ATTACHMENT 1K Proposed Addition to Ordinance 712

August 5, 2009 Page 1 of 8

834 BUILDING, SITING AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 834-1 Review Standards

The Review Authority shall evaluate all building and site plans, including detached dwelling units, for conformance to the following standards:

834-1.1 The development is permitted within the primary district; 834-1.2 The development is sited to maintain all minimum setback and lot coverage

requirements; and 834-1.3 The development meets the maximum height requirements of the primary district. 834-1.4 The development meets all other applicable Article VIII and Community Plan

requirements. 834-2 Additional Requirements for Type II and Type III Development

In addition to the requirements of Section 834-1, all Type II and Type III structures and site plans shall:

834-2.1 Have a distance between primary structures on a single lot no less than the sum of the required setbacks;

834-2.2 When required by the Uniform Building Code, provide facilities for the disabled

pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, edition in effect at this time; 834-2.3 Incorporate design features which reflect or complement the surrounding structural

and architectural character through building style and materials. Use, in open space or park settings, lines and materials (including plant materials) which blend with the natural features of the site or site background;

834-2.4 Arrange structures and use areas for compatibility with adjacent developments and

surrounding land uses, using the following design and siting techniques:

A. Locate and design structures and uses not to obscure or degrade identified scenic views or vistas from adjacent properties and public thoroughfares, considering setbacks, building height, building massing and landscaping;

B. Orient major service activity areas (e.g., loading and delivery areas) of the

proposed development away from existing dwellings; C. “Street furniture” such as streetlights, drinking fountains, benches and mailboxes

shall be similar in design and materials to the buildings of the development.

834-2.5 Darkly tinted windows and mirrored windows that block two-way visibility are prohibited as ground floor windows, including windows in doors and garage doors.



834-3 Utility and Service Design

Type II and Type III Developments: A. Utilitarian functions (e.g., mechanical equipment, including HVAC, trash

compacting/collection, and other utility and service functions) shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building(s) and the landscaping.

B. Developments shall be designed so that utilitarian functions are screened from

public view (i.e., not able to be seen from adjacent properties or public streets) through the use of fencing, landscaping or other screening measures. Fencing or other materials used to screen these functions shall be architecturally compatible with and not inferior to the principal materials of the building.

C. Roof mounted mechanical, electrical and electronic equipment (HVAC, antennae,

etc.) shall be fully screened from view through the incorporation of parapets, screening walls, roof-top landscaping, or sight-obscuring fences which provide a full visual barrier from adjacent uses.

834-4 Storage

A. Single family attached and multi-family dwelling developments shall provide for the individual storage (i.e., in each unit) of articles such as bicycles, barbecues, luggage, outdoor furniture, etc.

B. Storage areas shall be completely enclosed and easily accessible to each

dwelling unit. 834-5 Energy Conservation Guidelines

Type II and Type III Developments: 834-5.1 Where possible, lay out streets and building lots for multi-family, commercial,

industrial and institutional developments to allow buildings maximum solar access, using techniques such as:

A. East-west street direction so that principal building facades will face south; B. Make configuration of lots to allow orientation of the front or rear of buildings

within twenty (20) degrees of true south in order to maximize potential solar access.

834-5.2 Where possible, design multi-family, commercial, and public services buildings

conducive to energy efficiency and conservation.



834-5.3 Where possible, subject to compliance with applicable review standards, design

multi-family developments so structures will not shade the buildable area of urban residential property to the north that is or will be developed with a single-family dwelling or a manufactured dwelling in order to protect solar access to these properties.

834-6 Privacy Guidelines

Type II and Type III Developments, where possible shall: 834-6.1 Design entry areas in residential developments to act as an outdoor extension of

each dwelling or transition between semi-public and private areas, using such techniques as:

A. Changing the level, color, scale, texture or direction of a path; and B. The use of gates, fences, doors and landscaping.

834-6.2 Design and cluster units to maximize privacy, using such techniques as:

A. Facing main housing areas toward garden areas, open space and exposure to sun; and

B. Placement of buildings to minimize the potential of windows facing directly

toward primary living areas of other units/homes. 834-7 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage Facilities

The mixed solid waste and source-separated recyclables storage standards of this section shall apply to new multi-unit and single family attached residential buildings containing five or more units and to new commercial, and public services construction that is subject to a Type II or III review procedure.

New construction shall incorporate functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source-separated recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers by complying with the standards of this Section. To provide for flexibility in designing functional storage areas, this section provides three different methods to meet the objectives of providing adequate storage space for mixed solid waste and recyclables and improving the efficiency of collection. An applicant shall choose one of the following three methods to demonstrate compliance: 1) minimum standards; 2) waste assessment; or 3) comprehensive recycling plan.

834-7.1 Minimum Standards Method

This method specifies a minimum storage area requirement based on the size and general use category of the new construction. This method is most appropriate when the specific use of a new building is not known. It provides specific



dimensional standards for the minimum size of storage areas by general use category. The size and location of the storage area(s) shall be indicated on the site plan of any construction subject to this section. Compliance with the general and specific requirements set forth below is verified during the site plan review process. A. General Requirements:

(1) The storage area is based on the predominant use(s) of the building (e.g.,

residential, office, retail, educational/public services, or other). If a building has more than one of the uses listed herein and that use occupies 20 percent or less of the floor area of the building, the floor area occupied by that use shall be counted toward the floor area of the predominant use(s). If a building has more than one of the uses listed herein and that use occupies more than 20 percent of the floor area of the building, then the storage area requirement for the entire building shall be the sum of the requirement for the area of each use.

(2) Storage areas for multiple uses on a single site and single family attached

or multi-family buildings may be combined and shared. (3) The specific requirements are based on an assumed storage height of four

feet for solid waste/recyclables. Vertical storage higher than 4 feet but no higher than 7 feet may be used to accommodate the same volume of storage in a reduced floor space (potential reduction of 43 percent of specific requirements). Where vertical or stacked storage is proposed, the site plan shall include drawings to illustrate the layout of the storage area and dimensions of containers.

B. Specific Requirements

(1) Multi-unit and single family attached residential buildings containing 5-10

units shall provide a minimum storage area of 50 square feet. Buildings containing more than 10 units shall provide an additional 5 square feet per unit for each unit above 10. Individual curbside collection for single family attached units may be permitted pursuant to Section 834-7.4 C. (4).

(2) Non-residential buildings shall provide a minimum storage area of 10

square feet plus:

Office: 4 square feet/1,000 square feet gross floor area (GFA); Retail: 10 square feet/1,000 feet GFA; Educational and Public Services: 4 square feet/1,000 square feet GFA; and Other: 4 square feet/1,000 square feet GFA.



834-7.2 Waste Assessment Method

This method tailors the storage area size to a waste assessment and management program for the specific user of a new building. It is most appropriate when the specific use of a building is known and the type and volume of mixed solid waste to be generated can be estimated. A pre-application conference with the solid waste coordinator for the Washington County Health and Human Services Solid Waste and Recycling Program and development review staff is required if the waste assessment method is proposed. The applicant shall estimate the volumes of source-separated recyclables/mixed solid waste generated. From this information, the applicant can design a specific management, storage and collection system. Techniques such as a compactor or cardboard bailer may be implemented to minimize the square footage of the site which must be set aside for a storage area. The waste assessment method shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the site plans. The plans must identify the size and location of interior or exterior storage area(s), specialized equipment, collection schedule, etc. required to accommodate the volumes projected in the waste assessment. The application shall demonstrate that the mixed solid waste and recyclables volumes expected to be generated can be stored in less space than is required by the Minimum Standards Method. The solid waste coordinator shall review and approve the waste assessment method as part of the development review process.

834-7.3 Comprehensive Recycling Plan Method

The comprehensive recycling plan method is most appropriate when an applicant has independently developed a comprehensive recycling plan that addresses materials collection and storage for the proposed use. This method can be used when a comprehensive recycling plan has been developed for a specific individual facility or for single family attached or multi-family buildings. It is most suited to large non-residential uses such as schools.

A pre-application conference with the solid waste coordinator for the Washington County Health and Human Services Solid Waste and Recycling Program and development review staff is required if the comprehensive recycling plan method is proposed. The comprehensive recycling plan shall be submitted at the same time site plans are submitted for development review. The applicant shall submit plans and text that show how mixed solid waste and recyclables generated by the proposed development will be served under a comprehensive recycling plan. The application shall also demonstrate that the mixed solid waste and recyclables volumes expected to be generated can be stored in less space than is required by the Minimum Standards Method. The solid waste coordinator shall review and approve the comprehensive recycling plan as part of the development review process.

834-7.4 Location, Design and Access Standards for Storage Areas



The following location, design and access standards for storage areas are applicable to all three methods of compliance: 1) minimum standards; 2) waste assessment; and 3) comprehensive recycling plan.

A. Location Standards:

(1) To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclables

shall be co-located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste. (2) Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building Code

requirements. (3) Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or

multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations. (4) Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on

the site to enhance security for users. (5) Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use

provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage.

(6) The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so

that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public or private streets adjacent to the site.

(7) Exterior storage areas shall comply with the yard requirements of the

primary district and the sight triangle requirements of Section 835-3.

B. Design Standards:

(1) The floor area of an interior or exterior storage area required by Section 834-7 shall be excluded from the calculation of lot coverage and from the calculation of building floor area for purposes of determining minimum storage requirements.

(2) The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers

consistent with current methods of local collection. (3) Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made

and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area. (4) Exterior storage areas shall contain all refuse storage areas within opaque

enclosures and gates, built with the same type materials as the development. Refuse storage areas shall be screened and buffered from residential uses.



(5) Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided.

Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position.

(6) Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type

of materials accepted.

C. Access Standards: (1) Access to storage areas can be limited for security reasons. However, the

storage area shall be accessible to users at convenient times of the day, and to collection service personnel on the day and approximate time they are scheduled to provide collection service.

(2) Storage areas shall be paved and designed to be easily accessible to

collection trucks and equipment, considering paving, grade of storage areas and vehicle access. A minimum of twelve (12) feet horizontal clearance and fourteen (14) feet of vertical clearance is required if the storage area is covered.

(3) Storage areas shall be accessible to collection vehicles without requiring backing out onto a public or private street (includes alleys). If only a single access point is available to the storage area, adequate turning radius shall be provided to allow collection vehicles to safely exit the site in a forward motion.

(4) Curbside collection of solid waste and recyclables from individual dwelling

units in single family attached buildings containing five or more units on a public or private street (includes alleys) may be permitted by the solid waste coordinator.

834-8 Submittal Requirements

In all development review applications which are required to conform to the standards of Building Siting and Architectural Design, or are required to demonstrate compliance with standards related to building facades, the following information must be submitted:

834-8.1 Site Plan showing the location of all proposed structures, including required storage

facilities for mixed solid waste and recyclables; 834-8.2 Building Floor Plans; 834-8.3 Building Elevations and Sections; 834-8.4 Building Materials for all nonresidential uses, except as specified otherwise by a

provision of this Code; and 834-8.5 Building Shadow Plan.



834-8.6 For new development required by Section 834-7 to provide mixed solid waste and

recyclables storage facilities, a written statement from the Washington County Health and Human Services Solid Waste and Recycling Program concerning the adequacy of the proposed method, design, location and accessibility of the storage facilities as required by Sections 834-7.1, 834-7.2, 834-7.3, 834-7.4 A. (6), 834-7.4 B. (4), and 834-7.4 C.

Project Number Road From To Project

Cost Estimate 8/27/09

ROW Estimate 1 Total MSTIP TDT 2

Supplemental SDC 3, 7

Existing T&A 4

County Service District 5, 6, 7 Comments

1 Road A Western Boundary Joss Build New Road $8,100,000 $1,200,000 $9,300,000 no maybe yes yes2 Road A Joss Kaiser Build New Road $6,900,000 $1,900,000 $8,800,000 no maybe yes yes3 Springville 185th Joss Improve $10,500,000 $600,000 $11,100,000 yes yes yes $1,400,000 maybe

4 Springville Joss Kaiser Improve $3,200,000 $400,000 $3,600,000yes yes yes yes

Some Cost Increase for South Side of Roadway

Expected

5 Springville Kaiser County Line Improve $5,200,000 $500,000 $5,700,000Not included in Total, Built

thru incremental development

6 Kaiser Road A Springville Improve $6,900,000 $900,000 $7,800,000 no maybe yes yes7 185th Springville West Union Improve $4,300,000 $200,000 $4,500,000 yes yes yes maybe

8 Road A Kaiser Springville Build New Road $9,900,000 $2,400,000 $12,300,000Not included in Total, Built

thru incremental development

9 Road A Build Bridge $7,000,000 $300,000 $7,300,000 no maybe yes yesfinal funding package

relates to urban or rural reserve designation

10 185th Improve $900,000 $0 $900,000 yes yes yes maybe11 Kaiser Springville Bethany Improve $5,900,000 $200,000 $6,100,000 yes yes yes maybe

12 Brugger Joss Kaiser Improve $3,100,000 $100,000 $3,200,000 no no* yes yesJoss / Brugger intersection

traffic calming to be examined

13 Joss Road A Arbor Homes Improve $3,800,000 $300,000 $4,100,000 no maybe yes yes14 P15 (Oats) Springville Brugger Improve $1,800,000 $500,000 $2,300,000 no no* yes yes

$62,400,000 $6,600,000 $69,000,000 $10,000,000 $24,122,280 $22,651,799 $1,400,000 $10,825,921

NOTES:"yes, no and maybe" describe the appropriateness of spending revenue from this source on a particular project* Facilities below collector classification are not eligible for TDT project list** In 2010 dollars, does not include projects 5 or 81 Cardno ROW Estimate 4/20/102 Assumes 75% of 4188 units, "maybe" means project would need to be added to TDT list; column is based on eligibility to spend revenue - credit eligibility determined separately3 Based on 4,188 units and $4,800 / unit average charge = $6,222 SFR, $3,810 SFA, and $4,369 MF (slight increase from 6/1 in all rates to keep same average - due to change in mix of dwelling types assumed)4 Only counting existing T&A, assumes: $1M from Arbor, + $340K Church + $60K THPRD5 "maybe" means project is off-site

6 Per May 21st K&R Memo, $1 per $1,000 AV generates $18.5M over 25 years7 Parties will work in good faith to develop the details of an SDC and CSD that is equitable and reasonable8 Individual project costs may vary slightly as more engineering is completed, however total of all projects is not expected to change significantlyUnder this scenario PCC to pay both TDT and proportional Supplemental SDC based on projected student enrollment (numbers assume 2,582 new students)Discussion at 6/7 meeting included possibility of some revenue being used for PE and/or alignment analysis of Road A and Kaiser Road

Bridge over Rock Creek

Intersection Improvement at Springville

TOTAL**

DRAFT REVISED PROJECT LIST - MONDAY JUNE 7

6/15/2010

Draft Elements of 2010 North Bethany Ordinance (Ordinance No. 730) June 9, 2010 Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area Policy 1: Planning Process

Amend Implementing Strategies w. and x. to address process and criteria for removal of FD-20 designation (not needed for North Bethany with the adoption of urban land use districts).

Policy 18: Plan Designations

Update to address special provisions for North Bethany (i.e., limited allowed uses, etc.).

Policy 40: 2040 Design Types

Add parcel boundaries to clarify location of Main Street Area

Policy 43: New Urban Areas

Clarify language in response to comments from Ord. 712 process regarding a few ambiguous terms. Add enabling language for North Bethany Community District and locational criteria for land use districts

Policy 44: Managing Growth

Update to reflect decision to use existing code and any necessary language pertaining to denial criteria

Transportation Plan Policy 10: Functional Classification

Update study area language for the Greater Bethany East-West Arterial Study Area regarding Urban-Rural Reserves decisions

Bethany Community Plan – General Map amendments Consistency amendments to re-locate maps specific to North Bethany

to Chapter 2.

Chapter 1 text Housekeeping changes to correct street names.

Bethany Community Plan – Chapter 2 (North Bethany Subarea) General Design Elements

More explicit verbiage regarding locational criteria for flexible park sites

New maps & necessary text

Community Service Areas Landslide Hazard Susceptibility Areas Protected Land Areas

s:\plng\wpshare\northbethanyadoption\workgroups\workgroup 1\final_wg1_mtg5_061010\draft ord 730 elements.doc

Amendments for consistency

Park & Trails map – fixed and flexible designations Neighborhood Design Elements and Neighborhood Plan Maps Areas of Special Concern for Park Blocks and Northeast

Neighborhood Primary Streets Significant Natural Resource Areas Land Use Districts Local Street Connectivity

Community Development Code Article II Consistency amendments

Article III New Section 390 – North Bethany Community District (see attached

outline)

Article IV Amend 410 (Grading and Drainage) to incorporate: Landslide Hazard Susceptibility Areas LIDA and consistency with Drainage Master Plan

Article V Amendments to incorporate update to growth management development standards (denial criteria and assurances)


Draft Outline of Proposed New CDC Section 390 - North Bethany Community District For discussion purposes - June 9, 2010 390 NORTH BETHANY COMMUNITY DISTRICT 390-1 Intent and Purpose 390-1.1 The purpose of the North Bethany Community District is to … 390-1.2 The intent of the North Bethany Community District is to … 390-2 Applicability 390-3 Designation of the North Bethany Community District 390-4 Definitions

As used in this Section, the words listed below have the following meaning: 390-4.1 Word definition 390-5 Conflicts

Notwithstanding Section 401, in the event of a conflict between the standards of this district and the standards of any other provision of this Code, the standards of this district shall control.

390-6 Permitted Uses

Except as prohibited by Section 390-7, allowed uses are limited to those listed below. Unless otherwise indicated, the uses are to be processed in accordance with the procedure types and standards specified by the underlying district. These uses are subject to the public service criteria? and infrastructure pre-requisites? (not sure about this terminology) outlined in Article V (specific section to be referenced).

390-6.1 Density and transfers 390-6.2 North Bethany R-6 District – Permitted Uses

A. Accessory Uses and Structures – Section 430-1 B. Bus Shelter – Section 430-23 C. …

390-6.4 North Bethany R-9 District – Permitted Uses 390-7 Standards for Cluster Housing



390-8 Prohibited Uses

Structures or uses not specifically authorized by Section 390. 390-9 Parking Requirements

Same as required by Section 413. Any exceptions or special circumstances? 390-10 North Bethany Planned Development Process 390-11 Protected Land Designations 390-12 Community Service Area Designations 390-13 Park & Trail Area Designations 390-14 Main Street Area 390-15 Plan Refinements and Review Procedures

The purpose of refinement process is to allow flexibility in site design in order to accommodate changes that inevitably occur … Therefore, only limited changes are allowed through this process. These are summarized in the Table below. (summary table on flexible elements - e.g., streets, parks, trails, protected lands boundary)

390-16 Article IV – Development Standards

In addition to the requirements of this District, the standards of Article IV - Development Standards, including Section 422 (Significant Natural Resources), are applicable as required by Subsection 403-3.

Documents

North Bethany Workgroup Coordinating Committee Agenda · Concept Plan. Therefore, Section 410 and Section 426 will continue to apply in lieu of Proposed Section 831 (with the exception