HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 877 - Amending CPMC regarding ADUsPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 877
A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO AMEND THE VARIOUS SECTION SOF THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL
CODE ADDRESSING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES TO COMPLY WITH ORS 197.312 AND ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO ADUs AS
A HOUSING TYPE
File No. ZC-19001
Applicant: City Central Point
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2019 the Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing,
considered major amendments to various sections of Title 17 in the Central Point Municipal Code
(CPMC) addressing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and accessory structures as follows and as
specifically identified in Exhibit 1 (Staff Report dated November 5, 2019):
1. CPMC 17.08, Definitions
2. CPMC 17.60.030(A), Accessory Structure Setbacks
3. CPMC 17.64.040, Table 17.64.02A, Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements
4. CPMC 17.65.050, Table 3, TOD District and Corridor Vehicle Parking Standards
5. CPMC 17.77, Accessory Dwelling Units
WHEREAS, SB 1051 and HB 2001 (ORS 197.312) require Cities greater than 2,500 to allow at least one
accessory dwelling unit in zones that permit single family detached dwellings subject to clear and
objective standards, and with no off-street parking requirement; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element approved by City Council Ordinance 2057
identifies a need for increased housing supply and affordability and directs the City to develop a Housing
Implementation Plan to establish a short- and long-term strategy to address the City's housing concerns;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Housing Implementation Plan that includes Short Term Action
3.2.1, which includes amending residential zoning and development standards to eliminate barriers to
housing including ADUs;
WHEREAS, the proposed code amendments are designed to comply with state law in ORS 197.312 and
eliminate barriers to ADUs as a housing type in Central Point; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed code amendments have been reviewed against and found to comply with the
zoning text amendment criteria in CPMC 17.10.400 as demonstrated in the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law set forth as Attachment "F" in the Staff Report dated November 5, 2019 (Exhibit 1).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this
Resolution No. 877does hereby forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the
amendments as set forth in the Staff Report dated November 5, 2019 attached and included herein as
Exhibit 1, including Attachments "A," `B," and "F."
Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage on this 5h day of
November 2019. V
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
JAA S 4A4,11 -
it Representative
Approved by me this 5`h day of November 2019.
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: File No. ZC-19001
Planning Department
Dom Humphrey,
Community Development Director
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
October 9, 2019
Consideration of amendments to various sections of the Central Point Municipal Code addressing
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and accessory structures. File No.: ZC-19001; Approval Criteria:
CPMC 17. 10, Zoning Map and Text Amendments.
Staff Source
Eileen Mitchell, Community Planner I
Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner
Background
In 2006 the City adopted regulations allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in single family zones
(i.e. R -L, Residential Low Density and R-1, Residential Single Family). ADUs are smaller independent
living units on the same lot as a primary single family dwelling that provide more economical housing
opportunities for Central Point residents, promote efficient use of land and options for family needs. Since
adoption of regulations allowing ADUs, few have been built. Common barriers include but are not limited
to:
• Size restrictions result in units that are too small to be desirable;
• Off-street parking requirements are difficult to meet; and
• System Development Charges (SDCs) are cost prohibitive.
As the City continues to grow, housing supply and affordability will continue to be a concern. In response
to these concerns, the City has prepared draft code amendments to various sections of the Zoning
Ordinance addressing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and accessory structures (Attachment "N'). The
purpose of the code amendments is two -fold: 1) ease locally relevant barriers to ADUs to increase
opportunities for increased housing supply and affordability; and, 2) comply with ORS 197.312, amended
in 2018 and 2019 by SB 1051 and HB 2001, respectively. The amended laws require the City to allow
ADUs in all zones that permit single family detached dwellings subject to "reasonable regulations relating
to siting and design" (Attachment `B"). The proposed amendments have been discussed by the Citizen's
Advisory Committee (CAC) (September 10, 2019) and Planning Commission (August 6, 2019 and
September 3, 2019).
Description:
The proposed code amendments eliminate redundancies, address common barriers for ADU construction
and comply with ORS 197.312. Proposed text amendments include the following:
CPMC 17.08 Definitions
o Definition Alignment. Proposed code revisions provide definitions that are consistent
with those required by State law.
CPMC 17.60 General Regulations
o Accessory Buildings. Change setbacks from three (3) feet measured from the furthest
protrusion or overhang to five (5) feet from the building face. Proposed changes are
intended to provide clear, consistent setback measurement instructions for all structure
types.
CPMC 17.77 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
o Maximum Square Footage. The proposed change increases the maximum ADU size from
35% of the primary dwelling Gross Floor Area (GFA) or 800 square feet, whichever is
less, to 50% of the primary dwelling GFA or 800 square feet, whichever is less. As
shown in Table 1, the proposed change allows a more reasonable maximum floor area for
property owners with a primary dwelling that is under 2,000 square feet GFA.
Table 1. ADU Floor Area Comparison
o Square Footage Exception. Allow a unit built above a detached garage to exceed
maximum square footage requirements. This exception aims to remove barriers to the
development of ADU's above detached garagcs.
o Setbacks. Reduce rear yard setbacks from IOft to 5ft. These reductions are intended to
align with accessory building setbacks, which may eventually be repurposed as ADU's
upon request by property owners.
o Parking. Eliminate off-street parking requirements as required by HB 2001. This
requirement was implemented on August 8, 2019. The City learned of the new
requirement from comments on the draft amendments made by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) on October 22, 2019 (Attachment "C"). The
amendment to ORS 197.312 due to HB 2001 eliminates the City's ability to require
parking for ADUs and replaces previous language allowing on -street parking in lieu of
off-street parking under specific circumstances.
61
Current Code
Gross Floor
Max Floor I Max Floor
Max Floor
Max Floor
Area
Area % Area SF
420
Area %
Area SF
600
1200
1500
525
750
35%
50%
2000
700
1000
2500
875
1 1250
o Square Footage Exception. Allow a unit built above a detached garage to exceed
maximum square footage requirements. This exception aims to remove barriers to the
development of ADU's above detached garagcs.
o Setbacks. Reduce rear yard setbacks from IOft to 5ft. These reductions are intended to
align with accessory building setbacks, which may eventually be repurposed as ADU's
upon request by property owners.
o Parking. Eliminate off-street parking requirements as required by HB 2001. This
requirement was implemented on August 8, 2019. The City learned of the new
requirement from comments on the draft amendments made by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) on October 22, 2019 (Attachment "C"). The
amendment to ORS 197.312 due to HB 2001 eliminates the City's ability to require
parking for ADUs and replaces previous language allowing on -street parking in lieu of
off-street parking under specific circumstances.
61
• CPMC 17.64.040, Table 17.64.02A Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements
o Parking. The proposed change is required to comply with ORS 197.312 as amended by
HB 2001 signed into law and effective on August 8, 2019.
• CPMC 17.65.050, Table 3 Residential Off -Street Parking in the TOD District and Corridor
o Parkine. The proposed change is required to comply with ORS 197.312 as amended by
HB 2001 signed into law and effective on August 8, 2019.
At the November 5, 2019 Planning Commission, staff will present amendments to CPMC 17.05,
17.60.030, and CPMC 17.77 at a duly noticed public hearing for consideration by the Planning
Commission for recommendation to the City Council.
Issues
It should be noted that public comments were received during the discussions at the August and
September Planning Commission meetings in opposition to the proposed amendments (Attachment "D").
A number of concerns were raised addressing parking, neighborhood compatibility, impact of the
proposed code amendments on established Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and impacts
to the viability and success of the Twin Creeks Master Plan. Other comments addressed government
transparency and concern that the code amendments were drafted to benefit a specific property owner.
Each of these issues is briefly addressed below:
Parkin . hi the discussion drafts, City staff proposed measures that would offer flexibility to
locate required off-street parking to an on -street location in limited instances. This provision
acknowledged the SB 1051 recommendation that City's not require off-street parking while
addressing community concerns that adequate parking be provided to support new development.
Since the initial discussions occurred, City staff has been notified by DLCD that the law changed
on August 8, 2019 prohibiting the City from requiring off-street parking in association with
ADUs.
Neighborhood Compatibility. ADU impacts to neighborhood compatibility is a concern for
residents due to noise, light and visual impacts. Per ORS 197.312, the City may impose clear and
objective standards, such as building height, setbacks, and specific design requirements. The
proposed amendments propose a reduction in the allowable building height to 25 -ft consistent
with accessory structures regulated in CPMC 17.60.030. Similarly setbacks are proposed to be
reduced to 5 -feet on the rear yard property line mirroring the accessory structure standards. The
intent in proposing these changes is to ease common barriers to ADU construction by allowing
conversion of existing accessory structures that meet all life and safety requirements in the
building codes. All other design standards remain unchanged.
Impact to CC&Rs. Public comments stated a concern that CC&Rs would be superseded by the
City's proposed regulations. In accordance with a publication by the American Planning
Association, a Homeowner's CC&Rs, where more restrictive, "can control land use,
development standards, and other aspects of community management" (Attachment "E"). Based
on this legal primer, it does not appear that Central Point's proposed zoning code amendments
62
relative to ADUs will adversely impact a Homeowner's Association's ability to enforce its
CC&Rs.
Twin Creeks Master Plan. The Twin Creeks Master Plan was adopted in 2000 and includes a
land use and housing plan (Exhibits 18 and 35, respectively). Exhibit 35 lists the planned
housing types and numbers of units by zoning district. Accessory Units are identified as a
housing type in Exhibit 35. Although not expressly required by the Master Plan, it was
envisioned that a total of 82 ADUs would be constructed in Twin Creeks. These are shown
throughout the master planned development in the LMR (Low Mix Residential) and MMR
(Medium Mix Residential) zones. The proposed code amendments do not impact the ability of
ADUs to be constructed in Twin Creeks as envisioned. ADUs will continue to be subject to the
design standards, and lot coverage and landscaping requirements in the TOD. Proposed changes
lower the allowable building height but do allow relaxation of the rear yard setback from 10 -ft to
5 -ft.
Transparency. The City has initiated the proposed amendments in direct response to the City's
Housing Needs Analysis and policy direction to eliminate barriers to increasing housing supply,
diversity of housing types, and affordability. Additionally, these proposed amendments comply
with ORS 197.312, which was amended in 2018 and 2019. Property owners interested in seeing
these changes also provided comments at the August discussion. The code amendments were not
crafted to benefit any one property owner but to alleviate barriers identified over the past few
years.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The proposed zoning text amendments have been reviewed against and found to comply with the
applicable review criteria in CPMC 17. 10, Zoning Map and Text Amendments as demonstrated in the
Planning Department Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Attachment "F").
Attachments:
Attachment "A" — ADU Code Revisions
Attachment `B" — ADU Implementation Guidance from DLCD, updated August 8, 2019
Attachment "C"— DLCD Comments on proposed Text Amendments dated October 22, 2019
Attachment "D" — Public Comments received on August 6, 2019 and September 3, 2019
Attachment "E" — "A Planning Primer on Private Restrict Covenents," Planning Magazine, May 2019.
American Planning Association
Attachment "F" — Planning Department Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Draft)
Action
Consider proposed zoning amendments and forward a resolution to the City Council recommending 1)
approval, 2) approval with changes or 3) denial of the proposed zoning text amendments.
Recommendation
Forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council approving the zoning text amendments with or
without changes.
63
ATTACHMENT "A"
Chapter 17.08
DEFINITIONS
"Accessory dwelling unit (ADU)" means an Interior, attached or detached presidential structure that is
used in connection with or pr- Ades so,,,p!ete indepeF eec and thm sen,es tis an accessory
use to a single dwelling -tom. Accessory dwelling units differ from guest quarters, which do not
provide independent living facilities.
"Guest h uarters "means an Interior, attached or detached accessory building designed and used for
the purpose of providing temporary living accommodations for guests or for members of the same family
as that occupying the main building, and containing no kitchen facilities.
Chapter 17.60
GENERAL REGULATIONS
17.60.030 Accessory Buildings
Accessory buildings shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically
modified by this title and shall comply with the following limitations:
A. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential (R) district a side or
rear yard not adjoining a street may be reduced to three five feet, meastfed from the fR4hest pr-otigision
fig, for an accessory structure erected more than fifty-five feet from the street right-of-way line on
which the lot fronts, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other
buildings by ten feet or more.
B. Canvas -Covered Canopies and Other Temporary Structures. Temporary structures in residential (R)
districts shall not be permitted within a front setback and only within a side setback that does not abut a
public right-of-way. Temporary structures within a side setback shall be at least three feet from the side
lot line measured from the furthest protrusion or overhang. Such structures are to be anchored to the
ground in accordance with building code requirements.
C. Structural Dimensions. All accessory buildings will be subject to the requirements of all building
specialty codes adopted under the Central Point Municipal Code.
1. Height. Accessory structures in residential (R) districts shall not exceed twenty-five feet if detached
from the main structure. Structures greater than fifteen feet but less than twenty-five feet in height shall be
set back a minimum of five feet from a side or rear lot line.
2. Width and Length. Garages and carports intended to satisfy the municipal code requirement for two
off-street covered parking spaces shall be a minimum interior dimension of twenty feet in width by
twenty feet in length. Standard garage doors shall be of adequate width to facilitate safe passage and
maneuvering of automobile traffic.
3. Alley Setback. Accessory structures in residential (R) districts which abut an alley, are used as garages,
and take their access from the alley shall have a setback of fifteen feet from the rear property line. (Ord.
1981 §3 (Exh. C) (part), 2014; Ord. 1818 §1(part), 2001; Ord. 1684 §53, 1993; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981).
64
P.77.005 p
n r d R
•NT nen n onsc +er- a sewen
-ramie-xeyiHa!Lh!ffljbLAW
-
17.77.040 Geaeral-i�sioftq.
17.7?.060 Permit Fee Applieetion
65
70.
x
■
•,e aa_
1 i
■
r
r
1 1 �
■
_
_
■
•i ��_
■
1 1 ■
■ ■
-
-
-
L
pm
�-
65
2. 9- No subdiiision of land, air rights er- eendeminium is allewed seas to enable !he 5ale
i ■PowerIN Mal INS W.T12term
■
i
■
B—.All applic-atiens for ]
for sueh, peffait hal .,�' rf o be ,idea i the building eede
. . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- - - - - - - - - -
C. Detached ADL -l-, shad e
made by the appea4 board of adjustment,
A-,--p -Iffir
N ....
67
R w
. . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- - - - - - - - - -
C. Detached ADL -l-, shad e
made by the appea4 board of adjustment,
A-,--p -Iffir
N ....
67
Chapter 17.77
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)
Sections:
17.77.005 Purpose.
17.77.010 Applicability.
17.77.020 One Unit.
17.77.030 Approval Criteria.
17.77.005 Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to allow for establishment of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in
conjunction with a single-family detached dwelling within zones that allow single family detached
dwellings in accordance with ORS 197.312. ADUs are intended to provide more economical housing
choices while encouraging additional density with minimal cost and disruption to surrounding
neighborhoods; and allowing more efficient use of large, older homes. (Ord. 1884 (part), 2006).
17.77.010 Applicability.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) shall be a permitted use in the R-L,R-1, R-2 residential districts, and
LMR, MMR, and HMR mixed-use districts within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District, as
accessory to single-family dwellings subject to the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1884 (part), 2006).
17.77.020 One Unit.
A maximum of one (1) ADU shall be allowed per legally established single-family dwelling. The unit
may be a detached building, in a portion of a detached accessory building (e.g. above a detached garage
or workshop), or attached to or interior to the primary dwelling (e.g. addition or conversion of floor area
within the existing building). (Ord. 1884 (part), 2006).
17.77.030 Approval Criteria.
B. Floor Area. The maximum floor area allowed for an ADU shall be 800 square feet or fifty (50)
percent of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling, whichever is less, except that conversion
of a new or existing level or floor (e.g. attic, or second story) of a detached accessory building
(i.e. garage, workshop) to an ADU is permitted even if the floor area of the ADU would be more
than 800 square feet.
C. Development Standards. ADUs shall meet all development standards required for residential
structures per the base zone requirements (e.g. building height, setbacks, lot coverage, building
design, etc.) except for the following:
1. Density. ADUs are exempt from the maximum density standard in the base zone in which
the ADU is located, provided that all other base zone standards are met.
2. Conversion of Nonconforming Structures. Conversion of an existing legally
nonconforming structure to an ADU is allowed provided that the conversion does not
increase the nonconformity and the structure complies with the Oregon Residential
Specialty Code.
3. Parking. In accordance with ORS 197.312, off-street parking shall not be required to
approve an ADU. The ry"ifea off st eetafk ., g f n rir rfflay b provided t t
Y"a m
iii.
to physieal Site eoflstfaifAs.
4. Rear Yard Setback. The rear yard setback for ADUs shall be 5 -feet.
5. Building Height. Except for units constructed above a detached garage (i.e. carriage
units), detached ADUs shall be limited to single -story construction and shall not exceed
25 -ft in building height per the accessory building height standards set forth in CPMC
17.60.030(C)(1).
D. Other Standards.
1. Unit Separation. For attached and interior ADUs, the primary dwelling and ADU shall be
distinct with wall separation, separate building entrances and visible addresses.
2. Utilities. Separate utility connections may be provided at the applicant's discretion.
Separate connections are not required.
3. Transfer Prohibited. No subdivision of land, air rights or condominium is allowed so as to
enable the sale or transfer of the accessory dwelling unit independently of the main
dwelling unit or other portions of the property.
Chapter 17.64, Section 040, Table 17.64.02A
RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
All uses shall comply with the number of off-street parking requirements identified in Table 17.64.02A, Residential
Off -Street Parking Requirements, and Table 17.64.0213, Non -Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements. For
residential uses the off-street parking requirements are stated in terms of the minimum off-street parking required.
For non-residential uses the off-street parking requirements are presented in terms of both minimum and maximum
off-street parking required. The number of off-street parking spaces in Table 17.64.02B, Non -Residential Off -Street
Parking, may be reduced in accordance with subsection B of this section, Adjustments to Off -Street Vehicle
Parking.
The requirement for any use not specifically listed shall be determined by the community development director on
the basis of requirements for similar uses, and on the basis of evidence of actual demand created by similar uses in
the city and elsewhere, and such other traffic engineering or planning data as may be available and appropriate to the
establishment of a minimum requirement.
TABLE 17.64.02A
RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Categories
Minimum Vehicle Parking Requirement (fractions rounded down to the
closest whole number)
RESIDENTIAL
Single -Family Residential
2 spaces per dwelling unit, both of which must be covered.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
No off-street parking is required per ORS 197.312. 1 spaee pe
a.. ell ;.
Two -Family
2 spaces per dwelling unit, both of which must be covered.
Multiple -Family
1 space per studio or 1 -bedroom unit;
1.5 spaces per 2 -bedroom unit; and
2 spaces per 3+ -bedroom unit.
plus 1 guest parking space for each 4 dwelling units or fraction thereof.
Mobile Home Parks
2 spaces per dwelling unit on the same lot or pad as the mobile home (may
be tandem); plus 1 guest space for each 4 mobile homes.
Residential Home
2 spaces per dwelling unit, both of which must be covered.
Residential Facility
.75 spaces per bedroom.
Congregate (Senior)
Housing
.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Boarding Houses, Bed and
Breakfast
1 space per guest unit; plus 1 space per each 2 employees.
70
CPMC 17.65.050, Table 3
TOD DISTRICT AND CORRIDOR VEHICLE PARKING STANDARDS — RESIDENTIAL
Table 3
TOD District and Corridor Vehicle Parking Standards
Use Categories IMinimum Required Parking
Residential
Dwelling, Single -Family
2 spaces per unit.
Large and standard lot
Zero lot line, detached
Attached row houses
Dwelling, Multifamily
Plexes
1.5 spaces per unit.
Apartments and condominiums
1.5 spaces per unit.
Congregate (senior) housing
.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Dwelling, Accessory Unit
Off-street parking is not required per ORS 197.312.4 -space per ttiit.
Boarding/Rooming House
1 space per accommodation, plus 1 space for every 2 employees.
Family Care
1 space for every 5 children or clients (minimum 1 space); plus 1 space
Family day care
for every 2 employees.
Day care group home
Adult day care
Home Occupation
Shall meet the parking requirement for the residence.
Residential Facility
1 space per unit.
Residential Home
1 space per unit.
71
ATTACHMENT "B"
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTING
THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) REQUIREMENT
UNDER OREGON SENATE BILL 1051
UPDATED TO INCLUDE HB 2001 (2019)
M. Klepinger's backyard detached ADU, Richmond neighborhood, Portland, OR.
(Photo courtesy of Ellen Bassett and accessorydwellings.org.)
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
MARCH 2018, updated SEPTEMBER 2019
Art I
DLCD
72
Introduction As housing prices in Oregon go up, outpacing employment and wage
growth, the availability of affordable housing is decreasing in cities
throughout the state. While Oregon's population continues to expand,
the supply of housing, already impacted by less building during the
recession, has not kept up. To address the lack of housing supply,
House Speaker Tina Kotek introduced House Bill (HB) 2007 during the
2017 legislative session to, as she stated, "remove barriers to
development." Through the legislative process, legislators placed much
of the content of HB 2007 into Senate Bill (SB) 1051, which then
passed, and was signed into law by Governor Brown on August 15,
2017 (codified in amendments to Oregon Revised Statute 197.312). In
addition, a scrivener's error' was corrected through the passage of HB
4031 in 2018.
Among the provisions of SB 1051 and HB 4031 is the requirement
that cities and counties of a certain population allow accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) as described below:
a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a
population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas within the
urban growth boundary that are zoned for detached single-
family dwellings the development of at least one accessory
dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject
to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.
b) As used in this subsection, "accessory dwelling unit" means an
interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used
in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family
dwelling.
This requirement became effective on July 1, 2018 and subject cities
and counties must now accept applications for ADUs inside urban
growth boundaries (UGBs).
On August 8, 2019, Governor Brown signed HB 2001, which became
effective immediately and established that off-street parking and
owner -occupancy requirements are not "reasonable local
regulations relating to siting and design." This means that, even if a
local development code requires off-street parking and owner -
occupancy, starting on August 8, 2019, local jurisdictions may not
mandate the construction of additional off-street parking spaces
1 The scrivener's error in 581051 removed the words "within the urban growth boundary." HB4031 added the words into
statute and thus limited the siting of ADUs to within UGBs. As a result, land within a city with a population greater than
2,500 but that is not within a UGB is not required by this law to be zoned to allow accessory dwelling units. For counties
with a population greater than 15,000, only those unincorporated areas within a UGB are required by this law to be
zoned to allow accessory dwelling units.
ADU Guidance -2- September 2019
73
nor require a property owner to live in either a primary or accessory
dwelling. The law provides an exception for ADUs that are used as
vacation rentals, which may be required to provide off-street
parking or have owner -occupancy requirements.
Some local governments in Oregon already have ADU regulations
that meet the requirements of SB 1051 and HB 2001, however,
many do not. Still others have regulations that, given the overall
legislative direction to encourage the construction of ADUs to meet
the housing needs of Oregon's cities, are not "reasonable." The
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
is issuing this guidance and model code language to help local
governments comply with the legislation. The model code language
is included at the end of this document.
Guidance by Topic The purpose of the following guidance is to help cities and counties
implement the ADU requirement in a manner that meets the letter and spirit
of the law: to create more housing in Oregon by removing barriers to
development.
Number of Units The law requires subject cities and counties to allow "at least one
accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling."
While local governments must allow one ADU where required,
DLCD encourages them to consider allowing two units. For example,
a city or county could allow one detached ADU and allow another
as an attached or interior unit (such as a basement conversion).
Because ADUs blend in well with single-family neighborhoods,
allowing two units can help increase housing supply while not
having a significant visual impact. Vancouver, BC is a successful
example of such an approach.
Siting Standards In order to simplify standards and not create barriers to
development of ADUs, DLCD recommends applying the same or less
restrictive development standards to ADUs as those for other
accessory buildings. Typically that would mean that an ADU could be
developed on any legal lot or parcel as long as it met the required
setbacks and lot coverage limits; local governments should not
mandate a minimum lot size for ADUs. So that lot coverage
requirements do not preclude ADUs from being built on smaller lots,
local governments should review their lot coverage standards to
make sure they don't create a barrier to development. Additionally,
some jurisdictions allow greater lot coverage for two ADUs. To
address storm water concerns, consider limits to impermeable
surfaces rather than simply coverage bystructures.
ADU Guidance -3- September 2019
74
Any legal nonconforming structure (such as a house or outbuilding
that doesn't meet current setback requirements) should be allowed
to contain, or be converted to, an ADU as long as the development
does not increase the nonconformity and it meets building and fire
code.
Design Standards Any design standards required of ADUs must be clear and objective
(ORS 197.307[4]). Clear and objective standards do not contain
words like "compatible" or "character." With the exception of ADUs
that are in historic districts and must follow the historic district
regulations, DLCD does not recommend any special design standards
for ADUs. Requirements that ADUs match the materials, roof pitch,
windows, etc. of the primary dwelling can create additional barriers
to development and sometimes backfire if the design and materials
of the proposed ADU would have been of superior quality to those
of the primary dwelling, had they been allowed. Other standards,
such as those that regulate where entrances can be located or
require porches and covered entrances, can impose logistical and
financial barriers to ADU construction.
Public Utilities Development codes that require ADUs to have separate sewer and
water connections create barriers to building ADUs. In some cases,
a property owner may want to provide separate connections, but
in other cases doing so may be prohibitively expensive.
System Development Charges (SDCs)
Local governments should consider revising their SDC ordinances to
match the true impact of ADUs in order to remove barriers to their
development. In fact, HB 2001, passed by the Oregon Legislature in
2019, requires local governments to consider ways to increase the
_affordability of middle housing; types through ordinances and
policies, including waiving or deferring system development
charges. ADUs are not a middle housing type, but if a local
government is reviewing its SDCs for middle housing, that would be
a good time to review ADU SDCs as well. ADUs are generally able to
house fewer people than average single-family dwellings, so their
fiscal impact would be expected to be less than a single-family
dwelling. Accordingly, it makes sense that they should be charged
lower SDCs than primary detached single-family dwellings. Waiving
SDCs for ADUs has been used by some jurisdictions to stimulate the
production of more housing units.
ADU Guidance -4- September 2019
75
This page intentionally left blank.
ADU Guidance -5- September 2019
76
Accessory Dwellings (model code)
Note: ORS 197,312 requires that at least one accessory dwelling be allowed per detached singie-fancily dwelling in
every zone within an urban growth boundary that allows detached single-family dwellings. The statute does not
allow local jurisdictions to include off-street parking nor owner -occupancy requirements. Accessory dwellings are
an economical way to provide additional housing choices, particularly in communities with high land prices or a
lack of investment in affordable housing. They provide an opportunity to increase housing supply in developed
neighborhoods and can blend in well with single-family detached dwellings. Requirements that accessory dwellings
have separate connections to and pay system development charges for water and sewer services can pose barriers
to development. Concerns about neighborhood compatibility and other factors should be considered and
balanced against the need to address Oregon's housing shortage by removing barriers to development.
The model development code language below provides recommended language for accessory dwellings. The
italicized sections in brackets indicate options to be selected or suggested numerical standards that communities
can adjust to meet their needs. Local housing providers should be consulted when drafting standards for accessory
dwellings, and the following standards should be tailored to fit the needs of your community.
Accessory dwellings, where allowed, are subject to review and approval through a Type I procedure[
pursuant to Section .] and shall conform to all of the following standards:
[A. One Unit. A maximum of one Accessory Dwelling is allowed per legal single-family dwelling. The unit may
be a detached building in a portion of a detached accessory building (e.g, above a garage or workshop), or
a unit attached or interior to the primary dwelling (e.g., an addition or the conversion of an existing floor).
A. Two Units. A maximum of two Accessory Dwellings are allowed per legal single-family dwelling. One unit
must be a detached Accessory Dwelling, or in a portion of a detached accessory building (e.g., above a
garage or workshop), and one unit must be attached or interior to the primary dwelling (e.g., an addition or
the conversion of an existing floor).]
B. Floor Area.
I. A detached Accessory Dwelling shall not exceed [800-900] square feet of floor area, or [75-85]
percent of the primary dwelling's floor area, whichever is smaller.
2. An attached or interior Accessory Dwelling shall not exceed [800-900] square feet of floor area,
or [75-85] percent of the primary dwelling's floor area, whichever is smaller. However,
Accessory Dwellings that result from the conversion of a level or floor (e.g., basement, attic, or
second story) of the primary dwelling may occupy the entire level or floor, even if the floor area
of the Accessory Dwelling would be more than [800-900] square feet.
C. Other Development Standards. Accessory Dwellings shall meet all other development
standards (e.g., height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) for buildings in the zoning district, exceptthat:
1. Conversion of an existing legal non -conforming structure to an Accessory Dwelling is allowed,
provided that the conversion does not increase the non -conformity;
ADU Guidance -6- September 2019
77
2. No off-street parking is required for an Accessory Dwelling;
3. Properties with two Accessory Dwellings are allowed [10-207.] greater lot coverage than that
allowed by the zone in which they are located; and
4. Accessory dwellings are not included in density calculations.
Definition (This should be included in the "definitions" section of the zoning ordinance. It matches the
definition for Accessory Dwelling found in ORS 197.312)
Accessory Dwelling — An interior, attached, or detached residential structure that is used in
connection with, or that is accessory to, a single-family dwelling.
ADU Guidance -7- September 2019
78
ATTACHMENT "C"
Stephanie Holtey
From: LeBombard, Josh <josh.lebombard@state.or.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 3:20 PM
To: Stephanie Holtey
Cc: Buhl, Laura; Tom Humphrey
Subject: Local File ZC-19001; DLCD File 003-19
Attachments: LB Comments-l.docx
Stephanie,
I had Laura Buhl from our Department review your proposal. Her comments are in the attached document. Most of the
comments are optional; however, the one that is not has to do with the requirement for parking. HB2001 does not allow
an off-street parking requirement for ADUs.
Cheers,
Josh
Josh LeBombard
Southern Oregon Regional Representative I Community Services Division
y r, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
�r 37 N. Central Avenue I Medford, OR 97501
*/ Cell: (541) 414-7932
DLCD h.l born 8r taie.cr.us I www.oreaon.aov/LCD
79
Chapter 17.08
DEFINITIONS
"Accessory dwelling unit (ADU)" means an Interior, attached or detached alit -residential structure that is
used in connection with or ;ivimig feed kitu^ �accessory
use to a prifnary single dwelling-unk. Accessory dwelling units differ from guest quarters, which do not
provide independent living facilities.
"Guest #reuse uartets " means an Interior• attached or detached accessory building designed and used for
the purpose of providing temporary living accommodations for guests or for members of the same family
as that occupying the main building, and containing no kitchen facilities.
Chapter 17.60
GENERAL REGULATIONS
17.60.030 Accessory Buildings
Accessory buildings shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically
modified by this title and shall comply with the following limitations:
A. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential (R) district a side or
rear yard not adjoining a street may be reduced to three five fee4. measured ffem the Ni4hesl PfBtfusion 0
Comment [BLi]: Why this reduction? Three feet
e, g, for an accessory structure erected more than fifty-five feet from the street right-of-way line on
will result in fewer barriers to development,
which the lot fronts, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other
a
y p _ _ _ }� _ _ _
especially on smaller lots Have there been problems
as a result of this standard? If not, then consider
buildings by ten feet or more.
leaving it as is.
ment [BL2]: Why does it matter how far the
B. Canvas -Covered Canopies and Other Temporary Structures. Temporary structures in residential (R)
ory stmcture is from the street ROW as long
districts shall not be permitted within a front setback and only within a side setback that does not abut a
the setbacks? This provision seems
F;�
public right-of-way. Temporary structures within a side setback shall be at least three feet from the side
.,elm,
essarily complicated and potentially restrictive.
—
lot line measured from the furthest protrusion or overhang. Such structures are to be anchored to the
Comment This distance is large enough
ground in accordance with building code requirements.
that it will preeventvent development and design options
on some lots. Even the building code doesn't require
more than 3 -feet separation from buildings (when
C. Structural Dimensions. All accessorybuildings will be subject to the requirements of all building
g � q g
they're other lots Someone could build an
addition,, which is zero
o sepazation. What's the public
specialty codes adopted under the Central Point Municipal Code.
purpose in requiring to -foot separation for a separate
1. Height. Accessory structures in residential (R) districts shall not exceed twenty-five feet if detached
from the main structure. Structures greater than fifteen feet but less than twenty-five feet in height shall be
set back a minimum of five feet from a side or rear lot line.
2. Width and Length. Garages and carports intended to satisfy the municipal code requirement for two
off-street covered parking spaces shall be a minimum interior dimension of twenty feet in width by
twenty feet in length. Standard garage doors shall be of adequate width to facilitate safe passage and
maneuvering of automobile traffic.
3. Alley Setback. Accessory structures in residential (R) districts which abut an alley, are used as garages,
and take their access from the alley shall have a setback of fifteen feet from the rear property line. (Ord.
1981 §3 (Exh. C) (part), 2014; Ord. 1818 §1(part), 2001; Ord. 1684 §53, 1993; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981).
all
Chapter 17.77
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)
Sections:
17.77.005 Purpose.
17.77.010 Applicability.
17.77.020 One Unit.
17.77.030 Approval Criteria.
17.77.005 Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to allow for establishment of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in
conjunction with a single-family detached dwelling within zones that allow single family detached
dwellings in accordance with ORS 197.312. ADUs are intended to provide more economical housing
choices while encouraging additional density with minimal cost and disruption to surrounding
neighborhoods; and allowing more efficient use of large, older homes. (Ord. 1884 (part), 2006).
17.77.010 Applicability.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) shall be a permitted use in the R -L, R-1, R-2 residential districts, and
LMR, MMR, and HMR mixed-use districts within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District, as
accessory to single-family dwellings subject to the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1884 (part), 2006).
17.77.020 One Unit.
A maximum of one (1) ADU shall be allowed per legally established single-family dwelling. The unit
may be a detached building, in a portion of a detached accessory building (e.g. above a detached garage
or workshop), or attached to or interior to the primary dwelling (e.g., addition or conversion of floor area
within the existing building). (Ord. 1884 (part), 2006).
17.77.030 Approval Criteria.
A. Floor Area. The maximum floor area allowed for an ADU shall be 800 square feet or fifty (50)
percent of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling, whichever is less,'except that conversion
Comment [BL4]: The 50% limit could be
of a new or existing level or floor (e.g. attic, or second story) of a detached accessory building
unreasonably restrictive in cases where the primary
dwelling is very small. Consider increasing the limit
(i.e., garage, workshop) to an ADU is permitted even if the floor area of the ADU would be more
to 70-800/& Alternatively, the percentage could be I
than 800 square feet.
increasedjust for dwellings that are under 10004200
square feet. _
Development Standards. ADUs shall meet all development standards required for residential
structures per the base zone requirements (e.g.- building height, setbacks, lot coverage, building
design, etc.) except for the following:
1. Density. ADUs are exempt from the maximum density standard in the base zone in which
the"AMslocated,—provided-that alI-other base zone standards are met.
Parking. The required off-street parking for an ADU may be provided on -street when it
can be demonstrated that all of the following apply:
i. The pavement width for the street along which the property fronts is 36 -feet in
width or greater and provides on -street parking on both sides of the street;
1.41
ii. Driveway widening to accommodate the off-street space would result in loss of
an on -street parking space; and,
iii. Off-street parking cannot be provided along the site frontage or in an alley due
to physical site constraints Comment [BL5]s Remove this section. Per HB
2001, the city cant require off-street parking for
3. Rear Yard Setback. The rear yard setback for ADUs shall be 5 -feet. ADUs.
4. Building Height. ADUs shall not exceed 25 -ft in building height per the accessory
building height standards set forth in CPMC 17.60.030(C)(1).
C. Other Standards.
1. Unit Separation. For attached and interior ADUs, the primary dwelling and ADU shall be
distinct with wall separation, separate building entrances and visible addresses.
2. Utilities. Separate utility connections maybe provided at the applicant's discretion.
Separate connections are not required.
3. Transfer Prohibited. No subdivision of land, air rights or condominium is allowed so as to
enable the sale or transfer of the accessory dwelling unit independently of the main
dwelling unit or other portions of the property.
82
ATTACHMENT "D"
Questions and Concerns regarding
ADUs in Twin Creeks
Increased Vehicle Parking
1. If a homeowner is allowed to convert their garage into an ADU then they will no longer be parking
their vehicles in their garage adding to increased parking in driveways and streets.
2. People living in an ADU will have one or more vehicles adding to increased parking in driveways
and streets.
Increased Traffic
1. Currently there are only four entrance/exit points for the Twin Creeks area (Twin Creeks Crossing
& Grant Road, Twin Creeks Crossing & Hwy 99, Silver Creek Drive & Taylor Road and Taylor
Road & N. Haskell Street).
1 of 3
83
2. With the newly developed Apartments (SMITH CROSSING AT TWIN CREEKS) there is
increased traffic and the first phase isn't even completed.
3. SMITH CROSSING AT TWIN CREEKS was reported to be a multi -family development consisting
of apartments and townhouse units on two (2)lots zoned Medium Mix Residential (MMR) on
North Haskell Street with a total of 245 units. H ver on the Eame date-of1 3rd tax lot
Was sgId to SMITH CROSSING _kLC_and the Cityhas not reported future plans for this lot. tt
can be assumed that there will be a phase 3 for the Smith Crossing gpartment connolex.
Smith Crossing Project Overview
Phase
Property Location
Project Area
4.25 acres
Proposed No. Units
1
37S 2W 03C TL 138
100
Tax Lot 138
2
37S 2W 03DC TL
5.26 acres
145
3400
Tax Lot 3400
UNKNOWN
ASSUMED PHASE 3
372W03CA 1100
2.19 acres
Tax Lot 1100
ona
Iro7
1191 �
7100 Fe ;'
1100
1400
101
100'
lap 10g
111
Ir4fas 4eo
F21 IIS 3:s1a: IOa ISa
US
sn ,-a 7x3 2u
Rccr6 7701 sow
e. raig3 .11.a la n re lµ 1, .': FI Mr.:70 10]
1121221311yu61110i20121 1112 3100
171 302 u21111'022, 101
M wr Im 16002200 22x0
107 30a 1000 iM2M !ka
-1111 ;71s11Po /000 x�00i 2600 '
Nl: '3l4 7x70 i/fpoy000' 7700 2411 moo
6 w 7N7 1000 000 2W &.
1107 sag 700 1000 MN 24ro
Twin Creeks Master Plan
1. The Twin Creeks Master Plan listed a small number of estimated ADUs and only for lots greater
than (>7000 sf) (Estimated total of 82 ADUs out of 1,513 Housing Types = 5.42% estimated for
2 of 3
84
possible ADUs). See page 48 attached of the Master Plan
h=' twincreeksin�e�otralnoint.comhyn-cnntentluolnadsl20121D51rr►asterr�lan.�
2. Overall planning for the infrastructure including increased traffic, parking etc. did not include
analysis for a large number of ADU's in Twin Creeks.
JONA HOA CC&Rs
1. The CC&Rs state `single-family dwellings' and `single family occupancy only' in multiple
areas of the document_
a. Amendments to the CC&Rs would be required.
2. Cluster lots exist in Twin Creeks. These cluster Lots share a common access to individual
driveways.
a. Additional vehicle parking would be an issue.
b. Amendments to the CC&Rs would be required to exclude cluster lots.
3. 5.3 d) States: No trailer, camper, basement, tent, shack,ag rage, barn, or other outbuilding or
temporary structure erected or situated within the property shall at any time, be used as a
residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any permanent building or structure be used
as a residence until it is completed as to external appearance including finished painting. The
permission hereby granted to erect a permanent garage or other building prior to construction of
the main dwelling house shall not be construed to permit the construction, erection, or
maintenance of any building of any nature whatsoever any time, without the approval required by
the DRC.
a. Amendments to the CC&Rs would be required.
4. Additional Waste. 5.3 p) Owners must keep all trash cans and other trash receptacles out of
public view, within an enclosed or screened area so as not to be visible from any street or Single
Family Lot or Cluster Housing Lot and, otherwise, in location(s) from time to time specified or
approved by the DRC.
a ---More people-1iving�n ADUs-will increase waste, -does this mean additional trash -cans? — — -
5. CC&Rs may not be amended without the approval by seventy percent (70%) or more of the
Owners, which amendment shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk of Jackson County,
Oregon.
a. If a vote of (70%) in favor of amendments is not reached then what?
b. There are multiple versions of CC&Rs for different phases in JONA HOA and surrounding
Twin Creeks HOA's like Griffin Oaks. Therefore, what if some phases/CC&Rs pass in
favor of the amendmendments and some do not then what?
3of3
85
A
M i1'tTltle
After recording return to:
Smith Crossing, LLC
353 Dalton St
Medford, OR 97501
Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be
sent to the following address:
Smith Crossing<LLC
353 Dalton St
Medford, OR 97501 ~�
File No. 109134AM
Jackson County Official Records 2017.022473
R -WD
Stn=O HELMANCD 06130/2017 01:29:33 PM
THIS SPACE $10.00 $20.00 $10.00 $8.00 $11.00 $59.00
I, Christine Walker, County Clerk for Jackson County, Oregon, certify
that the instrument identified herein was recorded In the Clerk
records, Christine Walker - County Clerk
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC,
Grantor(s), hereby convey and warrant to
Smith Crossing, LLC,
Grantee(s), the following described real property in the County of Jackson and State of Oregon free of encumbrances except
as specifically set forth herein:
Parcel 1:
Beginning at the Southerly most corner of Lot 1 in Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase 1 as filed in Volume 33,
Page 01 of the Plat Records of Jackson County, Oregon; thence along the Southerly boundary of said Lot
North 55103'11" East, 153,39 feet; thence continuing along said Lot boundary, along the arc of a curve to
the left having a radius of 160.00 feet, an internal angle of 93106'06" and an arc length of 259.99 feet, (the
long chord of which bears North 08°30'08" East, 232.32 feet); thence North 381102'55" West, 302.81 feet;
thence leaving said Lot boundary South 55103'11" West, 23.27 feet to the Easterly boundary of the
Irrigation Easement described in Instrument No. 2006-046898 of the Official Records of said County;
thence along said Irrigation Easement boundary North 34°56'49" West, 167.47 feet to the Northerly
boundary of said Lot; thence along said Lot boundary South 55103'11" West, 273.50 feet to the Westerly
corner of said Lot and the Easterly right-of-way of North Haskell Street; thence along said right-of-way
South 34156'49" East, 638.49 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2:
Lot Thirty-four (34) Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase 1, in the City of Central Point, Jackson County, Oregon,
according to the official plat thereof, now of record.
Parcel 3:
Parcel No. 3 of Partition Plat NO. P-116-2006 of the Records of Jackson County, Oregon; Filed December
15, 2006, Index Volume 17, Page 116, County Survey No. 19444.
FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY, THE MAP/TAX ACCT #(S) ARE REFERENCED HERE:
372W03C 138
372W03CA 1100
372W03DC 3400
The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is $2.700,000.00.
The above-described property is free of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and
those shown below, if any:
0
Page 2 Statutory Warranty Deed
Escrow No. 109134AM
BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD
INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336
AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855,
OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES
NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE
LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE
PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A
LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE
APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST
FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300,195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195,336 AND
SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 85 5, OREGON
LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010.
Dated this Zt) day of1, r r1 Q , ate] ..
Twin Cree op nt Company, LLC
By: --
Bre Moore, President
State of Oregon} ss
County of Jackson}
On this day of June, 2017, before LW' 0 arNotary Public in and for said state, personally
appeared ret Moore known or identified to me to be the Mmaging Member/President in the Limited Liability Company known
as Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she executed
the same in said LLC name.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first
ave written.
No iic for Ifie State ofelegOn. SUZANNE MARIE LUNSFORD
R "ding : Medford NOTARY PUIBLIC-OREGON
Ca tan Expires: InAW COMMISSION No. 9M244
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 20, 2018
87
u
A'rhibit 35, Housing Plan
Master Plan Application
41t
88
J2
S. -O. 141. GUM-40MO
44
tj
1.4
ViRf FAMILY ArTAOIEU
97
by
65
ACC;Essan urilts
33
4D
muoi-rAti,ty
152
.42
W;.,d u..bl.
noarlmnnls
J*4
S
Servo.As�;Md L;,,,g
10
nu
TOTAL
J91
451
671
-.513
Master Plan Application
41t
88
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Common and Open Space Maintenance Association
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Association
P.O. BOX 3410
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
e-mail: boardf&iona-cn.com
September 04, 2019
City of Central Point
140 S. 3rd Street
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: City of Central Point - Draft Code Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Dear City Council and City Planning Commission.
Purpose
The Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Association (JONA), board of directors would like to bring to
the City Council and City Planning Commission our concerns with specific proposed ADU
amendments and the timing of these proposed changes. Several citizens have expressed
concerns and resistance with some of the proposed code amendments. We believe that great
effort has been expended as a result of one homeowner in our HOA and as a result specific
proposed amendments and timing are highly suspicious as identified in the timeline of key
events.
Request
Based on the provided information in is document we are asking the fitounC cd a3P anning
Commission to 1) carefully make ADU code amendments that make sense for the entire City
and 2) remove any conflicts of interests.
The concern is that specific amendments are being considered as a result of a major developer
and a homeowner who is an employee of the developer. From the facts outlined they are driving
specific City code changes to meet their individual needs.
1 of 6
*8
Timeline of key events
No.
Date
June 19, 2017
Event
1
JONA homeowners Jim & Elaine Frost located at 921 Buck
Point Street Central Point, OR 97502 received a City permit
(175-17-000161-STR). Requested and Approved for a
detached garage with 100 amp electric and 1 utility sink.
Attachment A
2
June 2017
Homeowner and Brett Moore (WL Moore Construction Inc.)
started construction prior to going through the JONA Home
Modification Review Request (HMR) process. This
accessory structure was constructed with a 5 -foot
setback from the rear and side property lines.
3
September 2017
The previous JONA Design Review Committee (DRC)
contacted the homeowner requesting they submit a Home
Modification Review Request (HMR).
4
March 23, 2018
Homeowner submitted the HMR to JONA DRC. Described the
work as a "Detached man cave / game room / future
mother-in-law unit". The HMR was not provided by the
homeowner until construction was almost completed.
Attachment B
JONA DRC approved the HMR with the following stipulation:
5
April 12, 2018
'This approval is for a detached man cave / game room only.
This structure may not be rented by you or any
subsequent owners of the property".
Attachment B
Homeowner submitted to JONA DRC another HMR for the
6
May 06, 2018
same accessory structure. Described work as "ADU per
CCR9, section 5.3e".
Attachment C
JONA DRC denied the request and referred the homeowner
7
May 08, 2018
back to the HMR dated April 12, 2018.
Attachment C
8
November 2018
Several new JONA board -of -directors were elected and a new
DRC committee appointed.
9
January 2019
JONA board -of -directors received complaints that the
homeowner had moved someone into the accessory
2 of 6
To
3 of 6
91
structure. JONA board-of-directors and a previous DRC
committee member met with Tom Humphrey to obtain
additional information and history regarding the accessory
structure. At this time the board was made aware that the
accessory structure was built with a setback of 5 feet
disqualifying the building from being used as an ADU. It
was also brought to the JONA boards attention that the
accessory structure built deviated from the original plans
approved by the City.
10
February 5, 2019
City of Central Point (Tom Humphrey) sent a letter to the
homeowner telling them in summary 'they were not using
the accessory structure as it was approved by the City'.
Attachment D
Brett Moore (WL Construction Inc) notified the Southern
11
March 2019
Oregon Land Conservancy, management of the land owned
by Brett Moore located at 939 Twin Creeks Crossing Central
Point, OR 97502 that he was going to allow a property
boundary encroachment into the Southern Oregon Land
Conservancy area. This was an attempt to get around the
10-foot setback requirement for the west side of the
property. This request was denied by the Southern Oregon
Land Conservancy based on their contract with Brett Moore.
12
July 17, 2019
JONA sent a letter to the homeowner clarifying the boards
position on the use of the accessory structure.
August 06, 2019
Attachment E
13
As per the City of Central Point Planning Meeting Minutes,
Principle Planner, Stephanie Holtey introduced amendments
to CPMC 17.77, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) CPMC and
CPMC 17.06 Definitions.
14
September 2019
City of Central Point newsletter notification on Accessory
Dwelling Unit. planned code amendments. Three main goals
mentioned in the newsletter but none of them mentioned a
modification to the current 10-foot setback, reducing it to
5-foot or a modification granting an exception to the 10-foot
September 03, 2019
setback when a rear yard is not adjoining a street.
16
City Planning Meeting; Stephanie Holtey stated that Tom
Humphrey proposed a recent recommended change to 'Just
make it simple and change the setbacks to 5-feet'.
3 of 6
91
Timeline
2017
(3)1ONA request to
homeowner to
submit HMR
September 2017
.............. I ........... I ..........
.
(5) JONA HMR #1
approved 2018
w/Sti pu lati ons Apfil
2018
(7)10NA HMR #2
denied Mav 2018
W...............
(9) JONA Received
complaints of
someone living in
structure, completes
rnrnrine with Tom
Humphrey January
2019
(8) JONA New Board
of Directors
appointed
November 2018
W...............
411V
E-1 ............ I ....................................
(12) JONA sends
letter to homeowner
ciarifing boards
position on structure
use July 2019
0 ..............................
2020
(1) City Permit for
garage approved
(2) Construction June 2017
..................�
Started June 2017
...............0
(6) JONA HMR #2
submitted for ADU
May 2019
(11) Brett Moore
attempts to change
property boundry
into land
conservancy area for
homeowner March
2019
....H
(4) JONA HMR #1
submitted forgame
room/man cave
March 2016
............... a
(10) Tom Humphrey
sends letter to
homeowner
regarding accessory
structure use/
incorrect setbacks
for ADU (Only 5 feet)
February2019
�.......I....................0
4 of 6
(13) City Planning
Commission starts
processto modify
ADU city codes
(14) City Newsletter
August 2019
on ADU code
(•15) CityPlanning
changesSeptember
Mtg_ ADU code draft
1
201
September 2019
�.......I....................0
4 of 6
Conflict of Interest
1. The homeowner of the accessory structure is Jim & Elaine Frost located at 921 Buck
Point Street Central Point, OR 97502. Elaine is an employee of Brett and Amy Moore
(WL Moore Construction Inc., Twin Creeks Development Company, LLC).
2. Brett Moore (WL Moore Construction Inc.) built the accessory structure at 921 Buck
Point Street.
3. 921 Buck Point Street is adjoining to the property owned by Brett and Amy Moore
(TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT CO LLC) located at 939 Twin Creeks Crossing
Central Point, OR 97502 and managed by the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy.
4. Amy Moore currently serves on the City Planning Commission and was vocal at the
September 03, 2019 Planning Commission meeting in support that a 5 -foot setback was
needed.
5, City Planning staff are very close to the situation and the parties involved (Elaine & Jim
Frost, Amy & Brett Moore). It appears after reading all documents relationships and
positions maybe being used to get ADU code amendments passed specifically in
support of the accessory structure located at 921 Buck Point Street. This is further
validated in the City letter to Jim and Elaine Frost dated February 05, 2019.
Attachment D
City proposed ADU amendments specifically related
to 921 Buck Point Street
1. The south side yard at 921 Buck Point Street is adjoining a driveway connected to a flag
lot and the west side yard is adjoining land managed by Southern Oregon Land
Conservancy owned by Brett and Amy Moore (TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT CO
LLC). Therefore, it appears as though this proposed setback amendment is specifically
in support of this homeowner at 921 Buck Point Street and further validated by the
comments made by Stephanie Holtey (Principal Planner) where she said a homeowner
approached the City asking for setback changes to the code.
5of6
93
2. It is also interesting that in the City Newsletter dated September 2019 setbacks wasn't
mentioned as a proposed amendment. However, Ms. Holtey stated that Tom Humphrey
proposed a recent recommended change to 'just make it simple and change the
setbacks to 5 feet'.
3. At the Planning Commission meeting held on September 03, 2019 the proposed
amendment in Attachment B stated the following:
A. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential (R) district a side or
Irear yard not adjoining a street may be reduced to 4~ five Feet, 11wmrarW iwrwt
��� Iwfor an accessory structure erected more than fifty-five feet from the street right-of-way line on
which the lot fronts, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other
buildinp by len feet or more.
ARRroval Criteria - Parkins
1. 921 Buck Point Street does not have on street parking in front of the house. Curbing is
painted Yellow.
2. Proposed amendment page 146 stated the following:
_Parking. UP pw6.rew.twr-@j4*ooAIA;*4woo*-w�paAw*Si6,1-
is ON
speee as . l�rtxtuitsdafl-mea �rlcin� [orpu
ADU may be oras+ ided�n_st�aet when it can bg downsttatod tau aU of the o—Ho_vilps
In summary
Based on the provided information in this document we are asking the City Council and
Planning Commission to 1) carefully make ADU code amendments that make sense for the
entire City and 2) remove any conflicts of interests.
The draft City of Central Point ADU code amendments show a removal of most existing code
and as identified in this document some additional amendment changes that are suspicious.
Why not postpone all proposed ADU amendments and thoroughly review and copy some of the
City of Portland's extensive ADU program and codes? Let's Do It Right the First Timel
Sincerely,
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
6 of 6
94
Attachment A
Building Perm it -061 92017. pdf
95
cEnlrRnL
POINT
www.dhntrelpolmm�tgon.gov
Penile Issued: June 19, 2017
Typo of Work: Now
Calculated Value: $16,412.75
Property Address:
921 Suck Point St, Cantral
Point, OR 97502
Building Kermit
Residential Structural
175-17-000151-STR
TYPE OF WORK
CENTRAL POINT
110 S. 3rd st.
CanVal Polnt,OR 9750;
541-W4-3321 ext. 292
Fax: 541-664-1611
3eb Nelms Frost GOON e
435 eaery of Construction: Datadhed Accomry Stru
Description of Works New 364 sq ft detechad garage building w/ 100 amp alettrlcal
and 1 utility fink.
lbs SITE INPORMATION
ham: Owner. JIM PROST
372WO3CI5400 - Primary
Addr@M 921 SUCK POINT ST
LICINSED PROFESSIONAL IINFORMATIONCl1rTRAL POINT OR 97502
CM2 LM111Is Llceaar-=
SMS ELICTRIC mvx:E INC (C) Electrical Con"obor 15-165C
WL MOORE CONSTRUCnON INC CCS 177325
INSPECTIONS - Arauuwrar affiPWA nq 111av se mannas 11►ou411 pip Ills al hhr, ov,ISCt
The list of ilupactions below represents the minimum inrpodJons reconlmanded Por this project at the dme of permit printing.
1000 Driveway Approach
1200 Framing
WOO Rough Plumbing
4500 Rough Electrical
1120 FoundlMlan
1M Finel Building
3502 Top Out Rough Plumbing
4M Final Elaohical
1130 Foundation ~Rebar
3318 Wa er Una
39H Final Plumbing
Schedule Inspections online at www.buNd"gPerMRS.Dmgon.gov or by calling: 1-060-299-2621 Or 341.064-0700
When calling for an k4paedon, use IV& Nurabon 1720790e7a41
OR saerch "ePermitting" at the Apple App Stora to download the Oration GPM nNtthig 2napaeMR Ap fbr Ms.
OR search "ePerMitting" at the Android App store to download the Oregon oponeating tltepottlon App for Android.
Fannia wipke K work N not surged within 100 Maya of lawtance or If work is augliOndad far 360 pays or
lon0ar depa ne an the lowing e0ortdee polloy.
All Pievishm of lam and ordinator g~nhip t3hm type of work will be complied with whether epacNlad
herein or net Granting of a permit does riot proaunta to givr ■utthority to violete or mmoul the provktlona of err
etfler stale er local Irllr r0`tNrHlp CoaRrW ten er the performance of conatrucilan.
ATT@NT113H; Oregon Is requires you ra follow runes adopird by the aspen Utility NogiliNstlon Conor. Thoer
Pu lea are eat forth in OAR 912.001-031a thraugh OAR gj1_110i-8OpO. Veu May obtain aeplas of the raise by
calling vie center. (Nulla the toluiphcne number for flee Orapn Utility Notlfiaatlon C6nur M (p03)1.13.3507).
All PWMW or Mtltkre perf0rnhby work ander this permit are required to be licensed unless mu mpted by cm
701.034
>rined an: 4WIVIN;L?
2111111111111
541-M-2903
541.665-0401
r
r
L
A "mu DwAchod Gnaw For
JIM AM RAM FROST
40 slat raw smu
cartes 1arF, ae�oF� qFm
37 a� aev wa
97
ImmmwM.
W.L. MUQRE
CON"UCMOK *or_
We%.
r
z
t ! rR
fill
q, !U# -r it I I1 0 ii 1 6 i1 ;
fi.
.it i
. S I It ; R
i lip c
I
l
6 b A JIM AM nAPE RM G YprySTL. FiUCT10H. E
CM mm FMT snw
N ry a ORMIL raver, mm R� a %—
Attachment B
HMR-03232018.pdf
Fke I d 4/r,t�.ge t8
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Common & Open Space Maintenance Association
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Association
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's)
Home Modification Review
Owners Name: --Y-mf tf 't V-Iatoe 7i-eq�t
cwk Plnnnw Work
Date Submitted:
Property Address:
1
Zj bu c� Pot&
Fence/Screen
HomeAddltians
Date Received:
Landscaping
Mailing Address:
_
Poouspa
• Approximate Canglxwl fon Time Frame
pr del. e k nen operry.ddnra�
Satellite Diah
Email Address:
a[
Screening
Start Date: 7/7,z' t
Phone Number:
�II
vJ`t� Ziv- 30(0 (
Shed/Shop
I—,
Completion Date: 1-2-1-ZC117
OOy„rPaee1e
1. Review the applicable Administrative Guidelines. Describe the proposed modifications or additions, attach
sketches, photographs, contractors proposal, site plan and/or paint chips and materials descriptions nessesary
to convey an understanding of the planned work. Be specific with respect to exterior paint color placement, the
base color, trim, and front and garage doors colors.
2. All plans and spectflcations submitted for review and approval by the DRC must be at received at least 10 days
prior to the proposed installation or construction start date. Requested information must be complete to
process. Failure to secure reauired aoorovals may result in sanctions.
3. aription of work: cuw b4, -k ot ram R r*s4mwyf d I irm tel' A
4. Review and approval time line: (AddIdonal time may be required to review exhmelve pro)ects)
Normally the review process can be accomplished quickly, but it must not be assumed that the request will
be addressed any sooner then outlined below when planning a project.
7 days for most projects such as satellite dish placement, fences, sheds, screens, decks, play equipment,
roofing and house painting.
e 10 days for significant projects such as swimming pools, home additions or major landscape projects.
The approval of the Home Modification Review by the DRC is valid for a period of 12 months from the date of
signing. The DRC, at its sole discretion, shall determine if or when a project has been significantly modified or
delayed from the original approved plan to warrant an additional review and approval.
6. Submit form to: JONA, Attn: DRC, P.O. Box 3410, Central Point OR 97502
Or deliver personally to any member of the DRC. Message Phone: JONA (541-690-8527)
I acknowledge that I have read and agree to comply with the CC&R's and Administrative Guidelines pertaining to
this home (property rnadificati request. I also agree that lt is my responsibility to determine the applicable City of
Central Point Municipa en a secure required governmental permits before commencing with the project.
Owners Signature: Dabs:
Design Review Committee: Any deviations in the application of the rules must be reviewed and approved by the
entire DRC and the City of Central Point where applicable.
2.
3.
City of Central Point
Date Approved: Approved:
Date r 16� Denied: Denied:
Date: �-� 1� Subject to: Date:
100
Attachment C
HMR-05062018.pdf
101
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Common & Open Space Maintenance Association
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Association
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's)
Home Modification Review
Owners Name. _ J " I, t� i; �Vt Y �'-' " � Check Planned Work Date Submitted:
k' ;„ h r rJ Fence,screea Date Received: C
Property Address: ?�' Home Additions a
H Landscaping
Mailing Address: ^ Poor'spa ' Approximate Construction Time Frame
,-Nr--ar•.tar r^ -;v7, mlle,s satelhie, Dish
Email Address , i Ir. l a s d - 4 K (�r'•'t A J srree1! ^9 Start Date:
ShediShoG
Phone Number C - 1 U '7, LlE., 1 �_ } `r Panels Completion Date:
1 Review the applicable Administrative Guidelines Describe the proposed modifications or additions, attach
sketches, photographs. contractor's proposal. site plan and/or paint chips and materials descriptions nessesary
to convey an understanding of the planned work, Be specific with respect to exterior paint color placement, the
base color, trim, and front and garage doors colors
2 All plans and specifications submitted for review and approval by the DRC must be at received at least 10 days
prior to the proposed Installation or construction start date Requested Information must be complete to
process. Failure to secure reaulred aggrovals may result in sanctions.
3. Description of work a ;:x=.. -,t -:.saiy — 41)U _D:t'_ r °a. �l{'�71�.✓t ��
4 Review and approval time line: (Additional time may be required to review extensive projects)
Normally the review process can be accomplished quickly, but it must not be assumed that the request will
be addressed any sooner then outlined below when planning a project.
• 7 days for most projects such as satellite dish placement, fences. sheds, screens, decks, play equipment,
roofing and house painting
• 10 days for significant projects such as swimming pools, home additions or major landscape projects.
5 The approval of the Home Modification Review by the DRC is valid for a period of 12 months from the date of
signing The DRC, at its sole discretion shall determine if or when a project has been significantly modified or
delayed from the original approved plan to warrant an additional review and approval
6. Submit form to: JONA, Attm DRC, P O Box 3410. Central Point OR 97502
Or deliver personally to any member of the DRC Message Phone: JONA (541-690-8527)
I acknowledge that I have read and agree to comply with the CC&R's and Administrative Guidelines pertaining to
this home /property modification request. I also agree that it is my responsibility to determine the applicable City of
Central Point Municipal podes andisecure required governmental permits before commencing with the project.
Owners Signature!.., 4 ,_ Y2• -IT Date
Design Review Committee: Any deviations in the application of the rules must be reviewed and approved by the
entire DRC and the City of Central Point where applicable.
DRC
City of Central Point
1
Date:
Approved:
Approved:
2 _
Date:
��� �/
Denied& /!•
Denied:/4t--
enied:3
3_�-
_ _ Date:
Subject to:
Date:
Stipulabons
d�1i_ �. C', ,1R 5 bmOka
l�rc
_. Za rd ZhaZ T.
are
mov 1716z to -Ver be -
rented by y64
Of QAy Swbs"c4eqt owAer-I
oP the
pl o/Pel'ZY•
102
Attachment D
Frost ADU Compliance Letter
2-5-19. pdf
103
City of Central Point, Oregon
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502
541.664.3321 Fax 541,664.6384
www,central pointoregon.gov
Jim & Elaine Frost
921 Buck Point Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Ak
CENTRAL
POINT
Oveen n
February 5, 2019
RE: Use of Accessory Structure at 921 Buck Point
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Frost:
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
In response to neighborhood complaints and after further investigation of the building
permits issued for the above referenced address, it has become evident that you are not
using the accessory structure as it was approved by the City. The code requirements for
Accessory Structures are different from those of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and
I have attached an excerpt from the LMR zoning district where each applies.
The building permit for which you received approval in 2017 identified a detached garage
that was setback five feet from rear and side property lines. The original plans allowed
for the plumbing and installation of a utility sink which was expanded in the field to
include a toilet. A garage door was replaced with French Doors and a paved driveway
was never installed for access to the structure as stipulated in the permit per CPMC
17.75.039.E.2
If your intention was or is to have an Accessory Dwelling Unit which the zoning district
permits, you will either have to modify the detached garage to comply with ADU
standards or build a separate structure that complies.
Please contact me at 541-423-1025 upon receipt of this letter so that we can discuss your
options and work toward a solution. The decisions you make about your home and
property are important to the City of Central Point. It is our intention to safeguard your
decisions as well as the residential neighborhoods that make this town a desirable place
to live. I'm sure you know that you live in a unique neighborhood. Please be advised
104
that in addition to resolving this apparent code violation with the City, you may still
need to satisfy the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of that neighborhood,
however, that is not an enforcement matter with which the City is involved.
incea\n
yours,
TomihreyAICD
Community Development Director
Enclosure
cc. Chris Clayton, City Manager
Sydnee Dreyer, City Attorney
Derek Zwagerman, Building Official
Chris Wasner, Community Service Officer
105
PIP
v
m
.MMM
m
N
L_
O
N
C
O
N
P
a
m
�a
0.
@
m
aL..
V
c
�a
@ Ln
U L
r
m
W
106
�a
V
c
2
E
CL0
0
ami
0
LL
13 0
rr
N
co
N
v
.o
N
L
CV
O
F-
C
M
SSS
c
O
N
Q1
in
ELL
m
m
s
L
107
0
z z
z
z z
z
z
z z
z
§
U
E
z z
E �
�
$I
z z
z
z
kua
z z
0
G
Q
�
�
.�.
- --
�
§
$
z z
a
IL
�
a
-
a
IL aCL
@W)
e §
a a
a
a S
0
§
a
� �
§
7
§
J
\
&
E
k R
■\
$
§
2
c
CL
utA
Lis
_
107
2
�
\
§
E
E �
_
$I
a E
�
0
z
z
z
1
z
z
I
k
z
I
z
k
I
i
z
z
z
z
z
z
k z
k
I
i
z
/
cl�
zcoCD
/
%
$
b
§
z
z/
kCL
7
k
0
_
n
N
co
b
U.
t
b
b
$
co
k
K
2
k
7
k
k
2
r
w
w
¥
n
w
\
k
�
t
§ �
§ j
�
�
2
�
■
2
�
�
2
U)
�
R
§
�
�
«
108
109
0
z z
I
k
z
z
k
®
b
k
LO
b
z
1
z
i
I
7
)
b
b
\
2
m
%
kk
z
z
7
k
7
F
/
R
§
§
g§
UA
z
z
k
G
B B
�
e
b a
�
a
-
�
� �
�
c
N
z
$
z
k
i
k
f
® b k
2
k
b m
§
§
----
-----
_C4 r
%
§
z
z
k
q
7
k
G
2 �
$ b 2
$
$
.
e
0
--
o
2 �
§
$
k
k
C
a
k
\
a
t 7
\§
� f
e
----
-
2
- —
5
�
2
£
®
]
§
\ k
%
s
f
$
2
k
a
r
0
o
$
2
E
2
2
^
B
2
$
LL
a
k
J
109
a
G
O
Q
z
CV)
u')
N
z
V
a�
,n
c0
N
10
o
� Gl
u�
T
C9
G7
m
cO
o
0
o
f�
ca
O
0
O N
LLUj
m
m
m
�o
�
_
_
o
0
00
J
G7
m
N
w
O
0
T
�
G1
W
O
C
O
N
CL
p
o
ON
GO I
c0
�
46
O�
N
a
p►
.�
n
�
c0
v
Q
w
E
U
E
E
E
z
a
z
a
z
V
t
imull
w
Z)
a
m
m
Z
C
CL
m
a
(6
$
f0
mLD
o
�
z
r�r
P
a
w
N
f
111
'c
m
cr
A
E
G
F=
112
U
CL
C
C
a
L
fA
N
N
8
H
_C
lC
CL
CC&R Violation Letter -921 Buck
Point Street-07172019vl.pdf
113
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Common and Open Space Maintenance Association
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Association
P.O. BOX 3410
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
e-mail: boardnajona-cD.com
CC&R VIOLATION LETTER
July 17, 2019
Jim & Elaine Frost
921 Buck Point Street
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
RE: USE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 921 BUCK POINT
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Frost:
It is the obligation of our Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Association (JONA) Board of Directors to ensure
each Property Owner in our Community is adhering to the Governing Documents. Our Community is
striving to continue to be a beautiful place in which to reside pleasantly with our neighbors.
The matter listed below was noted to be inconsistent with your Community Documents and/or published
Association rules. The JONA Board of Directors are kindly asking you to take the necessary steps to bring
your property into compliance.
First courtesy notice for: THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS BEING USED AS A RESIDENCE /
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
The JONA DRC approved the structure on 04/1212018, with stipulations that the structure was to
be used as a detached man cave/game room only. You are in violation of the JONA CC&Rs and
the City of Central Point permit you obtained in 2017.
The JONA board has received complaints that someone is living in the Accessory Structure.
As you know, in November 2018 several new JONA board of directors were elected and a new DRC
committee appointed. The current JONA board of directors and DRC committee reviewed your Home
Modification Review request dated 03/23/2018 and carefully reviewed the JONA Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Jackson Oaks Neighborhood of Twin Creeks,
114
Transit -Oriented Development Project. We understand that the permit you obtained from the City of
Central Point was for a detached garage with a setback of five feet from rear and side property lines. We
also understand that you included a toilet in the field and you also changed the planned garage door to
French doors. The Home Modification Review Request dated 03/23/2018 was not for a detached garage.
The JONA board of directors want to make clear our position on
this matter.
The JONA CC&Rs are more restrictive than the City of Central Point building and zoning requirements.
The JONA Board of Directors understand that the City of Central Point suggested to you that you could
have an Accessory Dwelling Unit that complies with the Cities building requirements or a second structure
that complies. Per the JONA CC&Rs you may only have one single family dwelling per building site.
Therefore, you may not use the building as a residence and you may not add a second building.
Below you will find a few sections copied from the JONA CC&Rs as it pertains to this subject.
Section 5.1, Paragraph 1
Design Review Committee (DRC). There shall be a Design Review Committee (DRC), with the
responsibility and authority to approve or disapprove modifications to the Property, to approve
the construction of improvements on the Property, and to enforce the terns and conditions of this
Declaration as they relate to architectural and . The DRC shall consist of three (3)
members. The members of the DRC during the Development Period shall be appointed by the
Declarant and shall serve until the Declarant appoints new members. In the case of the death,
disability or resignation of any member or members of the DRC, the surviving or remaining
member or members shall have full authority to designate a successor or successors. DRC
meetings will be.held_as..needed-aDd minutes of all meetings will be kept and made available to
Association members on request.
Section 5.2, Paragraph 1
Approval of Plans. All buildings and structures, including concrete or masonry walls, rockerles,
fences, swimming pools, shops, sheds, play structures, gazebos or other structures to be
constructed or modified within the Property shall be approved by the DRC. Complete plans and
specifications of all proposed buildings, structures and exterior alterations, together with detailed plans
showing the proposed location and elevation of the same on the particular Building Site, shall be
115
submitted to the DRC before construction or alteration is started, and such construction and alteration
shall not be started until written approval thereof is given by the DRC.
Section 5.2, Paragraph 4
As to all improvements, constructions and alterations within the Property, the DRC shall have the right
to refuse to approve any design, plan or color for such improvement, construction or alteration
which Is not suitable or desirable, in the DRC's opinion, for any reason, aesthetic or otherwise,
and in so passing upon such design the DRC shall have the right to take into consideration the suitability
of the proposed building or other structure, and the material of which it is to be built, and the exterior color
scheme, the site upon which it is proposed to erect the same, the harmony thereof with the surroundings
and the effect or impairment that said structures will have on the view or outlook of surrounding building
sites, and any and all factors, which in the DRC's opinion shall effect the desirability or suitability of such
proposed structure, improvements or alterations.
Section 5.3 (e)
No building or structure shall be erected, constructed, maintained or permitted upon a Building
Site other than one single family dwelling, for single family occupancy only, not to exceed building
heights as specified in the City of Central Point TOD District Zoning Standards, and a private garage for
not more than three (3) standard sized automobiles or carport for not more than one (1) standard sized
automobile and one accessory dwelling unit. Additional Buildings or Structures may be permitted on a Lot
or Building Site only upon written approval of the DRC (see 5.2 above)
For your convenience the Governing Documents can be viewed online or downloaded from the JONA
website www.mona-cr).com. The Board of Directors is looking forward to working together in a continuing
effort to keep our Community beautiful. If you have any questions or concerns about the above matter,
please do not hesitate to contact us at www.jona-cp.com.
Sincerely,
Jackson Oaks Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
cc. City of Central Point
140 S. 3rd St.
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director
116
Attachment F
Map of 921 Buck Point.pdf
117
Accessory structure was built in
this location at 921 Buck Point
Street
Adjoining land managed by
Southern Oregon Land
Conservancy owned by Brett
and Amy Moore (TWIN CREEKS
DEVELOPMENT CO LLC)
:s t Yellow Zone in front of these
homes, no street parking
allowed
- r
�a
.t�
r
118
ATTACHMENT "E"
Planning May 2019
A Planning Primer on Private
Restrictive Covenants
By Brian J Connolly and Vincent P. Forcinito
Covenant -controlled communities have exploded in popularity over the last 50 years. In 1970,
only 2.1 million people lived in them. By 2010, about 62 million residents — nearly 20 percent
of the U.S. population — called them home. Today, massive suburban communities like
Summerlin, Nevada, and Highlands Ranch, Colorado, both of which are home to over 100,000
residents, make use of this form of "mini -zoning."
Sometimes referred to as CC&Rs (standing for covenants, conditions, and restrictions),
restrictive covenants are private contractual obligations set by developers and landowners to
create and maintain a common scheme of development and control over property. They control
land use, development standards, and other aspects of residential and commercial community
management
Because of the broad reach of private covenants in regulating development and land use in much
of the U.S., planners should be aware of their legal consequences and how they can impact
planning goals in their communities.
Potential for conflict
Private covenants can both benefit and burden affected landowners. They are often contained in
a document called a declaration, which is recorded in public land records and runs with the land,
meaning it attaches to property in perpetuity despite changes in ownership and control. And they
can contain virtually anything: building and use standards, landscaping guidelines, trash and
recycling requirements, easements for utilities or public access, limitations on pets, association
dues, and management structures. While these stipulations might restrict a landowner's ability to
engage in certain land uses and activities, they also ensure that others burdened by the same
restrictions will be bound by their terms.
As private contractual obligations, covenants are not created or generally enforced by local
governments. Home owners and business associations and private landowners are responsible for
any violations, which are generally enforced through payment of damages or a court order called
an injunctive relief.
Their use, therefore, can sometimes conflict with governmental and societal goals and policies.
For example, after the U.S. Supreme Court declared race -based zoning measures unconstitutional
in 1917, racially restrictive covenants were used in the early part of the 20th century to prohibit
African Americans and minority religious groups from living in white suburban neighborhoods,
contributing to many of the segregated communities we still see today. It wasn't until 1948,
in Shelley v. Kraemer, that the Supreme Court held judicial enforcement of race -based covenants
119
to also be unconstitutional. Still, many today might establish gated communities, large lots, or
other economically exclusionary measures that achieve similar ends.
Private covenants can control land use, development standards, and other
aspects of community management.
Other types of conflicts between planning goals and covenants also remain, particularly in areas
of environmental sustainability and mixed use redevelopment. For example, covenants may
prohibit items like solar panels, while public entities encourage them to promote energy savings.
Covenants may also prohibit xeriscaping and other drought -tolerant landscapes — or even
require green, weed -free lawns — even as planners and environmental advocates seek to
conserve water.
Similarly, many covenants effectively create single -use communities like single-family
residential neighborhoods and business parks. While a community may rezone these areas to
encourage a mix of uses and transit accessibility, private covenants often stand in the way of
accomplishing these goals.
Combatting covenants
Amending these stipulations, which can only be done by parties to the covenants, can be
difficult, as an amendment might require the approval of every landowner whose property is
burdened by the covenant. Therefore, some state legislatures prohibit certain private covenants
that are contrary to public policy. In Colorado, for example, the state prohibits bans on
xeriscaping (although an association may adopt or enforce design guidelines or rules that
regulate the type, number, and placement of drought -tolerant plantings and hardscapes) and
covenants that "effectively prohibit renewable energy devices." Similar provisions are popping
up in other states as well.
If a state statute does not limit the content of a restrictive covenant, planners should assume that
property owners will be required to comply with both zoning and a restrictive covenant
applicable to the owner's property. Remember, too, that because restrictive covenants are private
contracts, they have far fewer constitutional limitations than government regulation. For
example, a restrictive covenant could prohibit political signs, while a zoning restriction of the
same nature would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Given the prevalence of covenant -controlled communities in the U.S., conflicts with local zoning
codes can and regularly do arise. In these situations, state -specific statutes should be consulted to
determine the enforceability of the particular provision at issue.
Brian J. Connolly is a land -use lawyer and planner with the firm of Otten Johnson Robinson Neff
+ Ragonetti, PC in Denver. Vincent P. Forcinito is a land -use and real estate lawyer at the same
firm.
Legal Lessons is edited by Mary Hammon, an associate editor of Planning. Please send
information to mhammon @planning. o .
120
ATTACHMENT "F"
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Accessory Dwelling Unit Zoning Code Amendments
File No. ZC-19001
November 5, 2019
Applicant: ) Findings of Fact
City of Central Point ) and
140 South 3rd Street ) Conclusions of Law
Central Point, OR 97502
INTRODUCTION
The City of Central Point is proposing major text amendments to various sections of the Central Point
Municipal Code (CPMC) in Title 17, Zoning Code relative to definitions and standards for Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Accessory Structures (Attachment "A"). The proposed amendments are
designed to accomplish the following: '
III (-'nmAu with Oravnn Ravicerl RtnhitPc MRS) 197-312-
a. Allow at least one (1) ADU in all zones that permit single-family detached dwellings;
b. Eliminate the owner occupancy requirement for ADUs;
c. Eliminate off-street parking requirements in accordance with HB 2001 implemented on
August 8, 2019;
d. Provide only clear and objective standards;
e. Align the definition for an ADU in CPMC 17.08 with the definition in ORS,
197.312(5)(b).
2) Eliminate barriers to ADU construction consistent with the City of Central Point Housing
Element and Housing Implementation Plan:
a. Increase floor area allowed from 35% to 50% of primary dwelling gross floor area; retain
maximum ADU floor area allowed as 800SF;
b. Reduce side and rear yard setback to be equivalent to the setback allowed for an
accessory structure;
c. Align maximum building height with the building height allowed for accessory
structures; and
d. Provide an exception allowing a carriage unit (i.e. ADU above a garage) to exceed the
maximum floor area requirement.
3) Modify the setback the Accessory Structure setback in CPMC17.60.030(A) as follows:
a. Side and rear yard setback shall be 5 -ft, provided all life and safety standards are met;
b. Eliminate provision allowing a 3 -ft setback measured from the furthest protrusion or
overhang. This change provides a consistent setback methodology for all structure types.
Page 1 of 21
121
The proposed Zoning Text changes are Major Amendments per CPMC 17.10.300 and are subject to Type
IV (Legislative) procedures per CPMC 17.05.500.
Approval criteria are set forth in CPMC 17.10.400 and addressed in these findings in five (5) parts:
1. Legislative Amendment Procedures (CPMC 17.05.500)
2. Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendments (CPMC 17.10)
3. Statewide Planning Goals
4. City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
5. Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060(1))
PART 1— CPMC 17.05.500, LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
CPMC 17.05.500(A). Pre -Application Conference. A pre -application conference is required for all
Type IV applications initiated by a party other than the City of Central Point. The requirements and
procedures for a pre -application conference are described in Section 17.05.600(C).
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(A): Since the City of Central Point initiated this application to amend
various sections of Title 17, a pre -application conference was not required nor was one held.
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(A): Not applicable.
CPMC 17.05.500(B). Timing of Requests. Acceptance timing varies for Type IV applications (see Table
17.05.1 for applicable section reference).
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(B): The proposed zoning text amendments are considered Major
Amendments per Table 17.05. 01 and Section I7.10.300(A). As demonstrated by the Findings for
CPMC 17.05.500, the proposed text amendments have been processed in accordance with the
timelines and requirements for Type IV legislative applications.
TABLE 17.05.1
Conclusion CPMC I7.05.500(B): Consistent.
C. Application Requirements.
122
Page 2 of 21
PROCEDURAL
APPLICABLE
APPROVING
120 -
LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT*
TYPE
REGULATIONS
AUTHORITY
DAY
RULE
Zoning Map and Zoning and Land
Division Code Text Amendments
Minor
Type III
Chapter 17.10
City Council
Yes
Major
Type IV
Chapter 17.10
City Council
No
Conclusion CPMC I7.05.500(B): Consistent.
C. Application Requirements.
122
Page 2 of 21
CPMC 17.05.500(C)(1). Application Forms. Type IV applications shall be made on forms provided by
the community development director or designee.
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(C)(1): At the September 3, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare amendments to CPMC 17.08, 17.60.030, and 17.77 for public hearing on
November 5, 2019. The direction was based on discussion ofpotential code amendments at the
August and September meetings to comply with ORS 197.3121SB 1051 and to eliminate barriers to
housing per the approved Housing Implementation Plan (City Council Resolution No. 1560).
Subsequently, staff prepared an application form, notified DLCD and the newspaper of the pending
Public Hearing as demonstrated in the following findings and conclusions.
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(C)(1): Consistent.
CPMC 17.05.500(C)(2) Submittal Information. The application shall contain:
a. The information requested on the application form;
b. A map and/or plan addressing the appropriate criteria and standards in sufficient detail for review
and decision (as applicable);
c. The required fee; and
d. One copy of a letter or narrative statement (findings and conclusions) that explains how the
application satisfies each and all of the relevant approval criteria and standards applicable to the
specific Type IV application.
Finding CPMC I7.05.500(C)(2): The City of Central Point's application to amend various sections
of the Zoning Ordinance Text relative to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and accessory structures
includes the application form, description of text amendments, and copy of proposed text amendments
(See File No. ZC-19001).
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(C)(2): Consistent.
CPMC 17.05.500(D). Notice of Hearing.
1. Re uired Hearin2. A minimum of two hearings, one before the planning commission and one
before the city council, are required for all Type IV applications.
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(D)(1): A duly noticed hearing was held before the planning
commission on November 5, 2019. A second hearing is scheduled and has been noticed at the
City Council meeting on December 12,2019.
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(D)(1): Consistent.
Notification Requirements. Notice of public hearings shall be given by the community
development director or designee in the following manner:
a. At least ten days, but not more than forty days, before the date of the first hearing, a
notice shall be mailed to:
123
Page 3 of 21
i. Any affected governmental agency;
ii. Any person who requests notice in writing;
b. At least ten days before the first public hearing date, and fourteen days before the city
council hearing date, public notice shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city.
c. The community development director or designee shall:
i. For each mailing of notice, file an affidavit of mailing in the record as provided
by subsection (D)(2)(a) of this section; and
ii. For each published notice, file in the record the affidavit of publication in a
newspaper that is required in subsection (D)(2)(b) of this section.
d. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) shall be
notified in writing of proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments
within the time period prescribed by DLCD. The notice to DLCD shall include a DLCD
certificate of mailing.
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(D)(2): In accordance with Municipal Code, notice was mailed in a timely
fashion to all affected agencies and persons who made a request for notice. Similarly, an affidavit
will be published in a newspaper, and the DLCD was notified.
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(D)(2): Consistent.
Content of Notices. The mailed and published notices shall include the following information:
a. The number and title of the file containing the application, and the address and telephone
number of the community development director or designee's office where additional
information about the application can be obtained;
b. The proposed site location, if applicable;
c. A description of the proposal in enough detail for people to determine what change is
proposed, and the place where all relevant materials and information may be obtained or
reviewed;
d. The time(s), place(s), and date(s) of the public hearing(s); a statement that public oral or
written testimony is invited; and a statement that the hearing will be held under this title
and rules of procedure adopted by the council and available at City Hall (see subsection E
of this section).
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(D)(3): The description included within the notices conform with CPMC
17.05.500(D)(3) as evidenced by the affidavit ofpublication herein incorporated by reference.
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(D)(3): Consistent.
CPMC 17.05.500(E). Hearing Process and Procedure --Conduct of Public Hearing.
1. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedure adopted by the city council:
a. The presiding officer of the planning commission and of the city council shall have the
authority to:
i. Regulate the course, sequence, and decorum of the hearing;
Page 4 of 21
124
ii. Direct procedural requirements or similar matters;
iii. Impose reasonable time limits for oral presentations; and
iv. Waive the provisions of this chapter so long as they do not prejudice the
substantial rights of any party.
b. No person shall address the commission or the council without:
i. Receiving recognition from the presiding officer; and
ii. Stating his or her full name and address.
c. Disruptive conduct such as applause, cheering, or display of signs shall be cause for
expulsion of a person or persons from the hearing, termination or continuation of the
hearing, or other appropriate action determined by the presiding officer.
2. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedures adopted by the council, the presiding officer
of the commission and of the council shall conduct the hearing as follows:
a. The presiding officer shall begin the hearing with a statement of the nature of the matter
before the body, a general summary of the procedures, a summary of the standards for
decision-making, and whether the decision which will be made is a preliminary decision,
such as a recommendation to the city council, or the final decision of the city;
b. The community development director or designee's report and other applicable staff
reports shall be presented;
c. The public shall be invited to testify;
d. The public lhanr;no mncr he cnntimied to allnw Pidditionnl testimonv or it may be closed:
and
e. The body's deliberation may include questions to the staff, comments from the staff, and
inquiries directed to any person present.
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(E): Planning Commission meetings and public hearings are conducted in
accordance with State public meeting laws and the procedures in this section as evidenced by the
record ofproceedings maintained by the City for each meeting including those duly noticed meetings
for this application.
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(E): Consistent.
CPMC 17.05.5OqM. Continuation of the Public #ew #wThe planning commission or the city council
may continue any hearing, and no additional notice of hearing shall be required if the matter is continued
to a specified place, date, and time.
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(F): Continuations of the public hearing will abide by the rules and
regulations of CPMC 17.05.500(F).
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(F): Consistent.
CPMC 17.05.500(G). Decision -Making Criteria Decision Process. The recommendations by the
citizen's advisory committee, the planning commission and the decision by the city council shall be based
on the applicable criteria.
Page 5 of 21
125
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(G): The recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the
Planning Commission are based on applicable criteria as stated in CPMC 17.05.500(G).
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(G): Consistent.
CPMC 17.05.500(H). Approval Process and Authority.
1. The citizens advisory committee and planning commission shall:
a. The citizens advisory committee: after notice and discussion at a public meeting, vote on
and prepare a recommendation to the city council to approve, approve with
modifications, approve with conditions, deny the proposed change, or adopt an
alternative; and
b. The planning commission: after notice and a public hearing, vote on and prepare a
recommendation to the city council to approve, approve with modifications, approve with
conditions, deny the proposed change, or adopt an alternative; and
c. Within ten days of adopting a recommendation, the presiding officer shall sign the
written recommendation, and it shall be filed with the community development director
or designee.
2. Any member of the citizen's advisory committee or planning commission who votes in
opposition to the majority recommendation may file a written statement of opposition with the
community development director or designee before the council public hearing on the proposal.
The community development director or designee shall send a copy to each council member and
place a copy in the record;
3. If the citizens advisory committee or planning commission does not adopt a recommendation to
approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions, deny the proposed change, or
adopt an alternative proposal within sixty days of its first public hearing on the proposed change,
the community development director or designee shall:
a. Prepare a report to the city council on the proposal, including noting the citizens advisory
committee's or planning commission's actions on the matter, if any; and
b. Provide notice and put the matter on the city council's agenda for the city council to hold
a public hearing and make a decision. No further action shall be taken by the citizens
advisory committee or planning commission.
4. The city council shall:
a. Consider the recommendation of the citizens advisory committee and planning
commission; however, the city council is not bound by the committee's or the
commission's recommendation;
b. Approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions, deny, or adopt an
alternative to an application for legislative change, or remand the application to the
planning commission for rehearing and reconsideration on all or part of the application;
and
c. If the application is approved, the council shall act by ordinance, which shall be signed
by the mayor after the council's adoption of the ordinance.
Page 6 of 21
126
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(H): The approval process for the citizen's advisory committee and the
planning commission were bused on the rules and regulations of CPMC 17,05.500(H). Similarly, the
city council will conform with the rules and regulations of CPMC 17.05.500(H).
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(H): Consistent.
CPMC 17.05.500(n. Vote Required for a Legislative Change.
1. A vote by a majority of the qualified voting members of the citizen's advisory committee present
is required for a recommendation for approval, approval with modifications, approval with
conditions, denial or adoption of an alternative.
2. A vote by a majority of the qualified voting members of the planning commission present is
required for a recommendation for approval, approval with modifications, approval with
conditions, denial or adoption of an alternative.
3. A vote by a majority of the qualified members of the city council present is required to decide any
motion made on the proposal.
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(H): At the September 3, 2019 meeting, the Citizen's Advisory Committee
(CAC) voted to recommend the Planning Commission approve the proposed code amendments with
the exception of the provision allowing flexibility in off-street parking location. Since the time the
CAC voted on the matter, the City has learned that a new law was put into effect on August 8, 2019
mandating communities eliminate off-street parking requirements for ADUs. The Planning
Commission will consider the CAC recommendation, the staff report and public testimony and vote
on a recommendation to the City Council at the November 5, 2019 meeting or at a continued public
hearing on a date specified. Subsequently the City Council will consider the proposed amendments
and vote to decide on the proposed amendments.
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(H): Consistent.
CPMC 17.05.500(J -L).
J. Notice of Decision. Notice of a Type IV decision shall be mailed to the applicant, all participants of
record, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development, within five days after the city
council decision is filed with the community development director or designee.
K. Final Decision and Effective Date. A Type IV decision, if approved, shall take effect and shall
become final as specified in the enacting ordinance, or if not approved, upon the date of mailing of
the notice of decision to the applicant.
L. Record of the Public Hearing.
1. A verbatim record of the proceeding shall be made by stenographic, mechanical, or electronic
means. It is not necessary to transcribe an electronic record. The minutes and other evidence
presented as a part of the hearing shall be part of the record;
2. All exhibits received and displayed shall be marked to provide identification and shall be part of
the record;
The official record shall include:
127
Page 7 of 21
a. All materials considered and not rejected by the hearings body;
b. All materials submitted by the community development director or designee to the
hearings body regarding the application;
c. The verbatim record made by the stenographic, mechanical, or electronic means; the
minutes of the hearing; and other documents considered;
d. The final decision;
e. All correspondence; and
f. A copy of the notices that were given as required by this chapter. (Ord. 2033 §5, 2017;
Ord. 1989 § 1(part), 2014; Ord. 1874 § l (part), 2006).
Finding CPMC 17.05.500(J --L): As evidenced in the record, notice of decision, final decisions,
effective dates, and records of the public hearing abide by the rules and regulations of CPMC
17.05.500(J -L).
Conclusion CPMC 17.05.500(J -L): Consistent.
PART 2 — CPMC 17.10, ZONING MAP AND ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS
17.10.200 Initiation of amendments.
A proposed amendment to the code or zoning map may be initiated by either:
A. A resolution by the planning commission to the city council;
B. A resolution of intent by the city council; or for zoning map amendments;
C. An application by one or more property owners (zoning map amendments only), or their agents, of
property affected by the proposed amendment. The amendment shall be accompanied by a legal
description of the property or properties affected; proposed findings of facts supporting the proposed
amendment, justifying the same and addressing the substantive standards for such an amendment as
required by this chapter and by the Land Conservation and Development Commission of the state. (Ord.
1989 § 1(part), 2014).
Finding CPMC 17.10.200: At the September 3, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission directed
staff to prepare notice zoning text amendments or a public hearing on November 5, 2019. At the
conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will direct staff to prepare a resolution to
City Council in accordance with this section.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.200: Consistent.
17.10.300 Major and minor amendments.
There are two types of map and text amendments:
128
Page 8 of 21
A. Major Amendments. Major amendments are legislative policy decisions that establish by law general
policies and regulations for future land use decisions, such as revisions to the zoning and land division
ordinance that have widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area. Major amendments are
reviewed using the Type IV procedure in Section 17.05.500.
B. Minor Amendments. Minor amendments are those that involve the application of adopted policy to a
specific development application, and not the adoption of new policy (i.e., major amendments). Minor
amendments shall follow the Type III procedure, as set forth in Section 17.05.400. The approval authority
shall be the city council after review and recommendation by the planning commission. (Ord. 1989
§1(part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006).
Finding CPMC 17.10.300: The proposed zoning text amendments modem requirements for Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs), which will impact future land use decisions. The proposed amendments will
have widespread impacts and are considered a Major Amendment in accordance with CPMC
I7.10.300(A). As evidenced by the Findings in Part 1 of these Findings, the Major Amendments are
legislative and have been processed in accordance with the Type IV (legislative) procedures set forth
in CPMC 17.05.500.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.300: Consistent.
17.10.400 Approval criteria.
A reconunendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to dcny an application for a text
or map amendment shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria:
A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals (major
amendments only);
Finding CPMC 17.10.400(A): See Part 3 Findings — Statewide Planning Goals.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.400(A): Consistent.
B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan (major and minor
amendments);
Finding CPMC 17.10.400(B): See Part 4 Findings — Central Point Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.400(B): Consistent.
C. If a zoning map amendment, findings demonstrating that adequate public services and
transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction in
the city's public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and
Page 9 of 21
129
Finding CPMC 17.10.400(C): The proposal is for Major zoning text amendments. This criterion
applies to Major and Minor zoning map amendments only. Notwithstanding, ADUs are allowed in
conjunction with an existing or approved primary single family dwelling. Since services are
necessary to permit construction of the primary dwelling, it can be concluded that the public services
are available and can be extended to serve the ADU.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.400(C): Not applicable.
D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. (Ord.
1989 §1(part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006. Formerly 17.10.300(B)).
Finding CPMC 17.10.400(D): As demonstrated in Part S Findings — Transportation Planning Rule,
the proposed text do not significantly affect existing or planned transportation facilities.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.400(D): Consistent.
PART 3 — STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
This section sets forth preliminary findings of fact relative to the proposed text amendment's compliance
with the Statewide Planning Goals. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals include Goal 1, Citizen
Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; and Goal 10, Housing.
Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement:
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process.
Finding Goal l: The proposed text amendments do not enhance, or detract, from citizen participation
in the City's planning process established in the Comprehensive Plan to comply with Statewide
Planning Goal 1. Discussions were held by the Planning Commission on August 6, 2019 and
September 3, 2019 to discuss the preliminary draft amendments. At that time the public was invited to
participate in the discussion and comments were received verbally and in writing. Written comments
have been entered into the record for the proposed amendments and have been addressed in the staff
report and these findings. Based on discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff to finalize
draft amendments relative to ADUs and accessory structures.
Consistent with the City's procedures for legislative amendments and citizen involvement program,
the Citizen's Advisory Committee considered draft changes at their September 10, 2019 meeting. The
CAC unanimously voted to recommend approval to the Planning Commission with the exception that
they didn't like any flexibilityfor off-street parking location.
Duly noticed public hearings are scheduled for the November S, 2019 Planning Commission and the
December 12, 2019 City Council meetings.
Page 10 of 21
130
Conclusion Goal 1: The proposed text amendments are consistent with the City's planning process
and citizen's involvement program and therefore comply with Statewide Planning Goal 1.
Goal 2 — Land Use Planning:
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions
related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
Finding Goal 2: Element I of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan addresses the Goal 2
requirement that plans and implementing ordinances be revised on a periodic cycle to take into
account changing public policies, community attitudes and other circumstances; as such the
proposed code amendments provide a process and policy framework as a basis for land use
decisions.
The proposed text amendments are consistent with CPMC 17.10 and therefore do not modify or
otherwise affect the City's planning process and policy framework as set forth in the Comprehensive
Plan. As demonstrated in these findings, proposed text amendments serve to implement existing
policy in the Housing Element, State Laws relative to housing in ORS 197.312 and clary current
code language by providing clear and objective standards.
I..6nc usion Goal 2: Consistent.
Goal 10 — Housing:
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Finding Goal 10: The proposed text amendments to CPMC 17.77 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
and CPMC 17.60.030 Accessory Buildings eliminates barriers to ADU construction in Central Point
by establishing clear and objective standards, increasing the maximum floor area to a size allowed
and implementing state requirements eliminating off-street parking and owner occupancy
requirements. As demonstrated in Part 4, this aligns with the Goals and Policies of the City of
Central Point Housing Element to increase housing supply, diverse housing types, and affordability,
which aliens with Statewide Plannine Goal 10.
Conclusion Goal 10: Consistent.
PART 4 — CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed amendments address standards for housing. Applicable policies in the comprehensive plan
include those in the Housing Element and Transportation Element.
Housing Goal 1:
To provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected
households.
Page 11 of 21
131
Policy 1.1:
Continue to support new residential development at the new minimum residential densities.
Finding Policy 1.1: The proposed code amendments allow for a density bonus to accommodate
Accessory Dwelling Units, which does not otherwise impede or affect achievement of minimum
residential densities for new residential development.
Conclusion Policy 1.1: Not applicable.
Policy 1.2:
Develop a Housing Implementation Plan that is regularly updated based current market conditions.
Finding Policy 1.2: On December 13, 2018 the City Council per Resolution 1560 approved a 5 -year
Housing Implementation Plan (HIP) based on current market conditions and housing needs. The
code amendments implement Short Term Action 3.2.1 in the HIP as set forth below:
3.2.1 Prepare and Adopt Residential Code Amendments.
Priority I High
Background The City's Zoning Code is in Title 17 of the Central Point
Municipal Code (CPMC). Residential land use and zoning
standards are provided in multiple chapters for conventional
and TOD zones and includes separate chapters for parking,
design, and development. This makes it difficult to find all
relevant approval criteria for a project, which can discourage
and add planning cost to projects.
Some code standards are out of date and pose barriers to
residential development. A recent code audit by ECOINW
found barriers to multifamily development in the R-3,
Multifamily Zone (i.e. building height and lot coverage limits).
Additionally Missing Middle Housing is not clearly addressed
and in some cases not permitted -
Action Consolidate the City's residential standards into 1-2
chapters. Consider the following changes:
• Increase minimum residential densities consistent with the
Housing and Regional Plan Elements;
• Adjust dimensional standards in the R-3 zone to eliminate
barriers to maximizing density:
1) Increase building height from 35 -ft to 45 -ft to allow 4
stories;
2) increase maximum lot coverage from 50% to 60-75% to
increase building area allowed on a site while still providing
adequate land for off-street parking and landscaping; and,
3) Consider adding a buffer between buildings on R-3 lots
and those in the R-1, R-2 and LMR zones.
• Amend ADU standards to comply with SB 1051, increase
size of ADU from 35% to 50% or 800 s.f., whichever is less.
• Add Cottage Housing as a permitted housing type in the R-
1. R-2, and LMR zones with a density bonus of 1.5.
Page 12 of 21
132
• Consider allowing Missing Middle Housing types within the
R-1 zone, such as corner duplexes, interior divisions that
increase density but look like single family dwellings.
Goals & Policies9 Housing Element: 1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4
Regional Plan Element: 4.1.5, 4.1.6
Performance
Measures
• Adopt residential code amendments.
• Increase gross density in the current UGB.
• Achieve gross density of 6.9 units per acre in areas newly
added to the UGB for the period 2019-2024.
• Increase multifamily construction in the R-3 zone.
• Increase the number of ADUs in the City.
As demonstrated herein, the City adopted a HIP that identifies the proposed code amendments as a
high priority action.
Conclusion Policy 1.2: Consistent.
Policy 1.3:
Provide an efficient and consistent development review process.
Finding Policy 1.3: The proposed code amendments do not impede or otherwise affect the City's
development review process.
Conclusion Policy 1.3: Not applicable.
Policy 1.4:
Work with regional partners to develop and implement measures that reduce upfront housing
development costs.
Finding Policy 1.4: The proposed text amendments do not directly involve work with regional
partner involved regional partners to identify housing strategies to increase housing supply and
affordability. The proposed amendments may remove barriers to ADU construction, a housing type
a is`smaier .orma�ia dppoTe—tmWyfft-6re-affordable-Additiorrally-tke7-e-irrnr-up,uortzm' fu r
upfront housing development costs by making it easier to convert existing accessory buildings or
garage attics into ADU's or carriage units through setback consistency standards and language
permitting second story garage additions that align with the current garage footprint.
Conclusion Policy 1.4. Consistent.
Policy 1.5:
Support UGB expansions and annexations that can be efficiently provided with urban services and that
will in a timely manner meet the City's housing needs.
Finding Policy 1.5: The proposed text amendments do not involve, or otherwise affect, the
expansions and annexations of the UGB.
Page 13 of 21
133
Conclusion Policy 1.5: Not applicable.
Policy 1.6:
When properly mitigated to preserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods support higher density
residential development within the Downtown and older surrounding residential areas, capitalizing on
availability of existing infrastructure and supporting revitalization efforts.
Finding Policy 1.6: The proposed code amendments apply to zones that allow single family detached
housing, which includes some zone surrounding the downtown. Allowing ADUs allows increased
residential housing options using existing infrastructure that would otherwise serve only the primary
dwelling unit.
Conclusion Policy 1.6: Consistent.
Housing Goal 2:
To encourage the development and preservation of fair and affordable housing.
Policy 2.1:
Through a Housing Implementation Plan explore and promote federal, state, and regional programs and
incentives that support new affordable housing.
Finding Policy 2.1: CPMC 17.08 Definitions is in alignment with the Housing Implementation Plan
short term strategy No. 3.2.1 which concerns the preparation and adoption of residential code
amendments. The proposed text amendments are intended to streamline code requirements and
eliminate repetitive language. Additionally, the proposed text amendments in CPMC 17.77 Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADU) and CPMC 17 60.030 Accessory Buildings align with the Housing
Implementation Plan short term strategies No. 3.2.1 and No. 3.2.2 by evaluating and adopting code
amendments that eliminate barriers to the addition of new housing types.
Conclusion Policy 2.1: Consistent.
Policy 2.2:
Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional
housing strategies, particularly as they apply to affordable housing.
Finding Policy 2.2: The proposed text amendments are in alignment with the City's HIP, which was
prepared by the City and based upon the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's performance
indicator addressing regional housing strategies.
Conclusion Policy 2.2: Consistent.
134
Page 14 of 21
Policy 2.3:
Support regional efforts addressing homelessness, medical and social services for special need
households.
Finding Policy 2.3: The proposed text amendments do not involve, or otherwise affect the regional
efforts to address homelessness, medical and social services for special need households.
Conclusion Policy 2.3: Not applicable.
Housing Goal 3:
To maintain a timely supply of vacant residential acres sufficient to accommodate development of new
housing to serve the City's projected population.
Policy 3.1:
Provide a sufficient inventory of residential planned and zoned vacant land to meet projected demand in
terms of density, tenure, unit size, accessibility, and cost.
Finding Policy 3.1: The proposed text amendments do not involve, or otherwise affect, the inventory
of residential planned and zoned vacant within the City.
Conclusion Policy 3.1: Not applicable.
Policy 3.2:
Throughout the 2019-2039 planning period the City's new vacant residential land use mix shall support
an average density of not less than 6.9 dwelling units per gross.
Finding Policy 3.2: The proposed text amendments allow a density bonus to construct ADUs and do
not adversely affect the City's ability to assure new vacant lands are planned and zoned to meet the
required minimum average density.
Conclusion Policy 3.2: Not applicable. .
Policy 3.3:
Update the Housing Element's vacant acreage needs every four -years consistent with the PSU Population
Research Centers update of population.
Finding Policy 3.3: The proposed text amendments implement recently adopted policy in response to
a PSU Population Forecast update in 2018. As such the proposed amendments do not involve or
trigger the need to update the Housing Element vacant acreage needs.
Conclusion Policy 3.3: Not applicable.
135
Page 15 of 21
Policy 3.4:
To avoid speculation the City shall, when expanding the UGB establish procedures that give priority to
lands that will be developed in a timely manner and with a residential mix and density consistent with the
Housing Element.
Finding Policy 3.4: The proposed text amendments are not part of an amendment to the UGB.
Conclusion Policy 3.4: Not applicable.
Policy 3.5:
Monitor residential in -fill development activity and develop and enact programs that encourage the
expanded use of in -fill as a component to the City's residential land use inventory.
Finding Policy 3.5: The proposed text amendments to CPMC 17.77 Accessory Dwelling Units and
17.60.030 Accessory Buildings remove barriers to the creation ofADU's in eligible zones. This will
allow more efficient use of lands already developed with a primary dwelling consistent with this
policy promoting infill. The City will monitor ADU construction activity that results following
adoption of the code amendments and amend as necessary.
Conclusion Policy 3.5: Consistent.
Housing Goal 4:
To ensure that a variety of housing will be provided in the City in terms of location, type, price and
tenure, according to the projected needs of the population.
Policy 4.1:
Residential land use designations on the General Land Use Plan and Zoning Map shall be compliant with
the residential land use needs and housing types identified in the Housing Element.
Finding Policy 4.1: The proposed text amendments do not involve, or otherwise affect, the General
Land Use Plan and Zoning Map compliance with the residential land use needs and housing types
identified in the Housing Element.
Conclusion Policy 4.1: Not applicable.
Policy 4.2:
Based on the findings of the Housing Implementation Plan incentivize housing types that are needed but
not being provided in adequate numbers by the private sector market forces.
Finding Policy 4.2: Proposed text amendments do not incentivize ADU development, but eliminate
barriers which may make it more possible to create housing types that are needed but not being
provided in adequate numbers by the private sector market forces.
Conclusion Policy 4.2: Consistent.
136
Page 16 of 21
Policy 4.3:
In larger residential developments (in excess of 5 acres) encourage a mix of densities and housing types to
accommodate a variety of households based on age and income levels.
Finding Policy 4.3: The proposed code amendments address provisions for ADUs and setback
measurements for accessory structures, which is consistent with this policy to mix densities and
provide for diverse housing types that meet the diverse needs of Central Point households. This
applies to single lots, large developments and everything in between.
Conclusion Policy 4.3: Consistent.
Policy 4.4:
Support programs that encourage the ability of older residents to age in place by making existing housing
more age friendly and accessible.
Finding Policy 4.4: The proposed text amendments to CPMC 17.77 Accessory Dwelling Units and
CPMC 17.60.030 Accessory Buildings support the encouragement of an age friendly environment by
eliminating barriers to the creation of housing options that can allow older residents to live closer to
furreCey, aiiu rriuning it casici cv ieu'Je roequ neui Uy uc ucc cciiie moi.
Conclusion Policy 4.4: Consistent.
Housing Goal 5:
To ensure that municipal development procedures and standards are not unreasonable impediments to the
provision of affordable housing.
Policy 5.1:
As part of a Housing Implementation Plan periodically evaluate development procedures and standards
for compliance with [lie goals of this Housing Element and modify as appropriate.
Finding Policy S.,. --n—e—proposed text amendments amend standards to implement policies recently
adopted in the Housing Element and the HIP. At this time no further evaluation of development
procedures and standards is being conducted.
Conclusion Policy 5.1: Not applicable.
Housing Goal 6:
To develop and maintain a Housing Implementation Plan that includes programs that monitor and address
the housing affordability needs of the City's low- and moderate -income households.
Policy 6.1:
Support collaborative partnerships with non —profit organizations, affordable housing builders, and for-
profit developers to gain greater access to various sources of affordable housing funds.
Page 17 of 21
137
Finding Policy 6.1: The proposed text amendments do not involve, or otherwise affect, the
collaboration of partnerships for greater access to affordable housing funds.
Conclusion Policy 6.1: Not applicable.
Policy 6.2:
Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional
housing strategies
Finding Policy 6.2: The proposed text amendments are based on City's Housing Element, HIP and
ORS 197.312 amendments. The HIP was prepared in collaboration with the Greater Bear Creek
Valley Regional Plan regional housing strategies program with assistance from the State Department
of Conservation and Development and ECOINW. Through collaboration and implementation the City
is demonstrating its support and commitment to addressing both local and regional housing needs.
Conclusion Policy 6.2: Consistent.
Policy 6.3:
Address the special housing needs of seniors through the provision of affordable housing and housing
related services.
Finding Policy 6.3: The proposed text amendments support special housing needs of seniors by
allowing the development ADUs, which provide a smaller format and typically more affordable
housing option. Additionally ADUs may provide a better option for families to provide for the special
housing needs of aging family members.
Conclusion Policy 6.3: Consistent.
Housing Goal 7:
To assure that residential development standards encourage and support attractive and healthy
neighborhoods.
Policy 7.1:
Encourage quality design throughout the City that acknowledges neighborhood character, provides
balanced connectivity (multi -modal), and integrates recreational and open space opportunities.
Finding Policy 7.1: The proposed text amendments addresses building location and mass through
setback and building height restrictions; however, the City is not proposing changes to mandate
specific residential design standards at this time. ADUs are subject to the same design standards as
the zone in which they are located.
Conclusion Policy 7.1: Consistent.
138
Page 18 of 21
Policy 7.2:
Provide flexible development standards for projects that exceed minimum standards for natural resource
protection, open space, public gathering places, and energy efficiency.
Finding Policy 7.2: The proposed text amendments do not involve, or otherwise affect, the flexible
development standards for projects that exceed minimum standards for natural resource protection,
open space, public gathering places, and energy efficiency.
Conclusion Policy 7.2: Not applicable.
Policy 7.3:
Where appropriate encourage mixed uses at the neighborhood level that enhance the character and
function of the neighborhood and reduce impacts on the City's transportation system.
Finding Policy 7.3: The proposed amendments address standards for ADUs as a housing type and
setback standards for accessory structures. They do not involve standards affecting non-residential
uses necessary to provide neighborhood mixed use development addressed in this policy.
Conclusion Policy 7.3: Not applicable.
Policy 7.4:
Support minimum parking standards for multiple family development served by public transit.
Finding Policy 7.4: The proposed text amendments focus on Accessory Dwelling Units and do not
involve multiple family development parking standards.
Conclusion Policy 7.4: Not applicable.
Policy 7.5:
Maintain and enforce Chapter 17.71 Agricultural Mitigation ensuring that all new residential development
along the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary includes an adequate buffer between the urban uses
and abutti.ng.agrlculturaluses..onlands2one_rl_Wmive.F= U5e..(EFU).
Finding Policy 7.5: The proposed text amendments do not involve, or otherwise affect, the
maintenance or enforcement of Chapter 17.71 Agricultural Mitigation.
Conclusion Policy 7.5: Not applicable.
PART 5 — TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE
Section 660-012-0060(1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive
plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the
local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed
Page 19 of 21
139
land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of
service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system plan:
(A) Allow types or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that are
inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum
acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP
or comprehensive plan.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(a): The proposed text amendments eliminate barriers to ADU
construction, codify recent changes in ORS 197.312, remove redundant code language and provide
only clear and objective standards. The proposed changes ease regulatory barriers to buildingADUs
and creates expanded opportunities for those interested in building an ADU within the R -L, R-1, R-2,
LMR and MMR zoning districts. The proposed text amendments do not result in changes to the
classification of any or existing or planned transportation facilities based on the following:
ADUs incur up front building costs (i.e. permit fees, SDCs, taxes and construction costs) that
have been identified as a common barrier by interested property owners; therefore,
widespread construction ofADUs is not expected to increase dramatically as a result of the
proposed changes;
Since regulations were established in 2006 allowing ADUs in the City, only 18 have been
approved and constructed. During the same time period, 957 dwelling units were constructed
in the City representing less than 2% of the housing supply. Even if the rate ofADU
construction doubled, the number ofADUs constructed would be on the order of three per
year. The location ofADUs would likely be distributed in eligible zones throughout the city,•
Trip generation for ADUs is based on the Multiple Family/Apartment land use in the
Institution of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 7`h Edition. The peak hour trips for
an apartment are listed as 0.62 peak hour trips, which is less than 1.01 peak hour trips
generated by a single family detached dwelling. The ITE Trip Generation Eighth edition
includes Accessory Dwelling Units as an independent land use classification (ITE Code 220),
Page 20 of 21
140
which generates 0.27 peak hour trips. This is sign (candy less than peak hour trips.generated
by both the multifamily and single family land uses.
In light of the above facts and analysis, the proposed code revisions will have no measurable impact
on any one street resulting in a change to the functional classification of a street within the city.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(l)(a): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(b): See Finding 660-012-0060(1)(a).
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(6): No significant affect
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(c): The proposed text amendments are consistent with the land uses typical
of local residential streets. Based on the analysis in Finding 660-012-0060(a), the City's ADU
inventory for the time period 2006-2019 accounts for less than 2% of the housing supply constructed
during that time. During the 2019-2039 planningperiod, the City is expected to add 7,216people,
which equates to 2,883 households based on a 2.5 person per household planning assumption per the
City's Population Element. Assuming that the rate doubles as a result of the proposed code
.,.mendment. over the next 20 -years tho 0h7 would see construction dnn octimntvi1 17 5 Arils in
eligible zoning districts. The total land area within the current UGB zones that allow ADU
construction per ORS 197.312 and the proposed amendments is roughly 1,275 acres. Given the broad
area that ADUs can be constructed, historically low rates of ADU construction and low rate of trip
generation per the ITE Manual, the performance and classification of existing or planned facilities
will not be significantly affected during the planning period.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(l)(c): No significant affect.
PART 6 — SUMMARY CONCLUSION
As demonstrated in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the proposed zoning text amendments
have been reviewed ggnst and found to enmp_ly with the applicable review criteria in CPMC 17. 10,
Zoning Map and Text Amendments.
Page 21 of 21
141