PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING (AUDITORIUM) 155 N FIRST AVENUE, HILLSBORO, OR WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015 PUBLIC MEETING 6:30 PM Prior to scheduled public hearing items, the Planning Commission schedules time to receive briefings from county staff as work session items. These briefings provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to conduct informal communications with each other, review the agenda, and identify questions they may ask before taking action on the agenda items during the public meeting. No public testimony is taken on work session items. Following work session briefings, the Planning Commission considers items published in their agenda, including scheduled public hearing items and consideration of minutes. The public is welcome to speak during the public hearing portions of the meeting. The public may also speak on any item not on the agenda during the Oral Communications section of the agenda. Upon request, the county will endeavor to arrange provision of the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. If you need a sign language interpreter, assistive listening device, or a language interpreter, please call (or for Telecommunications Relay Service) by 5:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding the meeting date.

2 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING AUDITORIUM The Planning Commission welcomes your attendance at the Public Meeting. If you wish to speak on a public hearing agenda item or during Oral Communications, please feel free to do so. Time is generally limited to five minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for an authorized representative of a Citizen Participation Organization (CPO). The Chair may adjust the actual time limits. However, in fairness to others, we respectfully ask your cooperation on the following: Please follow sign-in procedures located on the table by the entrance to the auditorium. When your name is announced, please be seated at the table in front and state your name and home or business address for the record. Groups or organizations wishing to make a presentation are asked to designate one spokesperson in the interest of time and to avoid repetition. When more than one citizen is heard on any matter, please avoid repetition in your comments. Careful attention to the previous speakers remarks will be helpful in this regard. If you plan to present written testimony at the hearing, please bring 15 copies for distribution to Commission members and staff. PUBLIC MEETING DATES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSIONS 8:30 a.m. 1 st and 3 rd Tuesdays 2:00 p.m. 4 th Tuesday PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS 1:30 p.m. 1 st Wednesday 6:30 p.m. 3 rd Wednesday BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS 10 a.m. 1 st and 3 rd Tuesdays 6:30 p.m. 4 th Tuesday Note: Occasionally it may be necessary to cancel or add a meeting date.

3 PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING WEDNESDAY JULY 15, :30 PM AGENDA CHAIR: VICE-CHAIR: COMMISSIONERS: A. RICHARD VIAL JEFF PETRILLO ED BARTHOLEMY, TEGAN ENLOE, LILES GARCIA, MARY MANSEAU, ANTHONY MILLS, ERIC URSTADT, MATT WELLNER PUBLIC MEETING (AUDITORIUM) 1. CALL TO ORDER 6:30 PM 2. ROLL CALL 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 4. WORK SESSION 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 6. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES a. June 17, PUBLIC HEARING a. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 799 (continued from July 1, 2015) An Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Transportation System Plan Element of the Comprehensive Framework Plan, the Aloha-Reedville- Cooper Mountain Community Plan, Bethany Community Plan, Bull Mountain Community Plan, Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan, East Hillsboro Community Plan, Metzger-Progress Community Plan, Raleigh Hills-Garden Home Community Plan, Sherwood Community Plan, Sunset West Community Plan, West Tigard Community Plan, West Union Community Plan, and the Community Development Code Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14 Hillsboro, OR Phone: Fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

4 Planning Commission Agenda July15, 2015 Page 2 b. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 800 An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Minor Changes to Definitions, Exclusions From Permit Requirement, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage Facilities, Parking Requirements for Urban Residential Districts, Standards for Model Homes, and Property Line Adjustments Outside the Urban Growth Boundary c. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 801 An Ordinance Amending the North Bethany Subarea Plan of the Bethany Community Plan and the Community Development Code Relating to Density Restricted Lands and Natural Features Buffer 8. ADJOURN

5 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015 ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE RECORDED 1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M. Public Services Building Auditorium The meeting was called to order by Chair Vial. 2. ROLL CALL Planning Commission (PC) members present: A. Richard Vial, Jeff Petrillo, Ed Bartholemy, Tegan Enloe, Liles Garcia, Mary Manseau, Anthony Mills, and Eric Urstadt. Commissioner Matt Wellner was absent. Staff present: Andy Back, Theresa Cherniak, Stephen Shane, Sambo Kirkman, and Susan Aguilar, Long Range Planning (LRP); Jacquilyn Saito-Moore, County Counsel. 3. DIRECTOR S REPORT Andy Back, Planning and Development Services (PDS) Manager provided a brief report: The Bonny Slope West (BSW) ordinance draft was distributed. The deadline to submit comments is June 19. The filing date is June 27, 2015, and the first PC hearing on this ordinance will be August 5th. The North Bethany natural features buffer ordinance was filed June 10, 2015 A few Plan Amendment applications have been submitted for review no hearing dates have been scheduled 4. WORK SESSION Mr. Back provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding Current Planning and Building Services. These sections along with LRP are under the PDS division. Mr. Back also shared information regarding staffing and building trends both before and after the recent recession. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 6. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES May 6, 2015 Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350 MS 14 Hillsboro, OR Phone: Fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

6 Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Manseau moved to approve the amended May 6, 2015 PC minutes. Commissioner Mills seconded. Vote: 8 0, motion passed without objection. Commissioners Bartholemy Enloe Garcia Manseau Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Absent 7. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 796 School Facility Plan Sambo Kirkman Sambo Kirkman, Associate Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation for Ordinance No. 796, which proposes to update the county s plan policies, found in the Rural Natural Resource Plan and the Comprehensive Framework Plan, specific to large school districts in order to comply with changes in state statue specific to school facility planning (ORS ). The last updates to these plan policies were in 2002 and don t reflect changes in state statues in These changes included using the new term large school districts; reducing the minimum number of students needed to qualify as large school districts from 5,000 to 2,500; requiring additional agency coordination; and extending school facility planning from 5 to 10 years. Beaverton, Hillsboro, and Tigard-Tualatin school districts now meet the state definition of a large district and therefore fall under the requirements for school facility planning. Beaverton School District (BSD) updated their school facility plan in 2010, which is yet to be adopted into the County s Comprehensive Plan. Hillsboro and Tigard/Tualatin are currently working on their plans. Staff is developing cooperative agreements with applicable school districts as a requirement of ORS Staff has been working with BSD on a cooperative agreement which staff will use as a template to begin discussions with other school districts. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended the PC conduct the public hearing and approve Ordinance No. 796 to the Board Commissioners (Board) and further recommended adoption by reference of the BSD s 2010 Facility Plan into the relevant county plan. Adoption will be by resolution and order. Documents submitted regarding Ordinance No. 796 Memorandum from staff, date June 16, 2015, regarding questions and comments from Commissioner Manseau Staff responses to Commissioner Manseau s questions submitted via on June 17, 2015

7 Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 3 of 4 Testimony regarding Ordinance No. 796 Lona Frank, SW Rosedale Rd, Beaverton question regarding criteria used for school districts acquiring land. Expressed concerns regarding livestock noise, activities, lights and crops being sprayed. PC and staff were unaware of changes proposed in the area adjacent to Ms. Frank s parcel, but the proposed ordinance does not address specific development applications or activity by the districts. The PC suggested that staff follow-up with Ms. Frank after the hearing. The PC discussion included: discussion about measures that schools should take if there are capacity issues and how these are addressed in county code a suggestion to review the county code for consistency with state law regarding denial criteria; and questions about the intent of state statutes regarding the county s role in developing school facility plans and denying a land use application for school capacity Staff explained that state statute requires the county to incorporate school facility plans into the county s Comprehensive Plan and provides specific circumstances whereby denial of an application may be considered. Commissioner Petrillo moved to recommend to the Board the adoption of Ordinance No. 796 with a recommendation to review the language in the county code as suggested by Commissioner Manseau. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion. Commissioner Manseau requested clarification on whether the motion included changes identified in the staff memorandum. Commissioner Petrillo indicated he believed these revisions were included. Vote: 8-0, motion passed. Commissioners Bartholemy Enloe Garcia Manseau Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Absent Staff requested clarification on the potential changes to the Community Development Code (CDC). Discussion by the PC followed with the suggestion that Commissioner Manseau provide staff and the other Commissioners a summary of the changes proposed for the CDC at the July 1, 2015 Hearing. Mr. Back suggested that the changes in the CDC would likely identify more issues and warrant more coordination than what is considered under Ordinance No Mr. Back further suggested that the changes proposed would be more appropriately addressed in next year s Long Range Planning Work Program. The PC agreed and requested staff to consider this issue in the 2016 work program.

8 Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 4 of 4 8. ADJOURN: 7:45 P.M. There being no further business to come before the PC, the meeting was adjourned. A. Richard Vial Andrew Singelakis Chairman, Washington County Secretary, Washington County Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes approved this day of, 2015 Submitted by Long Range Planning Staff

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 800 July 8, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Mixed solid waste and recycling storage facilities expand applicability of CDC requirements to include certain remodeled multi-unit residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional construction. On-street parking expand alternatives to meet on-street parking requirements in urban residential districts while maintaining required minimum parking standards. Conversion of automobile parking spaces to bicycle parking spaces in existing commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family development allow limited replacement of automobile parking spaces with bicycle parking spaces in multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land use districts. Make specific non-discretionary property line adjustments in the Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) land use district a Type I application reduce certain non-objective property line adjustment applications from a Type II to a Type I. III. BACKGROUND New laws, changing needs, new technology and innovations, and inconsistencies between the CDC and other policies and regulations necessitate that the CDC be periodically updated and improved. The proposed amendments in Ordinance No. 800 clarify or correct process and regulatory issues to address those changing needs. The proposed amendments in Ordinance No. 800 will continue to be consistent with federal, state, regional, and local requirements, increase efficiency in review of development applications, and provide improved guidance to developers. The Board authorized this ordinance as part of the Long Range Planning Work Program. Ordinance Notification Ordinance No. 800 and an accompanying summary were mailed to citizen participation organizations (CPOs) and interested parties on June 8, A display advertisement regarding the proposed ordinance was published in The Oregonian and Hillsboro Argus newspapers on June 26, Individual Notice describing proposed Ordinance No. 800 was mailed to approximately 450 people on the General Notification List on July 1, A copy of this notice was also mailed to the Planning Commission at that time. IV. ANALYSIS Each of the six proposed amendments contained in Ordinance No. 800 and the reasoning behind them are discussed in detail below: Written Testimony by This proposed amendment facilitates acceptance of written testimony by under existing adopted provisions for written testimony and is subject to the same criteria. In 2014, the Board authorized development of an Issue Paper regarding policy and procedures to allow written testimony by . Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Written

47 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 800 July 8, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Testimony by was provided to the Board on February 2, 2015 and released to the public for review. Based on the Issue Paper recommendations, the Board directed staff to bring forward this amendment as well as develop internal departmental procedures and public information documents to allow written testimony by . The current CDC does not include any standards that prohibit acceptance of written testimony by . However, within the current definition of Appearance of Record the Type II requirement for a signature complicates delivery and acceptance of written testimony in a standardized manner. The proposed change to the Appearance of Record definition would afford a consistent process between Type II and Type III review procedures. The proposed amendment requires the submitter s name and address on testimony for Type II reviews rather than a signature and allows written testimony provided via to be treated in the same manner as testimony delivered by mail, fax, or in person, independent of review procedure type. Model Home Temporary Use Permit Applications This amendment proposes to add a definition for model home as a single-family dwelling, constructed prior to a subdivision s plat recordation, intended to display housing styles and quality of construction. The amendment also proposes to codify the criteria for model homes under a Temporary Use Permit, including allowance to renew the application annually and to provide a formula to determine the maximum number of model homes allowed. Model homes are dwellings typically constructed early in the subdivision development process and used as a marketing tool for potential new homebuyers. Model homes are currently permitted prior to the subdivision recordation by obtaining a Temporary Use Permit through Current Planning and a building permit through Building Services. The proposed amendment codifies the current informal process. In addition to the definition the proposed amendments adds a new CDC section under Special Use Standards that includes model homes as a temporary use and provides non-discretionary Temporary Use Permit approval criteria. The proposed model home allowances would only apply to subdivisions (three parcels or greater) located inside the Urban Growth Boundary. The maximum number of model homes allowed will be determined by the number of lots on that approved preliminary plot or phase multiplied by 25% for model homes up to a total of five (5) homes. A model home application requires a building permit from Building Services to ensure residential construction compliance when the model home eventually converts to a dwelling unit. The building permit must also meet all required service district approvals. Sales trailers are not considered model homes and may be permitted as a separate Temporary Use. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage Facility This amendment would expand existing CDC requirements regarding solid waste and recyclables storage facilities, which currently address only new development. The amendment would expand this requirement to include remodels in multi-unit residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional construction subject to Type II or Type III review procedures.

48 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 800 July 8, 2015 Page 4 of 7 The proposed change would allow Department of Health and Human Services Solid Waste and Recycling staff to provide guidance for appropriate sizing of solid waste and recycling storage facilities in remodeled construction during development application review and to match those facilities with the building s proposed use. This is consistent with the review authority currently available for new construction applications. Development review for a remodel is triggered by any change of use requiring a Type II or Type III application, with some limited exceptions. Some exceptions include changes that would not require a building permit or would not increase the number of vehicle trips generated by more than 14. Should a site not have sufficient space to accommodate the most appropriate facilities, the review process offers opportunity to achieve the best possible outcome. On-street parking This proposed amendment would expand alternatives to meet on-street parking requirements in urban residential districts by allowing on-street parking to be located within 100 feet of the subject lot, consistent with current provisions for the use of parking courts. Increasingly narrower residential lot frontages and driveways in some proposed developments make it difficult to meet current on-street parking requirements. This amendment does not reduce required on-street parking but offers an alternative to parking courts to satisfy the development requirements. Currently, single-family attached and detached dwellings with off-street parking are required to provide additional on-street parking, which must be located adjacent to that lot s street frontage. If the on-street parking requirements cannot be met adjacent to the subject lot, the requirement may also be met through construction of a parking court within 100 feet of the subject lot. Additionally, the amendment expands the on-street parking alternatives by allowing on-street parking located within 100 feet of the subject lot (similar to the parking court allowance) to also count toward the on-street parking requirements. The following drawing illustrates one of a number of different situations where this proposed change could be applied.

49 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 800 July 8, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Existing CDC requires that on-street parking be located adjacent to the affected lot or in a parking court located within 100 feet of the affected lot. The top example illustrates a situation where there would not be room to accommodate the required on street spaces. It illustrates one way the on-street parking requirement for this development could be met through the use of a parking court. This situation is not ideal from a design standpoint. The example below illustrates how this same development could be designed differently based on the proposed amended language that would allow the required on-street parking to be located within 100 feet of the affected lots as an alternative to the above situation for this development.

50 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 800 July 8, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Conversion of automobile parking spaces to bicycle parking spaces in existing commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family developments This amendment would allow the replacement of a limited number of existing automobile parking spaces with bicycle parking spaces in the above noted land use districts. This change would provide incentive for people to bicycle (an active transportation mode) to an increased number of destinations. To provide incentive for property owners to replace automobile parking spaces with bicycle parking spaces, this amendment also proposes to exempt the replacement from permit application and fees. CDC defined bicycle parking facility design, location, and space dimensions continue to apply. Increased emphasis at the county, regional, and state level on active transportation requires secure bicycle parking facilities at destinations. Many commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family developments in unincorporated Washington County were built before current bicycle parking standards were part of development requirements those destinations often lack safe, convenient, and secure bicycle parking facilities. The proposed amendment is one of the active transportation recommendations of the Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan. It also furthers collaboration between the county and the Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA). WTA is developing a Bicycle Parking Installation Guide and potentially funding acquisition of a number of bicycle parking racks in support of a pilot outreach project to existing businesses in the Aloha and Reedville communities. The goal of this collaborative process is to increase the number of destinations with secure bicycle parking and encourage bicycling as an active transportation alternative. CDC Section currently provides criteria for replacement of automobile parking spaces with bicycle spaces for developments with 50 and more automobile parking spaces. This proposed amendment, which addresses parking lots with fewer than 50 automobile parking spaces, would allow one (1) automobile parking space replacement for a development with three (3) to ten (10) automobile parking spaces. A development with 11 to 49 automobile parking spaces would be allowed to replace up to 10% of the total number of automobile parking spaces. CDC Section provides a limit on the percentage of parking spaces that may be replaced. This section states that the total number of automobile parking spaces that may be replaced with bicycle parking spaces or other allowed parking reduction approaches (such as proximity to transit) shall not exceed 40% of the required minimum automobile spaces. As a result, a site with only two existing automobile parking spaces could not replace one of those spaces since it would exceed the 40% cap. Based on the CDC defined bicycle parking facility design, location, and space dimensions (Sections and 429-9) a typical automobile parking space could accommodate parking for up to six (6) bicycle parking spaces depending on specific site conditions.

51 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 800 July 8, 2015 Page 7 of 7 Make specific non-discretionary property line adjustments in the Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) land use district a Type I application Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 92, amended in 2009, authorizes property line adjustments and specifies standards for their application review. Those standards which are clear and objective (non-discretionary) are eligible for Type I application review. This amendment would bring current county requirements into conformance with state statute. Existing CDC contains three clear and objective non-discretionary standards for property line adjustment application review in the EFU, AF-20, AF-10, AF-5, RR-5, R-COM, R-IND, and MAE districts. This amendment provides a consistent process for property line adjustment application review in the EFC land use district that also meets one of the same three criteria and changes the application review from a Type II to a Type I process. This change would result in processing the following three types of property line adjustments the same way in all the rural land use districts: When a federal, state, or local judiciary issues a court decree for adverse possession, way of necessity, or a prescriptive use. The adjustment shall not be larger than the minimum size necessary to implement the court decree; or Where a parcel has a lawfully established structure, which is in violation of a setback requirement. The adjustment shall not be larger than the minimum size necessary to correct the violation; or When a parcel is reconfigured to provide adequate sight distance as determined by the County Engineer; or The proposed amendment is a procedural change and does not affect a property owner s existing uses it reduces the cost and time for these types of property line adjustment applications. Summary of Proposed Changes Ordinance No. 800 proposes to amend the following sections of the Community Development Code: 106 Definitions 201 Development Permit 406 Building, Siting and Architectural Design 413 Parking and Loading 430 Special Use Standards 610 Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments Outside a UGB S:\2015ord\Ord800_Minor_Code_Amendments\Staff_Reports\PC\800_PC_SR_ docx

52 July 8, 2015 To: From: Subject: Washington County Planning Commission Andy Back, Manager Planning and Development Services PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO An Ordinance Amending the North Bethany Subarea Plan of the Bethany Community Plan and the Community Development Code Relating to Density Restricted Lands and Natural Features Buffer STAFF REPORT For the July 15, 2015 Planning Commission Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 6:30 pm) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing; recommend approval of Ordinance No. 801 to the Board of Commissioners (Board). II. OVERVIEW Ordinance No. 801 proposes amendments to Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan of the Bethany Community Plan and the Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) Section 390 to reduce the Natural Features Buffer with Fencing to a uniform width of fifty (50) feet. The proposed ordinance adds new landscape screening and buffering requirements to help ensure compatibility between new urban development within North Bethany and agricultural practices on adjacent rural lands outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Board authorized this ordinance as part of the 2015 Long Range Planning Work Program. III. BACKGROUND Metro Ordinance A brought North Bethany into the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in Condition 6 of the Metro Ordinance required the county to adopt provisions that would ensure compatibility between future urban uses in North Bethany and agricultural practices on adjacent land outside the UGB, before authorizing development in North Bethany. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR phone: fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

53 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 2 of 18 Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance No A reads: the county shall adopt provisions in its comprehensive plan and zoning regulations such as setbacks, buffers and designated lanes for movement of slow-moving farm machinery to ensure compatibility between urban uses in an included study area and agricultural practices on adjacent land outside the UGB zoned for farm or forest use. (emphasis added) In 2011, the Board adopted A-Engrossed Ordinance 739, which established urban/agricultural buffers to address Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance No A. The adopted buffers were based on background information that had been compiled about the rural lands surrounding North Bethany, including an inventory of agricultural land uses on the adjacent properties; identification of potential urban/rural conflicts likely to arise from the identified agricultural uses; and identification of buffer types that could address the potential urban/rural conflicts. After adoption of A-Engrossed Ordinance 739, the Board discussed its intent to reconsider the issue of the buffer and indicated that modifications to the buffer may be considered at a future date. In a September 19, 2011 letter to the Board, Metro acknowledged that the urban/agricultural compatibility measures adopted by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 739 met the intent of Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance A. Metro s letter stated, We recognize that for some parties the proposed program does not go far enough in protecting the activities on the rural side of the UGB, and for other parties it goes too far and is not needed for the existing situation. In this instance, we think that the staff proposal has adequately tailored the compatibility program to the particular situation in the North Bethany area. Overview of Adopted Buffers The North Bethany Subarea contains three buffer locations and types, depicted on the North Bethany Subarea Plan Urban/Rural Edge Map (Attachment A of Exhibit A). Following are brief descriptions of each adopted buffer. Eastern Buffer Screening Vegetation and THPRD Trail Right-of-Way For the majority of North Bethany s eastern edge, the Board adopted a 20-foot minimum Vegetation Buffer width, to include both the THPRD trail right-of-way and screening vegetation. The Board s decision was based on information indicating that several of the adjacent properties had a history of wheat, hay, and/or grass seed cultivation activities often associated with ground spraying and harvest activities that generate dust. Western Buffer Fence Only Boundary For North Bethany s western and a portion of the northwestern edge, the Board adopted a buffer consisting of a fence to prevent trespass. This decision was based on background information indicating that the adjacent properties were in pasture and/or livestock (cattle) use. Pasture and livestock uses are not associated with chemical spray activities or significant dust generation, and the most likely conflict between urban uses and these agricultural uses appeared to be trespass.

54 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 3 of 18 Another consideration was the fact that topographic features (15 to 25 percent slopes) and other adopted plan elements (THPRD trail alignment, which generally requires a 20 foot right-of-way) were present along this edge to provide some separation distance between the urban uses within North Bethany and the adjacent rural uses. Northern Buffer Natural Features and Fencing For a portion of North Bethany s northern edge, the Board adopted a Natural Features Buffer with Fencing separating North Bethany urban development and adjacent agricultural uses. It ranges in width from 158 feet to 465 feet measured north to south. The Natural Features Buffer is comprised of the steeply sloped lands with existing greater than 25 percent slopes (which are also mapped as lands with moderate to high susceptibility for shallow-seated and deep-seated landslides) and adjacent sloped lands. Together these areas form a buffer that provides separation distance between urban uses in North Bethany and adjacent agricultural uses. The Board adopted this buffer based on information indicating that adjacent rural properties had a history of pasture, wheat/row crops and livestock uses. The property in agricultural use is an equestrian facility (Abbey Creek Stables) that has riding trails for cross-country eventing in close proximity within 10 feet in some areas to the North Bethany boundary. The 2015 Long Range Planning Work Program authorized Task 1.11a, reconsideration of a request to reduce the North Bethany Natural Features Buffer from the current defined area to a uniform width of 30 feet. This task was originally added to the Work Program in 2013 in response to a written request from K & R Holdings (K&R). In an August 5, 2014 Board work session, staff presented Issue Paper No , North Bethany Development Restrictions within the Natural Features Buffer. Board discussion included options for reducing the width of the buffer. At that meeting the Board asked staff to coordinate with stakeholders including Clean Water Services (CWS) and Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD), and return with options and recommendations in spring In a May 6, 2015 Board work session, County staff presented Issue Paper No , Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer, summarizing the issues and stakeholder concerns, and outlining three policy options for Board consideration to address K&R s request. An electronic copy of this issue paper was ed to the Planning Commission on May 1, 2015, and is available at the following link: After consideration and discussion, the Board directed staff to proceed with an ordinance in 2015 to reduce the current variable width buffer to a uniform 50-foot width and to develop regulations to make this change. Along with this option, staff recommended, and the Board concurred, that additional landscape screening requirements should be considered to address concerns with meeting Metro s rural/urban compatibility requirement. The filed ordinance proposes amendments to the North Bethany Subarea Plan and the CDC to reduce the Natural Features Buffer with Fencing to a uniform width of fifty (50) feet and it adds

55 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 4 of 18 new landscape screening and buffering requirements to ensure compatibility between new urban development within North Bethany and agricultural practices on adjacent rural lands outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This proposal is being processed as a legislative amendment because it entails amendments to the text of the North Bethany Subarea Plan (in addition to amendment of the Urban/Rural Edge map) and the CDC. Ordinance Notification Ordinance No. 801 and an accompanying summary were mailed to citizen participation organizations (CPOs) and interested parties on June 10, A display advertisement regarding the proposed ordinance was published in The Oregonian and Hillsboro Argus newspapers on June 26, Individual Notice describing proposed Ordinance No. 801 was mailed to approximately 450 people on the General Notification List on July 1, A copy of this notice was also mailed to the Planning Commission at that time. IV. ANALYSIS Ordinance Description Ordinance No. 801 proposes amendments to the North Bethany Subarea Plan and the CDC to reduce the Natural Features Buffer with Fencing (the buffer) to a uniform width of fifty (50) feet. To help ensure compliance with Metro s Condition 6 regarding compatibility between existing rural agricultural uses and new urban development, new landscape screening and buffering standards have been developed for the remaining buffer area. The proposed landscape screening and buffering standards would apply to development applications that include any portion of the buffer and include the following key requirements: Placement of the buffer into a separate, undevelopable tract with a minimum width of 50 feet. Submittal of an agricultural screening and buffering plan demonstrating how specific landscape screening standards are met. Installation of permanent, native landscape screening within the buffer to reduce visual and noise impacts between urban development and adjacent agricultural practices on rural lands. Provision of a management plan guaranteeing the establishment and continued maintenance of buffer elements (existing vegetation, new landscape screening, and fencing). The CDC currently requires placement of the buffer into a separate tract and staff believes this remains the preferred option. A tract is designated for a specific purpose and cannot be designated as part of a lot, lot of record, or a public right-of-way. Revised ordinance language under Section specifically requires that the buffer be placed within a tract for the sole purpose of providing screening and physical separation between urban and rural agricultural uses. The buffer tract would be dedicated by plat and would remain in perpetuity as a no touch natural area, with the exception of establishing and maintaining permanent buffer elements.

56 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 5 of 18 THPRD trails would also not be allowed within the buffer tract, since that would disturb vegetation and steep slopes and place people closer to the adjacent rural properties. The landscape screening and buffering plan would be required prior to preliminary development approval, and would need to demonstrate how all screening and buffering standards would be met, including landscaping and fencing. Plan and cross-sectional views of the buffer area in relation to existing features (e.g., existing trees 6 inches or greater in diameter, property lines, and creeks) and proposed urban development would be required, along with a plant list of proposed native trees and shrubs. Specific landscape screening standards within the 50-foot buffer were developed with the intent of maintaining compatibility between future urban development in North Bethany and adjacent agricultural uses. The proposed plantings consist of a layered canopy of native deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs at specific numbers per 100 lineal feet of the 50-foot buffer. The level of landscape plantings was chosen to achieve a dense and diverse native vegetated screen over time and was based on other screening and buffering standards found in CDC Section 411 (Screening and Buffering). The intent is to provide a continual screen within the buffer to help mitigate urban/rural compatibility issues such as visual, noise, trespass and any additional stormwater runoff that may result from new development. Together with the agricultural screening and buffering plan, development applications would also provide a management plan for the establishment and ongoing maintenance of buffer elements (landscaping and fencing). The plan would ensure that new buffer landscaping is properly established by requiring a two-year plant establishment period, within which hand watering/drip irrigation, replacement of dead plants, ongoing invasive plant and trash removal, and inspections of landscaping are required. Similar to the follow-up requirements in CDC Section 422 (Significant Natural Resources), after five years the plantings are required to be assessed by a qualified professional to determine whether, at the minimum, 75 percent of all plantings remain in healthy condition. If the assessment finds this level of plant restoration has not been met, infill planting would be required. Composition of Buffers Table A compares the acreage and composition of land in the existing and proposed buffers. The existing Natural Features Buffer is approximately 25.1 acres in size, while the proposed buffer will be approximately 4.7 acres in size. Thus, the proposed buffer represents a reduction of 20.4 acres of buffer area. The existing buffer consists of three categories of land: 1. Wetlands, floodplains, CWS vegetated corridor, drainage hazard area, powerline corridor or other sensitive or undevelopable areas Density Restricted. 2. Slopes greater than 25 percent - Density Restricted. 3. Land that is not density restricted.

57 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 6 of 18 Table A Natural Features Buffer Land Types by Area (Existing vs. Proposed) Land Type Existing Buffer (acres) Proposed Buffer (acres) Difference (acres) Density Restricted Lands Wetlands, Floodplains, CWS Vegetated Corridor drainage hazard area, powerline corridor, or other sensitive or undevelopable areas Slopes greater than 25% Land that is not density restricted Total Area The great majority of the existing buffer area (approximately 94 percent) is in one of the first two categories and is considered Density Restricted Land. This is a designation specific to North Bethany, where certain areas were not planned for residential development and therefore had no density assigned to them. Density transfers from Density Restricted Lands are prohibited in North Bethany. No changes to the Density Restricted Lands designation are proposed in conjunction with the buffer width reduction, therefore, changes to the buffer width will not result in an increase in the number of units allowed in the area (allowable density.) Although slopes greater than 25 percent are Density Restricted Lands, they are allowed to be developed 1. Currently, slopes over 25 percent within the buffer cannot be developed. With the proposed reduction in the buffer width, approximately 7.3 acres of steeply sloped lands would become developable, though they will remain Density Restricted Lands for purposes of allowable densities. The remainder of the existing buffer area, 1.5 acres, is comprised of land with no density restrictions that were included to create a continuous buffer area. Together with the 7.3 acres of steeply sloped lands discussed above, the proposed buffer would result in the addition of approximately 8 acres of potentially developable land to the area. 1 Development on slopes greater than 25 percent located outside the buffer is allowed under certain conditions in North Bethany (and the rest of the county), subject to standards that are intended to document the safety and stability of the proposed development on steeper slopes. The primary applicable standard, Community Development Code Section (Landslide Study Area Requirements), includes a requirement for development applications for lands within 250 feet of a lot or parcel with existing slopes of 25 percent or more to include a geotechnical engineering report documenting that the proposed development of the site will be safe and stable.

58 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 7 of 18 Alternatives Considered In Issue Paper (Exhibit A), staff presented the following three possible policy options to the Board for consideration at its May 6, 2015 work session: Maintain Adopted Natural Features Buffer This option would retain all CDC and North Bethany Subarea Plan language and mapping in its current adopted form. Maintenance of the existing Natural Features Buffer would not require the county to reconsider the North Bethany Subarea Plan requirements and would continue to ensure compliance with Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance A. Reduce Natural Features Buffer to a Specified Uniform Width This alternative would decrease the existing variable width Natural Features Buffer that runs along a portion of North Bethany s northern edge to a uniform width (e.g., 30 feet per K&R s request, 50feet, or some other width). Reducing the Natural Features Buffer in this way would require an amendment to the Urban/Rural Edge map of the North Bethany Subarea Plan and text changes to the North Bethany Subarea Plan and CDC. Reduce Natural Features Buffer Width through the Land Use Review Process This option would introduce new land use review requirements that would allow reductions in the Natural Features Buffer to a specified minimum width through a Type III Planned Development Process. Planned Development standards in the North Bethany Subarea (CDC Section ) provide flexibility in development standards while ensuring the integrity of the North Bethany Subarea Plan. In exchange for development flexibility, Planned Developments are required to use innovative design and provide private or public open space or other site/building amenities. Under this alternative, a Planned Development application requesting to reduce the width of the Natural Features Buffer would be required to demonstrate compliance with specific width reduction standards. The purpose of the standards would be to ensure compatibility between future urban development in North Bethany and rural agricultural uses as required by Metro Condition 6 of Ordinance A. The Board discussed the various options at some length and had questions regarding the implications of each. At the end of this discussion, the Board directed staff to move forward with an ordinance to implement the second option, which reduces the buffer to a uniform 50-foot width and requires landscape screening to help ensure urban/rural compatibility. Key Issues Narrowing the buffer to a uniform minimum width of 50 feet would allow land currently within the buffer that was not anticipated to develop to be developed. Three key issues in Issue Paper No were noted based on staff review and input from service providers and stakeholders. These issues are: Serviceability for sanitary sewer and stormwater and potential impacts that could result from development in the buffer.

59 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 8 of 18 Impacts to THPRD trail alignments shown on the North Bethany Subarea Plan Parks, Trails, and Pedestrian Connection map. Maintaining compliance with Condition 6 of Metro s Ordinance No A, which requires the county to ensure compatibility between future urban development and adjacent agricultural uses. CWS Sanitary and Stormwater Impacts CWS expressed a number of concerns about sanitary sewer and stormwater service provision to this area should the buffer be reduced. A full description of these issues is found in Issue Paper No (Exhibit A). Summary information is provided below for context. Sanitary Sewer In 2008, CWS developed a general sanitary sewer alignment that could support North Bethany development as identified in the North Bethany Subarea Plan. In 2010, CWS further evaluated the area and the ability of the proposed North Bethany interceptor sewer to serve the entire subarea. The analysis identified all steeply sloped lands within the subarea as challenging areas to serve by gravity sewer. At the time, Long Range Planning was in the process of establishing buffer requirements for North Bethany with the objective of meeting Metro s Condition 6. With creation of the Natural Features Buffer, development in the steeply sloped areas along North Bethany s northern edge was prohibited. As a result of the adopted buffer development limitations, CWS North Bethany Sewer Master Plan neither included nor considered providing service to the Natural Features Buffer area because lands within the buffer were not anticipated for development. Attachment B and C of Exhibit A show lands mapped by CWS that pose Sewer Service Challenges within the Natural Features Buffer. The sanitary system for North Bethany was planned as an all-gravity system to avoid pump stations and minimize the long-term operational and maintenance costs. Since the Natural Features Buffer area is located downhill of planned sewer facilities, gravity service would not be possible without construction of additional sanitary sewers or lowering the planned system. CWS staff noted a number of additional sanitary sewer issues that would result from development within the buffer, including: The need for additional engineering analysis. Technical challenge and expense to construct. Potential need for a pump station(s) and/or individual grinder pumps contrary to CWS Board-adopted policy and potentially increasing long-term service costs. Construction of a second additional sewer to serve just the area within the Buffer would require difficult side-hill installation, impacts to natural resources at the base of the slope, or extension of sewer facilities outside the UGB.

60 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 9 of 18 Stormwater CWS Stormwater Implementation Plan for North Bethany also excludes the Natural Features Buffer from stormwater service. This plan relied on a system of regional stormwater facilities rather than individual facilities. Since the entire existing buffer area slopes away from planned regional stormwater facilities, it would be very challenging to serve with regional facilities. CWS staff emphasized the following stormwater issues associated with development within the buffer: Stormwater management solutions in the Natural Features Buffer are not easily identifiable because of topography, soil conditions, and proximity to rural land. Lands within the Natural Features Buffer areas are designated as landslide hazard areas and introducing additional stormwater and infiltration facilities to these areas could cause greater slope instability or eventual landslides. Piping stormwater from properties directly to Abbey Creek may be a potential option but poses a number of concerns relative to state law requirements and impacts to adjacent properties. Small individual private onsite stormwater facilities or Low Impact Design Approaches (LIDA such as rain gardens or filtration planters) may be feasible but no siting analysis has been completed to date. CWS Vegetated Corridor Finally, three areas within the buffer are shown as environmentally sensitive areas that are subject to CWS Vegetated Corridor regulations. A reduction to the width of the Natural Features Buffer would still require development of land outside the buffer to meet CWS Vegetated Corridor regulations. CWS Current Status CWS is currently moving forward with designing and constructing backbone and regional infrastructure for North Bethany. CWS has stated that if the service assumptions change as a result of the need to serve additional homes in unanticipated locations, it may force the District (and ultimately its ratepayers) to incur additional capital cost to construct facilities at greater depths or more challenging locations. Staff notes that K&R representatives are continuing to work with CWS regarding its request to develop within the buffer, but have not yet provided CWS with an engineering study of the area to demonstrate how sewer and stormwater requirements can be met without adversely affecting the remaining buffer area, including the Vegetated Corridor. Alternatively, if these facilities are designed and built according to the current plans, CWS is concerned that change would result in developments with sub-optimal service methodologies that would otherwise not be allowed (i.e., grinder pumps). To address CWS concerns, the developer will be required to provide a detailed engineering analysis, since CWS is in the process of designing planned facilities and it is imperative that the developer begin this process as soon as possible. Technical challenges may result in higher than normal installation and operating/maintenance costs. Once this issue is heard by the Board of

61 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 10 of 18 Commissioners, they may wish to consider how to ensure these costs are borne by the developer, not CWS ratepayers. THPRD Trail Impacts The Parks, Trails and Pedestrian Connections Map of the North Bethany Subarea Plan indicate that two segments of the planned trail are located along the edge of the Natural Features Buffer and would potentially be impacted with a reduction of the buffer. The westerly segment is designated as an off-street trail and the easterly segment is a necessary pedestrian connection that may be provided either by an off-street trail or as part of a street. These segments provide a more complete trail network in the area and offer viewing opportunities into the Natural Features Buffer area. THPRD stated that it has some flexibility when determining the specific location of trails based on actual topographic considerations, but its preference is to maintain the locations on the adopted plan as closely as possible. THPRD staff identified the following issues: A width reduction along the southeast and southwest sections of the Natural Features Buffer where the above-mentioned trails are planned would possibly force trails to be located down steeper slopes where trail grades may not be able to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and are generally less accessible to users. A narrower buffer provides less trail siting flexibility in areas along the southern edge of the buffer where trails may need to meander due to topography. Trail siting in steeply sloped areas would be more difficult and costly than in the planned locations. THPRD requested that should the buffer area be reduced, that developers be required to coordinate with THPRD to ensure acceptable alternative trail locations. THPRD Current Status: As noted above, THPRD has some flexibility when determining trail locations and will work with the developer to provide alternative and satisfactory trail options. Depending on the ultimate location of trails, one possible alternative is to locate trails at the back of lots, between lots and the buffer. Because of slopes in the area, there may not be enough room, however, to address trail locations within a typical 20-foot easement. If a trail is forced to be built down-slope from the planned location, required landscape screening would help screen visual and noise impacts from trail users and would reduce the risk of spooking horses. K&R has started discussions with THPRD, however, no new alignment has been agreed upon. Staff has encouraged the developer to coordinate with THPRD to determine an alternative trail location prior to ordinance adoption. The Northeast Neighborhood design elements in the North Bethany Subarea Plan require a minimum of three access points to the north boundary for public access and viewing. This requirement will need to be considered during these discussions.

62 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 11 of 18 Metro Condition 6: Rural Compatibility Implications A reduction of the buffer would significantly reduce the extent of the existing buffer, which was the measure put into place in 2011 to ensure compliance with Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance A. An adjacent property owner has stated that it would have potentially significant impacts on his equine business, Abbey Creek Stables. Urban/rural compatibility issues identified include: Visual impacts of new residential development uphill from the adjacent equine uses. Noise impacts from new residents on adjacent equine uses. Potential trespass onto rural agricultural lands by residents and pets from adjacent urban development. Potential for urban stormwater runoff impacts on the adjacent properties. To address these issues, the proposed ordinance includes the requirements that there be no development in the 50-foot wide buffer, whatsoever, except for planting and maintenance, and that the buffer be planted with native vegetation to screen new urban development from rural agricultural uses. Once landscape screening is established within the buffer, staff believes that the combination of densely landscaped understory and overstory native plantings along with fencing would help address the visual, noise, and stormwater issues identified above. The installation of a five-foot (no-climb) fence to discourage trespass onto rural lands by residents and pets is required along the southern edge of the buffer tract between urban development and the rural area, and at the time of development may also be required along the northern boundary if it is shown to be needed. Fencing is also intended to discourage children from throwing objects into the buffer tract. Because the required landscape screening and buffering standards would eventually form a continuous screen within the 50-foot buffer, new development upslope of the buffer would be visually screened, particularly at the urban/rural edge where the existing horse trails are sited. It is also intended that landscape screening within the 50-foot buffer would help serve to mitigate noise concerns. Finally, development of the North Bethany area adjacent to the buffer may alter stormwater drainage patterns. There is some potential for residual urban stormwater runoff from paved areas and lawns of new development upslope of the buffer that may contain pollutants such as fertilizers or pesticides and drain downslope toward agricultural lands and waterways. A dense palette of native trees and shrubs within the buffer would help intercept and naturally filter this stormwater before pollutants can reach adjacent agricultural lands, nearby wetlands, and waters of Abbey Creek.

63 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 12 of 18 Public Comments Metro Staff met with Metro on June 30, 2015 to discuss the proposed ordinance and compliance with Condition 6. Metro emphasized that maintaining the existing buffer would be preferable based on the amount of public involvement and process it required to put the buffer in place. Metro staff indicated they intended to provide written comments for consideration prior to the Planning Commission hearing on this ordinance. Citizen Participation Organization 7(CPO 7) County staff presented the proposed ordinance at the CPO 7 regular meeting on May 28, 2015, and CPO 7 issued a position paper on the ordinance dated June 15, 2015 (Exhibit B). Following the staff presentation, the CPO members present voted unanimously (5-0) in opposition to proposed Ordinance No The CPO s comments are grouped below into two categories: (1) comments that represent the general opinion of the CPO and for which staff has no specific response; and (2) comments where staff is able to offer additional information or clarification. (1) General Comments: The current urban/rural buffer was the result of a compromise during the North Bethany planning process. Allowing changes to the urban/rural buffer undermines that compromise, as well as the public process by which that compromise was reached. The farmers and rural residents who border the northern boundary of the North Bethany Subarea have consistently expressed their concern and opposition to disturbing the original Natural Features Buffer. These residents believe that a reduction of the current buffer to 50 feet will have a negative impact on their properties and undermine the original intent of providing a UGB buffer large enough to maintain urban/rural compatibility (This is also a state planning requisite). Considering the litany of issues and problems that would result from this proposed change, CPO7 has concluded that Ordinance 801 is not in the interest of either the public or the county particularly when one considers that these changes benefit a single owner/developer and the burdens and risks of such a change (both financial and legal) will be disproportionately placed upon the county and its taxpayers. (2) Comments where additional information and clarification is provided: When North Bethany was brought inside the UGB in 2002, the steep banks of Abbey Creek were identified as a natural boundary between urban development to south and rural land uses to the north. Urban encroachment into the Abbey Creek corridor compromises the ability of this corridor to function as envisioned in the 2002 plan. Staff Response: The CPO positon paper appears to be referring to Metro Ordinance No A that brought the North Bethany Area into the UGB. This ordinance contained findings that addressed Metro s reasons for deeming North Bethany appropriate to add to the UGB. The purpose of the findings was to address State and Metro planning requirements for the addition of resource lands into the UGB.

64 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 13 of 18 Within Section II of the Metro ordinance findings, the following is noted: The inclusion of all of areas allows Abbey Creek and the adjoining riparian zone to form a natural buffer separating the Bethany area from the resource land and existing rural neighborhoods to the north. Staff consulted with Metro during development of the buffer standards in 2011 as part of county Ordinance No Staff asked Metro about whether this finding constituted a Metro requirement upon which the county could rely, to demonstrate urban/rural compatibility. Metro staff indicated that it was solely a background finding for bringing North Bethany into the UGB and was not a determining factor that the county could cite for purposes of meeting Metro s urban/rural compatibility condition. However, staff did cite this background finding as general support for the buffer that was adopted in 2011 via A-Engrossed Ordinance No The resulting buffers adopted by the Board were established by considering a variety of issues including: polling adjacent rural property owners along the North Bethany boundary, identifying agricultural practices and their potential impacts on urban lands to the extent practicable, reviewing the buffer requirements of other Oregon jurisdictions, and reviewing national studies on the use of urban/agricultural buffers. The establishment of the North Bethany natural features buffer was one of Metro s conditions for approving the UGB expansion in this area. It is our opinion that the proposed buffer reduction to 50 feet would be in conflict with Metro s original UGB approval and create potential legal challenges and expense for the county and its taxpayers. Staff Response: Reducing the buffer to a uniform width will require findings to be made for Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance A, demonstrating how a reduced buffer would ensure compatibility between future urban uses in North Bethany and agricultural practices on adjacent land outside the UGB. The county developed an approach in A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 739 to address Condition 6 based on relevant information, and there was no existing regional precedent for achieving urban/agricultural compatibility that could be applied to North Bethany. There is still no single accepted approach to determining an appropriate urban/rural buffer. The proposed approach would ensure no development within 50 feet of the urban/rural edge and provide landscape screening and fencing to address visual, noise, trespass, and stormwater impacts. The provisions of Ordinance No. 801 may be reviewed by Metro for compliance with Condition 6. Metro s position is not known at this time. Ultimately, it is the county s responsibility to make findings. The adoption of Ordinance No. 801 will increase the total number of new homes in North Bethany. Public schools in the area are already at or over-capacity and increasing the number of homes will only exacerbate this problem.

65 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 14 of 18 Staff Response: The proposed ordinance would not result in the allowance of additional density on a property in conjunction with the allowance to develop steep slopes. Allowable density for a property would be based solely on the area that is not designated as Density Restricted Lands. Therefore, the proposed 50-foot uniform Natural Features Buffer would only allow for greater flexibility in siting proposed residential units on a property, but would not allow increased density. According to Clean Water Services (CWS), providing sewer and stormwater services to the North Bethany natural features area poses significant technical and engineering challenges (CWS s concerns are identified in the county staff s Issue Paper #2015-3, dated May 1, 2015). CWS staff has indicated they are very concerned that attempting to connect sewer and stormwater to homes built on the downside of steep slopes will result in significant cost and liability being incurred by the county and CWS ratepayers. Staff Response: See staff comments regarding CWS sewer and stormwater impacts on page 9. The proposed changes would affect THPRD trail alignments resulting in increased costs and reduced public access. This is because the original trail alignments would need to be re-located onto steeper slopes and/or re-routed on internal residential streets. Staff Response: As discussed earlier, THPRD has two planned trail segments along the existing Natural Features Buffer to provide a more complete trail network in the area and offer viewing opportunities into the Natural Features Buffer and rural area. THPRD has stated that a reduced buffer would result in less trail siting flexibility in areas along the southern edge of the buffer where trails may need to meander due to topography and would possibly force trails to be located down steeper slopes. Even if trails could be sited further downslope without reducing public access and still remain outside of the buffer, these trails could interfere with agricultural activities on adjacent rural lands by placing trail users closer to the urban/rural boundary, particularly in the case of the equestrian use and riding trails that are in some areas within 10 feet of the North Bethany boundary. Alternatively, if these trail segments are built to their current configuration shown on the Park, Trails, and Pedestrian Connections Map, new homes could be built north of these trail segments and would likely block views into the buffer and rural area from the planned trail segments. THPRD has not identified specifically where these trail segments may need to be relocated. The developer has started discussions with THPRD, however no new alignment has been agreed upon. Staff has encouraged the developer to coordinate with THPRD to determine an alternative trail location prior to ordinance adoption.

66 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 15 of 18 Letter on Behalf of K&R Holdings, LLC Perkins Coie LLP submitted a letter (Exhibit C), dated July 2, 2015, on behalf of K&R Holdings in support of Ordinance No The letter provides their reasoning for why the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the Board and how they believe the ordinance meets relevant approval standards, including Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance A. Additionally, the letter provides three examples of urban equestrian facilities that are situated in close proximity to urban uses, and argues that these are comparable to Abbey Creek Stables. Mr. Joseph Rayhawk Over the years this issue has been under consideration, Mr. Rayhawk has submitted a number of public comments (Exhibit D) in opposition to reducing the width of the buffer. Mr. Rayhawk is an adjacent property owner and operator of Abbey Creek Stables, a full-care horse boarding and equestrian riding facility. Summarized below are the main concerns expressed in Mr. Rayhawk s recent letters: Landslide Susceptibility Mr. Rayhawk commented that it is neither reasonable nor prudent to allow construction in an area that DOGAMI has identified as landslide prone. Staff Response: The North Bethany Subarea Plan contains Landslide Study Area Maps that are the basis of analysis and mapping conducted by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). The Landslide Study Area Maps identify areas within North Bethany that are potentially susceptible to landslides and in need of further onsite analysis. Almost all of the land located within the existing adopted buffer is classified as land with moderate to high susceptibility to shallow-seated and deep-seated landslides. A reduction in width of the buffer would allow lands susceptible to landslides currently within the buffer to potentially be available for development. Section of the CDC (Landslide Study Area Requirements) is applicable to all areas within the county that are mapped as landslide susceptible areas. This section requires development applications for lands within 250 feet of a lot or parcel with existing slopes of 25 percent or greater to include a geotechnical engineering report documenting that the proposed development of the site will be safe and stable. Any development on such lands would be subject to grading plan and permit approval by the county Building Official. In addition to these requirements, an option the Planning Commission may wish to consider recommending is a disclosure requirement to be recorded on the deeds for these landslide susceptible areas to ensure that potential home buyers are informed of a property s landslide susceptibility. Stormwater Impact to Abbey Creek Mr. Rayhawk notes that the steep slopes that comprise the current buffer are situated above wetlands that connect directly to Abbey Creek. He states that Abbey Creek flows into Rock Creek about a mile west of the Natural Features Buffer, which is 303d listed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to protect identified salmonid spawning areas

67 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 16 of 18 and water quality. He also states that additional stormwater directed to the creek could have detrimental impacts on the noted spawning grounds and creek. Staff Response: States are required to develop lists of impaired waters under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. A state s 303(d) impaired waters list is comprised of all waters where the state has identified that required pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards. Mr. Rayhawk indicates in a letter dated June 16, 2014 that Rock Creek received additional constraints up to milepost 12.9 which is upstream from where Abbey Creek joins it. While staff has not confirmed the status of Rock Creek relative to Mr. Rayhawk s research, CWS is responsible for ensuring compliance with state and federal water quality regulations such as the Clean Water Act. CWS has commented that piping stormwater from properties directly to Abbey Creek is a potential option but poses several concerns: Residential downspout connections draining directly to Abbey Creek would require downstream water-quality treatment and flow management prior to discharge to the creek. Construction of drainage pipes down steep slopes to the creek could result in tree root disturbance or tree loss and exacerbate overall slope instability. It would also create additional Vegetated Corridor impacts which would need to be mitigated. Changes to Abbey Creek could adversely affect the adjacent property owners pasture lands and Mr. Rayhawk s creek stewardship agreements. Staff notes that any new development proposing to manage its stormwater through discharge to Abbey Creek or otherwise would be subject to CWS regulations and permitting. Additionally, any development on steep slopes, including placement of utilities such as stormwater pipes, would be subject to review under Section 410 of the CDC and county approval. Impact on Horse Pasture and Riding Trails Another concern expressed by Mr. Rayhawk is the potential impact a reduced buffer could have on the intermittent horse pasture and established riding trails on the property, some of which are within 10 feet of the urban/rural edge. He has noted that the wetlands south of Abbey Creek dry out during the summer and are used as one of four pastures for horses boarded on the property. He states that allowing construction of homes closer to the urban/rural edge could increase the volume of stormwater discharge down slopes onto his property, possibly rendering the pasture unusable and forcing the facility to reduce the number of horses it can board. Additionally, Mr. Rayhawk states that allowing development closer to the horse riding trails could increase visual and noise impacts from urban development and spook horses on the trails and cause them to throw their riders. Mr. Rayhawk has noted that the trails are one of the main attractions to riders and he would feel compelled to discontinue use of his trails for fear of injury to riders. He believes that if he is forced to discontinue use of the pasture and horse riding trails, it would require him to close his business.

68 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 17 of 18 Staff Response: The required landscape plantings would help address the potential for visual and noise impacts to riders by providing dense native understory and canopy tree and shrub plantings that would help to naturally screen new development and existing horse riding trails located within 10 feet in some cases from North Bethany s northern edge. With these requirements within the buffer, new development upslope of the buffer would be more visually screened, particularly at the urban/rural edge where the existing horse trails are sited. It is also intended that landscape screening within the buffer would act as a noise barrier that would help dissipate some of the urban noise upslope of the buffer that might affect the equine use of trails along a portion of the urban/rural edge. The installation of a five-foot (no-climb) fence is required along the southern edge of the buffer tract between urban development and the rural area and would help to discourage trespass onto rural lands by residents and pets. At the time of development, a fence may also be required along the northern boundary if it is shown to be needed. Conclusion Ordinance No. 801 proposes amendments to Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan of the Bethany Community Plan and the Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) Section 390 to reduce the Natural Features Buffer with Fencing to a uniform width of fifty (50) feet. The proposed ordinance adds new landscape screening and buffering requirements with the intent of ensuring compatibility between new urban development within North Bethany and agricultural practices on adjacent rural lands outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Key provisions of Ordinance No. 801: Summary of Proposed Changes Ordinance No. 801 proposes to amend Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan of the Bethany Community Plan and the Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) Section 390 to reduce the Natural Features Buffer with Fencing to a uniform width of fifty (50) feet. North Bethany Subarea Plan: Removes language that currently allows residential development to the top of slope on lands with slopes greater than 25 percent that are located within the Natural Features Buffer with Fencing. Revises the Urban/Rural Edge Map to delete the current buffer and replace it with a minimum fifty (50) foot wide Natural Features Buffer with Fencing. Community Development Code: Removes text within Section 390 of the Community Development Code that currently allows residential development to the top of slope on lands with slopes greater than 25 percent that are located within the Natural Features Buffer with Fencing.

69 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 801 July 8, 2015 Page 18 of 18 Clarifies that development within the Natural Features Buffer with Fencing is prohibited. Establishes new landscape screening and buffering standards within the Natural Features Buffer with Fencing to ensure compatibility with new urban development and agricultural practices on adjacent rural lands outside the Urban Growth Boundary. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Attachment A North Bethany Subarea Plan Urban/Rural Edge Map Attachment B North Bethany Concept Plan Attachment C North Bethany Subarea Plan Urban/Rural Edge Map Sewer Service Challenged Areas Exhibit B Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) 7 Position Paper Exhibit C Letter of Support Submitted by Michael C. Robinson, Perkins Coie Exhibit D Recent Letters in Opposition Submitted by Joseph Rayhawk, Abbey Creek Stables S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2015ord\Ord801_NB_Buffer\Staff_Reports\PC\Ord801_PC_SR_ docx

70 Exhibit A May 1, 2015 LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUE PAPER NO Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer Issue The 2015 Work Program authorized Task 1.11a, reconsideration of a request to reduce the North Bethany Natural Features Buffer from the current variable buffer width. This task was originally added to the Work Program in 2013 in response to a written request from K & R Holdings (K&R). In an August 5, 2014 Board work session, staff presented Issue Paper No , North Bethany Development Restrictions within the Natural Features Buffer. Board discussion included options for reducing the width of the buffer. At that meeting the Board asked staff to coordinate with Clean Water Services (CWS), Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD), and other stakeholders, and return with options and recommendations in spring This Issue Paper summarizes the issues and new information received, and presents several options for Board consideration. Based on the Board s direction, an ordinance could be considered in the 2015 ordinance season. Recommendation Consider the key issues in the Analysis section of this paper and provide guidance to staff on whether and how to proceed with Community Development Code (CDC) and/or Community Plan amendments that would allow reductions to the width of the Natural Features Buffer shown on the Subarea Plan s Urban / Rural Edge Map. Staff has identified three alternatives to address this request, listed below and described in more detail in the Alternatives for Board of Commissioners Consideration section: 1) Maintain the current adopted development restrictions and width of the Natural Features Buffer. 2) Reduce the Natural Features Buffer to a uniform width (e.g., 30, 50, 100 ) through amendments to the North Bethany Subarea Plan Urban/Rural Edge Map. 3) Allow potential reductions to the Natural Features Buffer to a minimum width through a Type III land use application process, subject to development and compatibility standards. This alternative would require amendments to the North Bethany Subarea Plan and the CDC. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Ste. 350 MS 14 Hillsboro, OR phone: (503) fax: (503)

71 Exhibit A Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer May 1, 2015 Page 2 of 10 Background Metro Ordinance A brought North Bethany into the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in Condition 6 of the Metro Ordinance required the county to adopt provisions that ensured compatibility between future urban uses in North Bethany and agricultural practices on adjacent land outside the UGB, before authorizing development in North Bethany. Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance No A reads, the county shall adopt provisions in its comprehensive plan and zoning regulations such as setbacks, buffers and designated lanes for movement of slow-moving farm machinery to ensure compatibility between urban uses in an included study area and agricultural practices on adjacent land outside the UGB zoned for farm or forest use. (emphasis added) In 2011, the Board adopted A-Engrossed Ordinance 739, which established urban/agricultural buffers to address Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance No A (see Attachment A, North Bethany Subarea Plan Urban/Rural Edge Map). The adopted buffers were based on background information that had been compiled about the rural lands surrounding North Bethany, including an inventory of agricultural land uses on the adjacent properties; identification of potential urban/rural conflicts likely to arise from the identified agricultural uses; and identification of buffer types that could address the potential urban/rural conflicts. In a September 19, 2011 letter to the Board, Metro acknowledged that the urban/agricultural compatibility measures adopted by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 739 met the intent of Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance A. Metro s letter stated, We recognize that for some parties the proposed program does not go far enough in protecting the activities on the rural side of the UGB, and for other parties it goes too far and is not needed for the existing situation. In this instance, we think that the staff proposal has adequately tailored the compatibility program to the particular situation in the North Bethany area. Overview of Adopted Buffers The North Bethany Subarea contains three buffer locations and types, depicted on the North Bethany Subarea Plan Urban/Rural Edge Map (see Attachment A). Following below are brief descriptions of each adopted buffer. Eastern Buffer Screening Vegetation and THPRD Trail Right-of-Way For the majority of North Bethany s eastern edge, the Board adopted a 20-foot minimum Vegetation Buffer width, to include both the THPRD trail right-of-way and screening vegetation. The Board s decision was based on information indicating that several of the adjacent properties had a history of wheat, hay, and/or grass seed cultivation activities often associated with ground spraying and harvest activities that generate dust. Western Buffer Fence Only Boundary For North Bethany s western and a portion of the northwestern edge, the Board adopted a buffer consisting of a fence to prevent trespass. This decision was based on background information

72 Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer May 1, 2015 Page 3 of 10 indicating that the adjacent properties were in pasture and/or livestock (cattle) use. Pasture and livestock uses are not associated with chemical spray activities or significant dust generation, and the most likely conflict between urban uses and these agricultural uses appeared to be trespass. Another consideration was the fact that topographic features (15 to 25 percent slopes) and other adopted plan elements (THPRD trail alignment, which generally requires a 20 right-of-way) were present along this edge to provide some separation distance between the urban uses within North Bethany and the adjacent rural uses. Northern Buffer Natural Features and Fence For a portion of North Bethany s northern edge, the Board adopted a Natural Features Buffer separating North Bethany urban development and adjacent agricultural uses. It ranges in width from 158 to 465 measured north to south. The Natural Features Buffer is comprised of the steeply sloped lands with existing greater than (>) 25 percent slopes (which are also mapped as lands with moderate to high susceptibility to shallow-seated and deep-seated landslides) and adjacent areas with slopes of between percent. Together these areas form a buffer that provides separation distance between urban uses in North Bethany and adjacent agricultural uses. The Board adopted this buffer based on information indicating that adjacent rural properties had a history of pasture, wheat/row crops and livestock uses. The property in agricultural use is an equestrian facility that has technical riding trails in close proximity within 10 feet in some areas to the North Bethany boundary. Work Program Requests K&R submitted its first Work Program request to the Board in 2013 for re-examination of the Board s decision to restrict development in North Bethany areas with slopes > 25 percent. The Board considered an Issue Paper dated June 28, 2013 about this request. The Issue Paper recommended that the development prohibitions within the Natural Features Buffer be maintained as currently adopted, but that development restrictions on > 25 percent slopes outside of the Natural Features Buffer be removed. At their July 9, 2013 work session, the Board directed staff to remove the development restrictions on > 25 percent slopes that were located outside of the Natural Features Buffer only. This change was subsequently adopted by the Board in 2013 via Ordinance No During hearings on the ordinance, Chair Duyck indicated that modifications to the Natural Features Buffer may be considered in On March 21, 2014, K&R submitted a letter to the Board stating their opinion that a fiftyfoot (50 ) minimum buffer width is adequate to address potential conflicts at the present location of the Natural Features Buffer for the northern boundary adjacent to farm use. Subsequently, K&R submitted a letter dated June 6, 2014 to the Board proposing a 30- foot (30 ) wide for this Natural Features Buffer. Staff prepared an Issue Paper dated July 11, 2014 that addressed K&R s requests. The Board considered the Issue Paper and the request at their work session on August 5, The Issue Paper recommended that the development prohibitions within the Natural Features Buffer be maintained as currently adopted for the following reasons: Exhibit A

73 Exhibit A Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer May 1, 2015 Page 4 of 10 o The urban/agricultural compatibility measures adopted by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 739, including the Natural Features Buffer, met Metro s Condition 6 of Ordinance A. o A change to the Natural Features Buffer would require staff to provide findings for compliance with Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance A, which could prove challenging to meet by allowing a reduced buffer. o Several broad sections of the Natural Features Buffer, especially adjacent to the rural equestrian facility, have > 25 percent slopes and have no other developmentrestricting factors such as wetlands or Clean Water Services Vegetated Corridors. A reduction in the width of the Natural Features Buffer in these sections would result in minimal remaining buffer to maintain compatibility between future urban development and adjacent agricultural uses. o Reducing the width of the Natural Features Buffer could result in future legal challenges. After discussion, the Board chose not to address the task as part of the 2014 ordinance season and directed staff to come back in 2015 with recommended options for reducing the buffer. Analysis Should the Board allow the Natural Features Buffer to be reduced, areas that were not expected to develop would potentially become developable. This would have both service provision and rural compatibility implications. The primary issues for the Board to consider regarding potential reduction of the Natural Features Buffer include: Serviceability for sanitary sewer and stormwater and potential impacts that could result from development in the buffer. Impacts to THPRD trail alignments shown on the North Bethany Subarea Plan Parks, Trails, and Pedestrian Connection map. Maintaining compliance with Condition 6 of Metro s Ordinance No A, which requires the county to ensure compatibility between future urban development and adjacent agricultural uses. Since the Board s work session in August 2014, County staff met with representatives from CWS and THPRD to review issues related to allowing Natural Features Buffer reductions. Feedback from these discussions is summarized below. Staff also met with the adjacent property owner, Mr. Rayhawk, who runs the equestrian facility adjacent to the Natural Features Buffer; Carol Chesarek, a concerned citizen and neighbor of the Rayhawks; as well as K&R representatives. CWS Sanitary and Stormwater Impacts CWS shared a number of concerns about sanitary sewer and stormwater service provision to this area should the Natural Features Buffer be reduced. Sanitary Sewer In 2008, CWS developed a general sanitary sewer alignment that could support North Bethany development as identified in the North Bethany Subarea Plan. In 2010, CWS further evaluated

74 Exhibit A Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer May 1, 2015 Page 5 of 10 the area and the ability of the proposed North Bethany interceptor sewer to serve the entire subarea. The analysis identified all steeply sloped lands within the subarea as challenging areas to serve by gravity sewer. At the time, Long Range Planning was in the process of establishing buffer requirements for North Bethany with the objective of meeting Metro s Condition 6. With creation of the Natural Features Buffer, development in the steeply sloped areas along North Bethany s northern edge was prohibited. As a result of the adopted buffer development limitations, CWS North Bethany Sewer Master Plan did not include or consider providing service to the Natural Features Buffer area because the buffer was not going to be impacted by development. Attachments B and C show lands mapped by CWS that pose Sewer Service Challenges within the Natural Features Buffer. If area within the Natural Features Buffer becomes developable, CWS staff identified the following sanitary sewer issues that would result from development within the Natural Features Buffer: Service to the area would require additional sanitary sewer engineering analysis, and would be technically challenging and expensive to construct. In accordance with CWS Board-adopted policy, the sanitary system for North Bethany was planned as an all-gravity system to avoid pump stations and minimize the long-term operational and maintenance costs. The Natural Features Buffer area is located downhill of planned sewer facilities, therefore gravity service would not be possible without construction of additional sanitary sewers or lowering the planned system. The planned sanitary sewer trunk line is already at significant depth (>25'); lowering the pipeline further would increase both initial capital and long-term maintenance costs. Construction of a second additional sewer to serve just the area within the Buffer would require difficult side-hill installation, impacts to natural resources at the base of the slope, or extension of sewer facilities outside the UGB. A state goals exception would be required to locate sanitary sewer facilities outside the UGB. Servicing the area via a pumped system would require construction of at least one public pump station, increasing long-term service costs. Alternatively, individual homes could use grinder pumps a wastewater tank with a grinder that grinds waste into slurry and pumps it up-grade to a provided gravity sanitary system but such systems are maintenance and electricity intensive for individual homeowners. Wide use of grinder pumps as the service method for new subdivisions is generally not allowed by Clean Water Services due to potential back-ups and ongoing maintenance issues for homeowners. Such systems also increase the likelihood of backups and overflows in the public system, as the slurry that is produced can accumulate at the point of connection to the mainline. Stormwater CWS Stormwater Implementation Plan for North Bethany also excludes the Natural Features Buffer from stormwater service because the entire area slopes away from planned regional stormwater facilities and the area was not envisioned for development.

75 Exhibit A Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer May 1, 2015 Page 6 of 10 CWS staff emphasized the following additional stormwater issues associated with development within the buffer: Stormwater management solutions in the Natural Features Buffer are not easily identifiable because of topography, soil conditions, and proximity to rural land. Lands within the Natural Features Buffer areas are designated as landslide hazard areas and introducing additional stormwater and infiltration facilities to these areas could cause greater slope instability or eventual landslides. Piping stormwater from properties directly to Abbey Creek is an option but poses several concerns: o Residential downspout connections draining directly to Abbey Creek without downstream water-quality treatment and flow management does not meet state stormwater treatment requirements and therefore would not be allowed. o Construction of drainage pipes down steep slopes to the creek could result in tree root disturbance or tree loss and exacerbate overall slope instability. It would also create additional Vegetated Corridor impacts which would need to be mitigated. o Changes to Abbey Creek could adversely affect the adjacent property owners pasture lands and creek stewardship agreements. Small individual private onsite stormwater facilities or Low Impact Design Approaches (LIDA such as rain gardens or filtration planters) may be feasible but no siting analysis has been completed to date. LIDA would need to be privately maintained by property owners and inspected by CWS staff for maintenance and functionality. Other CWS Issues Finally, three areas within the Natural Features Buffer are shown as environmentally sensitive areas that are subject to CWS Vegetated Corridor regulations. Should the Board wish to proceed with allowing a reduction to the width of the Natural Features Buffer, development will still need to meet CWS Vegetated Corridor regulations. K&R has indicated that they have done preliminary engineering work for sewer provision to this area. K&R has consulted with CWS regarding its request to reduce and develop within the Natural Features Buffer, but has not yet provided CWS with an engineering study of the area to demonstrate how sewer and stormwater requirements can be met without adversely affecting the remaining Natural Features Buffer area, including the Vegetated Corridor. K&R representatives have indicated to CWS that they will continue to work with CWS staff and provide details of their analysis once complete. Trails Impacts The Parks, Trails and Pedestrian Connections Map of the North Bethany Subarea Plan indicate that two segments of the planned trail are located along the edge of the Natural Features Buffer. These segments provide a more complete trail network in the area and offer viewing opportunities into the Natural Features Buffer area. THPRD stated that it has some flexibility when determining the specific location of trails based on actual topographic considerations, but its preference is to follow the locations on the adopted plan as closely as possible.

76 Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer May 1, 2015 Page 7 of 10 THPRD staff identified the following issues: A width reduction along the southeast and southwest sections of the Natural Features Buffer where the above-mentioned trails are planned would possibly force trails to be located down steeper slopes where trail grades may not be able to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act standards and are generally less accessible to users. A narrower buffer provides less trail siting flexibility in areas along the southern edge of the buffer where trails may need to meander due to topography. Trail siting in steeply sloped areas would be more difficult and costly than in the planned locations. THPRD requested that should the buffer area be reduced, that developers be required to coordinate with THPRD to ensure acceptable alternative trail locations. Rural Compatibility Impacts Staff has the following concerns with reducing the width of the Natural Features Buffer related to maintaining urban/rural compatibility and complying with Condition 6 of the Metro Ordinance A: It would undo a significant portion of the urban/agricultural compatibility measures that were put in place to comply with Metro s condition and have potentially significant impacts on the adjacent equine business. It would re-introduce the issue of North Bethany urban/rural compatibility and compliance with Metro s condition, which was one of the most contentious issues addressed by A-Engrossed Ordinance No A legislative change to the buffer would require staff to provide findings for compliance with Condition 6 of the Metro Ordinance and staff believes these findings could prove challenging to draft and meet. Alternatives for Board Consideration A range of possible policy options are provided below for the Board s consideration. Exhibit A Alternative 1 Maintain Adopted Natural Features Buffer /No Change Alternative 1 would retain all CDC and North Bethany Subarea Plan language and mapping in its current adopted form. Maintenance of the existing Natural Features Buffer would not require the county to reconsider the North Bethany Subarea Plan requirements and would continue to ensure compliance with Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance A. Alternative 2 Reduce Natural Features Buffer to a Specified Uniform Width This alternative would decrease the existing variable width Natural Features Buffer that runs along a portion of North Bethany s northern edge to a uniform width (e.g., 30 feet per K&R s request, 50, or some other width). Reducing the Natural Features Buffer in this way would require an amendment to the Urban/Rural Edge map of the North Bethany Subarea Plan and text changes to the North Bethany Subarea Plan or CDC. A uniform width reduction of the Natural Features Buffer to the extent K&R is requesting would result in minimal remaining buffer to preserve compatibility between future urban development

77 Exhibit A Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer May 1, 2015 Page 8 of 10 and adjacent agricultural uses. This would particularly be the case in areas consisting only of > 25 percent slopes and not constrained by other development limiting factors (wetlands and/or CWS Vegetated Corridors). Staff notes the following issues with a reduced uniform width buffer: A setback of 30 or 50 feet would significantly reduce the distance between urban development and adjacent agricultural uses such as the equestrian use with a technical riding trail in close proximity to and downslope of the buffer s north edge. A significantly reduced buffer increases the likelihood for visual, noise, trespass, and stormwater runoff impacts to adjacent rural agricultural lands, thus making these issues more challenging to address. A narrower buffer would potentially site the planned location of two segments of THPRD trail along the southern edge of the Natural Features Buffer closer to agricultural uses, and would likely place trails closer to agricultural uses, increasing the potential for noise and trespass onto agricultural lands by trail users. If the Board chooses to reduce the buffer to a uniform width, staff recommends consideration of adopting additional planting and screening requirements for the area between the reduced buffer and agricultural lands to attempt to address the range of potential impacts on adjacent agricultural lands, in particular the equestrian use. Finally, concurrent with this option, findings would need to be made for Condition 6 of Metro Ordinance A, demonstrating how a reduced buffer would ensure compatibility between future urban uses in North Bethany and agricultural practices on adjacent land outside the UGB. The county developed an approach in A-Engrossed Ordinance 739 to address Condition 6 based on relevant information, and there was no existing regional precedent for achieving urban/agricultural compatibility that could be applied to North Bethany. The county s approach was based on information obtained by polling adjacent rural property owners along the North Bethany boundary, identifying agricultural practices and their potential impacts on urban lands to the extent practicable, reviewing the buffer requirements of other Oregon jurisdictions, and reviewing national studies on the use of urban/agricultural buffers. This approach would be subject to Metro review and consideration. It is unknown at this time if Metro would support the approach outlined as ensuring urban/rural compatibility. Alternative 3 Allow Natural Features Buffer Width to be reduced through the Land Use Review Process This option would introduce new land use review requirements that would allow reductions in the Natural Features Buffer to a specified minimum width through a Type III Planned Development Process. Planned Development standards in the North Bethany Subarea (CDC Section ) provide flexibility in development standards while ensuring the integrity of the North Bethany Subarea Plan. In exchange for development flexibility, Planned Developments are required to use innovative design and provide private or public open space or other site/building amenities.

78 Exhibit A Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer May 1, 2015 Page 9 of 10 Under this alternative, a Planned Development application requesting to reduce the width of the Natural Features Buffer would be required to demonstrate compliance with specific width reduction standards. The purpose of the width reduction standards would be to ensure compatibility between future urban development in North Bethany and rural agricultural uses as required by Metro Condition 6 of Ordinance A. Potential Planned Development standards could include: An Agricultural Impact Analysis, similar to the impact analysis currently required for the siting of non-farm dwellings on high-value farmland in the county (CDC Section ). This analysis would consider the potential impacts to all rural agricultural uses adjacent to the proposed buffer reduction, including the management and operation of such agricultural land uses. Based on this analysis, staff would be able to further evaluate whether or not additional conditions of approval should be recommended to ensure compatibility between urban development and adjacent rural agricultural uses. A screening and buffering plan showing proposed visual and noise screening elements (e.g., fencing, existing vegetation to remain, new landscape planting, other elements as appropriate) and demonstrating that these elements will be sufficient to screen adjacent agricultural uses from urban development within 5 years of land use application approval. Evidence that the applicant has coordinated with THPRD regarding the location of planned trails on the site. A requirement that the reduced Natural Features Buffer be placed in a separate tract and maintained in perpetuity by the development or a home owners association. Restrictions on the placement of structures within the required rear yard setback, e.g., raised decks, pergolas, gazebos, retaining walls, etc. Provision of public or private open space within the Planned Development to offset the loss of open space from the buffer reduction. Evidence that CWS sewer and stormwater requirements can be met without adversely affecting the remaining Natural Features Buffer area. As with Alternative 2, this approach would be subject to Metro review and consideration. It is unknown at this time whether Metro would accept this alternative as a means of meeting Condition 6 of Ordinance A. Conclusion Based on feedback from CWS and THPRD, allowing development within the Natural Features Buffer poses service provision implications for sanitary sewer, stormwater, and trails siting that will need to be considered if development is to be allowed within the Natural Features Buffer. Additionally, a narrower buffer would reduce the distance between urban development and adjacent agricultural uses, thus making it more challenging to ensure compatibility between future urban development and adjacent agricultural uses.

79 Long Range Planning Issue Paper No Consideration of Width Reductions to North Bethany s Natural Features Buffer May 1, 2015 Page 10 of 10 Should the Board wish to allow a width reduction to the buffer, staff believes that a Type III land use process is preferable (Alternative 3) to a uniform width reduction of the Natural Features Buffer (Alternative 2) for three reasons: It maximizes the opportunity for stakeholder input and participation. It allows the Review Authority to apply specific development criteria assuming these would meet Metro s Condition 6 to ensure that future urban development is consistent and compatible with adjacent agricultural uses and multiple objectives of the North Bethany Subarea Plan. It provides the applicant with flexibility in order to meet buffer objectives. Exhibit A However, from CWS' perspective, this flexibility presents challenges as the District is moving forward with designing and constructing backbone and regional infrastructure now. If the service assumptions can be subject to change, it might force the District (and ultimately its ratepayers) to incur unnecessary additional capital cost to construct facilities at greater depths or more challenging locations than ultimately needed. Alternatively, if these facilities are designed and built according to the current plans, the District is concerned that changes would result in developments with sub-optimal service methodologies that would otherwise not be allowed. Staff requests Board direction in order to proceed with a possible ordinance in the 2015 season. S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2015ord\Issue_Papers\Natural Features Buffer\IP_ _NB_25%Slopes_2015.doc

80 M u l t n o m a h C o u n t y M u l t n o m a h C o u n t y Bethany Community Plan Chapter 2 NORTH BETHANY SUBAREA Fence Only Buffer Trail Corridor 1 inch equals 650 feet ,300 Feet North Bethany Subarea Vegetation Buffer with Fencing Natural Features Buffer with Fencing Density Restricted Lands The information on this map was derived from several databases and care was taken in its creation. Washington County cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy. There are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. Washington County - Department of Land Use & Transportation Long Range Planning Division Path: S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Comprehensive Plan Elements\Community Plans\Bethany\Maps\CHAPTER 2\Chapter2_UrbanRural_Edge.mxd 11/9/2011 Exhibit A Portions of the trail corridor are shown to illustrate how they define the edge of sections of the Natural Features Buffer area. Urban/Rural Edge MAP

81 Exhibit A

82 ! ( (! (!! ( Multnomah County (!! ( (! 380 # # 1 inch = 200 feet I Wetland & Estimated CWS Vegetated Corridor Sewer Service Challenges (CWS, 2010) Natural Features Buffer with Fencing 2 ft. Contours Vegetation Buffer with Fencing Trail Corridor Fence Only Buffer The information on this map was derived from several databases and care was taken in its creation. Washington County cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy. There are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. ### (!! ( Washington County - Department of Land Use & Transportation Long Range Planning Division #### (! North Bethany Subarea Urban/Rural Edge MAP (! # Bethany Community Plan Chapter 2 NORTH BETHANY SUBAREA! ( 350 ATTACHMENT C (! #! ( 290 Exhibit A 360 Path: J:\Users\JonathanCz\StaffRequests\Bob\Chapter2_UrbanRural_Edge.mxd 04/28/

83 Exhibit B

84 Exhibit B

85 Exhibit C

86 Exhibit C

87 Exhibit C

88 Exhibit C

89 Exhibit C

90 Exhibit C

91 Exhibit C

92 Exhibit C

93 Exhibit C

94 Exhibit C

95 Exhibit C

96 Exhibit C

97 Exhibit C

98 Exhibit D

99 Exhibit D

100 Exhibit D

101 Exhibit D

102 Exhibit D

103 Exhibit D

104 Exhibit D

105 Exhibit D

106 Exhibit D

107 Exhibit D