Aurora Planning Commission Agenda August 6, 2019

AGENDA Aurora Planning Commission Meeting

Tuesday, August 6, 2019, 7 P.M. City Council Chambers, Aurora City Hall 21420 Main Street NE, Aurora, OR 97002

1. CALL TO ORDER OF THE AURORA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

2. ROLL CALL Chairman Joseph Schaefer Commissioner Craig McNamara Commissioner John Berard Commissioner Cindy Riley Commissioner Bud Fawcett Commissioner Tim Shea Commissioner Jonathan Gibson

3. CONSENT AGENDA a) Planning Commission Minutes – July 2, 2019 b) City Council Minutes – June 11, 2019 c) Historic Review Board Minutes – May 23, 2019

4. VISITORS Anyone wishing to address the Aurora Planning Commission concerning items not already on the meeting agenda may do so in this section. No decision or action will be made, but the Aurora Planning Commission could look into the matter and provide some response in the future. 5. CORRESPONDENCE-N/A 6. PUBLIC HEARING-N/A

7. NEW BUSINESS a) INT 2019-02—Non-Remonstrance Agreement for 21031 Jenny Marie Lane b) Non-Voting Member c) Accessory Dwelling Units

8. OLD BUSINESS

a) Traffic Information b) Legislative Update c) Outdoor Displays in the Historic District d) Marion County Request for Comment for Proposed Development at 22515 Airport

Road

9. ADJOURN

Aurora Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2019

Minutes Aurora Planning Commission Meeting

Tuesday, July 2, 2019, 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers, Aurora City Hall 21420 Main Street NE, Aurora, OR 97002

STAFF PRESENT: W. Scott Jorgensen, City Recorder STAFF ABSENT: None VISITORS PRESENT: Tom Heitmanek, Aurora

1. CALL TO ORDER OF THE AURORA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chair Joseph Schaefer called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL Chairman Joseph Schaefer-Present Commissioner Craig McNamara-Present Commissioner John Berard-Present Commissioner Cindy Riley-Present Commissioner Bud Fawcett-Present Commissioner Tim Shea-Absent Commissioner Jonathan Gibson-Present

3. CONSENT AGENDA a) Planning Commission Minutes – June 4, 2019 b) City Council Minutes – May 14, 2019 Commissioner Craig McNamara moved to accept the consent agenda. That motion was seconded by Commissioner Jonathan Gibson and adopted unanimously.

4. VISITORS There were no visitors at this time. 5. CORRESPONDENCE

a) LUBA Decision on Accessory Dwelling Units Chair Schaefer said the decision is an illustration of the analysis people engage in when code is unclear. 6. PUBLIC HEARING-N/A

7. NEW BUSINESS

a) U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Regulatory Takings Chair Schaefer said the case was about procedures and not takings. Precedent had been set by the Williamson case, and this one overruled it. That’s the reason property rights cases haven’t been decided at the federal level. You can’t just sue in federal court, you have to go through administrative procedures first. If you’re denied locally, you appeal at that level before suing in federal court. The federal courts tend to be friendlier to property rights than state courts.

b) Highway 99E Traffic Counts Chair Schaefer said he found the traffic counts for Highway 99E while reviewing data from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). There are over 16,000 trips over

Aurora Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2019

the bridge on the east side of town but fewer than 8,000 south of town. That means over half of the cars coming through town go from the bridge to Ehlen Road.

8. OLD BUSINESS a) Donald/Aurora Interchange Update

Commissioner John Berard provided a timeline of road construction activity that is anticipated to occur in the area over the next few years. The work on Highway 551 is slated to begin in 2020. It will involve installing left hand turn lanes and creating a connector from 551 to Boones Ferry Road. In the fall of 2020, Columbia Distributing will open its warehouse in Canby. That will combine activities currently occurring at three separate facilities in Portland. It will have access to I-5 and 205. Repaving work is scheduled to take place in Canby in 2021. Construction on the Aurora/Donald Interchange is scheduled to begin in 2022. The double diamond design will be built to the standard for traffic expected by the year 2040. There’s also the project to re-stripe the Boone Bridge so the north and south lanes match, and even that may not be adequate to meet traffic demands. A study will be conducted regarding the possible addition of another lane on the bridge. Newberg and St. Paul are asking ODOT to conduct a traffic study on Highway 219 and McKay. They’ve seen an increase of traffic due to the new bypass. There have been more accidents or more focus and awareness of them. Eminent domain will be required to acquire property for some of these projects, especially the work on I-5 and 551. Councilor Tom Heitmanek said there is also the bike/footbridge/emergency vehicle project across the Willamette from Wilsonville to the other side of the river. Chair Schaefer explained the process used to acquire land for these kinds of projects. The Columbia Distributing project will likely involve heavy trucks, slower traffic and more wear and tear on the roads. Commissioner Berard said the bridge project mentioned by Heitmanek is being referred to as the French Prairie Bridge. It is not an ODOT project, but a City of Wilsonville project. Two alternatives are being considered.

b) Historic District Sign Code c) Outdoor Displays in the Historic District

Chair Schaefer said he attended the most recent Historic Review Board meeting to request input on the sign code and the outdoor display issue. Those will be included in the next round of code updates. He would also be happy to discuss an update to the section of code pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units. Chair Schaefer hasn’t yet seen all of the bills that were passed by the Legislature and isn’t sure if any of those will require cities to do further code updates. House Bill 2001 passed, and it outlaws single family zoning in cities with populations over 25,000 or 10,000 in Metro’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He thinks the bill will increase the demand for land in jurisdictions with single family dwelling zonings, including Aurora, Estacada, Clark County, Washington and others. There will also be an increased demand for subdivisions with homeowners associations because they often have covenants that restrict their developments to single family dwellings. Schaefer asked City Recorder W. Scott Jorgensen to provide an update about legislation pertaining to third-party building officials. Jorgensen said HB 2420 did not pass. That bill would require that building officials be government employees. It was similar to a bill that was proposed in the 2018 session that did not pass, but it would have allowed for councils of governments to provide those services, in the same way that they provide planning services for multiple municipalities. HB 2420 had passed the House and he lobbied Republican leadership in that chamber to oppose it. Most of their members did. The bill was referred to the Senate Rules Committee, but did not advance further due to the Senate Republicans leaving the

Aurora Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2019

state towards the end of the session. HB 2420 included a provision that validated all inspections done by third party officials. That was important for the homebuilders and union interests. But the failure of the bill to pass means that those groups will likely be more willing to remain at the table for future negotiations on legislation. The Building Codes Division (BCD) could pass administrative rules like it did last year. He’s been in discussion with various parties, including the city’s building official, about reaching out to Cameron Smith to ask that a work group be formed to develop a legislative fix for the short February session. Smith’s agency oversees the BCD.

d) Marion County Request for Comment for Proposed Development at 22515 Airport Road Chair Schaefer said he recently did lunch with Councilor Heitmanek, the project’s applicant and the applicant’s attorney to discuss options. Councilor Heitmanek said they want another meeting and lines of communication are open. They’re working on a wish list to make future inclusion in the city’s UGB feasible for property owners at the airport. There isn’t much interest at this point and it is a slow process. Chair Schaefer reviewed the update that City Planner Renata Wakeley submitted to the commission. There’s a pending application for a house on Jenny Marie. Wakeley proposes that street be added to the list of legacy streets. She also suggested Martin Street. It’s a gravel road by the Octagon Building. The commission can include those on the list of legacy streets in the next round of code updates. Commissioner Berard said the new Historical Society building will add more interest to Martin Street. Schaefer said progress has been made in bringing the Smetco property into compliance. ODOT approved a non-remonstrance agreement for the commercial development at 21187 Highway 99E. The applicants have been talking to Wakeley about it. Jorgensen verified that those discussions are ongoing. Schaefer said the commission erred in requiring a fee in lieu of improvements for the proposed development at 14971 First St NE. Fees in lieu can only be requested by the applicant. The city has applied for a grant to update its Transportation System Plan. Commissioner Berard asked about the discussions regarding the city’s sewer rates. Jorgensen said a lot of staff time has gone into investigating the matter. The city council will be discussing it at its next meeting.

9. ADJOURN Chair Schaefer adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.

________________________________________ Joseph Schaefer, Chairman ATTEST: ________________________________________ W. Scott Jorgensen City Recorder

INT-19-02 Charles Clark 1

CITY OF AURORA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT: Interpretation 2019-02 [INT-19-02] DATE: August 6, 2019 APPLICANT/OWNER: Charles Clark Construction REQUEST: Interpretation of the Aurora Municipal Code (AMC) by the Planning

Commission in regards to approval of a non-remonstrance agreement for sidewalks in lieu of installation.

SITE LOCATION: 21031 Jenny Marie Lane, Aurora, OR 97002 (also known as Map

41W13AC Lot 1402) SITE SIZE: Approximately 15,246 square feet, or 0.35 acres DESIGNATION: Zoning: Low Density Residential (R1) CRITERIA: Aurora Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 16.34 Public Improvement and

Utility Standards

ENCLOSURES: Exhibit A: Assessor Map Exhibit B: Non-remonstrance Application Exhibit C: Photos of Jenny Marie Lane I. REQUEST Approval of a non-remonstrance agreement in lieu of sidewalk improvements as part of building permit review under AMC 16.34.030.A.2. II. PROCEDURE Pursuant to 16.34.030.A.2. and subject to approval of the Planning Commission, the City may accept and record a non-remonstrance agreement in lieu of street improvements. AMC 16.78 requires Limited Land Use Decisions be processed as written notice of a decision to be provided to owners of adjacent property for which the application is made. The application was received on July 22, 2019. The application was determined complete by Staff and placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda. Notice of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at City Hall on July 30, 2019. Pending a decision from the Planning Commission at the August 6, 2019 meeting, a Notice of Decision will be mailed to adjacent property owners. The City has until November 18, 2019, or 120 days from acceptance of the application to approve, modify and approve, or deny this proposal. III. APPEAL

INT-19-02 Charles Clark 2

Appeals are governed by AMC 16.78.120. An appeal of the Commission's decision shall be made, in writing, to the City Council within 15 days of the Planning Commission’s final written decision. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicable review criteria for non-remonstrance agreements are found in AMC Chapter 16.34 - Public Improvements and 16.78- Limited Land Use Decisions 16.34 Public Improvement and Utility Standards 16.34.030.A.2. Subject to AMC 16.78 and approval of the Planning Commission, the City may accept and record a non-remonstrance agreement in lieu of street improvements if the following conditions exist: A. A partial improvement creates a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; or FINDING: The applicant is requesting that they not be required to install curbs or sidewalks along the frontage of the subject property as this is the last remaining buildable lot along Jenny Marie Lane and no curbs or sidewalks exist along the frontage of other Jenny Marie Lane improved properties. Staff finds installation of a sidewalk along the frontage of the subject property would result in an unconnected sidewalk along properties to the north and to the south. The subject property has approximately 80 feet of frontage on Jenny Marie Lane. Staff finds an unconnected sidewalk could create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians and finds this criterion is met. B. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity. FINDING: Staff finds the subject property is the remaining undeveloped parcel along Jenny Marie Lane. At the time of subdivision approval and development, sidewalk installation was not required although the Transportation System Plan does identify local streets as requiring sidewalks. It is unlikely developed properties along Jenny Marie Lane will undertake frontage improvements in the near future. Staff finds installation of improvements by the subject property would not create a significant increase to safety or capacity on this dead end street and staff finds this criterion is met. 16.78 Limited Land Use Decision 16.78.090 Standards for the decision. A. The decision shall be based on proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with: 1. The city comprehensive plan; and FINDING: Staff finds the application meets the criteria under 16.34 for approval of a non-remonstrance agreement. The implementing ordinance of the comprehensive plan is included under Title 16- Land Development. A review of Title 16 is included below. Staff finds this criteria is met. 2. The relevant approval standards found in the applicable chapter(s) of this title and other applicable implementing ordinances.

INT-19-02 Charles Clark 3

FINDING: The property is zone Low Density Residential (R-1). Staff finds the property meets the size, width, and depth required under the zone. The applicant previously submitted a building permit application confirm compliance with height, setback, and other code requirements. The building permit was conditioned to include installation of curbs and sidewalks prior to occupancy or approval of a non-remonstrance agreement in advance of occupancy permit approval. AMC section16.34.060.A. states, "on public streets, sidewalks are required except as exempted by the Aurora Transportation System Plan (TSP) and shall be constructed, replaced or repaired in accordance with the City's public work design standards." While the City TSP does identify Jenny Marie Lane as requiring sidewalks, the AMC does allow the Planning Commission to accept a non-remonstrance agreement in lieu of improvements under certain conditions.

Staff finds the criteria under Title 16 can be met, with conditions. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the findings outlined in the staff report, staff recommends Planning Commission approval of a non-remonstrance agreement in lieu of frontage improvements as outlined above for the Interpretation application (File No. INT-19-02) with the following conditions of approval:

1. The applicant shall execute and record a non-remonstrance agreement for curbs and sidewalks with Marion County. The non-remonstrance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recording. Recording costs shall be the responsibility of the applicant/property owner and evidence of the recorded non-remonstrance agreement with Marion County shall be required prior to occupancy permit approval on the subject property.

VI. PLANNING COMMISSION SAMPLE MOTIONS

A. Motion to adopt the findings in the staff report and approve Interpretation 19-02: 1. As presented by staff, or 2. As amended by the Planning Commission (stating revisions)

OR

B. Motion to deny Interpretation 19-02 (stating how the application does not meet the required

standards),

OR

C. Continue the decision to a time certain or indefinite (considering the 120-day limit on applications) in order to collect additional information from the applicant or staff (stating the information required in order to make a decision)

Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 

Salem, Oregon 97301‐2540 

Phone: 503‐373‐0050 

Fax: 503‐378‐5518 

www.oregon.gov/LCD 

 

July 11, 2019 TO: Land Conservation and Development Commission FROM: Jim Rue, Director

Palmer Mason, Senior Policy Advisor Sadie Carney, Policy Analyst & Communications Manager SUBJECT: Agenda Item 4, July 25-26, 2019, LCDC Meeting

2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION REPORT

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

Staff from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) will brief the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on the results of the 2019 Legislative Session. Staff will discuss key legislation, DLCD’s budget and highlight other important issues. For further information about this report, please contact Palmer Mason, Senior Policy Advisor at (503) 934-0020, or palmer.mason@state.or.us, or Sadie Carney, Policy Analyst and Communications Manager at (503) 934-0036, or sadie.carney@state.or.us.

BACKGROUND

For much of the 2019 session, the Legislature focused on increasing educational funding (HB 3427), raising revenue for the state’s Medicaid program (HB 2010), and addressing climate change through a program to cap greenhouse gas emissions on the state’s largest emitters (HB 2020 aka, the “Cap & Invest” bill). Legislation relating to housing and efforts to balance the state’s budget also competed for attention and time as priorities for lawmakers.

Concerned about a statewide housing deficit, the Legislature focused on legislation relating to housing affordability and supply. Most notably for Oregon land use law, House Bill 2001 requires cities with populations between 10,000 and 25,000 to allow duplexes on any lot zoned for single-family dwellings; and, in cities with populations over 25,000 or in local governments within the Metro region, the bill mandates that local governments allow multi-family development up to quadplexes in any areas zoned for single-family dwellings. The smaller cities must make zoning changes by June 30, 2021 and the larger cities and Metro local governments by June 30, 2022. Finally, HB 2001 directs DLCD to adopt a model middle housing ordinance no later than December 31, 2019. Local governments failing to meet the deadlines under HB 2001 must directly apply the model ordinance until such time as the local zoning changes are adopted. Another significant housing bill, House Bill 2003 directs several agencies, including DLCD, to prepare and evaluate a regional housing needs methodology for consideration during the 2021 legislative session. It also mandates the adoption of a schedule for local governments to submit housing needs analyses, which require local governments to determine the amount of land, along with relevant zoning changes, necessary for a 20-year supply of housing. Finally, the bill directs local governments with populations over 10,000 to adopt a housing production strategy, which is intended to identify measures beyond redevelopment and zoning that will increase the

Agenda Item 4 July 25-26, 2019 – LCDC Meeting

Page 2 of 3

supply of housing. Examples of such strategies could include bond referenda, reduced permitting fees and other regulatory incentives, or the sale of surplus public land. The 2019-21 legislative budget also reflects greater investment in housing. To support local government efforts to implement HB 2001 and HB 2003, the Legislature appropriated $4.5 million to DLCD for technical assistance grants. Also, in support of program staffing and contracting, the Legislature appropriated another $2 million to DLCD, along with seven new positions, to support the implementation of these bills (House Bill 5050). Outside of housing issues, Oregon’s land use laws and policies were, for the most part, not dramatically changed. Senate Bill 2 authorizes ten Eastern Oregon counties to zone up to a total of 50 acres for commercial, industrial and other employment uses outside of urban growth boundaries. Site(s) must be identified in an economic opportunity analysis included in the county’s comprehensive plan. Additionally, the sites cannot be located in high-value farmland nor conflict with the Oregon Sage-Grouse Action Plan. DLCD plans to make grants available to these counties to assist in implementation. HBs 2573 and 2225 are also typical of the land use law changes enacted in the 2019 Legislative Session. House Bill 2573 temporarily reduces the level of qualifying income necessary for the owner or operator of a cranberry farm to construct a dwelling on the property. In addition, the bill requires the property owner to record deed restrictions prohibiting rental use of the dwelling. House Bill 2225 attempts to prevent the overdevelopment of the state’s forest lands by preventing practices contrary to the intent of the 1993 forest template dwelling statute. That statute allowed the construction of one additional single-family dwelling in forest and mixed-forest use zones after January 1, 1993 under certain conditions. Under HB 2225, property line adjustments may no longer be used to relocate parcels within a tract in order to qualify for additional template dwellings. A template dwelling cannot be approved if there was another dwelling on contiguous land under same ownership on January 1, 2019, although the counties may approve one additional dwelling before November 2023. House Bill 3309, on the other hand, represents a major change in the state’s current land use law. With the passage of this bill, new essential facilities (e.g., schools, fire and police stations, jails, and communication centers) are no longer prohibited within tsunami inundation zones. Local governments must consult with the Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries on safety and evacuation. Finally, DLCD’s budget reflects support for the agency’s mission (House Bill 5027). Perhaps most importantly, funding for the technical assistance grant program increased by 3% from 2017-19 levels, and several positions shifted from limited duration to permanent status. Also, two of the three new budget requests for the 2019-21 biennium were funded by the Legislature (Policy Option Package 102 – Climate Adaptation & Policy Option Package 103 – Preparing for Natural Hazards). However, the request to fund a Development Readiness Program that would have helped local governments to plan for more jobs and housing was not adopted (Policy Option Package 101 and House Bill 2075).

In the final two weeks of the session, Senate Republicans denied the legislature a Senate quorum with a walkout in protest over HB 2020, the “Cap & Invest” bill. The walkout began on Thursday, June 20. Hundreds of bills and many agency budgets were delayed in those final days. Senate and House rules require a quorum before voting, which means that at least 20 Senators and 40 House members must be present to conduct business. Based on the current

Agenda Item 4 July 25-26, 2019 – LCDC Meeting

Page 3 of 3

political makeup of the Legislature, this constitutional rule requires the presence of at least two Republicans in the Senate and four in the House.  Two days prior to constitutional Sine Die, scheduled for June 30, the Senate Republican caucus hosted a press conference announcing the return of their members to the Capitol. In the final weekend of the legislative session, Saturday and Sunday, June 29-30, the Legislature worked urgently to pass agency budgets and some policy bills into law. During the 2019 session, DLCD staff tracked or worked over 50 priority bills. In Attachment A, there is a list of these bills along with a brief summary. Both attachments below will be provided in the Supplemental Packet.

ATTACHMENTS (FORTHCOMING IN SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET)

A. FINAL SUMMARY OF PRIORITY BILLS / 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

B. BRIEFING OUTLINE / 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

From: SMITH Cameron * DCBSTo: RecorderSubject: RE: Third-Party Building Inspector IssueDate: Friday, July 12, 2019 11:30:49 AM

Good morning Scott, Thanks for your email earlier this week. We did come very close to passage after final buyin on a consensus amendment with AOC and LOC, but unfortunately no cigar in last daysof session. As you note, any rulemaking going forward will be enhanced by stakeholder participation.We can still face challenges in this area given the limits of our statutory authority asinterpreted by the AG’s full opinion, but a consensus product is always the goal. We’llcertainly ask Building Code Division to keep the broad stakeholder group informed ofopportunities to engage on rule making and add their perspectives going forward. Thanks again and please don’t hesitate to reach out if I can be of any help. My cell # isbelow. Best,Cameron c: 503-385-6229 From: Recorder <Recorder@ci.aurora.or.us> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 12:52 PMTo: DCBS DIRECTOR DCBS * DCBS <DCBS.DIRECTOR@oregon.gov>Subject: Third-Party Building Inspector Issue Director Smith, As you’re well aware, the 2019 legislative session adjourned without the passage of House Bill 2420,which would have clarified many of the issues surrounding the use of third-party building inspectors.We both provided testimony on that bill when it was in the committee process. I really liked the approach that you took in your testimony. Based on that, I believe you would like tosee a collaborative solution come about, instead of anything that could lead to further acrimony onthis very contentious and divisive issue. Along those lines, I would like to reiterate my strong preference that such an approach be used toresolve these issues. I don’t think anyone wants to see a repeat of last year, where BCD adoptsadministrative rules that some stakeholders find objectionable. I would also like to reiterate mywillingness to help take part in developing a solution, if need be. The five years that I spent workingin the Legislature prior to taking my current position taught me that stakeholder work groups can bevery useful in achieving consensus. I’m aware that efforts have been made in the past, but stillbelieve that something could be developed that would be acceptable moving forward.

All My Best, W. Scott Jorgensen, Executive MPACity RecorderCity of Aurora21420 Main Street NEAurora, OR 97002503-678-1283Fax 503-678-2758 PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSUREThis email is a public record of the City of Aurora, Oregon and is subject to public disclosureunless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. This email is subject to the StateRetention Schedule.CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICEThis e-mail message contains confidential information belonging to the sender or receiver. Theinformation in this message is intended for the addressee’s use only. If you are not the intendedrecipient you are hereby notified that you are prohibited from reading, using, disclosing, copying,or distributing this information in any way; further, you are prohibited from taking any actionbased upon the contents of this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please deleteit immediately. For further questions call our office at 503-678-1283 ext. 2.