PROJECT HOUSING OPTIONS - beavertonoregon.gov

DRAFT PREFERRED APPROACH October 11, 2021 (v2)
This document is available in other languages and formats upon request
Este documento está disponible en otros idiomas y formatos para quien lo solicite

Tài liu này có sn trong bng các ngôn ng khác và các nh dng khác theo yêu cu

THIS DOCUMENT, THE DRAFT PREFERRED APPROACH, IS AVAILABLE IN OTHER LANGUAGES
AND FORMATS UPON REQUEST.
Housing Options Project - Draft Preferred Approach City of Beaverton Page 3
HOUSING OPTIONS PROJECT DRAFT PREFERRED APPROACH The Housing Options Project will determine where and how additional housing types will be allowed in Beaverton’s neighborhoods. Types include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, multiplexes, townhomes, and cottage clusters. These are often referred to as “middle housing” because in scale and size they generally are between single- detached homes and larger apartment buildings.
People who live in Beaverton — or want to — have different housing needs. More housing variety can help. Currently, in many residential areas the city only allows people to build new single- detached homes, a housing type that can be expensive and usually is occupied by homeowners rather than renters. This project would allow different housing types to be built in these areas.
In addition, state law requires Beaverton to allow more housing variety where single-detached homes are allowed. House Bill 2001, which was passed in the 2019 legislative session, requires Beaverton to allow duplexes on most lots and triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters (small homes on one lot that share a lawn or garden) in all residential areas where single-family detached homes are allowed.
Racial equity
City staff is using a racial equity toolkit to guide the development of several equitable housing strategies for City Council and the public to review.
This involves studying existing racial inequities; identifying desired outcomes; considering the impact of new housing policies in specific geographic areas; prioritizing engagement with communities of color, low-income workers and renters; and evaluating whether proposals are likely to produce desired outcomes.
Draft preferred approach
This document describes the preferred approach based on analysis and community comments about the alternatives considered earlier this year.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
Cottage cluster
CONTENTS 2
Set minimum amount of density
Provide rules for setbacks
Establish minimum off-street parking
Ensure outdoor open space
Create different rules for cottage clusters, townhomes and accessory dwelling units
Assumptions
East Beaverton
Inner Beaverton
Northwest Beaverton
Southwest Beaverton
Additional Resources
More information about the alternatives
In the last nine months, we heard from many community members about how Beaverton could allow more housing variety in neighborhoods.
Visit www.BeavertonOregon.gov/ HOP to find out more about earlier steps in the process: Here are some key links:
City Council packet with full report and analysis regarding the alternatives
Alternatives presentation (video) at the July 27 joint Planning Commission-City Council work session
Alternatives storymap that visually presents all three alternatives
Alternatives public engagement report
Project frequently asked questions
https://www.beavertonoregon. gov/2501/Proyecto-de-Opciones- de-Vivienda
More information about House Bill 2001 and state rules related to “middle housing”:
https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/ Pages/Housing-Choices.aspx
Earlier this year, three alternatives were considered by community members, other stakeholders, the Planning Commission and the City Council. The alternatives were:
Alternative 1 – High Opportunity
This alternative asked: How can we increase the housing supply in Beaverton neighborhoods by providing significant flexibility for property owners and developers that want to add middle housing?
This alternative aimed to remove the greatest number of potential development barriers and, in doing so, allow property owners more freedom to do what they want on a site. All housing types are allowed on most lots. Bulk and scale of newer homes would have been regulated mostly through height maximums and setbacks, facilitating larger buildings with more units or more bedrooms that could support multi-generational living. Off-street parking requirements would have been minimal.
Alternative 2 – Ecological Focus
This alternative asked: How can the size, shape and orientation of homes reduce our ecological footprint and mitigate the impacts of climate change?
This alternative would have regulated home size more closely, encouraging smaller, compact homes that use less energy. Development standards would have been more flexible to support variations in building orientation and form that take advantage of solar collection, tree preservation and/or passive cooling opportunities. Some open space would have been required to provide ecological benefits and, because units generally are smaller than in other alternatives, provide outdoor gathering places. Minimum off-street parking requirements would have been modest.
Alternative 3 – Neighborhood Context
This alternative asked: How can we use existing residential development patterns to create context-based rules that reduce changes in the look and feel of neighborhoods compared to alternatives that use the same rules citywide?
This alternative would have used context-specific rules for different neighborhoods. In Beaverton, older neighborhoods often have larger lots with mostly single-story homes. Newer neighborhoods often have smaller lots with mostly multi-story homes. Different neighborhood types would have had distinct development standards for new homes.
DRAFT PREFERRED APPROACH OVERVIEW The draft Preferred Approach blends several themes from public engagement, feasibility analysis, racial equity analysis and Planning Commission and City Council comments.
In addition, the city’s housing policies; the significant housing need in the community; the need to address past housing discrimination and segregation; and a new state law passed in 2019 (House Bill 2001) all mean city codes and neighborhoods will see some significant change.
The changes proposed as part of the draft preferred approach touch on the following three themes:
1. Flexibility: Promoting financially feasible housing variety opportunities in neighborhoods to reduce segregation, promote racial equity, support building designs that respond to site and climate, increase opportunities for people to live in places that meet their needs, and expand options for property owners.
2. Context: Customizing where and how units are allowed based on site or neighborhood characteristics in different areas of Beaverton.
3. Community: Promoting housing design and outdoor open space on lots with new housing to help neighbors get to know each other better.
FLEXIBILITY
• Smaller minimum lot sizes that allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters on most lots in Beaverton neighborhoods where single-detached homes currently are allowed. Minimum lot sizes in the draft preferred approach are low enough so most lots in Beaverton can accommodate multiple housing types. See Table 2 on page 14 for more on minimum lot sizes.
• Smaller front and rear setbacks (the distance between the lot line and the building) in two zones (the proposed Residential Mixed B (RMB) and Residential Mixed C (RMC)) than in the current code. See Table 5 on page 16.
• Buildings that can be a variety of sizes, small enough to support one- or two-person households, such as older adults that would like to age in their community, and large enough to accommodate family-friendly homes and multi- generational living.
• Minimum parking standards that are low enough to increase feasibility by leaving room on the site for homes and open space. See minimum parking requirements on page 22.
Duplex with 10 foot front setback
Duplex with 15 foot rear setback
The draft preferred approach proposes a 10 foot front setback and 15 foot rear setback in most residential zones to improve feasibility and promote flexibility.
Below are examples of what this could look like with a duplex.
CONTEXT
Context is achieved through applying different standards based on location or neighborhood characteristics, including:
y Using three zoning districts (that are geographically based on Beaverton’s current zones), so rules can be different for different parts of the city.
y Applying reduced minimum parking standards where on- street parking is present nearby. See page 22 for more info.
y Applying different minimum lot sizes in different neighborhoods by creating different minimum lot sizes for three different zoning districts. See Table 2 on page 14 for more on minimum lot sizes.
y Limiting building volume (how tall and/or bulky a building can be) close to some property lines to reduce shading and increase privacy somewhat for people next door. See pages 18-21 for more info on building volume.
y Creating incentives for tree preservation and tree planting requirements so new developments can contribute to the tree canopy as many existing Beaverton neighborhoods do. See page 28 for more info on trees.
COMMUNITY
Building community means neighborhoods are welcoming to everyone and promote interactions among people. This can be achieved through standards including:
• Requiring some outdoor open space for many developments. See page 24 for more info.
• Adding design rules that promote community interaction and promoting safe and comfortable connections to sidewalks and streets, including:
o Requiring a combination of windows and entrance doors facing the street, specifically 15 percent of the street-facing façade. See Figure 14 on page 25.
o Limiting the combined width of all garages and outdoor on-site parking to a total of 50 percent of the street frontage. See Figure 15 on page 26.
o Requiring that entries face the street or a common area on the site. See page 27 for more info.
o Encouraging no-barrier entries more accessible to people of all abilities. Allowing a range of housing types on lots of various sizes (see Figure 4 on page 10) and reducing setbacks so buildings can be more horizontal (see Table 5 on page 16) helps promote more one-story and no-barrier homes.
No on-site parking
The draft preferred approach proposes reduced minimum parking standards where on-street parking is present nearby.
Below are examples of what this could look like.
Four (4) on-site parking spaces
35’ 25’
15’ 12’
Figure 1: Select development standards for the R7 zone in the current code
Figure 2: Proposed elements of the draft preferred approach for the RMC zone
Parking requirements depend upon lot size, housing type and neighborhood context. Some scenarios do not require parking. Others may require up to one space per unit.
Single-detached home
Triplex
Detached ADU with single-detached home (but could also be a duplex).
Sidewalk Street
All housing types have open space requirements, including minimum dimensions.
Tree planting requirements apply to all housing types. Tree preservation requirements are paired with incentives. Tree removal would still be allowed consistent with current code.
Sidewalk Street
Single-detached home
Detached ADU with single-detached home (duplexes not allowed in R7).
FAR and context angles limit building bulk.
No FAR limits or bulk standards in R7, so buildings can fill out this entire volume.
On lots less than half an acre with a single-detached home, any number of trees can be removed without a permit. One parking space required
per single-detached home.
MIDDLE HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE
Although the preferred approach attempts to increase housing variety and opportunities to meet more people’s housing needs while addressing community context, Beaverton’s neighborhoods likely will see some change.
Some factors that might promote change:
y Middle housing will be allowed on most lots, so property owners can choose to build those housing types in neighborhoods where all or nearly all homes are single- detached homes now.
y A separate state law requires cities to allow land divisions (sometimes known as partitions or subdivisions) to facilitate housing variety. This means that existing lots in neighborhoods can be split into separate lots, including to create townhome lots that are individually owned and usually are smaller than 2,000 square feet.
y State law makes it easier to remodel and potentially expand existing single-detached homes into duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes.
Some factors that might limit neighborhood change:
y Because it is not financially feasible in many situations, middle housing is expected to occur very gradually over time. A financial feasibility study conducted as part of the project found that the “middle housing” types are not necessarily feasible on many lots in the city. Given the value of most homes in Beaverton, a developer would have difficulty making a profit in the current market demolishing a home to build middle housing. It will work in certain locations, and some property owners will decide to add units to a lot or build a new middle housing project. But the number per year is expected to be modest.
y Many Beaverton neighborhoods have existing conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) that prohibit more than one unit on a lot. This could prevent middle housing. (The city does not enforce these restrictions. These are contracts among neighbors.)
y As described in the draft preferred approach, some proposed rules are designed to address neighborhood context, such as through limiting building size.
y Especially for duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes that are often rentals, the person who ends up owning the buildings(s) has to want to be landlord. Not everyone wants to be a landlord.
y Developing middle housing can be expensive and require significant savings or borrowing to complete.
Property owners can choose what housing type to build on each lot in a residential zone if the housing type meets the minimum lot size.
In the RMC zone, the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet for all types.
Below are examples of what this could look like.
Single-detached
Duplex
Triplex
Quadplex
How is the draft preferred approach different than the current code?
The zoning map changes, as shown in Figure 3. In Table 1, the current code districts are shown on the left, and the draft preferred approach zones are shown on the right.
Table 1: Zone changes
... is proposed be in the zone listed on the right
R1 Multi-unit Residential (MR)
R2 Residential Mixed A (RMA)
R4 Residential Mixed B (RMB)R5
R7 Residential Mixed C (RMC)R10
R1 basically stays the same but get a new name. The other zones are different than the current code, as described on following pages.
How does state law affect the draft preferred approach?
State law changes how cities zone for residential uses, including the uses allowed and how tools like maximum density is used. That meant the city’s current code, which is partially based on maximum density, would not comply with the law. Given all the changes, a preferred approach with fewer zones is proposed.
DRAFT PREFERRED APPROACH REVAMP THE ZONING MAP
Beaverton’s current residential zones are based on density. State law makes that infeasible. The preferred approach proposes new zones for R2 through R10. (R1 stays the same with a new name.)
y Residential Mixed A (RMA) - R2 in the current code y Residential Mixed B (RMB) - R4 and R5 in the current code
would be combined into RMB y Residential Mixed C (RMC) - R7 and R10 in the current code
would be combined into RMC
Why change the zones? y The previous zones were mostly designed to allow only
single-detached houses. y State law and the desire to allow housing variety requires a
different approach to zoning. y The difference between (R4 and R5) and (R7 and R10)
seemed to narrow once a mix of housing types were allowed, so those four zones are now proposed to be two
Figure 3. Map of existing residential zones in Beaverton
Figure 4. Map of proposed zones in draft preferred approach (full page for legibility)
Close-up maps are available on page 35.
The preferred approach would allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters as permitted uses with no maximum density limitations.
The current code does not allow “attached units,” which include duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and townhomes, in R7 and R10. R5 allows only one kind of attached housing, duplexes, as a conditional use. Attached units are allowed in R2 and R4, although the number of units is limited by a maximum density.
State law requires Beaverton and many other cities to allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters in areas were single-detached homes are allowed. The law requires those uses to be allowed on most lots in the city. More information is available here: https://www.oregon. gov/lcd/UP/Pages/Housing- Choices.aspx.
In addition, most methods to comply with state law do not allow the city to use maximum density.
Accessory dwelling unit
ALLOW HOUSING VARIETY IN ALL THREE PROPOSED ZONES
A key features of the preferred approach is that much more housing variety would be allowed in Beaverton’s residential neighborhoods. In addition to single-detached homes, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters would be allowed.
Why allow housing variety?
People who live in Beaverton — or want to — have different housing needs. More housing variety can help. Currently, in many residential areas the city only allows people to build new single-detached homes, which can be an expensive housing type, and are usually owner occupied rather than available for rent. This project would allow different housing types to be built in these areas.
Examples of housing needs described by community members during public engagement include housing for multi-generational families, people with more limited mobility who might need one- story living, people with lower incomes, renters, and young people looking for their first apartment or home.
In addition, a history of racist land use, lending and real estate practices, including City of Beaverton zoning that helped create neighborhoods of predominantly single-detached homes, have helped produce disparate outcomes for Black, Indigenous and other people of color with regards to income, wealth and education.
The City Comprehensive Plan also supports additional housing variety, including Goal 3.2.1, Policy a.ii.
“Allow a wider variety of housing choices that can accommodate a range of ages, household sizes and/or income levels while ensuring the new housing responds to the scale and form of the neighborhood.”
A historical timeline of limiting and expanding housing variety in Beaverton
1946. Beaverton’s first zoning ordinance allows all housing types in all residential areas.
1960. Beaverton updates the Development Code, doubling the city’s residential zones from two to four, marking the beginning of a trend to separate housing types.
y Single-detached homes were allowed everywhere.
y Duplexes now only allowed in three of four zones.
y Multifamily homes, allowed in both districts in the 1940s and 1950s, were now only allowed in one of four zones.
1978. Beaverton updates the Development Code again, reserving five of eight residential zones, the majority of the city’s residential land, for the new construction of single-detached homes only.
2017. City Council approves updates to the Comprehensive Plan with a policy favoring a wider variety of housing choices in residential neighborhoods.
2018. Beaverton kicks off the Housing Options Project to implement updates to the Comprehensive Plan.
2019. The State of Oregon changes state law to require most cities and counties to allow more housing variety in all areas where single-detached homes are allowed. The deadline to comply is June 30, 2022.
How do racist land use practices that limit housing variety result in segregated neighborhoods?
Beaverton’s residential zoning system – like many other cities and countries across the country – separates residential zones into single-detached and multifamily zones. Currently, most residential zones only allow the construction of new single-detached homes.
The map below shows where most of the city’s residential land is set aside for single-detached homes only, which is also where people are more likely to own their homes.
A much smaller portion of land is set aside for multifamily homes, typically apartment buildings, and this land is often near commercial corridors and transit.
Figure 5. Map of single-family and multifamily Beaverton zones
[0 1 20.5 Miles
MAP 1. Study Area with Single-Family and Multifamily Zoning Designations
M ul
tn om
ah C
Multifamily Residential R1, R2, R4
Single-family Residential R5, R7, R10
What communities of colors are least likely to live in Beaverton neighborhoods with mostly single-family zoning?
In residential areas with mostly single-family zoning, between 76-89 percent of the population identifies as “white alone.”
Of all communities of color, the Latinx community is least likely to live in or own a home in this area. In fact, they are four times more likely to live in multifamily than single- family neighborhoods.
Other communities less likely to live in single-family neighborhoods include people that are Black, multiracial or identify as “some other race” on census forms.
By expanding housing variety in Beaverton’s single-family neighborhoods, we can help promote more mixed- race, mixed-income communities, which feels more welcoming and inclusive to our community members, as they have shared with us in community meetings.
We now know that, across the country, exclusively single-family zoning perpetuated racial and economic segregation in towns and cities. Among other reasons, single-detached homes are typically larger homes on larger lots which are more expensive to buy or rent, which has the effect of separating people by race and income.
In 2020, staff analyzed census data and land use patterns in Beaverton to discover that many areas where only single-detached homes are allowed are still segregated and mostly populated by white homeowners today. The map below shows which neighborhoods in Beaverton are still significantly white.
Figure 6. Map of significantly white areas in Beaverton
[0 1 20.5 Miles
M ul
tn om
ah C
Commercial/Multiple Use/Industrial
Source: 2010 Census; Map Created: 2020
It generally allows housing variety on more lots and requires less land area.
The current code does not use minimum lot size in the same way as the proposed preferred approach. It limits allowed uses to single-detached homes and sometimes duplexes in most residential areas (more attached housing types are allowed in R2 and R4). Instead, the current code allows some flexibility in minimum lot size but sets the minimum land area required for each housing unit.
y R2 = 2,000 square feet y R4 = 4,000 square feet y R5 = 5,000 square feet y R7 = 7,000 square feet y R10 = 10,000 square feet
The city cannot use maximum density unless it goes through a special approval process, so the preferred approach relies on minimum lot size and minimum density instead. State law also limits how large minimum lot sizes can be. The proposed lot sizes are below the state’s maximum limits, which generally are:
y Duplexes: Allow on all lots y Triplexes: 5,000 or 7,000 y Quadplexes: 7,000 y Townhomes: 1,500
Table 2: Minimum lot size for different housing types and proposed zones
Proposed zone Replaces existing zone(s)
Townhouse Single- detached and duplex
Triplex and quadplex
Residential Mixed C (RMC)
R7, R10 1,500 5,000 5,000
Table 3: Maximum number of each housing type (and maximum units) allowed for a 7,000-square-foot lot* Proposed zone Replaces
existing zone(s)
Triplex and quadplex
R2 6 (6 units) 3 (6 units) 2 (8 units)
Residential Mixed B (RMB)
R4, R5 2 (4 units) 2 (4 units) 1 (4 units)
R7, R10 4 (4 units) 1 (2 units) 1 (4 units)
* Some developments would require a land division (splitting one lot into more than one lot) to achieve the number of units listed.
ESTABLISH MINIMUM LOT SIZES FOR ALL HOUSING TYPES
Minimum lot sizes in the draft preferred approach are low enough so most lots in Beaverton can accommodate multiple housing types. They are shown in Table 2. An example of how many units those lot sizes could allow on an example lot in shown in Table 3.
Why reduce minimum lot sizes?
Smaller minimum lot sizes:
y Provide more housing variety opportunities to meet the needs of more people.
y Help preserve farms and forests outside the urban growth boundary by allowing more homes inside the boundary.
y Promote mixed-income, mixed-race communities by providing opportunities for people to live in neighborhoods that now have a higher percentage of white residents and better outcomes related to income, education and health.
The current code sets minimum density at 80 percent of maximum density. (It is based on net acreage after things like streets, natural areas and steep slopes are subtracted from the site.) On an already existing lot that is entirely buildable, minimum density in the city’s existing zones (rounded to the nearest tenth) would be:
y R2 = 17.4 units per acre y R4 = 8.7 units per acre y R5 = 7.0 units per acre y R7 = 5.0 units per acre y R10 = 3.5 units per acre
Overall, minimum density ranges in the draft preferred approach are about the same or slightly higher than in the current code.
State rules do not specify a minimum density, except they specify 4 units per acre for cottage clusters. Metro, the regional government, requires cities to establish a minimum density. Rules also discourage minimum density reductions, which is why the preferred approach maintains or slightly increases density.
Table 4: Minimum density
Minimum density
Residential Mixed A (RMA)
A duplex on a 5,000-square-foot lot (17.4 units per acre)
R4, R5 10 units per acre
A duplex on a 7,000 square foot lot (12.4 units per acre)
R7, R10 7 units per acre
A single-detached home on a 5,000-square-foot lot (8.7 units per acre)
SET MINIMUM AMOUNT OF DENSITY (NUMBER OF HOMES ON EACH LOT) FOR ALL DISTRICTS
Property owners choose which housing types to build on their property. Minimum density tells them how many units per acre is the minimum acceptable. An acre is 43,560 feet. (For comparison, the Old Town Beaverton block with Big’s Chicken, Lionheart Coffee and Mo Cha Tea House is about 48,000 square feet.)
The draft preferred approach proposes the minimum densities in Table 4.
Why establish minimum density?
Minimum density standards:
y Help preserve farms, forests and agricultural practices outside the urban growth boundary by promoting building more homes inside the urban growth boundary.
y Ensure efficient use of urban land where investments have been made to provide infrastructure such as sewer, water and roads and where existing jobs, stores, services, parks and transit are available.
In general, the preferred approach would keep side setbacks the same (5 feet) as the current code for most uses but reduce front and rear setbacks in some zones. See Table 6.
Table 6: Setback changes
Current zone. Setback changes R2 None R4 None R5 Front: 5 feet less
Rear: 5 feet less R7 Front: 7 feet less
Rear: 10 feet less R10 Front: 15 feet less
Rear: 10 feet less
The current code allows 10-foot front and 5-foot rear setbacks through a flexible setback application in R4 through R10.
State law prohibits Beaverton from requiring setbacks for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters that are greater than those for single- detached homes in the same zone.
State law also says the city must allow side setbacks of zero feet for townhomes and cannot set perimeter setbacks for cottage clusters that are greater than 10 feet.
Zone Front Rear Side Difference Residential Mixed A (RMA)
10 feet 15 feet 5 feet None
10 feet 15 feet 5 feet Compared with current R5, front and rear setbacks are 5 feet smaller.
10 feet 15 feet 5 feet Compared with R7 and R10, front setbacks are 7 or 10 feet smaller and rear setbacks are 10 feet smaller.
PROVIDE RULES FOR SETBACKS — HOW FAR BUILDINGS MUST BE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE
Minimum setbacks determine how much space is required between the buildings on a lot and the street or neighboring properties. The draft preferred approach proposes the setbacks in Table 5.
In all zones, accessory dwelling units would be allowed as close as 5 feet from the rear lot line if they are one-story buildings. See later sections on townhomes and cottage cluster for setbacks specific to those housing types.
Table 5: Minimum setbacks for single-detached homes, duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes
Why change minimum setbacks?
Adding flexibility by making setbacks more uniform across the three zones and smaller in R5, R7 and R10:
y Provides more space on the lot to create one-story buildings, which are important for people who need a one- story home because of preference or limited mobility.
y Allows additional space on the lot that might be needed for triplexes and quadplexes, either because they are larger or oriented differently (such as longer front to back) or want to provide on-site parking and/or open space.
y Creates more lots where it is possible to add new homes without tearing down an existing house.
y Could provide flexibility to enhance solar access, passive cooling and tree preservation. Smaller setbacks could also mean additional tree removal in some situations.
y Could provide flexibility to allow buildings that respond to different cultural values and practices.
In the RMC zone, proposed rules reduce the rear setback by 10 feet and front setback by 7 feet.
In R5, setbacks in the current code (15 ft in the front, 5 ft side, 20 ft rear) allow buildings in this area marked in light orange.
Figure 7: Example setback changes: R5 to RMB
Figure 8: Example setback changes: R7 to RMC
15’ 10’
Street
Current rules allow property owners to apply for a “flexible setback” to reduce the rear setback to 5 feet and front setback to 10 feet (the areas marked in dark orange).
R5 Site Plan RMB Site Plan
R7 Site Plan RMC Site Plan
Flexible setback area
Flexible setback area
Buildable Area
Lot line
In R7, setbacks in the current code (17 ft in the front, 5 ft side, 25 ft rear) allow buildings in this area marked in light orange.
Current rules allow property owners to apply for a “flexible setback” to reduce the rear setback to 5 feet and front setback to 10 feet in the areas marked dark orange.
Lot line
Buildable Area
In the RMB zone, proposed rules generally reduce rear and front setbacks by 5 feet.
Buildable Area
Buildable Area
The current code does not limit building size through floor area ratio or modifying the building height at the front or rear. It uses maximum building height and setbacks from property lines. Buildings can be built to 40 feet or 35 feet in height, depending on the zone, and be built right at the minimum front or rear setbacks.
The preferred approach proposes some bulk and volume (context angle) limitations. The maximum height remains the same in all zones.
State law allows bulk and volume limitations for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and other housing types as long as those same limitations apply to single- detached homes. In some cases, such as for duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes, the rules can be the same as or less restrictive than the rules for single-detached homes.
Floor area ratio explained
Floor Area Ratio is the square footage of the floors inside the building divided by the square footage of the lot. A one-story building that covered half the lot would have a 0.5 FAR. A two- story building that covered half the lot would have a 1.0 FAR. On a 7,000-square-foot lot, a 1.2 FAR would allow a building with 8,400 square feet.
Table 7: Building scale and bulk
Proposed zone
Max. FAR for a duplex
Max. FAR for a triplex or quadplex
Residential Mixed A (RMA)
0.6 0.65 0.8
LIMIT SCALE (HOW TALL) AND BULK (SIZE AND HOW BIG IT APPEARS) OF BUILDINGS
The preferred approach provides more flexibility to build a variety of housing types, including reducing minimum lot sizes and setbacks. Scale and bulk controls can help new development respond to the scale and form of existing neighborhoods. The draft preferred approach proposes doing this in two ways.
y Limits on the total amount of building floor area (FAR). y Limits on bulk at the front and/or rear of the lot using
limitations called “context angles.”
FAR and context angles do not apply to townhomes and cottage clusters.
Figure 9: How floor area ratio works (1.0 FAR example)
Why apply scale and bulk limitations?
Scale limitations remain the same as in the current code to maintain the maximum height that has been allowed in Beaverton’s residential neighborhoods for some time.
Floor-area limitations in the proposed preferred approach would be large enough to accommodate housing types like triplexes and quadplexes but limit their size to be more consistent with neighborhood scale and bulk. For example, the allowed floor area for a 7,000-square-foot lot in R7 with the current code and proposed preferred approach for a triplex in RMC:
y Current R7 zone: 10,440 square feet if the single- detached home were built to all setbacks and were three stories tall.
y Proposed RMC zone: 5,600 square feet because the floor area limitation is 0.8, which means 80 percent of 7,000. This would still be large enough to accommodate a quadplex with units about 1,400 square feet each.
35’
Front Yard
Rear Yard
Existing residential zones do not have floor area ratio maximums or bulk limitations.
Technically, buildings are already allowed to be quite large on a site, but few property owners build out to the maximum allowed home size, which would be determined by setbacks and height limits alone.
Introducing floor area limits and bulk limitations is one way to regulate the size of new housing (including types other than single-detached homes) as it is allowed in neighborhoods.
35’
10’
15’
Sidewalk Street
Property owners are allowed to build a single-detached home that fills this entire box.
Figure 10: Setbacks and height limits in the existing R5 zone
What are context angles and how do they work?
Context angles are additional bulk limitations that discourage heights above two stories at the front and rear of lots (depending on the zone) to address privacy and shading concerns.
In RMB, rear setbacks were reduced by 5 feet for properties now in R5. This means new buildings can be a little closer to rear property lines. To reduce shadows on and windows overlooking neighboring lots, a rear context angle is applied, which limits height and mass near the rear of the lot, rather than allowing the full 35 feet at the rear of the lot. In response, a property owner could reduce the height of the building near the rear setback or move the building back far enough that a three-story structure would meet the code. Even though front setbacks are also reduced in RMB, many homes in the existing R5 zone are already two or three stories; so a context angle is less relevant in front.
In RMC, the preferred approach proposes smaller front and rear setbacks compared with the current R7 and R10. In RMC, context angles are proposed for both the front and rear of the lot, as shown in Figure 11 . Context angles in general push the taller parts of the building to the middle of the lot. This helps newer buildings in RMC fit in more considering that the current R7 and R10 zones have a lot of one- and two-story older homes.
35’
RMB Zone RMC Zone
45 degree angle (same for all context angles in diagrams below)
If a context angle is applied to either the front or the back of the lot, then the building can rise up at the respective setback to 24 feet (about two stories) before it needs to slope at a 45 degree angle towards a maximum height of 35 feet (about three stories).
Figure 11: Context angles
24’
35’
5’
15’
10’
100’
50’
What might maximum FARs mean in Beaverton?
For example, in the RMC zone the FAR for a single-detached home is 0.6. On a lot the same size as the minimum lot size, which is 5,000 square feet, a single-detached home could be a maximum of 3,000 square feet (5,000 square feet x 0.6 = 3,000 square feet). In Beaverton, 3,000-square-foot homes that were sold in 2021 typically had between three and five bedrooms each, according to Zillow sales data (August 2021).
In the RMC zone, the FAR for triplexes and quadplexes is 0.8. On a lot the same size as the minimum lot size, which is 5,000 square feet, a triplex or quadplex could be 4,000 square feet. If the building were a triplex, each unit could be approximately 1,300 square feet (a two- or three-bedroom apartment). If the building were a quadplex, each unit could be approximately 1,000 square feet (a one- or two-bedroom apartment). Actual square footage of each apartment might be lower since some building square footage would be dedicated to common spaces, such as hallways, staircases and elevators.
Most lots in RMC are larger than 5,000 square feet, so the allowed building sizes would be somewhat larger.
Figure 12: FAR and context angles in the proposed RMC zone
A 2-story building could be built 15 feet from the rear property line, but the third story would need to be set farther back from the rear property line.
In the proposed RMC zone, the minimum lot size for a triplex, pictured below on three lots, is 5,000 square feet. The maximum FAR is 0.8. Therefore, the size of a triplex is allowed to be up to 4,000 square feet (5,000 x 0.8) on a lot that is the same size as the minimum lot size. Below are three massing scenarios for a potential triplex given FAR and context angles.
A 2-story building could be built 10 feet from the front property line, but the third story would need to be set farther back to fit under the context angle.
A 3-story building could be built if it is far enough away (about 21 feet) from the front property line and rear property line.
Street
The current code requires:
Accessory dwelling units: 0
Duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes (per unit):
y 1 bedroom: 1.25 spaces y 2 bedroom: 1.5 spaces y 3 bedroom: 1.75 spaces
The preferred approach in general proposes fewer parking spaces and varies the requirement based on the presence of off-street parking.
Housing type Minimum required spaces Minimum required parking reduction if on-street parking is available nearby
Accessory dwelling units None None Single-detached and duplexes None None Townhomes None None Triplexes Lots less than 5,000 square feet:
2 spaces per triplex
Lots 5,000 square feet or greater: 3 spaces per triplex
Subtract one required space for every two on-street spaces present. Maximum reduction is two spaces..
Quadplexes Lots less than 5,000 square feet: 2 spaces per quadplex
Lots greater than 5,000 square feet but less than 7,000 square feet: 3 spaces per quadplex
Lots 7,000 square feet or greater: 4 spaces per quadplex
Subtract one required space for every two on-street spaces present. Maximum reduction is two spaces.
Minimum parking requirement reductions are available for on-street spaces (at least 20 feet long and 7 feet wide) where parking is allowed that are in front of the lot within 50 linear feet of the lot as measured from the property’s lot lines along the streets or streets that touch the lot. Spaces across the street count.
Table 9: Minimum parking requirements
ESTABLISH MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING
Minimum parking requirements require off-street spaces with the intention of providing adequate parking for Beaverton households.
Table 8: Vehicles available to Beaverton households
Percent % margin of error No vehicles available 9.0% ±2.7 1 vehicle available 41.6% ±4.9 2 vehicles available 34.3% ±4.5 3 or more vehicles available 15.1% ±3.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
If not enough off-street parking is provided, household members might park on the street or decide to own fewer automobiles. If too much off-street parking is provided, it takes up space on the lot that could be used for housing or open space. About 50 percent of households in Beaverton have no car or one car (see Table 8).
The draft preferred approach requires minimum off-street parking but allows reductions based on the presence of on-street parking near the development, as shown in Table 9. Property owners can choose to provide more off-street parking than the minimum.
State law indicates that cities and counties generally cannot require more than one parking space per unit for multifamily housing, with some exceptions.
For triplexes on lots less than 5,000 square feet, one or two parking spaces can be required per development, depending upon lot size.
For quadplexes on lots less than 7,000 square feet, about one to three parking spaces can be required per development, depending upon lot size.
Why apply different minimum parking requirements?
Reducing minimum parking standards can increase the ability to fit middle housing on a site by reducing the space taken up by parking spaces, driveways and vehicle maneuvering area.
In addition to leaving more space for homes on a lot, it also leaves room for open space and trees.
Sites with fewer parking spaces are, on average, associated with less automobile ownership by residents and fewer miles traveled per person.1 Transportation is a large contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.2 So requiring fewer parking spaces can help reduce emissions and help the city meet its Climate Action Plan goals.
The draft preferred approach proposes more parking where on- street parking spaces are not available to acknowledge that on- street parking is helpful if not all vehicles can fit on the lot.
1 https://medium.com/sidewalk-talk/the-strongest-evidence- yet-that-parking-spaces-cause-more-driving-fb530aec9165 2 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts- transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Figure 13: On-street parking area considered in on-street credit calculation
50 feet
Lot line
50 feet
Could glance without doing diagrams
On-street parking inside this area counts toward off-street parking requirements. Each on-street parking space must be at least 20 feet long and at least 7 feet wide where parking is allowed.
On-street parking inside this area counts in the calculation of on-street parking credits. Each on- street parking space must be at least 20 feet long and at least 7 feet wide where parking is allowed.
ENSURE OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE
Community members during public engagement expressed a desire for outdoor open space to provide opportunities for interaction with neighbors, friends and passers-by. The draft preferred approach proposes minimum outdoor open space requirements as shown in Table 10.
Why require open space?
Many community members shared that new housing should build community in existing neighborhoods, and that’s where open space standards can provide opportunities for people to get to know each other. It also supports efforts to either preserve or incentivize trees on lots.
In the current code, minimum open space requirements apply to all housing types with four or more units only. Generally, 15 percent of the lot must be dedicated to open space. If there are eight or more units, there are required minimum width and length dimensions for the open space. Currently, open space requirements do not apply to single-detached homes, townhouses, duplexes or triplexes.
The city can use open space standards as long as they are clear and objective and the same as the standards for single-detached homes and do not scale (don’t change based on) the number of units on the lot. For example, having rules that are different on different lot sizes is acceptable but having different rules for duplexes and quadplexes is not acceptable.
Housing type Minimum required open space (outside required setbacks)
Design requirements
Lots less than 3,000 square feet: 200 square feet
Lots 3,000 square feet and greater: 300 square feet
The open space must be shaped so a 12-foot- by-12-foot square can fit inside of it.
Townhomes None None Triplexes Lots less than 3,000
square feet: 200 square feet per triplex
Lots 3,000 square feet and greater: 300 square feet per triplex
Shared open space must be shaped so a 12-foot- by-12-foot square can fit inside of it.
Applicants also can choose to provide some open space through private open space* such as decks or patios.
Quadplexes Lots less than 3,000 square feet: 200 square feet per quadplex
Lots 3,000 square feet or greater: 300 square feet per quadplex
Shared open space must be shaped so a 12-foot- by-12-foot square can fit inside of it.
Applicants also can choose to provide some open space through private open space* such as decks or patios.
Table 10: Minimum open space requirements
Why require design standards?
In conversations with the community, we learned that participants valued housing design, but for different reasons. One of the strongest themes was that many people preferred design that helps neighbors get to know each other. This could include doors or windows that face the street or a shared outdoor space; the arrangement of multiple homes around a shared outdoor space where people can gather, or safe and comfortable pedestrian paths that connect homes with shared outdoor spaces such as patios, gardens, or a courtyard.
In the current code, design standards do not apply to single- detached homes (with a few exceptions).
Some design standards apply to multifamily housing only.
Design standards that apply to multi-family housing only include a minimum of 30 percent articulation and variety, requirements for various roof forms such as a cornice treatment for flat roofs, and landscaping standards. For larger multifamily housing active open space requirements also apply.
Source: Department of Land Conservation and Development
DESIGN STANDARDS: STREET-FACING FACADES
Site and building design and how they relate to sidewalks and streets also affects community interaction and interaction among people in neighborhoods. The draft preferred approach proposes that at least 15 percent of all street-facing facades (visible from the street) include windows or entrance doors as shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14: Street-facing facade requirement example
According to state law, there are four ways that Beaverton could apply design standards to new housing. The city can apply:
y Design standards to middle housing approved by the state
y Design standards to middle housing less restrictive than those approved by the state
y Design standards to single-detached homes and middle housing. In this case, design standards may not scale by the number of dwelling units. However, they can scale with form-based attributes such as floor area, street- facing façade, height, bulk and scale. Moreover, design standards must be clear and objective, and consistently applied to single-detached homes and middle housing.
y Alternative design standards to middle housing only. If a city chooses to adopt alternative design standards, they must submit findings and analysis to the state that demonstrates that design standards will not, individually or cumulatively, cost cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of middle housing.
Figure 15: Limiting frontage occupied by driveways and parking
DESIGN STANDARDS: DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING ALONG THE STREET The draft preferred approach also proposes limiting the amount of the site frontage occupied by automobile infrastructure, including driveways, automobile circulation and garages. The combined widths of all garages and outdoor on-site parking and maneuvering areas would be limited to 50 percent of the street frontage, as shown in Figure 15.
Entry to common open space
Entry facing street Entry at 45-degree angle Entry onto porch
DESIGN STANDARDS: ENTRIES
For all homes on lots in residential zones RMA, RMB and RMC, (except cottage clusters), at least one main entrance for the building must meet one of the standards below. The entrance must either:
• Face the street. • Be at an angle of up to 45 degrees from the street. • Face a common open space that is adjacent to the street. • Open onto an enclosed or semi-enclosed outdoor space,
such as a porch, patio, stoop, forecourt, or mezzanine, that is at least 25 square feet in area.
Any detached structure for which more than 50 percent of its street-facing facade is separated from the street property line by a dwelling is exempt from meeting these standards.
Figure 16: Limiting frontage occupied by driveways and parking
TREE PRESERVATION AND PLANTING
In RMA, RMB and RMC:
Incentivize. For every “surveyed tree” (generally, trees greater than 10 inches) preserved, development can have an additional 150 square feet of building area over the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) up to a maximum of 0.15 FAR or 600 square feet, whichever is less. This basically allows a slightly larger building if on-site trees are preserved.
Require. Sites with sufficient room for trees would be required to plant trees or pay a fee if no trees are planted so trees can be planted elsewhere in the city.
The tree areas equals the site area minus the coverage of existing and proposed development. Tree planting requirements are:
y Sites with 75 square feet of planting area or less: No tree planting required.
y Sites with more than 75 square feet but less than 150 square feet of tree area with a minimum 5-foot-by-5-foot dimension available for tree planting where the tree(s) can be planted a minimum of 10 feet from buildings: 1 tree from the city’s approved street tree list for 4-foot or 6-foot planting areas.
y Sites with more than 150 square feet of tree area: 1 tree from the city’s approved street tree list for 8-foot planting areas or two trees from the city’s approved street tree list for 4-foot or 6-foot planting areas.
Deciduous trees shall be 2-inch caliper, balled and burlapped.
Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 8 feet in height at the time of planting. Areas subject to Clean Water Services regulations including stormwater facilities, vegetated corridors, and sensitive natural areas shall be planted consistent with Clean Water Services requirements.
Existing trees greater than 10 inches in diameter that are not nuisance trees that are preserved in the proposal may be counted as two required site trees to satisfy the planting requirements of this section.
In lieu of planting, applicants may contribute to the Tree Preservation Fund at a rate designated by the City Council (currently $200).
Trees planting are subject to city tree planting and establishment requirements.
Trees planted under these rules would not be considered Landscape Trees and could be removed by the property owner later.
In the property below, there is a large tree in the front yard.
If this large tree is preserved, then the property owner would be allowed additional floor area, over the allowed home size for that zone.
This incentive can make it more feasible to add a reasonably sized unit to a site with an existing home.
A home with a large tree in the front yard that could be preserved if a property owner wished to benefit from a building incentive.
The current code allows compact detached housing, which are “Dwelling units that front onto a shared court, common green, or public street and meet the minimum density requirements of the underlying Residential or Multiple Use zone.”
Different sections of the code provide open space, landscaping, parking and design requirements for smaller detached homes. The provisions do not necessarily work with the preferred approach or comply with state law, so the draft preferred approach includes a similar outcome with different rules that are closer to the state’s model code.
State law defines cottage cluster differently (“a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwellings units per acre, each with a footprint of less than 900 square feet, located on a single lot or parcel that includes a common courtyard.”
It also provides rules for minimum lots size, prohibits cities from using density maximums, limits perimeter setbacks to a maximum of 10 feet and specifies that the building footprint cannot be more than 900 square feet. It also limits minimum parking requirements. The state adopted a model code for cottage clusters, and the draft preferred approach proposes the city uses the model code with minor modifications.
COTTAGE CLUSTERS
Cottage clusters are groupings of smaller homes on a single lot. The draft preferred approach describes these separately because they have different characteristics than the other housing types. The preferred approach proposes standards similar to the state’s model code (cottage standards start on Page 27). Key development rules for cottage clusters include:
Minimum lot size: 7,000 square feet in zones RMA, RMB and RMC
Maximum building height: 25 feet
Maximum building footprint: 900 square feet
Setbacks from perimeter property lines: 10 feet
Floor area ratio: Not applicable. State law prohibits floor area ratio limitation for cottage clusters.
Minimum off-street parking: 1 space per cottage unit. One space may be subtracted from this requirement for every two on-street spaces present near the lot, with a maximum reduction of three spaces for every five cottages.
Minimum number of cottage units in a cottage cluster: Five
Other standards: Cottage clusters also will be allowed to have one community building and can have a shared parking lot rather than placing the parking spaces next to each cottage.
Cottage orientation: Cottages must be clustered around a common courtyard, meaning they abut the associated common courtyard or are directly connected to it by a pedestrian path, and must meet the following standards (see Figure 17):
y Each cottage within a cluster must either abut the common courtyard or must be directly connected to it by a pedestrian path.
y A minimum of 50 percent of cottages within a cluster must be oriented to the common courtyard and must:
Have a main entrance facing the common courtyard; Be within 10 feet from the common courtyard, measured
from the façade of the cottage to the nearest edge of the common courtyard; and
Be connected to the common courtyard by a pedestrian path.
y Cottages within 20 feet of a street property line may have their entrances facing the street.
y Cottages not facing the common courtyard or the street must have their main entrances facing a pedestrian path that is directly connected to the common courtyard.
Figure 17: Cottage cluster example site plan
A. A minimum of 50% of cottages must be oriented to the common courtyard.
B. Cottages oriented to the common courtyard must be within 10 feet of the courtyard.
C. Cottages must be connected to the common courtyard by a pedestrian path.
D. Cottages must abut the courtyard on at least two sides of the courtyard.
E. The common courtyard must be at least 15 feet wide at its narrowest width.
Courtyards: At least one courtyard shall be provided for each cottage cluster development. Cottage cluster developments with more than 10 cottages shall provide one courtyard for every 10 cottages . Each cottage cluster must share a common courtyard to provide a sense of openness and community for residents. Common courtyards shall meet the following standards (see Figure 17):
y The common courtyard must be a single, contiguous piece. y Cottages must abut the common courtyard on at least two
sides of the courtyard. y The common courtyard must contain a minimum of 150
square feet per cottage within the associated cluster. y The common courtyard must be a minimum of 15 feet wide
at its narrowest dimension. y The common courtyard shall be developed with a mix of
landscaping, lawn area, pedestrian paths, and/or paved courtyard area, and may also include recreational amenities. Impervious elements of the common courtyard shall not exceed 75 percent of the total common courtyard area.
y Pedestrian paths must be included in a common courtyard. Paths that are contiguous to a courtyard shall count toward the courtyard’s minimum dimension and area. Parking areas, front setbacks, and driveways do not qualify as part of a common courtyard.
TOWNHOMES
Townhomes are different than the other housing types described in the preferred approach because they are always on separate lots and are individually owned. The state’s definition reads, “Townhouse means a dwelling unit constructed in a row of two or more attached units, where each dwelling unit is located on an individual lot or parcel and shares at least one common wall with an adjacent unit.”
Another major difference is that townhomes typically are developed on smaller lots than single-detached homes. Typical townhome lots range somewhere between 1,100 square feet and 2,400 square feet. The lot sizes typically are smaller because townhomes often lack side yards, unless they are on corner lots, and have limited front and year yards.
This means the proposed minimum lot sizes for townhomes are smaller. The draft preferred approach proposes minimum lot sizes of 1,100, 1,300 or 1,500 square feet depending on the zone. This means some land divisions will happen in existing neighborhoods. For example, a 5,000-square-foot lot in RMB where the minimum lot size for townhomes is 1,300 square feet could be divided into three lots, each of which would contain a townhouse.
Townhomes typically are multiple stories and have a large footprint on the lot, which means setbacks, floor-area-ratio limits, bulk limits and other rules that work for homes on larger lots do not work well for townhomes. That is why townhome standards look different than standards for other housing types.
In developer interviews conducted in winter 2020, many indicated that they prefer building housing types that resemble single- detached homes, such as townhouses.
Generally, there is a perceived risk with building other housing types, such as plexes, and some developers prefer to stay within their niche.
Reasons not to build plexes included higher capital outlay, higher construction costs, higher SDCs, more public improvements, and the prediction that the buildings types will be harder to sell.
The existing code states that the maximum ADU size is limited to 800 square feet, or 50 percent of the primary dwelling unit, whichever is less. The “whichever is less” portion of the standard can be a barrier when the existing primary dwelling unit is smaller than 1,600 square feet. Smaller homes are then limited to smaller ADUs which can result in dwelling areas that are undesirable, if not unusable.
In addition, when a property owner is interested in converting an existing basement or attic which exceeds the current 800 square foot maximum, the size limit can result in unnecessary partitions that divide the floor into an 800 square foot ADU and unused residual space.
State law establishes that local governments generally cannot require off-street parking or owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs (which means that local governments cannot require a property owner to live in either a primary or accessory dwelling).
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
An Accessory Dwelling Unit (or ADU) is a secondary dwelling unit on a lot with a single-detached home. An ADU can be inside the home (such as a basement or attic conversion), attached to the home, or a detached structure in the rear yard.
One accessory dwelling unit is allowed for each single-detached home. The draft preferred approach allows one 800 square foot ADU to be added to the site, regardless of the existing home size. However, if the full floor of a basement or attic is being converted into an ADU, then the 800 square foot maximum does not apply as long as no new square footage is added through a contemporaneous home renovation.
ADUs only exist with single-detached homes. When adding a second unit to a lot with a single-detached home only, if the second unit meets both the ADU definition and the duplex definition, the applicant can decide whether to apply for an ADU or a duplex. However, ADUs may have different development rules and sometimes different fees.
For new construction, the FAR limits (how big a building, or combined buildings, can be on a site) is the same for a single- detached home with an ADU and a duplex. However, FAR limits do not apply to existing single-detached homes that would like to add an ADU (although the ADU size is still limited an 800 square foot maximum).
If another dwelling unit is added to a lot with a single-detached home and an ADU, then all three units combined would be classified as a triplex and site development standards for triplexes would apply.
Height and setbacks. In most cases, the height limits and setbacks for ADUs are the same as those for single-detached homes, which includes a 35 foot height limit, 10 foot front setback, 15 foot rear setback, 5 foot side setback, and applicable context angle depending upon the zone (RMB or RMC). This generally means that an ADU could be built in front of the house, next to the house, or in back of the house, if it meets the setback standards.
However, if an ADU (attached or detached) is single-story, with a maximum height limit of 15 feet, then it can be 5 feet from the rear property line.
Why change ADU standards?
ADUs can provide single-level living options if setbacks are reduced in the rear lot for ADUs. Smaller setbacks might encourage two-story ADUs. The preferred approach proposes a 5-foot rear setback for single-story ADUs because more single-level living options is one of the most frequent housing needs raised in public engagement meetings.
ADUs provide more opportunities to support multi-generational living, while also providing privacy within families for family members that may desire more independence.
Many existing single-detached homes are centered on a lot, which makes ADU development less feasible with a 15-foot rear setback because it can be hard, if not impossible, to fit an ADU in the space between a single-detached home and a 15-foot rear setback. More space to build in the back yard can increase the likelihood that ADUs might be built.
35’
24’
15’
10’
Figure 18: A 2-story ADU built outside the rear setback
Figure 19: A 1-story ADU built inside the rear setback
An ADU outside of the rear setback might work, but it might also have to be 2-stories to fit in the space between the house and rear setback.
Sidewalk Street
Sidewalk Street
Front Yard
Rear Yard
Front Yard
Rear Yard
An ADU 5 feet from the rear property line has more space, which also means that it could be single-story,
ASSUMPTIONS
y Plexes (duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes, for example) can either be attached or detached. This means one building with four units in it would be a quadplex, and four detached buildings on a lot also would be a quadplex.
y One accessory dwelling unit is allowed for each single- family detached home. Accessory dwelling units only exist with single-family detached homes. If another unit is added to the lot, the ADU would count as a unit so that becomes a triplex (single-detached house plus ADU plus the third unit added). If two units were added to the lot, the ADU would count as a unit so that would become a quadplex (single- detached home plus ADU plus two additional units added).
y When adding a second unit to a property, if the second unit meets both the accessory dwelling unit definition and the duplex definition, the applicant can decide whether to apply for an accessory dwelling unit or a duplex. (Accessory dwelling units have different development rules and sometimes different fees.)
y Given small minimum lot sizes and the availability of land divisions, townhomes would be allowed on nearly all lots within the three proposed zones, although property owners would have to decide to make that change. If an existing home exists on that lot, it would quite often require that building to be removed to accommodate the land division because new buildings cannot straddle property lines.
y Staff will eliminate single-detached homes as permitted uses in all higher-density zones so House Bill 2001 does not apply to those zones. Development code updates will include a footnote that clarifies single-detached homes are permitted where they already exist, they can be rebuilt even if nonconforming and can be expanded by a certain square footage that remains to be determined. Higher- density zones affected by these changes include R1, which will receive a name change to Multi-unit Residential (MR), as well as the following: RC-E, TC-MU, TC-HDR, SC-MU, SC- HDR, NS, CS, CC and GC.
y Driveways can be three feet from the property line and parking within the front setback counts.
y Up to parking spaces would be allowed in the front setback. Currently, parking in the front setback is generally not allowed unless it leads to a garage.
y Parallel parking spaces count toward off-street parking. y The existing R10 residential zone, which requires a 10,000
square foot minimum lot and only allows single-detached homes, is proposed to be in the RMC zone. The current large-lot single-family purpose of the zone can no longer be achieved with state mandates for middle housing.
MAPS
Multi-unit Residential (MR) - formerly R1
Residential Mixed A (RMA) - formerly R2
Residential Mixed B (RMB) - formerly R4, R5
Residential Mixed C (RMC) - formerly R7, R10
Minimum Lot Size (in square feet)
Zones Townhouse
Greenway
Vose
Central Beaverton
Vermont
Figure 21: Proposed Map for Inner Beaverton
Zones Townhouse
West Beaverton Highland Vose
Neighborhood Association Committee (NAC) Boundary
Figure 22: Proposed Map for Northwest Beaverton
Zones Townhouse
Five Oaks Triple Creek
185th
158th
Walker
Jenkins
Figure 23: Proposed Map for Southwest Beaverton
Zones Townhouse
West Beaverton
Scholls Ferry
Horse Tale
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
More information about the draft preferred approach
Read the draft preferred approach questions and answers document to learn more about opportunities for no-barrier entries, climate change considerations and racial equity.
The state-approved model code for cottage clusters provides more information on building orientation and courtyard design standards for cottage clusters.
More information about the alternatives
City Council packet with full report and analysis regarding the alternatives
Alternatives presentation (video) at the July 27 joint Planning Commission-City Council work session
Alternatives storymap that visually presents all three alternatives
Alternatives public engagement report
Economic analyis memo that explores middle housing development feasibility and displacement analysis in Beaverton
Development history summary provides more information about Beaverton’s residential neighborhoods
Project frequently asked questions
En español:
https://www.beavertonoregon.gov/2501/Proyecto-de-Opciones- de-Vivienda
More information about why and how the city is centering racial equity in this project
City staff is using a racial equity toolkit to guide the development of several equitable housing strategies. Learn more about the history of racist land use practices, and more, here. And visit here to see how racial equity is being considered in this project.
More information about House Bill 2001
More information about state rules related to “middle housing”:

Documents

PROJECT HOUSING OPTIONS - beavertonoregon.gov