Tualatin council approves rezoning of 8.3-acre Norwood site for medium-low density housing

TUALATIN, Ore. — The Tualatin City Council voted unanimously Dec. 9 to amend the city comprehensive plan map and rezone an 8.3‑acre site at 23370 SW Boones Ferry Road from Institutional (IN) to Medium Low Density Residential (RML).

The change, filed as case PMA24‑04 by Westlake Consultants on behalf of Norwood Horizon Holdings and Horizon Community Church, clears the way for townhomes and cottage‑cluster housing on land immediately south of SW Norwood Road. Assistant planner Madeline Nelson told the council that the applicant’s transportation planning rule (TPR) analysis and staff findings conclude the change complies with the Tualatin Development Code and applicable Oregon statewide planning goals and administrative rules.

The rezoning recommendation had unanimous support from the Planning Commission, whose chair told council the applicant answered commission questions on trees, traffic and outreach and that the commission found the public‑interest criteria met. Developer Ken Allen and his consultant team described more than a year of community engagement and said the preferred concept now being pursued envisions roughly a hundred units rather than a theoretical maximum “reasonable worst case” figure cited in the TPR.

Nut graf: Councilors and the applicant emphasized the decision is a land‑use change only. Any future subdivision, building design and site work would require separate architectural review and engineering approvals; several councilors stressed the rezoning does not guarantee a particular plan will be built.

Council and staff highlighted three recurring issues in deliberations. First, traffic: staff’s TPR comparison concluded that likely housing development would generate fewer peak‑hour trips than some Institutional uses allowed under current zoning (for the site staff compared a 260‑student private school or a 50,000‑square‑foot community center as institutional “reasonable worst cases”). Councilors were told a subsequent, project‑specific traffic impact analysis will be required if and when a development application is filed. The applicant told council the concept being designed would likely generate substantially fewer peak trips than the RML zone’s theoretical maximum.

Second, tree preservation: the site contains a contiguous grove along SW Norwood Road. Consulting arborist Todd Prager said he was brought into design work early to try to protect the grove and avoid the edge‑thinning problems that preceded large removals on nearby parcels. He and the developer said they are working with city staff, Washington County and utility providers on frontage design, undergrounding and alignment to minimize impacts on root zones, but they acknowledged that some right‑of‑way improvements and utility work could require tradeoffs. Several councilors and neighbors urged continued coordination with PGE and the county to protect the stand; staff described the implementation risk as contingent on multi‑jurisdictional approvals.

Third, community outreach and housing type: the applicant described multi‑month neighborhood meetings, mailings and design sessions that led the team to prioritize townhomes and cottage clusters and to pare back earlier, more intensive concepts. Architect Anna Thompson said the design intent is a walkable mix of two‑ and three‑story townhomes and one‑story cottages clustered around shared greens, with alley or rear access for parking in many locations. The team said they were now designing floor plans and site layouts to set a realistic lot count rather than simply maximizing density.

Public testimony at the hearing included two people who spoke in favor: a long‑time Horizon Community Church member and the church’s lead pastor, who described the church’s community programs and said the congregation supported selling the parcel to help fund other church projects. No one spoke in opposition at the council hearing; staff and the Planning Commission reported submissions and outreach had been extensive and that opposition was minimal at earlier hearings.

Council action and next steps: Council conducted first and second readings of ordinance 1496‑24 and then adopted the ordinance amending the comprehensive plan map to apply the RML district to Tax Map 2S135D Tax Lot 106. The council’s adoption was unanimous. Staff and the applicants reminded council that future development proposals will require separate submittals for subdivision, architectural review, engineering, and a project‑level traffic study; the developer said they expected to return with those applications in the months ahead.

Ending: The rezoning decision clears the way for housing types the city’s housing needs analysis identified as needed (townhomes and cottage clusters), while leaving environmental, engineering and design details to future application reviews.