Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Tualatin council backs Planning Commission plan to pilot 'adjustment' process for multifamily code updates
Loading...
Summary
City planners briefed the Jan. 26 council on a state‑mandated "clear and objective" update to the Tualatin Development Code. Council generally concurred with the Planning Commission to pilot a staff‑level adjustment process for multifamily standards and directed staff to return with draft amendments in late spring/early summer.
City planners on Jan. 26 told the Tualatin City Council they will begin rewriting parts of the Tualatin Development Code to comply with Oregon law that requires “clear and objective” standards for housing, and the council signaled general support for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to pilot an adjustment process for multifamily development.
Madeline Nelson, a planner with the City of Tualatin, told the council the project is funded through a state grant and the city has retained consulting firm MIG to complete a code audit and propose draft language. The audit identified multiple places where the current code relies on discretionary or undefined wording — phrases such as “private” main entry areas, provisions determined “through the architectural review process,” and repeated clauses that say the “city manager may restrict.” Nelson said those formulations can create inconsistent outcomes for applicants and conflict with the state standard requiring measurable, non‑discretionary rules. “For ground floor dwelling units, a main entry area must be recessed at least 5 feet,” Nelson said as an example of the kind of numeric standard staff will seek.
The audit flagged several recurring issues: some housing types in low‑density residential (RL) zones are allowed only through conditional use permits (which require discretionary findings), development standards that defer determinations to staff processes, and ambiguous design vocabulary such as “decorative features.” Staff outlined two broad policy paths: keep the current two‑track system (a clear‑and‑objective staff review route plus a discretionary track) or move to a single set of objective standards with a new adjustment process to allow limited, staff‑level deviations.
Nelson said the Planning Commission reviewed the presentation on Jan. 20 and recommended a phased approach: retain the two‑track system generally but pilot a single set of clear standards for multifamily projects and introduce an adjustment process for minor deviations (a staff level decision for modest departures, with larger changes routed to a hearing). The Planning Commission also recommended not adding multifamily or age‑restricted “retirement housing” as a by‑right use in the RL zone within the scope of this grant project, suggesting rezoning or a future comprehensive planning effort if council wants broader changes.
Council members asked for clarification on definitions and process: staff said “middle housing” (duplex, triplex, quadplex) must be allowed where single‑family is allowed under state law, while “multifamily” generally refers to five or more units and is often treated as a commercial permit type. Staff estimated a clear‑and‑objective single‑family review typically takes about 30 days; a discretionary (Type 2) process adds pre‑application meetings, a neighborhood meeting, a 30‑day completeness review, and a 60‑day review window, substantially lengthening the timeline and cost exposure for applicants.
Council members responded positively to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to pilot the adjustment process for multifamily while leaving the broader two‑track structure intact. Nelson said staff will return in late spring or early summer with draft code amendments for council review and that the city aims for formal adoption by the end of the calendar year after several iterations and stakeholder testing with local developers and the architectural review board.
Because the presentation covers code language and procedure (not a final ordinance), no formal council motions or votes were taken at the work session. The next steps are staff drafting objective code language, convening the stakeholder testing group, and bringing draft amendments back to council for review and adoption scheduling.
