Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 12/01/1980
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA a c DECEMBER 1, 1980, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 1. ROLL CALL 2. OPEN -SPACE PLAN DISCUSSION WITH PARK BOARD - Request of Council 3. CONSIDERATION OF FOLLOWING ZONING MATTERS - Request of Council (a) Kittleson/Brown Zone Change ZCPD 13-80 (b) Jacobsen Zone Change ZCPD 25-79 (c) Zone Ordinance Amendment (Planned Developments) ZOA 7-80 4. PARK BOARD MINUTES OF 10-23-80 - Request of Councilman Scheckla 5. BECHTOLD ANNEXATION DISCUSSION - Planning Director 6. LCDC GOAL #10 COMPLIANCE/ANNEXATION DISCUSSION - Planning Director 7. OTHER 8. ADJOURNMENT 7 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L STUDY SESSION MINUTES - DECEMBER. 1 , 1980 - 7 : 30 P.M. 1 . ROLL CALL: Present : President of Council , John Cook ; Councilmen Tom Brian, Kenneth Scheckla , Councilwoman Nancie Stimler ; Chief of Police , Robert Adams ; Legal Counsel , Joe Bailey; City Administrator , Raeldon K . Barker ; Director of Public [corks , Frank A. Currie ; Finance Director/City Recorder , Doris Hartig ; Planning Director, Aldie Howard ; Administra- tive Secretary, Loreen Wilson . 2 . OPEN SPACE PLAN DISCUSSION WITH PARK BOARD (a) Phil Hirl , Chairman of the Park Board introduced the following Park Board members to Council : Mary Payne , Elisabeth Golden , Ron Jordan, Hiram Fitzpatrick and Robert Bellinger . (b) Council , Staff and Park Board discussed the open space plan as adopted by Ordinance No. 77-70 on August 8 , 1977 . The plans for the greenway use was discussed, especially in the area of Bonita and the railroad crossing . Councilwoman Stimler expressed her concerns regarding the develop- ment proposed on the site north of Bonita and west of the rail- road tracks . Specifically, the proposal for a neighborhood park next to an industrial complex. Park Board members expressed their continued desire to have the area set aside as greenway or open space for the use by the neighborhood for a park. It was noted that this area would be used for ' sand lot ' type ball fields and also reserve the arca for flood water in the winter time . Director of Public Works requested Council acquire the lands noted in the open space plan for greenway to control storm drainage problems . 3 . PARK BOARD MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23 , 1980 (a) Phil Hirl , Chairman of the Park Board expressed the Board ' s concern regarding Ordinance No. 80-82 which sets up the green- way maintenance provisions . Staff explained that this ordinance was only for those areas in the greenway which are accepted as easements and not outright dedications . After further discussion, the Park Board agreed with the word- age of the ordinance . (b) The Park Board also expressed concern regarding Ordinance No . 80-83 Section 3 (c) and asked that the ordinance be reworded to make clear as to who can sign the application for park use . Staff stated this would be reworded and returned to Council y- for consideration at the December 8 , 1980, meeting. (c) Councilman Scheckia asked if the Park Board had anything to do with Town and Country Days celebrations . The Park Board re- sponded that this was not in their jurisdiction. (d) Council stated they would formally accept the Park Board annual report at the December 8 , 1980, meeting . 4. CONSIDERATION OF FOLLOWING ZONING MATTERS (a) Kittleson/Brown Zone Change ZCPD 13-80 Jacobsen Zone Change ZCPD 25-79 Consensus of Council was to hear both items at the December 8 , 1980 , meeting. (b) Zone Ordinance Amendments (Planned Developments) ZOA 7-80 LaVelle Allen, NPO #4 Chairman, requested Council allow the NPO ' s a chance to have input in all planning matters before the public hearing at the Planning Commission level . Councilwoman Stimler requested NPO #4 be allowed to have input as they requested. Planning Director asked the Council to approve the PD ordinance (ZOA 7-80) as set forth and allow him time to work with NPO #4 ` to solve the problems that exist. It was stated that if no solution is found, then staff will request Council change the wordage of the PD zone text by January 31 , 1980. Consensus of Council was to hear ZOA 7-80 at the December 8 , 1980, meeting. 5 . LCDC GOAL #10 COMPLIANCE/ANNEXATION DISCUSSION (a) Planning Director discussed at great length Goal #10 which is "To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state . Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commen- surate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location type anddensity. " The Planning Director gave a history of the requirements from LCDC in order to comply with their goals . He also discussed the problems Tigard and the surrounding communities face in trying to develop a housing average of 10 units per acre (or a single family/multifamily split in new construction of 50%/50% . This would indicate that any new vacant land annexed to the City would have to be annexed at a higher density rate than the NPO plans call for, in order to comply with LCDC rules . Planning 47 Director did note that LCDC will bring their planners into the City and set out the high density ones for the City if Council fails to met the 10 units per acre requirement . The Planning Director requested Council give him direction PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 1 , 1980 as to what action they want him to take in trying to comply with LCDC Goal #10 . He noted that March was the deadline for Tigard to have their comprehensive plan before LCDC and thus does not allow much time for consideration of this issue . (b) Councilman Brian requested Planning Director do the following to give Council more information to make an educated decision in this matter. (1) Have LCDC representative present at a meeting to discuss with Council some of their goals and requests . (2) Have information available for Council as to how LCDC arrived at the 50/50 plan. (3a) Specify the number of single family and multifamily units we project being in the urban growth boundary under cur- rent zoning which are currently outside the city limits . (3b) Set out the number of units (single family and multifamily) we need to comply with Goal #10 compared to the number of units we project we will have when the City annexes to the urban growth boundary. (c) Planning Director said he would get the information requested and present to Council as soon as. possible . 6 . BECHTOLD ANNEXATION DISCUSSION (a) Planning Director stated that with the information regarding LCDC Goal #10 as background information for this item, he would request that Council approve the request as it stands . Council- man Brian expressed his position that the time is ripe to annex, but not within such a fine line . Discussion followed regarding the annexation request . Council. consensus was to have staff prepare a letter to be sent to the people in the area of the Bechtold annexation asking if they are interested in participating in the annexation. Council will review letter before it is sent . (b) Consensus of Council was to have annexation request remain on the table until letter can be sent and answers received . (Possibly as late as February, 1981) . (c) The following people spoke regarding this issue . _ Mr. Moore , resident of Bechtold annexation area , opposing the way in which the residents had been contacted regarding the annexation up to this point. Mr. David Orendolph of Century 21 , requested Council consider this item earlier than February as it was unfair to the developers of the propery in question. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1 , 1980 Mr. Herb Rook, Century 21 , discussed the steps that company has taken to contact the property owners in the area and express- ed their willingness to help the process in any way. Bill McMonagle, Century 21 , requested Council consider holding a public information meeting with the citizens in the annexation area to help answer the questions they might have . Mr. John Overby Sr. resident of annexation area , agreed a pub- lic information meeting would be helpful . (d) Consensus of Council was that a public information meeting would be helpful and directed staff to investigate the possibility of such a meeting. They requested this not be held during a council meeting. 7 . OTHER (a) City Administrator requested Council approve a street opening refund to Page Stevens for Burnham Street in the amount of $4200 . He noted that the City would retain $300 .00 for work still need- ing to be completed . Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve the refund in the amount of $4200 . Approved by unanimous vote of Council present . (b) City Administrator noted a request from Tualatin Development Company to accept a half street dedication on SW Durham Road by the Brookside Condos . Planning Director is to add a non- remonstrance condition to the resolution. Councilwoman Stimler moved to accept the dedication, seconded by Councilman Brian. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (c) Councilman Scheckla noted that the "no parking" sign at 11000 and 11010 SW Gaarde is down and has been removed. Requested staff replace as soon as possible . (d) Councilman Scheckla requested Chief of Police talk with the Washington County Sheriffs office to determine if there is anything the City can do about people calling homes of teenage girls and carrying on an obscene conversation. (c) Councilman Scheckla expressed his objection to the City Christmas party being shown on the December meeting schedule calendar. 8 . ADJOURNMENT: 10: 50 P.M. ATTES � City recorder �J resi eWV_—Of Council' PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1 , 1980 TIGARD PARK & RECREATION BOARD October 23, 1980, 7:41 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Phil Hirl, B. Bellinger, R. Jordan, A. Hartak, R. Zuar,JaIt ~ and Mary Payne. Excused--E. Golden Absent--Hiram Fitzpatrick Staff—no one present - Bob Irby--Englewood _ The Board noted that the following members terms expire at the end of the year: Bellinger, . Zumraalt, Kartak. 3-1 Bob Irby representing Englewood 230 homes met here. They would like to have the greenway with play equipment designated a neighborhood park in areas designated A.B.C.D. Also mosquito control. R. Jordan moved that the Board accept the Englewood proposal for A.B.C.D as a neighborhood park leaving the playground equipment in place. The motion was 2nd by Mary Payne. The vote was 4-0 Bellinger abstained- 3-2 .Tay Leet's class at Fowler Jr. High is doing a bikepath study as a project. 3.3 R. Zumwalt moved that City Staff and Council bring any ordinance-or amendment to an.ardinance to Park Board for consultation before action is taken en them. The motion was seconded by R. .Jordan and passed unanimously. Discussion on Ordinance 80-82 brought out that some explanation of them is-�� needed for clarification. The board would like to know the intent of 80-82 and" 8 X83. In 80-83 Section 3.409.020 C needs particular- clarification. 3.4 Unable to discuss due to no staff member present. 3.3 b. Portland Community College Prof. Wysong, phone 224-5111 whose class• dre*.- n7 anx for the bandst;z!nd, needs to be conrn.rraci for an r^_C COY; i,l a rz7 a Ful uS E. 3.6 no report. 3.7 The. concept of each member assuming responsibility for individual par?';s or activities was discussed. It was agreed to accept responsibility as follows: Payne vindmill ' Bandstand Bellinger Summer Lake Park Hartak-----------Woodard Park Biks Path .Torclan-------------00ok Park '�Zd2n- - vumrTatvwrTa Park Zumwalt-----�----.Jack Park Next meeting will be November 20th due- to Thanksgiving falling on our regular-meet- ing night. ' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 80-�� AN ORDINAPZCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7.40 OF THE TIGARD T MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING PROVISIONS RELATING TO GREENmgAYS. The City of Tigard ordains as follows : Section 1. The City Council finds 'that in order to provide for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, it is necessary that the City regulate to some degree the condition of land held in private ownership but subject to the rights of the public bvirtue Of greenway easements. y Section 2. Chapter 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code (dealing with nuisances) is hereby amended by the addition of a new section, to be designated 7.40.025, to read as follows: 7.40.025 Greenway Maintenance. The owner and any person In possession of any lot, tract or parcel of land . all or a part. of which is subject to the rights of the City or the public by virtue of an easement for greenway shall be responsible for the main- tenance of the property subject to such t easement. The standard to which this main- tenance shall conform shall be as follows: (a) The land shall remain in its natural topi- g:.aphic condition. No private structures, culverts, excavations or fills shall be con- structed within the easement area unless authorized by the City Engineer. (b) No tree over a height of five feet shall be removed unless authorized by the Planning Director. (c) Grass shall be kept cut to a height not exceeding ten inches except when soriate natural condition prevents cutting. (d) The City engineer and the Planning Director are hereby given authority to establish parti- cular standards for individual properties or for identified areas of the City which vary from the standards otherwise set forth in this section. Any such different standard shall be set forth in writing and notice of it shall be ' given to affected property oV.-zers. No person shall be prosecuted under this section, and no person shall be assessed fox- the cost of abate- ment unless he or she- has been given written notice of any such standard altered by .the City Engineer or Planning Director at least 30 days before the issuance of a citation for the vio- lation. - T Section 3 . Section 7 40.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code gelating to abatement procedures is hereby amended to read as follows_ (a) Any of the nuisances described in sections 7.40.010, 7.40.020, 7.40.025, 7.40.030 or 7.40.050 of this chapter may be abated as prescribed in this section.. PASSED: By unanmom� vote of all Council members present, after beii. ng read two times by number and title only this day of October, 1.980. L City Recorder pro tem SIGNED: By the Mayor thisLath day of October, 1980. or, City of igard ORDINANCE No. 80-82 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE No. 80- 'y3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9.04 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO EFFICIENT RESERVATION OF PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FOR GROUP ACTIVITIES AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council declares their intent to exercise general supervision, management and control of all public parks and associates facilities and equipment, and to prescribe the necessary rules and regulations necessary to protect and preserve such facilities for the convenient and safe use by the public. Section 2: The City Council has become aware of problems in the area of park reserva- tion and the rules pertaining to such reservation, therefore, the following amendments to Section 9.04 Partes - General Provisions are made. Section 3: 904.020 Facility Reservation is amended to read as follows: In order to provide for the convenience of advance reservation of park_ facilities, the following procedures are adopted: (a) Formal application must be made through City Hall to reserve any public park and recreation facility for the exclusive use of a particu- lar group. P (b) All applications shall include the name of the organization/group, the facility requested, date and time requested, name, address and phone number of person in charge, type of activity and any special requests.. (c) A person in charge must sign the application or someone else can sign for them. (d) City of Tigard, School Dist. 23J, Tigard Little League and Tigard Soccer Association sponsored programs shall be reserved through the Tigard Field Use Committee. Section 4: 9.04.030 Establishment of fees and crediting of funds is amended to read as follows: The following fees shall be collected by the City Administrator of his dcic,QutC and place It, Ll3G' app EuUC lai Y -;4rc-uni— a. A $10 application fee shall be required for all park reservation requests, and shall be placed in an account to be expended for administrative activities. (Exceptions made for community service organizations). 'a. A fee shall be collected for reservation of facilities in community and urban parks, as defined in the adopted park standards and placed in a fund to be expended for park maintenance, according to the fol— lowing schedule: l . � T (1) For reservation of picnic areas: (See Section 5 for definition of group classifications). ( Group I Group II Group III Group of up to 50 people No Charge No Charge $25 Grosp of 51 to 100 to $i0 35 Group of 101 to 150 to15 50 Group of 151 to 250 if30 75 Group over 251 PO 50 100 (2) For reservation of special areas or services: Hallfield $10 Special opening/closing 10 (each hour before/after regular park rates) For extended use of facilities, (i.e., several consecutive days or weeks) the above fees will be charged as a weekly rate. (3) Additional costs incurred by the City because of abuse or excessive clean-up repair (as determined by Public Works Department, i.e., $20 charge for cleaning of barbecue grates) shall be charged to the reserving group creating the added costs. All such excessive clean-up/repair shall be documented, by Public Works including photographs, and filed at City Hall. (4) Fees for special equipment and/or personnel unknown at the time of application will be billed to the person in charge after the activity when computation is accomplished. (5) Use of Agency facilities for fund raising will be handled on an individual basis. Groups or individuals desiring to conduct fund raising activities should apply for a "Special Use Permit" on the application form, and will be required to present their fee ., ,,. structure for review. Section 5: 9.04.050 Waiver of fees shall be amended to read as follows: No waiver shall be granted except by approval of the park board and the city administrator and in accordance to the following standards: (1} Fee GrouD Classifications Group I No fees - City sponsored groups and programs, School District 23J, local youth groups. low income groups, Tigard Little League and Tigard Soccer Association (ballfields only) Group 11: Fees as listed under Group II in Section 9.04.030 (b) here- in all non-profit groups including churches, garden clubs, business .social clubs, fraternal organizations and government agencies; Page 2 ORDINANCE No. 80--�� Group, III: Fees as listed under Group III in Section 9.04.030 (b), herein all otherrp ofit making groups including company or corporate sponsored activities. (2) Fees for facility reservation (Group 11 and III) may be waived (in whole or part) on a discretionary basis, for groups submitting written request reasons for a denial will be forwarded to the applicant. _. Section 6: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after its enactment by the City Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By tpanjtncalS vote of all Council members present after being read two times by number and title only this ) 1 Th day of � ,� 1980. i City Recorder - pro tem APPROVED: By the Mayor this /mph day of .�L..s�'�[;cfY'� , 1980. is Mayor Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. 80-S3 �4 M E M O R A N D U M TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 25, 1980 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: LCD-_, POSTPONEMENT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ASSOCIATED ISSUES I have hesitated to broach this topic with you until I had a "clear" understanding of just what was happening or about to happen to us relative to our Compliance Review first with Metro and then with LCDC. We made the deadline of July 1980 for submission of our Comprehensive Plan to LCDC. Metro staff dug into it and we met with them in late October to consider various issues which surfaced during their review. It became obvious very rapidly that we had serious difficulties rel t_zve to compliance to Goal #10 - Housing. There are other concerns, but they are easily addressed: DEQ has objected saying that we have not been specific enough on the issue of noise, the manufactured (mobile) home people have objected saying we are restrictive in our policies on siting of mobile homes, etc. , the Oregon Business Planning Council requested the right to make comments following revisions but they are really only concerned with Goal #10, ODOT joined the pack with transportation suggestions but did not challenge the acknowledgement, 1000 Friends of Oregon objected to several minor code items but really put the squeeze on us for housing. At the meeting with Metro Staff, I briefed them on the "issues" in Tigard_ Annexation was uppermost in our conversation because I included in my remarks the fact that we were considering some very important annexations which might create "islands" which might then be brought into the City by Council Action. How does this relate to the Housing Question? At the present time, we show that our single family (SF) units total three -thousand six hundred twenty (3,620) as of October 1980. Our multi-family (MF) units number two thousand seven hundred eighty-eight (2,788) , and our mobile homes number one hundred six (106) units. This results in a 55.6% SF to 43% NJ' mix. No mobile homes have been installed since about 1976. These figures are for inside our present boundaries. Now the matter gets complicated. In June of 1980, Metro published a paper - "Expectations For Goal #10 Acknowledgenent In The Pletro Region". This document states in part.. . _"The specific intent of this Commission's (LCDC) requirement is to ensure that opportunities £or moderating the cost of housing are affirmativel.v included in local comprehensive plans. Increased densities are generally recognized to be an important factor in coping with excessive housing costs, although it is also known that other options available to local jurisdictions could help moderate costs." As written in the Metro "Expectations" attached, a list of ways to moderate costs follows: .. . ."A partial list of such cost-moderating opportunities including increased densities follows: 1. Construction of new housing at higher densities than assumed under the UGB Findings. MEMORANDU,.14 TO: Members of the City Council November 25,, 1980 Page 2 2- Increased density of existing housing stock through such provisions as "rental-add-ons" or outright conversion of large, older structures to multi.-£ami.ly units. 3. Provision for manufactured housing. 4. A new construction housing mix more favorable to multi-family housing than 40/60)0) .. the ratio assumed under the UGB Findings (e.g. , a SF/ice' ratio of 5. Relaxation of subdivision improvement requirements for wide streets, curbs, sidewalks, etc. 6. Reducing the time required to complete the development approval process and/or relaxing design and development approval standards 7. Density bonuses to developers/builders who sell units to low-income house- holds below market level prices. 8. Density bonuses to developers/builders who reserve a percentage of units for assisted housing. 9. Density transfers for sites partially constrained by unbuildable conditions such as steep slopes, flooding, etc. " COMMENTS ON EACH: 1. We have changed the zoning on many parcels of land within our Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) . However, we have not increased the density above six (6) units per acre on the buildable land within our UGB on the average. Good example: NPO #4 - We zoned about fifteen (15) acres to A-40 or about six hundred (600) multi-family units. Along Hall Boulevard and Durham Road, we rezoned about one hundred thirty-five (135) acres as R-5. At six (6) units per acre, this allows about eight hundred (800) units of single family housing. The difference is a higher density per acre but look what we have done. One hundred fifty (150) arras — fn,irtnan fi,�nr7>-cri (l,:nnl ;a_. �;� _' tom. ��`�T> r�-- _1 - 2"; multi-family. Not much as changed over what we now have within our boundaries- This example is indicative of the entire UGB the way it is zoned now. 2. We do not have many structures which can be converted to multi-family use. 3. Manufactured housing is allowed as a Conditional Use on a minimum of five ( acres. Conditional Uses must be approved by the Planning Commission. They 5) probably would allow such a development, but as we have seen in the past, yo, may not support this type of development in this community realizing that public pressure will be severe. The case in point is Winsome Terrace where duplexes were rot allowed. This brings up an important point. Those areas within the present boundaries which have been developed are very much against an increase in density. Mary Burnham on 97th was turned down for duplexes (attached single family residences) by -the neighborhood pressure. Most of that pressure came from residents who are presently outside the City boundaries_ What we will probably see is an increase in the opposition to increased densities. Council is therefore put in a very unpopular position. MEMORANDUM TO: Members of City Council November 25, 1980 Page 3 4. Winsome Terrace and Mary Burnham are an example_ NPO #4 and the A-40 Zone is another example. At the last NPO meeting, a motion passed to initiate a Comprehensive plan change to eliminate the A-40 Zone in NPO #4. This will be brought before the Planning Commission early next year. You realize that this would seriously change the density percentages as I indicated in a previous example. 5. We have seen the pressure to make streets narrower and eliminate the sidewalks etc. This suggestion by Metro seems a little out of phase with the rest of the system. It is very difficult to get people to mass transit without sidewalks. Narrow streets make it difficult to police areas and manipulate fire vehicles. 6. I think we have accomplished a great deal in this regard. 7. Name one developer who has suggested this in Tigard? 8. We have no assisted housing yet. 9. We do allow a density bonus situation and you, the planning Commission, and Park Board are aware of the negotiations. You have seen it in most of the planned unit development proposals. "It is also understood that residential housing mix and density requirements for new construction apply only to buildable lands." In talking with Metro, they indicate that what they are looking for is a SF/NSF Split of 50% to 50% or ten (10) units per acre. The catch here is that these figures apply to land inside and outside the City limits within our Urban Growth Boundary. In the example of NPO #4 and the R-5 along Sall and Durham, the figures are not far off. However, if you then look at the remainder of the buildable land by zone and do the _ computations, we slip back under the ratios. An example of this can be seen west of the City. In the case of the Bechtold Annexation, we are considering the annexation of approximately one hundred twenty (120) acres. All of it zoned R-10, R-20, and R-30. At an R-10 density, you might get an average of three (3) units per acre. The problem is that this is seven (7) units below the figure suggested by Metro. Note also that this is all single family residential, and you, therefore; haves t-rn add considerable multi-family construction to make up for it and attain acceptable ratio, and where do you add the multi-family? You have to increase the density in areas within the UGB and that means looking for suitable locations. You are forced then to change the zoning on the land which you annex and on land within our present boundaries. Perhaps by this time you can grasp the significance of this memo. I would like to add that this entire issue is not without a solution, but it will be up to us all to find that solution and meet LCDC and Metro goals and figures. s t MEh.ORANDUM TO: Members of City Council November 25, 1980 Page 4 "Housing Mix Ratio: Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must meet one of the following minimum requirements: I. Provide a 50/50 SF/,Mr new construction housing ratio and, additionally, provide other cost-moderating opportunities which together with the 50/50 ratio, meet the housing requirements (need) identified in the plan as is appropriate to the circumstances of each jurisdiction. 2. If a jurisdiction's current SF/MF ratio is at least 65/35, a new construction ratio of less than 50/50 (but generally not exceeding 60/40) is sufficient if there is justification based on other goal factors such as peripheral location and poor access to transit (Goal #12, Transportation) , low employment base (Goal 99, Economy of the State) , lack of recreational open space (Goal #8, Recreational Needs) , etc. In cases where minimum requirements of #2 above are applied, a greater emphasis (than under #1) will be placed on cost-moderating opportunities_ Cost-moderating opportunities which result in a shift of the housii:g ratio in favor of sF units (e.g. , from 50/50 to 55/45) , such as a lowering of the minimum single family lot size in a particular district from 7,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. may, In certain situations, be adequate justification for varying from the above standards." We cannot qualify for Section 2. We have a Transportation system, we are close to Portland, employment is high, and we have two regional parks. We are going to be judged on Section 1. "Larger jurisdictions. .. .are expected to plan for an overall new construction density of about 10 units per acre. .. ." will be our guideline. . With this in mind, what do I suggest? We have several options. One possible approach is to rezone selectively throughout the City to a higher density. We could allow attached single family (duplex) as a Permitted Use on all lots of neighborhoods. Access and setback requirements would belimportant,Lbut this would increase the multi-family ratio. How much it would help is difficult to assess because we do not have the necessary figures from a buildable lands inventory. To get the figures would take a long time because each parcel would have to be physically measured. If this were the case, Winsome Terrace could have been permitted outright in the R-10 Zone. That project was not acceptable to Council, although the Planning Commission approved it. Isolated case. Anyway, that is one approach. In spite of our experience with Winsome Terrace, I don't think this duplex approach would changes the neighborhoods to any degree, avid we wouldn't gain very much on the ratios. NE'MORANDUM TO: Members of City Council November 25, 1980 Page 5 R-5 single family zoning. One of the suggestions that was made at the Planning Commission was to rezone all of the residential areas to R-5 instead of R-7, R-10, R-20, R-30. This wouldn't change the established residential areas significantly. A vacant lot in an R-20 area would then support two (2) dwelling units, but if you allow duplexes on 10,000 sq. ft. you have created R-5 anyway. Another approach is to take a look at all the larger parcels in the City and selectively rezone them for higher densities like N-12, A-20, Or A-40. Some of the vacant land along Fanno Creek between Main and Hall Boulevard could be rezoned. As I mentioned to you recently, we are considering a special zone for eighty (80) units per acre for the aged in this area close to the new senior center. Looking at maps will tell you that the only significant vacant land where maior zone changes are possible is outside the City limits. We can rezone South Bull Mountain where NPO #6 calls for two (2) units per acre by Canterbury Woods and in the 109th and Npeve P,oad area. We can pick un a few multi-family units behind the high school and the areas along Tigard and Dakota in NPO 47 for possible multi- family. West of 121st between Walnut and Gaarde is wide open. In the first case, the NPO #7 people have suggested R-7 zoning. The people on Bull Mountain will breathe pretty heavy on you for multi-family residential within the view of their $300,000 homes. One possible solution is to create a mixed multi-family zone in the Hall Boulevard, Durham Road, and Bonita area. This could start with A-12 along the major streets, increase to A-20, and then have A-40 at the center with a commercial area to serve the residents. One plus in this area is that we could plan the streets now and put the plan into operation over the next ten (10) years as services are brought into this area. Hall Boulevard, Bonita, and Durham are all scheduled for major improvements in that time frame. The proximity to er.Ployment is reasonable. The mass transit factor has been addressed in that Tri-Met serves the area now. A commercial center could be planned and the entire area could be multi-family except for the limited single family development which is proposed now. I think you can see our dilemma. What can LCDC do? With about two hundred plans to review, they will be very busy for at least two years_ To suspect that they will not- rnntinu to prESS us for Goal gill rem c liar a is naiv tie, therefore, not only face LCDC, but we face any easy courtchallenge.. Here we go again. I think we need to come up with a reasonable approach to increasing density within this community. I have outlined the problem and some alternatives. We will discuss this Memorandum together and I will outline my suggestions on a map for you. If we have to inventory the builuable land again, I will need help. We can put all of this off and wait to see what LCDC will do, but I do not adivse it because they will have the power to force compliance and we will be on better ground to negotiate if we cooperate now. MEMORANDUM TO: Members of City Council November 25, 1980 Page 6 The Prime Rate is above 150. It is very difficult to purchase single family homes. Apartments are here and we all have to adjust. For LCDC to come to Tigard and mandate changes does not seem appropriate. Perhaps we can satisfy all concerned together. Aldi oward P ning Director H O U S I N G U N I T S U M M A R Y CITY OF TIGARD (ALL UNITS WITHIN CITY LIMITS) SF: Single Family Unit (Detached, Attached, Row, and Towanhouses, On Separate. rots) MF: Multifamily Unit (Includes Duplexes, Condos) TR: Trailer, Mobile Home NEW MOVE DEMOLITION NET TOTAL UNITS CONST. IN (-) ANNEXED CHANGE 1970 CENSUS SF 1001 MF 1040 . TR 51 TOT 2092 1976 (INCLUSIVE) SF 2361 MF 1934 TR 106 TOT 4401 1977* SF 2726 346 0 3 22 1 365 MF 2139 205 0 0 0 205 TR 106 0 0 0 0 0 TOT 4971 551 0 3 22 570 1978 SF 3091 322 2 9 50 365 MF 2419 280 0 0 0 280 F TR 106 . 0 0 0 0 0 TOT 5616 602 2 9 50 645 1979 SF 3402 241 0 10 SQ 311 MF 2711 292 0 0 0 292 TR 106 0 0 0 0 0 TOT 6219 533 0 10 80 603 1980 SF 3620 198 0 4 24 218 (Jan. - Oct.) MF 2788 17 0 0 60 77 TR 106 0 0 0 0 0 TOT 6514 215 0 4 1 84 295 HOUSING MIX SF 55.6% MF 43.0% TR 1 '4% ql(y'200.0 s SOURCES: 1. Monthly Building Permit Reports, City of Tigard 2. Annexation Summary, City of Tigard *3. 76-77 Building Permit Statistics, Metro_ , November 1979 NOTES: 1. New Construction, Move Ins, and Demolitions are counted in month Permit is issued. 2. Annexed Units are counted in month of Annexation Ordinance by City. r; y ! ' I METROPOLI-IAN SERVICE DISTRICT i 527 S.W.HALL ST.,PORTLAND,OR.97201, §03/221-1646 METRO MEMORANDUM /Date: June 6 , 1950 To: Metro Area Jurisdictions From: DL-CD, Metropolitan Subcommittee of the Commission and Metra Regarding: Expectations for Goal #10 Acknowledgment in the Metro Region Since the Seaman Order and the DLCD°s subsequent letter calling for a regional market level housing allocation plan, the Commis- sion has acted on several petitions for review and acknowledgment request in the metropolitan area. While Metro, the Department and the Commission recognize the allocation plan and the Metro . housing policies are post-acknowledgment issues, interim guide- lines are needed to judge compliance with Goal #10 . Goal #10 compliance criteria have been partially established i through acknowledgment of the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the findings of Goal #10 compliance for Multnomah County and the cities of Durham and Gladstone. To date, Metro has used assumptions supporting the "UGB Findings" as general guidelines for meeting Goal #10 . Specifically, the Findings assume local jurisdictions will provide for a new con- struction single family/multi-family (SF/MF) ratio of 50/50 or a SF/MF plan "build out" ratio of 65/35 . Average densities for new development are assumed to . be 4.04 Units per Net Acre (UNA) for new single family development, 13.26 UNA for multi-family and 6.23 UNA overall (i.e. , SF and MF) . While the above assumptions serve as guidelines .for meeting Goal 414, the Commission has concluded they are not sufficient for meeting Goal #iu. "Falling short of regional UGB housing guidelines may, in certain limited circumstances, be acceptable. However, merely zoning for these minimal regional densities and mix assumptions does not necessarily guarantee compliance with Goal #10. Generally speak- ing to comply with 'Goal #10 local zoning must provide for densities considerably in excess of UGB density assumptions" (underline added) . (Adopted DLCD Acknowledgment of Compliance Report on Metro UGB, December 13 , 1973) Memorandum June 6 , 1980 Page 2 The phrase "densities considerably in excess" has been subject to some misunderstanding and, hence, clarification is called for . The secific—in .e t of this commission requirement is to ensure that op ort ipgfor-moderating the cost o�'fi� rn_cLare a Irma ive included ilocal compre ensive plans. Increased densities are generally recognizedtame an important factor in coping with excessive housing costs , although it is also known that other options available to local jurisdictions could help to moderate costs. A partial list of such cost-moderating opportunities including increased densities follows: 1. Construction of new housing at higher densities than assumed under the QGB Findings. 2, Increased density of existing housing stock through such provisions as "rental-add-ons" or outright conversion of large, older structures to multi-familv units. 3. Provision for manufactured housing. 4. A new construction housing mix more favorable to multi-family housing than the 50/50 ratio assumed under the- UGB Findings (e.g. , a SF/MF ratio of 40/60) . 5. Relaxation of subdivision improvement requirements for wide streets, curbs, sidewalks, etc. 6. Reducing the time required to complete the development approval process- and/or relaxing design and development approval standards. 7 . Density bonuses to developers/builders who sell units to low-income households below market level prices. 8 . Density bonuses to developers/builders who reserve a per- centact- of units for assisted housing. 9 . Density transfers for sites partially constrained by unbuildable conditions such as steep slopes, flooding, etc. In evaluating local jurisdiction's plans for compliance with Goal #10 the question is principally whether, given the circum- stances of each jurisdiction, adequate cost-moderating opportunities have been affirmatively provided for. Commission requirements concerning clear and objective standards would apply to any cost-moderating procedures. It is also understood that residential housing mix and density requirements for new construction apply only to buildable lands. However, the criteria used to .establish buildable lands must be defined in Memorandum June 6 , 1980 Page 3 terms of Goal #5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources) , Goal #7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards) , Goal #11 (Public Facilities and Services) and Goal #15 (Willamette River Greenway) . As a basis for evaluating compliance with Goal #10, the following guidelines are established. Guidelines for Small Develo ed Cities For small cities (less than 4,000 projected year 2000 population) where land is almost completely developed (i .e. , less than 50 acres of buildable land) with very limited potential for new construction or redevelopment to accommodate regional housing needs, the threshold for acknowledgment is low (i.e,. , the SF/MF ratio and density need not vary substantially from current patterns) . Metro area cities of this type are: Johnson City, Ring City, Maywood Park , Rivergrove and Wood Village. Guidelines for All Other Jurisdictions Housing Mix Ratio: Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must meet one of the following minimum requirements: 1. Provide a 50/50 SF/MF new construction housing ratio and, additionally, provide other cost-moderating opportunities whic.; together with the 50/50 ratio, meet the housing requirements (need) identified in the plan as is appro- priate to the circumstances of each jurisdiction. 2. If a jurisdiction's current SF/MF ratio is at least 65/35, a new construction ratio of less than 50/50 (but generally not exceeding 60/40) is sufficient if there is justifica- tion based on other goal factors such as peripheral loca- tion and poor access to transit (anal a12 _ mran�ac�rtai-ic�n) low employment base (Goal #9 , Economy of the State) , lack of recreational open space (Goal #8 , Recreational Needs) , etc. In cases where minimum requirements of #2 above are applied, a greater emphasis (than under #1) will be placed an cost-moderat- ing opportunities. Cost-moderating opportunities which result in a shift of the housing ratio in favor of SF units (e.g, , from 50/50 to 55/45) , such as a lowering of the minimum single family lot size in a particular district from 7,000 to 5,000 sq. ft, may, in certain situations, be adequate justification for varying from the above standards. Memorandum June 6, 1980 Page 4 Housing Density: Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must also meet average density levels for new construction of at least 6 UNA and ranging higher depending on the size and amount of buildable land and locational factors of each jurisdiction. Relatively small ToRetri. •i area cities with some growth potential (with a projected build out population of less than 8 ,000) are not expected to play a major regional housing role. The cities of Cornelius, Durham, Fairview, Happy Valley and Sherwood are included in this category. A minimal acceptable overall new construction density for these jurisdictions is 6 UNA. Counties with buildable lands within an urban area which extensively abuts both rural and other urban lands and medium-sized Metro area cities are expected to play an important housing role in the region. Clackamas and Washington Counties and the cities of Forest Grove, Gladstone, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Troutdale, Tualatin, West Linn and Wilsonville are in this category. These jurisdictions are expected to provide for an overall density of about 8 UNA. Larger jurisdictions (with projected build-out populations of approximately 50 ,000 or more) , which include Multnomah County and the cities of Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Portland and Tigard, are expected to plan for overall new con- struction densities of about 10 UNA. While size and amount of buildable land are important con- siderations in establishing the appropriate overall new construction density for each jurisdiction within the region, locational considerations are also significant. Therefore, with 6 UNA established as a minimum for development on buildable land , minor variations from the 8 UNA or 10 UNA standards are permissable provided that these variations are justified by locational considerations. Such locational factors include the degree of access to transit and/or major roadways (Goal #12 Transportation) , proximity to employment opportunities (Goal #9 Economy of the State) , proximity to and adequacy of parks and open space (Goal #5 Open Space, Scenic and historic Areas and Natural Resources and Goal #8 Recreational Needs) _ In summary, with the exception of a few small cities with limited potential for new housing development or redevelopment, jurisdictions in the Metro area must accommodate at least a 50/50 SF/MF new construction ratio unless otherwise justified and provide opportunities that moderate the cost of housing. Also, they must provide for an overall new construction density y Memorandum June 6, 1980 Page 5 of at least 6 UNA depending on jurisdiction size, amount of buildable land and locational factors. For smaller cities with some growth potential, overall new construction densities of 6 UNA are minimally sufficient to meet Goal #10 . For medium-sized cities and counties with lands generally bordered by rural -land , local plans must provide for about 8 UNA. Larger jurisdictions must plan for about 10 UNA for new construction. In practical terms; this will mean average single family lot sizes of 6,000 to 8,000 square feet and multi-family densities of about 20 UNA. Where remain some methodological questions as to how a regional Post-acknowledgment market-level housing allocation will be developed beyond the guidelines set forth above. In general, it is clear that such an allocation plan should begin with an over- all evaluation of the housing distribution patterns resulting from these guidelines as to: (1) whether Goal #10 cost-moderat- ing opportunities, housing mix ratios and density increases emerging in local comprehensive plans fairly and equitably meet regional housing requirements (needs) , and (2) how well the distribution is regionally adjusted to requirements of other Statewide Goals, particularly Goal #5 (Open Space) , Goal #8 (Recreation) , Goal #9 (Economy) , Goal #11 (Public Services) and Goal #12 (Transportation) . The regional allocation plan would thus be expected to set criteria for such evaluations, identify Goal #10 inequities or discontinuities with other Statewide Goals, and identify necessary remedies. MB:ss 8201/127 ,.6 ,appeals` count decision ..®roasts future litigation From the Oregon Court of Appeals this week comes a decision which could be upsetting to the best laid plans of mice and men in the area of land use planning. On Monday the Court of Appeals ruled that it has authority to review all evidence used by the State Land Conservation and Devel- opment Commission in determining whether local land-use plans comply with state standards. c : Washington County where the voters have just passed a Jim Alli- son initiative, known as Measure 11, relating to the right of owners of AF-5 and AF-10 zoned land to establish homes on previously es- 1 _ 3 I-f- a —i,^reel n n nnv nnntmmnlnt[� another adjusting in � Labllsflleu 1VL.2 va a --r -- - implementing its land use process. While the Board of County Commissioners,Planning Commission and the Planning staff determine their method of compliance with Measure 11, they will have to exercise caution as they contemplate a complicated process of review which could end up before the Court of Appeals. The planning process which has been undergoing difficulties in meeting its time frame goais with promise of court review can be anticipated to be prolonged as courts assume increasing roles in the process. . According to the report from Salem, the case on which the deci- sion was made involves the appeal of the Oregon Business Planning Council and others of LCDC cases including land use plans as being - in accordance with designated statewide land use goals. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Judge Herberg Schwab the court rejected the LCDC argument that the court lacks authority to examine evidence upon which LCDC makes decisions.LCDC had argued that its only role was to determine whether or not LCDC followed its own rules and whether the rules are justified by state law. The effect of the opinion is the high court interpretation that the Legislature intended that the court has the authority to examine all the evidence submitted to LCDC as the basis for its decisions and to decide whether or not the evidence supports the LCDC deci- sions. Without trying to practice law, the latest opinion would appear to open up continued litigation and give another reason to believe that land use regulation will continue to the center of a storm in the area of state and local government. r t qi� �{ �s � ">r+'S'��L,•�°�9T+' � 1)i' -fi , Y �.li� i rid+✓? .f 1� h A•S N +Ci�.t � � �t3 _ ��. �� tti �. Rr 't.. .+z•,xa' r .�..� � c 't s a 2r ti + ,>•'t'- J✓' ••,. �i'z:+F.• .�'t.''1? -tj`, � �h"'._L,y- ,e� 4- g' 9�y^.'.. �y `-- 'f.. -E£ "'1t h J-1'• . ..�. c 'y{ i'i T. �y r i_;t Y .`'•' '� 3� 4'y.tat a . 77 s6 :�. ��r7`:..;a•�b� ` y',ct,+�' T'Y '•' 'E' �`.itt 1.48yr e � ;:..�� If a ,; '1 Ari. ` •«j `✓' -+ '• �5� .'4;"Y5= ' .rte. ;�•m y ESS .1e� 1y"1- ; j ,t.m'7sth" �..r �•$ hw• K3 c' 3.,1(A`Li?�� �}}$!'�`•k ��.L� ,'�fl7�.yZ 1.� i•-r7„'�' frlril a , rt bks' X., , +"+ r+�1. �• �+ $y p jC3i';4Errii�E $3 of rearl of 01169z,t . ✓ CfE3i� 3tattOPs:` R FYCBGSarti'tr��`G6v�rtrarAtfyeh` fiCgwhrc#� 're V9rtassef�er,;iversximfprlDC .` rlw.- .�•.2 .e _ 7:,.�..ir��'"`t .t, p.*4 C tfo+r 2?7onritnecriti Bea a s 1 �,t..��,,��,,,,tt����►1'+..s'Ci>ordtnaitfrg p �serlotis prWQtns '[C has '".8•fit ti°it,yp;v YF 6:',8vevyom; ihe',nof3ded:..pet m Fv .� 3d5r�A af iaa developil,i �rt.t pasing' < Bdbd i93 ! < ., .r, '�Yr�x �f i• r '1 r :.SrJOQa Fl.t't!( tti.�s ueing`fliecl..gyp .1RSferdl =t- - 't s;'t'tt. '. -}. t '� ,.. �r•'� a rt Fs Pcrttan -, 3i+ak"Ca gratsfi catt@d'' t 9ad; WfeSut>-r%r�.t Kr:t6► rha,Gui! .�9 '� ,iir?1: , ' ti .w { s 4b c ..I@ O BQbrr V( iAmo adi kig T h vit• r..,. f uoard r.a ' 'Sr lats '�.l1CiA�..;..S.F1tfr.•`w�Br�..c.::.�y�ro ersC s1�-+C ,a17�a trt - �;� r �. j�.�� Vit- � .r _F � ,;_ - �.. iCazt7af amara} ;2 f .r,:;- ,�,, t } ;•t 7_ .a;,+.y F at•.,. �g]I r� r t,yr� .., - � F t�rF;3�tR ,�,V'IS•. f,•� '.°1� .. _" �.t � L h�f Ste. -i.:a "'f�lntl-t_Ci}C s-ry'!p9 ficLYRt�:- YITcd` +i r;lacksa,t I`.Wt,� �4uo� a �� _�; Wirt} sig. ' Wr agaln9� �Cr�C and file t �- t -f.y W9t16Y8'w _ - Ti -�,.R3"•. �-, `i "¢�7 �...s 3 t t. , c o-,f• ,- l Y rt'� s f > defatigabf�> tAitraoei hits pu a^a:her FirFt7xtivoc* �r F' t1t�6a is timet.Er jtLa�l r.g.u� Count proposal buEtdrngpe '+�r,"s drhicts.tnay vlaiat@ l.Cu:, frrat and r a;. ✓ h `" ° b tueest land 1 , ,`r+pig,,a ,rL3 �,. _ L „ c -s v a'f ,ti Sxy anfia H.Riihfinak Evert izL had don@ ''Rertr: i 10 'enfor`cin " ''R?rs r3u trnai<i is 3 tax p, , ,_in,t`t� f rilani;.G tic=-o yt ate requttdrttdfzt on thq fIPst'a'®vi@w. pf:ptans,uLCDC , r'BeaY,;htaryick, hiitc.ieii &.co..S.se'joine', 4he fires in < 'liutd stili f>et lefty:needed.if- the.hiture.:. r on Witt =rafters receiving a:f3 tchetor of;Scier:ce- Ci_�iree iii,t?usir.Es* y = admirjisirationfyom Portland State Wrsiver. r: 'intense gSoE+rth pressures in I9L'S, 19�„:955 and - t 8yustr}.:Chars y the_;'flr-t round "cipfattswlir have Mrs, Pill, is a me^:he> of the.4 an !, .;: f a 13e "mads Fjctd�d` �� ~ a+: CertF#iad`Pubiic Accoun amts. Oie�,a Ea..�ers A ociat:on ` 'tiered: , ra x, ft7ir ,change3 tBVH air@adyf^'Po�tiand Gi2y Club and Natlonai Society of Acaouritants for r '��+i '- , CoeperathrPs'Sh^is also s iremt - cf the Orsgart 5ce3Et; of ' r Owe- d,Appro.cd to data ara.'far-from `Gertltted Firhfic Accountants inhere she has'served as the.a2t: jChair Cies:L�y Beth t�tiden_ =State'' :,'inem6er,`-and ,ha��t�ete the.'posiifon3 ^f-`�reassiter .and ' ' nqCa'rtiiarit�StafF'AttorirZeyBaEiaa:ej�`.showecretary.,sdsuias efactedfo the-bo, ift,.r4..ir9uaTfd=tl3rttect i y , iJt;'s �iBift Riance-: uitfortut782ety, "Feflects.th�'ii " treasurerof.lt Friends >r` e z �� Y FJenvirttntttent )cr w#tFctt r as^alwa s �` :• T E as�sep8siedfyr=,�}r6 �" '"�Q_. jOCai �CftLtP9 ®fh9]Clnd ilf 40Qthiess s[rai ' " ` tune , f•e, 4s' lid �r r, taC�C6t�Ci i7�i f`e 'ure,;. :}la lrnpu. apportunl r Mat't, to pr;�grd�'s traditianaL cP�,Jn'ents �r�i! i:� r- gave bt ,s3 t x„� r ,� r',„� ', pu3lting hard for in Ehe1�LegisiattsF c3hytfii�ig�; &?anger,l !?G'Fix'ttle FMr.Rtchmo id is EIT x free ` ©cuttva Pc a 1t7GG Fitendsof Gr dor, iJ r r II � t�orrecttoriiettue�€edy ��'�A�-F;�,..$ rbls: t A��f.�t �;.yiy ti, t��k -_ � _ _ �,,,,,�t � r .• wain` .�'..�?7 .- � � 'r �e r d t "L'»�1. ;t.._ems.. 'f ?�/ 1 `-�i1 K �-. .•'- � r i�5 t c, erg . sz,rteis b ti [U-S-i�6STAiv�t� U i gC�B'ixan eaSe�F7s ��Z PBrtiand,Oregon etc �r� o id�ti' � .y� SI ' ! z :PeCrAO 70 ," I R! i��; �sit°v'.��j 13a •/f fy'� de��a t'�.,.,It a f' {. re t v'��"r, Ar'r7 r.' ”' .., .: ✓ -.y .�r�,�V � �q';' pt ,'1, Com. a.rf 4�{+,��,., ,.f4�. S r t. t •,� },;,., µ.r.. _i n.nt .� { }{f r %.� 4�`` J 'ar�iar^y�,a t;J,':�-y�� tr. 4 �..���ttrY ��i•O i?1i�}�C2" ,r 'a�Yts-+�. Nre�. ) - r � x's,,, � ,�„s • _« �, y: :2 �-ar t'fLS•-d x. .r ^,�'',..'- cn� r �� t� ,� .�: _ .e -:i. - Z's' .,'-� 7�"'�'..�,us,-S.�' t�,�.�' -t - �'Fz �''°i ar ,� t;'s�ditOPStf�trftrET +�' ; ,t"' Seo' .+�..➢'-�-Yl "Y'.e�+5s �ti. t r r:s..= � ' .�, c.:.rar rr<s'r'-",.e-•..-_v-'-i -. r,:�:•i.arae'x-' r . .rxe- fosic areata affray ;t-xc F •` z,,py' ,r 7 T I G 3 97 8 X 1 V r '` it r -3F. a� �1' t� ^� .�i s':,,�M1.� ''..,� �e,i �" E. -t' Y rt• 7 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION _� • ` �`f:�� ���, ,r-� - a`*_"�����.r a_• CITY OF T I G A R D WS SUer i1& Sc� i9�'Tt1T .�Owintd��� - P 0 9DX 23397 T t» t4#€ t e TIGARD, OR 97223 trab� aa �iak-0aductIble}� ,fit r {•• ��a< �.�'; �� - t - H � 'T�S��`'0 '.� _Ti�'� ..'�r6 '.^ d? F}}��"����i <,.. •,t• *� `�. -a � r..�54. � Ap '� � .R ti�ac• ids ���, "� TINOWNW, -.7 11, �N ;v 3, MZ . W 4 . 2;v! � 42 'aa-. fi.�i slid W.N. i 3a :x; 7 5 i Oregon is t3z+� UZitie In AlftAZ�'f "tabMsff the state-lex 4,.',p6llcte5i,"a'n'd*'i races P.3yPedless, �.proc ;Th '-',AdkhdW1edgmdnt_-'Crunc ;;necessari*I'fii�7,i -hauq nr use planning, IN,— 2 of the bcd wind4, it tv cities Zi -14 "n" -jo adopt-,com prehensive pta6a ' lmplemeq. ting�"�', and to submit them to Lan�L-Cbhaarjation and RT [TIES rs: Hera ��:;mmission for evaluatfon��_g'aic)Nt thR--:Stat'*_ .'OTU ' - , I-—; �_'C4 •rk "50 deAoals.;-Tj•;,j evaluation proce-,s is' ackno --plart is- wredged,:`Atzmeans--�' 96'a ce vi� rM Y.- -4 the statewiije _V=-otindittobeincornpli.an , Ilixi a u K I e,S;PTM. 0,-a. -egizo n A had 6ckn`b.w_fe8g'e'd trz*rpians and- gn aens isl. za�fl -pj,opiy�78-of 241 6ties.(32 percent fa� W "'acre!C. io 41ch icibd 't� -coo ,and 5 Of P,a!"! perm C�', .10gh density.. P. atZ5.unlf9j*, nt%_ -'-th_ ;F;j-'. rJea neju its- Iri-mspctnF-.e to LCDC's-Jiiiy. I -19W, tt .171,percent):These w6te reviewed-dvei� 464-1- f ti evi�,a Mer arr! fai�. I ew as J`du&V,. - Z;units an: S; &rfy.I 15Cr local governments haVd-iuhmitte� plan 12 for., &54 plana are:••-ordue-and.could arrive a, 9� to ts N _-tP6�recej6t of thes6_plarjs, all at-once, places;arl f impossible bifjrden on ECAC and its st m P f�"P ,IK -arm facititi --LCUI. main-rjw.me:-�r :;r:tre5 pzoning.approves nsj y.,acre& ' nex j Th&_ackriawredg ment.crunch will placla '.'.1F. poc et*-' _irds;d-L=C-ai-statt tciidisregarcr�'goet-violati(2n'g-ana.. k hj hich-are a- 1 rre�a ye - 7pea, " Irr a n s.-T he sueness o f C.,rogon'S'lan d use nstaCCC, C: prOIJUAreorkLCDC's.abilitytc• wiltowledoe'bntythe pias 'out&hav% �V R -an ar s oseareas_ .- '- Because cause Wdid,Pvets waste ., .aezon4ngM bcns!derabIa{Iran qi- 1,,money to Sis DAY bnnece&�-_'- and uncediltiA.`&v6rhmenfre&j HALLOUK", Zoningii rwa-Ukr iiZed- -3 By not lrnfTiedfgtejj�16�� FAl' I "iW�la .Conlin iMthis-case an unfair buraen*dWordof on'appilakdt DC'does its icbright in thei lj� rercent','' that' e,;6'r go to court ati apolicant3 for affordable highAens tt Mat LC A[ng11ng out','o-V-- �t is eclal...,_ 'tL - agajhjfj_ ._. 'L .11-1. 0 thing ant"LCDC i ew to cause is d nE _ ji.e'do--not vv r6nteiar.04makind.,Jk� I t. d:--': e ay-. n those Cases wher Wyers an 661 an unn�cissary,d" I -, 1 6 a legitimate -land'develapaient'requIres a-plan as -;zone change, the end€resuitThe Pi�PA apP nts!atterni tAW_1-tt-.--'- private-,se A &" 715 , ctor-Ahould- be,btjrde�jed by.'drawn--Out T- 6pensivef irbut ex�&,;mprov!oq,��' 4;1 city s housing ne eckW* paper jlffsimportant� I kaCeq A kwi be Tac, pap "a remember that.under.- - T need.costly, -11 every.stemo A#fj&rjjCjd1:._ ".-plans,tha-f LCOC.-goals,'t zone mpedirti6irtij fftr,M. Ile n for.zo. o_-.�-toout;.-developmeni�_Wflt. b&� giveatij., t`- V. 4 'COS d Wch are-tooly.,_-AW tq W. t !ffie-. 'Witty. biff provides thatt e plan contain standards:.governin ezonirib .those-.zona Furth4rt-oliir "d RJ�'changesmeed`not be submitted to LCDC for compliance. ...... . ewiord -ter R self.is changed,.or U WO Ui.,-��6Mtft thd bc.:!S. here tf pla it j �smn -serving ;k s a change.in zoning.po i a of .'t 1 1 cy that'wasn't called !4 quire U h" -changed_'�Wh j'L 11 _f�eSt2blishe-3 le4dprofltabrymd ik-or AimbA�- Where they�are needed,bliFibil or So" do t review,by LCDC, Ora limita-�ta assure promp� X'sn _ , gyQU & rt- " art, ..Our, 0- fi�Thei� -.are-..:other ant, prav slons---.of k7j,P 'ackrio 9f. dit- Wiedg me Lt4t7SY.n=Sisrv'tais review locaL plans-every tworAd five years to ro , Goa S.- ptect our eau wi that.they remiiih:Iff i:dmpj'ianca with.the* The'tas ki'anis-M�i ca--needs hejj key ta.T=ntl1nued'-%trCrTg land.-Use,pfanning, 6�liew of the u P r fxcu4v�y program in Oregon, howeverw'fs�thet-re pcaymns- gzs e s.ession_lfyo;j ciiii work a _quiremen# that T Y' t'7-fdw hours a week or ' tkL.ca17=9- M.,- LCUC review and approve changes tri and coun' even one day a nwnn !$,L ans� 'Oregon haus0nvestedterr,yea on JQ i'-You wild be welcorne"adih Aper,arm W:,' -the land1r4i6urce&'6fth.l W Ve4 S'staM. a.are only TdWbe 94&4`bW1ZEr-tfi4i 4%7�4 Try it—you'll likir: ginnin fifi4,6,siop or turn gil %.41 VLO A� JnVipsI164 tail years a re- on has, W, to; Caned r4iddiciiii f-this-4 stit,e�,This ismV_ N� unteer.. protect at q .dtlum C lk,._- '*A, L .1! -4.t ' dr - } sV :firs i _ T::'�" 5,$'-' �- `�tu�il •-4 % i p �i �d" •fq -T,-W'.'TF3 '£rc�'� �.,�-z.R a�' 'Pi .,.{'F: �`' , �� -''K!e t rx" i. •'�9S r t�� ...rz .��pgrrC�A����,�-� 8�iy� Y�n {- � '" -,� 3`r � _ 'T' ��. F--.-GO`�'+z2��.�. it rs..- k- .� o `3S �+ q•2 s,,a•a s�T��ss+.]4w.i�y[s'- �y.3.�,,.,.}�. � t ti „_�+Y'. ffi � 2 SIN i i RYs. at3ltk s i ,. s rr+1� 3 r , �� C!fttTU ` Q`f6s ��Barras c xa s rr� moi• Sti M r x, �1ir" i�yy •¢� 7•, ?� ,i j •..i. i� �TT 9'--4k Y �'L ..2H1Y �.. f•.Y,iL:y4j �}Tiw Y+-SlamPF ..,.r 7- `/ •. �"� a' -•i",} -3x401 { s. �;-l:><-„�,Lii: �at4?Lr`r�'". :'1. t .bte' r. rlCaclti - �izi++:`r1s3tr rTF4r �r �iS�1 �rakY.&[Fla ,:�t?dJe Cr�rx ottl� rTIQSIn a. `( 3ht� r'f.�,e i�ol` �if'iCof,servattor f:ounti,Ff c serf ab^-�tt rn .._ , „ ..'aid';D � 4- ,- �� p ttudly, a fpicixt€ttr d r ere '41Rt r. £�+e, 'tet ►v ,.- Po i,rc3 �ti3aJ"©re ars - y'�.2.Sat1 asrrFg ce 'mrtfegn;acrd a' _ g'c :rGr tivttich �h s Uu f=$rRx apt fa►nriand.lr �3' x 4 g .tnd'trie the DepaaBm rt { .::<� e, aro,,na i�,t_if zrsE r: �< �?LCDC 3.+? i taiso said Yhatz ftttirtetTc rs.'obvious It Y Y- jh acicnor�'! d e for SDC. f Pf .easiife pi 4� q!AF 7� grrtitttcat�F'.3cres u,! �_.t pr u�rt '�er;e�cens orr ,rte sub ,. . " i 44¢a. Y.rt+*b t t li ' ff° fW _`'� t i - E `aalCrlQWfd rS1 { ' on-• SL >s ;'07 f c' 5 ` ar der$ tl �,Tat11t)(f + t3 �'R !traLk:'reCOrd P + CttO$BF firof ,tta agri7aU1 Le.S, t l.r 7 �'`!`rr t7+. (iMhen'a�� 3F(jO�G ti t 3t. -. i �nf1kEY.rTi F F' Y7C?�j ; �f,"y(ah ice' 41 fir.. 1 1tz tScs aE� ae ; rc'k'iC r tQ e@ ti1F)�I , 1 tF1Et � +L s a; '�+i�•iF t �t phi 13nJ1 ,,►fr�ga,4: rc;.cr �,R tir t i, x 4 ;�'n•�r'��t'v r.`if�ttsrE�,2414 �C:?��.'it1 +r ry �e a .F'- `r - !"_Llt� p ►'iCUttLI '' - ;dam•,-Y•Ja'9-;.,>`r , "'ice r8f; C3r 5:.�Jt t?tflri<j rad �fttatPa�eY Fsalt� i.� ti73i r trsunL �}t �?tbf.tafi!r,17 Corti fF P4r S' rti tl6dqi?Canta a/en_w t t+iEr+ y � j v ti@1141/�pt�ti$ c4 �'r �: s� Qr5e ac'i tcsLcae auaiY.fia r�grtcutt►i:at t antis Gaai_ ti x 'wlrta'fhi8 ' Mature i .'r?.:.;rariaa is f '�' 3 in e8 �pf1 3n[i �, r rtt„ tv3.•i1. ,;•, a t _ '',. , -s-•�Q.ti7G.:S+fit Wanntr t 1 car .L'�._ �g a 'the. Z4 r.C1,.�Yii t in asEtan 3svdjQ t i.Gi i �F ¢ton +✓mba k&dupo,i ihs teadin ' ` tztUdic.ral:redt at` i i:it3 #arra#arctp__yyrr. c#fart Q �a►ofaeknauled rale +- �` ',fltC�r`t 't7 tit qr` Cfe3f�,.tt,Q;URitEfi iat85:..,Y �, _tOUc gCO1J � es"ratrc. i;a a `sg;�. g M `. 'N8l3itstne_s Inc;t}din{t-1-st-ttiiltt'a j �lthvtsiot8i ric�2?.�t{tfanyatte rte.: �.; x r 80 � ii Y'tiflYai Y�436tr.LC'i t tcf=Ef it r ' Zit r $Lp+. R r ,� '° tor!Id ?¢�szat°3;et 0 c�or.s lstogr�rn rs t?n frac ierge _ s _-_ t+ar-, u �y urnphae,t auc�;sss ti ,• .,i_; y all apptiCat,ons for fare- i7r^ n - Nears rf ra�,itlry�x f h r - .• '.. . Friends aL �• y A a Matswide stud b 900+7 PIC e wet.;:, `.•�' y_e y' .. '1t1rDx ed (:1�u�.�oe`�:ri4nfar.� F.{.•io .,auras rFU zunmg Practrco ind+tate,that dwellior- , r` cauniy�: use5.;Nava opzrred_;flaPin9 holes in Gtia. s, i3e,anmenda2 bn� r farmland ro a , the •. Proval br professiot.a! staff ar 9 <Jt tst Th 3a:. newsseems.to be tfiai.rc.rat 'bY,elected officiais. FranriiriS-c mist�rytis, r ai'..�d F es,dence: i4. , 1 Dane 'af 'cammerclai farmin 'offict�;-s anct o heat is cq 'acontlnue.to spread.,ai�oss;.{ regon's.,iarnlia�d,g _aunty ,Omrnissione,_ ottan-f ;f: to nye ' ;tet 't3Ffs' . vr,th fi?idings, on .rerun an ard,. Many- frrrrccounty boards andpianrting Rirnissions Perfunr tory d "findings are • s ,Ne,ther ttl L,sgislatur$ nils CCtJC, rY the county is_me,st k •�#e d acid EI=fJ,; �Gciat 3 ibases and'da_ not stand-, , y ='tauctltii�?it t e zgnrng to crir;�ptefet� ciase,tt,e door on neN opinions inter retrr,c - te- scrutiny ^� t>'esidence �in f ' a act*k7. man pr sly` taate=`rl r }g recf i P state t _ xF_ac lresideneas ars'iii ns3Rf of ebv no r ,�c c GS �r rig. BStLf@SiCLS..`�iow r" _� 5i= tk ti}•ri ; ' ltt Skr, l194d" �, tt'er;prograrftq'¢,tQ limit, the rte aPProved three t-- TPnes as t� o ;rtenreatden �~�� t , ° cfvvell, s .'ir,fcve ?l' �:::me Flair`_:. i x r r •f,s ii �- g ,:� aYears a5 there ara•tarms frr ttie' `'�` Or^ `a ! r GcicsltLy ,v r g+"�r s - irrTte� US@.S'RIBSi d ht c.'��'=:•�,••,.-.,> G.t+. �..x , zc - .a.: & CQ►> 1a741t8 4dbrs, riO �+g•-' g QOC t.t� _�trlathes count slti aPProver! g ppayrng`and, far neva. ,. ,- rY apRt,ca£ior� fcfdt ,3s We3t�a4�ttatorCycdeQr � signed of _aelQ elated Par �,� ,he;:same em t } t S farfi anrrrat ,And no farriier ^�, =i` W4;bwe.l►nq tn��ciiljuhcliersi `xrsith P iicf add'far fg_tla+d,ngs can::aff"'1 ':tha rtirat 'comrr;e,cra farmfr� „ J a b - acre:.parcel iaeritdaFr .arkrlptAREA,-!, 1i .r ��►qtt=ratJbi � ty�ttTG_Otf3Rf :Yts21 it£' vias go 1719 to Cttl , s t7af s9tAlernen'�';tyya w� � J` 'It to drrtyrYs y ; /arra d;veit+�t s; `ys 'r Or' rQuni�f•afrpved everjr'apPficattcn filed for fn!$nr ul tia Cgs tiCthU ,r� , Qts c nonfa m festdenGe,cn the countyr t ' Atiltit677.ta_ i}ierJtL' 5raiYT'• .? ,"te cFt, ciItfrP Vis. $E. Uzcsre= }..aletr-� Froi*r raxi�7 .� r•anrexastjrrg "a x ''oaf}n. -many at the apptiraiiors shoilid have besri s:'4� else, p ;hoseir7cta twill.. nott[6 vi�ith �+e w 1t fain a lc*nsratid� y_ Quid have be,E�i�eni !fi petat ed if counties:were'apptyings`. vir?nicoccua:.drti #;state sfandardsas ir�te�iided.:.i - 8trrtruse.�, � „ � - c ,rx 'ftundred- oa nen reside;ices estead,a eraG v.ffie afI Tfie Leisf urgand f� '; farmJat�d the E: has sprouted art ih�v fa neve te3totsnces_f'r is l t ..r ur,tsh�K M&standards t' .- egiatafuie and LCDC have s , tleasaresgdf6ftfual' fa` 3r_goverrrrrrents.fo :<;:of doflarsand marlyy of effort to rat t mfN '� 4 �a+nst ttWstanciards. Unless.:the- .w��a�i'iOre ':$aid - o csl i1r these # - YPicat oftrs ; lt°es„arcs �E20nitl�,� �T those across the state.'..,.oae of;-t thtRQs {y irti,4�r u muni bs done_ Either stats standard_ " - u , 9 s#2i Fnenct'�;f ',a wa anth stud to reduce ttT, 0 9 tea k ORty, Et=i TO iR y of o must lie Y rZ_.:? f7t op forab►�se Qrrfta stater ua€' ; n wut?tfes `re d°t ink uuhethe�ex, f sreexam,ns the d isdom ot= tsavirl ¢fail ttfn isfatuc $ ural ce $ rr 'ay th ttveriimeilY td. the it Mt -' •' f etsd®d }PE • - e;r •A t the responsibitit), a. gr~^ 2:cau hcirlkJl '�7fl Eye t' T tiYSlrl [F VOfunteergi • `; a responsifirdit at Apd1_ tandarr Z_ y1��fhe rY�rre ►Nitfametfa. 6ear;•�� _: mast same cauR fes are. rnabfeE tem ' : f/�tfsy:taout$tFP±ss r'� r#rap '' Kr�i . . >�3 -� �� .41� uthernpotlnAiea as.aC '" aster, and �']00(1;Friesidsv�ri�t `� ,• tdY t esufts tiara Ethe* � ~1 ` ; f �� the.'esutis mPleieifts studtr and_acirsaunac=. Y rc: fib$ YE�ar' ¢i3t ter`' " tt,N ABr B�t�ae:a a affaSfsi�eo� p 'e1 s v i. k ,. �s �,�`a K. .� 11 ��1 ,, f =' TT.. 3 A.-,'�". .1 sr.b 4�$, `34 r. .t•�c_4 G ! S� 1 c f•, �^ ...F kr < PY r: r`s�-t�-e -.i-1� c�etc r 1 a° P ,y 't { i-�..-s t "y s >Z iA L Res s t ri ► r i a•F� �• �:' `_moi ,`. '' '� "�;`� > a7"Yressur �,+' ( KJE"'�` R..'� f I'• c no ,,,a3I te Rxne r Tn tAee' iVIL'trCC wertirrtents'. lo6k to what' PP , 7 @ f(1t i$ Y. e JL4 rF „i <OVSL C f ra+her than RObert �s s y zt r �� Iasi - gPP ttithaG i:EL1C saitLir:EP^rotfing►i _ ', 1. >ti iCti } ;anseitte ; !t should;tfzerefore be'na =urprist a�pat .faEEowtttg ;,t l,t t.CDC rej Tt?Lpercejit;of cety'anctt ut�ty t.DC r- 9u�9�1Ttted firaLkttie�isr`t mi Qf f, LC©C s decision In the Metro case; roved UGF s 8fs? 1'E�issta�lstlauvvututeactoti �tdr tti sties;ef,;h ancnost*r, 'liiiTon Frecwatart; and t mPisance:w`tlgo tt (opdburn.�vhictratsccontainemaretand fhan nbBdFd ? ` ' the ebti, t CDCYs 1y8' :;S ,�g , :,tor`fiifur 'growth;,Li4ce Metro' ,.`these UGSs contain a�. and hosed its ravievk of Ftleat`plens.• w _. ,f +-Nothing.caut bg r�citser from tl•s�,tcu;tf aha'sac8fact< f '`farmland'that shauEd Hower, 'having,vyack-peda!!�d *� ' 3 repeaS,xlrrse after:t�arr ►tj!► t 7 �from.'tha iiaundary cttcon to be`Yough qs that cEtY n r�4Unl }slat! �' in � tSC�na{ t Ycltj't Matra,_LCLC-was in a pe �p same Viola.ll �feo' 'me;goal$; � 'frari g3e 'j&6-tough- 'on �tr'"VA htheseasnaiteresti�s y` Coke butt :t Kvarsterz> A:iotna '. aver.. , paE,tical d..iston '`was LCD e focal plans,'r.. 3s�:its dareetar, t/Keg h art Mend av �'batcicward Yat >*� appraval las# December of an ' eacriof facfrniar► rina YienNX"3d asstbte '� '`pegricceE4urat>Laneis:Goal.for b, 0: ' mmddat t nmg t h P "- . ntv turn En=a plan propastng :NanethcT.. u;tis ysaall?f # soca# 1?aik.0.'s>~nty-Thecou ss and atteri Press W,F; ac e� at farr.� _foxes# lend:fror„ t1fr. . jpiiticians,! •? , ,, f ,:yyhelPtec § oa�tyc but, co:nty had de'asl?aifindjn s' for 91. e a c ty ar_.,p t.Y ,r ed that the yes -9 eetuSes to r t a1g reacted fa re � 12,OOft acres: The rAunty s,rrP'Fully f.r'tarminc (tt,e' ` fi^ tits crtttcisel rantei!a''nt? LC; , 41,000 a:res were tc , ,The ag.. _` vranf :r atfit�e.treag0,iwhtch t s Ina ning - esi its posttlon (n �- t�t�ce_ar LC17C deftnitton:of agricultur7` ,and t2kes sle Cs to , •-, - :;s: of fort€r .� ;altlrq�StE tt o . ,itinks.m_ 5 r ; ��r ti r account.and iov p? itP,the G�ovetsti is er�ied af�tiutL ; r€sefC.Record oresi tndustr€es Cac�nciE Esa,se.'Cascade both The ag ., lana Et has appt� rTppnssents of y� ob�,elacita the county's Tura!rssidentta�zoning} ECDC usa m smaused . lt',ttumber of acknoWlpdg menu-.;as y LCDC�re ha aunty-com' tomss onecsthand is laeavoca�! t �! stridently y r "evidence`;JtIf- fsr*'t ciomg !ts jol] rigf,t t�nfor ; � Kowevar, _ re 53 tin acre exception ^ tunately, LC©Cf? irespondedtothis APUilbudc,Y cisco � xrj-daMtfayatoft eentip Continued to insist s rs.Mntt on f ' �)• ` by ac plans it shouldn't approve:i• f E,- PP� Thera:is,n?,Ptovisiort-:ln slW1 ,,+j , ,(ramcally, even -#tie co�tcs; _ tn-detS�adequate Only,' acres were shown to be_'committed to i r :CDC to taf�e;.`�-politics'`, into cortsider'ation in fssuEng ¢"F �ror the rensa:nsng 1�. claimed, = acknow.leclgtri=.,. s_ ®elt oiders Ttte lavu;zays`that i5e .»� n farm' ses Thw other 6 c3Q, the county` "' Commission tfEsu deny a ptan.,wltic atis,taE« mP€Y -Ir w `�tesded ''to supPEy vitt ffl demands foyer �F<< wttil the goafS-;pp6 Paver,jiT key Ca3 4+�+C ha�b{SV�P@Ei' . :patiticaE sierations•by apprmui plans dQspf � Ny-� gceslfes s� Cyt �; :Stets .1Viarionoaesfy i'SKeaatctYr )t.� [�•;. . 4 .` cr'�.t'';Jusa.feva_months befoe'�e,,in, :n a at vialati s x„�;t �. <a 7ls tiad-saidFthat market r:. ° � r ` arr CoCrt"oF�iP?. > L � *. } � � t►e._41tsg t eloprnent does;:ra g 1�AcTR ,Un e. ti t, ,z ,,� °. - Y . 'geor�tfr-� datssaxul'°.foe`„rural. resici�n sal dev Take =ttre5ca�4pEet- g�mmittedx , sanstctllte a `eased' far ice; as thowe er;•was fe'irt�gr bo'undarjrA,t3t3'W-e-trbPnfttan�Sescyis Dia c LGu gexcap-ions procedure. `r: , UGC_foci2th�Y?grtfanc�h hetfdp�litarF area wttirtt � She pressure from Polk County,Itgave in on all 12, 9hart was needed , ,s. s x rovat ta..the 8,000 contained Z`xf� .ngre:vatcaritat acees,..ratheF,than smiting ,,s;aPP °for proJec}ed tUtuca grow#tr.;l9rf®aro ca#ted dt::a :market z toed:acres, as-a concx`=wn to_ isle county _for t factor.,,a.st`Sep4 cot? x,1979;LPPa:Yut Cafes° oaf �e fi � nm =down tha county Propos sei�us 41,000 acre 9t i and m� tSGe- h , surplus or unneeded: s Re,A, excegtton ` �� ,e of ; second time- tIvtetrao roma U¢SIlth a„ in►a «.� s-'i::+ a... 7daaFr.:akssRYiRt^-FX.� B#1�fk 8-3:s ..t .. sw. ez� t.tftz.C •It.S.eJ.. r� rguments.Y re a sgtortaE; ? aa'fi1'P ttt ":•""' ' u `”a�ptiort:in iate.19r8and had recesved,approvai back'.a oily a year,later wit ' w wafer. (Metra`.faced'the prosp3ct of seeking:c►ty-and .. � coming. g 3�2 ,�6 OflfT acres: t3 -. county suppo>d`'ta contlnue'itg Funding end cosdd not '---more,asguments.for the sams_decision,the county"got Kit of fora€ Ise the t¢Gt3 without *ti iicxirtg;th�a+isar�a�s L ,` anathei 6,000 acres af`rurat residentia;zoning apprcv ;,} ! d�ficiais.) ' :i ' ry` :euentlioughthafactshadn'tchanged trcredtbi�*,l?Ct✓i 'apprcvei�e saR►e ielletroC� €rt' ty$8yerai -cities and°cauntEes',fiava pro#Ess Stan► s 'GecemSer ttia ;t;had-'"eontfnued ;. In SePtestttser It -.�e 'persistence w€th-LCI7G-":TheCon'unk sian hasfre4uent w_-based its-decision_orr F/letra;s,`�yniqu }s:refatrartahiP approved all or. fricst a= ars -agricultural exception ar ' with Incas .governmsnt Wand an tocattona factors y i i,•, vented tand`rax`ting takers out :urban grnwih haurdarfthe se and time it's su5mitted, which,LCDC:said,pre after.rejecteng it ib,ttiailausin n..the2r'ass mate off 4 tore a: o�ever; LCDG'.aowtt sta#f ident+fted -� ado this.is by,stmply 5 . of the bourtda11^. i�tth tai `.geEI �undary Another. live all areastnrhich they said!'t ttiJ ba cu trorn the '�' •. oa t-.pulation�RQ .n ?4.1G$. LCDG'sost 6r Ignored those firm y k�xs ti� tia furntt�pagV" E q' V.1*1 �,3 4r=.. �'f' i,,, ,.,;) r .' ""•t 'j'-jra i ,d•"-`` _ L.CDC Cave$1tl { 3 r a f .Aine t{icectrn gyp' e�.+rf' a n .i s....�sra€lRtRtuP.ntta�t�eY� ► n� i The prQbFem;.with-'a PC: Wcae-eti� t i •1�`•":tii'T+ :•��1.ia>�A AABGfiH;fV CDQ ss urabl1%;,VG-ctrcatlp t, �t ;Eytani daea;tia'cct a�titt4 ag f��; � � ;decision is_thi , Z- �� r "tocat effect,t i iii far�cas�. + t r ,� M - ., tir2al:111s `' `•e yY•� `4-' y� � � �3 + �����yYL ,-< %f• Otti.-.�r,..4y�.Pj, `� ;y.. ; P. e, .Ii` �' 4 s•+ .r 'Y_ +l £ .N•l� e LY }j T �J ` -� .:.A �luk''--)v •�Z - �, fChC'Y.�1` .i �.p�r'� i �. ' p••������,_„t ;�. r ed7�3�ri.1�+'!,(•f�•v,l ��•,r •P3• a�� ��':'''��„'� i 'qts ��" -^nM � ,'.�, �?t. � v f. t�� SE_:.t C o.F` '>ti T y -•' 'r t Tz -_• ..en erg• -s fit ti"hl..:fir: •-Y S L' "'L 'k.,Is. -•Fj `+ 4zv.•:.iir' 3.YY'+`"♦.'.. ..t. ,. T :4TTyt..,,e,.cd f�� - a;� t ,., .� t� tk ;',{ y�'` ' ►d recoU C E n ttt�.apps#cant and'Tri , r ;_�r requTiesic'fittorial pttCbearing"s:�tie;4n tin t�se a�f `.i,' �' 3Vai.: fldArd9;lFlftlCt t.:[-JZ% cT?IG le£�i3 t�8nd, " awl `st t agsn.aos tite:5`ai 1' etsin$.C�u icik t� whTcft YIle c#ty;attl['USes ':" v�,g�c and c'iscrc�tionary', J ?` g_ aa `8 gttrri#t#rPtSt in ;deer trnpl�lrni>3tfan;of;tl1B a� _� } hertLf:i?Gi,was cs�tFsi�i rg pkinevitle's ' id$�t'lCSarire :n SOH~ fid o t afia "oat 'tQ,�Mz t ir�usinil GnunGil ux f rc fears to,L`C1a£: that she yrs '� y 3 iri Q "sesufr„+ilre have;deiec?Acl. stn€i of-t;3 ,city,-would. aprRy[°the6�'frK t,iOnai tyl tts g it ct • rty *f i t} rnf to porfi lPz,te:ft4 rjir�iassible in µn+ ,ititarrtJly t7ttititsstg g{ 331T a�OJts,:i -,g "L '7.. dtu� '.at 1T tsdnc-2 C�E'iav i�C.�L ' Ff ta,r S V QCS. h- a nr� to tt r+ : tier Pro',� • t,t(•:`� 84 `rd 9�iCY.d I S i., irlipo taJlf f iTUttit<, <.:y „3trt)t"iii+F3 j:t 1 itt- t'F qt!, �t a .� i,� 1 ti #;.�, as :Cl�require,i io oerns'in T�cali tn+pp�n a - i 'Gum i� r,lr w eiJ ..4aat-fiGf,�tt-.,- I,+� G' + .�rC ,' wa 'sf ,r i, wrote 100:Lc_ saying fie HdJi°s slori 3 f!f ce��, carr rttahe housing Ft CeZ of€:�Cdabie tra � , - 1i � ?,i-n e to Or; crit. �s '.TY `is iJiewe6 cy.raquirfrg iOra b a Ar tadles_'to' Ett`nge ti+8r zoizing artd,"sasbdivisie3,L - :xtrzc +g c.itE;r tr to J;I,'eat ;;denyij1g ,,�K;ti�s•• i+ t rtic� lsc sensitive to �s nW.:'Qna ob1E- ivr Lut .i� es r}se 1r. ii UCii9 F a ttlat i*+ca j�nd use f 1r1C2�s,tlJ1$ o- „ L �+i lt%3� T tJ� n7>7t + `'° ,'OSit10rJ tG .JeiC 7rriP;",: hsit:peopEt?rs affordt:�'C� y fki'ctf<t3�sr? 9 i.,nu. .1rc1$xc icr s' '�ocat ;witk r� t" the r de ri 'tc ie.� iri sons t Y+' :'Xanin Hecrc:s. t r fiop� CL1., tik'• r.:'tyq_.t� l"i�9L'9triQ.iO5t5._-gtlCh:ay i,3r}: � �:;lllf''S �'iCh, �,+.�.tr':d rlrr. i,} •'.tv7! .�t.it��% rbc,;cee ' p hVier fess, s 'ots� sht]ri.titr c.: e:iuhf fa lily.-zoning, _ , lays in apptav't, vague atandarcis, lack ofbuildabte T i dslrivesito-Ic+s and IFk '';rriusi f eliminated ar�w: +fa9y�2Ti h r '��ttter L6st�gpt7t�'� t+s�; ` t adifi •'L� ' A +{tr3 _, J }-; tTi t LCiGl✓racknowledgmer+t_ # t11G' f It; ffr{ f ,,�w l �, c a o; i�Y� a9� ; �tit3(7 $ rB: nt$:'3tlothe��i�J.i .G 1GC+ fCli I+Y 1 liE ti1R + ' . + , Secondapart :trorn'Sftfi�° Vafus tii-.making,;these k�� r 1? n ? `4he'revieW proms is'slgn#flcar3: hecause it is tacked an ac7..n�ate<hausiii� rtEeds arai�si : i hmoutn reforms;. t "'I`.30" of:-alf l•fonrnauth ,imrattant?ilatl�onaf'r+xpe Ti�sc:sit: Congress exctuded data L _N: d q'.t, s�sp{►1drej,;and.tia n't ever ieall trieyd.to reform households wera- !cx ince,.,e iarn,!• tiaiLte fs3r t? ythe local€ F mated Tand devetoprtmezrtt'prescess lR our.',,' rousing asslstarce; disre^arded:t!+e itat}s,r+Q r+neds c i Y;. College of.Fducation an ' lederalNsy>tc�n.only the:slates`are tem In-�i'.position`to only l ,pj ov dei.cdents tonsiderJinabty-gle—s ,buildable .!z.nd zbnF� !�+r Y - : {hat`. f VwipeopleundE�stae4d h&Gt'Nagai is=the only i T ° ,-mediurn and ht h density tharfwas t+cVdn to pe y3 h_ ataid; acir. toha4a4rewgnizedDtsrnspori3ibilityby g FTnalt 4Yie establfsPsieJg 3fate-#evet° �ictas andt a"review process r needed iJt Jts";owtn..pEan. Y assisted,t�ouaing` ` 4G`` neediessC h}gtJer housing required a referendurLi on alf fedeara y's grhlCl2 ark ri. essary Y �. a ro este >The referendum `pravtsio : ha>+ created: as esutts tla focal Tari dtt+te[opmenC process q' R + i r t��t ftas.accorrptlshectf' pattern,-of discrimlrratiorr against 10 irlGFv ,e ttoGEe cxdatte rfirtoltvg' 3 'holits_-in .iVlon+�touth ,Despite,ite5e major p#cnw Y uch ;sraleJ�4k►str�ctTorr3'stiJorator}albitsd Cines i XYZ deticia~icies Y ene.'tii~vrfiiei� pfd' havQ GFertx �F vaft��ndts hsv ,ba tfi;�e•_n grc fr,C ?� i?m _' list xtd1 tletail�id'.tatt�fdab143 fantls la r riartes'and i sn4rra ed €Monmouth's plari�OVC, 'oeginp, ^ tix.. Af9citisms -`r : �' tt s yi'►Jos rr+�fr 7nn1 .8nolig i a� - s tiw2 tiGf18.- t c*'• y •�'-v � - •C i tanct for`igan � a ;'hc'�int;t4y�' c 'ane ,densities 4a c _} • fii�StatE Fic,iis+nc,Goes c,t �. su,Ke�,pj+ t ct rtltic fiya adegr�ate nurx1bers'of alto d - we3 realize.CDC ids, ►ral@' vi .a f a; `;d r rt1�4 s +k i , loner:°!? / i1Ed ttarl5 c iG Gf:the local tT°un r�,.•acral�e�af.irs[s 4 ,rf(`r� +� S ' +t1^ --i (_r.oi In - �;LJTBS^nCtt E,tiTOrtun�te-` �,`�atrscKo ecai gL I.9' c a, fri � �<Y' �r;YMawever, we must alsa:b�conce�ned.oEiat no SMS' �nct�3rrt[s the�29ative effects z foci ease the n�imber pf #ake_Oswegal rJrrevit#el lean y + exeshr ;goyecnmentai rnauthl phtivuaukie decistols;,not out of convictioi _�he� casts'ctiseeIn }d- T s eve o;melt charge is a ,,frotz a sense of tegistats `prsi.re to burr #a g ; tafte�C t ego•E�',sy�m ., p r We istr c '' g�drazaisiipl t'T fiisKralsCS mthly rents another.$20 or, cknow!edgment. reviev*: job over e++v*tom CD mare: `ihftfev:the l-ydsiisltJg ;t';ourictrt':ct» llangecr.''�aice , (IRis ting thts joiz is fasces 'sm portant ban rndclrJq`s�e �'r"i7sWegiiTs'ss msrciiir io fa€` i C taci•tlte ground b r w' —that itvioPsted`Gnat 4E}; 1-ta ` c-`led.ihat'th6 costs were tha€ Goal SO.fuifJlis,its role of easTnga the-errorrrsvtJsi= � •-- haalGin cost probe+ now faced Det hundreds; pt« Pot sir,�icitiint'enou�►*a..4 �damageatfardab{e hous'ng S N x M1f > CausicFt`ti a :ztV[arige tf LC DC m-decision thousands�..Greg ntans ?t' :Tha,H"' r... }?;r 1 The latest cosi opportunity accurf irpk5s C tgrttJ 0� 'C;ot:rt Qs� la�u iy A t aaSaVlkil, r; .K r �. '• s+ pa_� ilQrldlTE ' •.. jgheit f allfin6U1+ +°, "" ti C i4c y}�fe* ` � Anda ss a >srps4 � �t .A:rtiz r: - rr': #s; 'led fr e �na66')Wprehen�i'6briiiOver Housing gc`S sysiessss aevelopment chargi5i : aunc�ii e�ctiaz _> .e;'p[G= "- td t�a�fnv� anXe ,�,�,°z, obes,52gQ© t�4he ptsrchastca �f ate, ,tet. ttutf#f:grst`Ttiscnouts+�tg '•s6Da`sas: nstead, � Yt _ 1c tiildin �1''�y_ nc4 marsthf is a ..; h��'itame a � rases `'can atol�e2-�;� ��$ 4orlisl�at,� � a'• •�,. '-o � ti' '3`' � [274?P@. '' �: z. ` ;;.'� �pl!�Ir'�itts�'•`� ,` Data!`lire- riRR a:Proses� .,�a a �si>� ,�. s � •"��< - �'• :. .,,{1 �" it 1'�t •Y•:'}. AQ' {�"sir yam. - r.� .�L'_. :�'g�i3'�a�2"'ra:_=..- .•.� '� a.. �E�y' iC�.:7KsyL' .i'�+ �. .� `�" - _ 7dE1YC z.._ar�L .s � i 11:� ::x`+j S"�' IN LJ' .+ riles" .lV:. �?t'yy.I L t T I .3.1v +�, 1, f r i ' t�d:" A a.>-.3t e., i , 'c' d �" .•- �+J. -1 ti -• } ' * .. �. ' t"(h,�'.. •vr �a ? ` i .p't3. 'L y cy+c.t`° ti •,�M 1 T�� c . T �:ii°�1 1�Q vf','�L ;�• A :.;�4"'rr ••( 2Ff3•.f.,, '. _ L� '3 � -.1 i 4, �Y. tt �,� - :.r,E' • f -t ff, •r'3Y. - r 't ..t t ;.'Nr't 9'R{[ + r",� \:.: 5'i 't,T,�;,�'-� f y.:. iE r: •. {.�': ViFtB tlits'Xi,1b t�dectdEe,lit iisstzesnot J' ; s,.)4 y6u are„ths� LCQ-G staff;perso�� respor[�It�!e for y,a ti+. s.. k �'s y; ICI -*the}ni#iai�r�V=E'1r t3'f a�oUn#y,'7fan'afnen6t? ! q .occaaFasy��vacbk K r c k ss' ,s� - ; t w + r.i`�ou kria�r than-i€ yor re c nrnand that It:Y�o rEsite�ve.. 4 bath b-je cdynty and'ttls lanauvlRer:Will be-up<'r�t. Tile)` Cnniiciaaer3'frotrx0x s-: '� i�iiicdmptatca.#a your bass.r.s Y►ey WttE al ;probably toassrtdary ii ;'3W aCl83t after c�'-6t, s titer t+,are tires ; ,comp to are,or.mora 8'es erf^fficials.who. esti! est- Y F'aah�ri�geaf;land..•:' i: yrhF :X saF.`_ v}� : K� y�?:7rbo3Stcf ats.8� :aRS x-n' , s 41�tak8�Sfatnhil t$[tntfsi rCttrse psan + t� 'acicnow, } 7 'Y- w, had be;#er be sure thak.this to a very 3eriaus case. kli t ' `} ` � .. .'tedgad yTr�3 the # fol aWlp a ttsn +dispute 4ve,t �r tasfore you mak,,a recommendation that-kilt cxuve you ; hether epbugft a€ tse county s lan.'W” a��rot��ed for `v that much di n- . It., uid be.embarrassi��.fGr ttte,. yz =} agricttit�e re::.Since!at: plant was,adopiedrw the conn+y. i �t gency - and.far'you ie the 'commission, :aftarr:,.. r= T" `ha : seettr icerf,i :.✓� ti�Tes tt a�siSitc tis ; Tan,#a Yteview!ng\-the,altlsndmentY decide that it ccsrniplis, r s. cassvelc#agt cultur8 and:and titL.Rst lanG�ifl otfierfitl3e '+ ,v�th the goals:a1 alt Ct ta'ouicl. be,rnuth eas!Pr` to., and-'rias•grartteci}raif ,t^osareguesta jr z:°Y� ,� 1`` 's .simply r.corlimend "not;;acttort Lon .this . ...rtici trr !rK w .I yrY y Y 1 haps'aiLtiteas ifer�gigng srri pest'sCtty apprapraat x,amendrrient,aild 2llow!#to fie a:Prayed by defau sslcf :cor►srstk .ith tthe:�stagoa iwfdePlannmg-. t�r Fti. i3C tR3Sps�?�ts�tC��,F� �Elnfpriucsafet �t y,t inctudist4 LCDG, knows . L r. them a4 isrfrUp� i avernments�vi#h'avknowiedge >.:CCDC responds too oftenlo political pressurc;r;now in ��* oani�ptre erg a �. :'`iannst,_"iiig '` t1 tcs; psa'7 u Is'haacknowlerd conmdec[mat hvosWd hhp�ui if th- ! p 94 ,am dr�G i2 +WA y a r r- gnCv is n vcR"_npt, ,!�to£lrtlply ii>at tl� iiG �� ltit ` -ueTa •tn@r'l�•�4''.>`}v.� nh-T,(}-Tti:,F'F'.,T�i.'t-e C'•x". 's - itr.i t-+ :...�+�y'¢. .. _ .{ _ r.•Y'� :. l1@r�(iCrglj� F?3°1aF6'ti.�84 i3�an8[6�18}'ttat'� to El@. s j 33Rd y' �� charai�eci aGprid is ct tinge Ef"plans:3retoib*eusefutrfi� cit�rbltl doesn't gefintt+h2it[tt dab."Giscret(ui�.?,"Ka c they:should Fas�Bit4 respansivi The question 1s;Whi�t.,i y or county changes its acicnov:led�ed pian,:it knows: i;sho*i,:be�iJ'o h4sact.aRge arescausrn $he°sfr[ie- ��-that ECDC wilt re.teW that:changa�::And LC CtG kr,oWS, �. '''•le ',< �f x , tf+3�A.mus�..i��'3 d......aFs`� ".gaals:.tirs tttr3�}ffs $ ri,..ar•�+ t, g, ilii"8xia€!r, y 2�� �t3mp' 'd egi t,artst�ec that «rss` 'S1StanG Z.court test. - p�SrG2cti ti' -,r- qusstiorr.t lf,',ba�sf E¢y runs;autL of art aar ,ihfi paint` r some c;t'res and.ccunties`:opposa th,s a ) F .LCOC-ack' owt'edges'a�(ocaI cgmprehertsfve pt Aft`t.l:e ar9t:ingtCtaf there will he so many plan and crOinance . r moses that LCLC viii be buried in t° ienpaigir®vis'ontlog,the blif vulttcb we w1lEF�� c#�a 7gr,e paperwork if it %introdncez �ttf tk "l981;LegislatfiVWjSessicn`:requtras� 'Cres to re Cheri a!i: This argurnert' isappalling in _ s �: LCt:3C to t`ev eve;fdr'.:aN noW!®dgmenjV these ame[id t UP" i4s~cyn!ctsrr^�^_It:;presumes one .of two' things, both msnts:to planssaal anu use regulat.anas e:! + 'Qqually.repugnant- . "stEier the plans which these !r tfJe,tafcs�ttt yi ,;tharti;ere.,isTfo ' titfdt@ gYound'. _ �ernments have_put.tege?her over five o; mGre.ysars 1: between Stai�te#{fiew of;lacsl plena and Airs#ate rsyteau: r are so'siipstrod that.they:.XeciuIre immediate anti Every-ttstne-.deli t '<<dt cauttty'�rchenges;.�.iis` plars;'ar�d:`k 'r olesale revisions or city and county off?,tsf!s have so ,urdfaancestha l�reze prsven'.tam;tC&2G tLCDGshould. � ltttis_reg?+..d fortte,siaEe and local land use prslic'ses y [s ;be rec ui a fix=tevleva tltat:cftange�#t► s are t ars ihe� �thoss plans that they wilt change them virtually on a ;1 plar7eerra�ns tRLtCS:v�itfTtPtg�2if3 �;.�°�r zr+• a e ,ti H.Peoiad`:En#eca�at'gr®ups uvautd. '��C�e bBiFeve_that K;the:.facts shout that cines and 'attangeeEt lawrtitpF¢sijY, ' isi. aiatt:>3rity to dt`tectfy ~ r�aarurrties ase chartging:thefr�sEans and`zoning,witfz this ry ry zvierac tiistss-tianges',A �goai, p!ianoe.` instead -ic3rtdtsree{�lessYir�dtfferen#.frequency;"they wilt'.have,'" bs requ ee# o-appeal It he F ustt on rated.:tftat Qregon's sxpecimer+t tvfth local : 1 'Sost +o.",. ppeals;:os caurY�I4r iLithCe:ght` a� pisef imp entation of..;state-goalwis:a;faiiure it;witi,be_. ,. ' a-t7z, ameAdrl sht violat, ;tot�gaats cad move directly;F#o s#ate reguiatlan of land '�$. S�36&�� ntrgfQSi gr�au a' x. c '� � ,r klnweverr it is cteae~#hat a' ganef number t',f.mines.. .y: ,r s �., .� flousekeefting.2rnendrTents-may bcc,;r, p�-rt�cr:tarly srI s .YT6trcourts tsCly ously�hase a impartanLrof@'in Ea��d. ��-�`use;�egufation' tthel��;?-�t�,daci�e 1�2t.isrc=es;�,-z1��''kthe firer year nr so of a pia,'s tie as ' bugs" art.r.'ort:c; tYt!Y.[.E3" RO'S#ZLq Res .. .. .. �. .�- ��Hp�q�yr �" -..�,�'...p.p..js...f aia�•-=.-meg�+•F- �a 3tSf¢.'•9CSIIfZ^`ST' [!^YMfiT'"0!i-�•i1�.x`Sr [T CS[Tf Lrf 4`CnZy.of f''� "ciarefyirt9YC¢t "p:ai7cyr wtlgtt,y it=weatabltshedgeartler crr_ t po.Inty•s findings trat the amendment cnrnplles with ti. Writin t�i.os@ t al s �.teil�Ji. is erf c Sft u[d= be , gaafs , �r In4�p titosa�goals ted tvaTrevleWV6ferr focal pianF{ r =p fY�f �ylH�fl'OCit[3i1 sE�' �_ t •,.: ' �'2mendmssctt TTjis-would lave e2it�va3 ,butie:of'-cases,., . • ( rider our_-EiItC these'amendments.can be -handled` , T fhose.4ItEGEsariseuriderafa 1piar�or3s7aticigordistanca 4y Yrlyartctslmpiy�vuiiihaminimvrsf•ofstaffdmir andf:e 3_ 'that has not.'treen arnerldecf; re they.tietang :==wt#tt- ` disposactof byttse Corrsri�issiarFuri#haut a hearing;:4n'v i LUL Ek' .courts it:::W LCDC ttiat-should be 1, raviewingthat thin stir-aof decisions-w ict ffivolves the "�mtisase cases w vers there is cleariy a goat prGb'c r; r�ec! ,. °�* -take::up_ time._ But arty time a;:concerned ars r.cy .cr 4 statewide ptartning goals plan-and'ordiitans s amsnd- 1 'ven Ec m@rit9: i, i -61 a:= Y 4. !d'ZR913 iQR&#h41.1LCaiD Utd as 8E?p@ai 'L�t�+'sI deli O ft Ieta.` Y Lee:iolensort 'tl teicecutivea iadtaps'� rite taayerho m ; _ urf --j'he egor€ t3cisiiiess Pt"ning Cauncti; th 7{ has proposed a;,hj'briers apps_ tfi�..gCE�.wau! � .. rarfinent . q#t nci"VWrdtE� rise.State iRtoothe revlew a pian arneradrnont if`iV ectdis titer zP a - ebunciCx lytic,- :Bilifders, ssoctatlon anct.other t t decides not to cevlevsr�tfie glen ECIdmmd!s pYeaume:t =-_ gcaups-nava foti nd, it g �,i`�-.to:be. cons at'en4'iruith the a 8ts�s v? sr J fihian a_°� eearrrbnta les and . k " * o . Thal rev t �C a- �r �s,awcasior. t�"grog: - . s t ' Rr p L ` `dim x irtierestslhatilsind o aafegiiard la asserttiai.ia.,. men3 WORT{di6Ef lnfiy= ., r s F'rablHiTtsli(tiitlr <~ 8S9l= Iif� tfaba $SilzgirtsjpflJ[Pt ��aj,. . ;ti� , s *'�' '�' �"-�. �r qtr � -,. S rF:��:• - �'`'� }. - 1 �7. .- c�a„�� ♦ .�-+.Mtiy'_ - �d� ���`',*X�- ;_: � ��� �vr3r��ot�+ L���+��+�'l��.yr��L��� •�_ =;N � `�: - �� � � � +��q'-y ��F � "�����:h''�a�'•��`�E'.�l� �t res s-ef��'t's�Sti .1��.� ,�'"•r. — '�• �a+p _:!� r.�v^�.i... '+.C;'c. ..`v�` :ar .^�A° %-9'�--.aa'fi>_-���'rd.^ [ ,.��_ _ ' },t s f ���, ✓ y ,,,�.,' a-w" N.�,a v+ ',1*.1 t ia� �•�-"�.�t�3 "1}�FF'��$$f,,aa t._ � t.., F�� � �. � �` t• i ! -+? „4r+t' r:f J ,��:".�. tF�}. st a T _ �Y .•y - ... � .Y. ,': ��t...r-moi t+) ...o .ate- �� '+s ''ySt ,. �'' �'� _rr •'�. , t - n. *� 3.i. ..' % i• i , es-tfaa - t kr 1 `✓-y .'e�t P+ & I M�Walfvck- , z Z Plans vi, !ch cave-been SU !71lite'�i tri fi4Vr 1 _ :.&. oft ee Sr�aJor :c1 tln+/�f lob is do" J tr ' /,-1O"Orepo ` 'ats.esrfd plarrniirg 1,s. ► :t'_ i���Cor'�tlac-° it city os">:Aunty pf2ct Gs :;tw :.t t ,rvgoGl..,:`E c uC /e4is6lim4- 9 thel-lrsMfiaMirnr''$l i>fe=Join? :`pack wlEcges" tyre-:plan >'it►t +ormo. order: 'AC,+1: sgfs►ativer_Conn�)ttasvlf Lar+rJ tfsa%StaPrt Ssnatbr-Cr_3.:pay point the statewide pfar►r�i�ig'G:,Gis f,1 _:taads3ds: — `/syec�a;4�rr6e in tTre pis 4.re of the b)t)a;rd vias the firs: under whic`: he plans we-.3 devefo� :_ drdp ou4 0` *- #chalrmsa of,the G A ,sr+ssrvstlor ah;f +):, c ay .'Com- merit. � the picture. -T trey are no tc• '_ger•ap f�ttc t�tc far tsje ' ��rt)ss(on.trr thtsa iScle.( 5q@sGn,bt Vmt propgas or] 9csla- :'.decisic�;zs wt)lch are gover _;J by,he focaf Tari add for nesfabflst►ing w L+t tia"fts{e, ;VV use: r urations f�: 'otl�e7 r r i S..i3•n' �,p v�1�ap�..r r -s + !� .� �✓Oiw�+�+�` �6 tee'' - zWdJ r, ,bACOmes basically a local mattOr tjbjc- iiy i re �Y � c y` c ';�•a,.. . � �4:" -aFif«� � c��.' s. 'ir)the CO Ct rmees ✓ leu bye tjte��973�- • in eor ththTs is a ver sensibia resuit�TP,ese�{�8 ' Tstaterrex g }tTi' 644ii'ItiC78t�body vlavded 01.elact'f;, `plans, because they were`ado feted in accatdance vrith .: l9 9a+� tst ' ' 'to•?tT �EiaL:.ata csf �h?9oafs antS:t�CDC hasev�r � sd_,t�sr neia :prs " rtin -rntF"zott> �l7tei°°�s"fent"�1ghQi'egarY`s i afJKicltlfuaLiand and:bthet nat craCsotuce Fhey r [govarnmceDt3 lav s{rJt1t311:1a'fc►��� gviatir►g -provide.-eoegU, .!arid fs housing; iizey. T:av ';ttr :corr,�etPtiirtKSiaq�ac ` ) men.tsincafhaeg�rTning �: ?�darfea io preverit.sprawf The goatsrs� s'iiTt i�aii. . vs►©a th_ .' a r rales-� it 4ha tget0t' ':involved a y.h,orelitcAes' Why f then, f tautd Dom'b� c �a P r_ �•rq �� F ' ie nifc�srs"'Of pato contfnzued fa � -1 x s � f r ; S..faS>ytit=fit e R .t r ,a�' y ;v r4. ^c , a ix_,:, 1 t �" s :: v 7-This rosy picture-over,--ok4 one,tmpa ant fisc£. T-4 tfsosezrerair �d�ttte, eoisiaiire tiirnugZl.V= rnTC avili`not bedrjron E_C:sl`s ckriawfedaynlen€ csaa�a -- � 3(+�� + ivero at�t-, i8r�ai^tcy :be{ore focal govecr ments start amerit3:s� t[i 'd[ci�u'$v f!YIfYRf� 11}�,l�J�T";'jrZ,`f2dg8E7.pt3r13:;ttltl:coTJrr-1 rt:a pmt a}arvu cscc.� ae,o �Src�xiaip4Y liat fAatacAveF{aetr wouitf�e farrrt the took 20r'years-- ta,the futures Some uauaffy .itnds sept '`.yntj ;tt�af acted tom ie`ef than sntnething eq:change`+n th�i.firsisfx Weieks. foliovrtng Tt9ay�1 �8adtTt)®rx ��.•�:-�ithoui� � aooptiat� t� �- ..,. ��a,.,'Wn :-�, .�s��.s,ta._� axlYetnei7fi etz 4 'jp®tasaF go a mentS,esvererdoing Y� s_"For. example....When LCW .apMrovc�;tt eL- t bans A "i i ttsa,r€s;xtpss�raa.th Initial draf�of.Senate growth boueic!ary adopted for thSPotGtfar�d'aiea`by iha ) °QE1 �rh 'caftod,f4ciLt:tg��naicoucic€lsof,s r;Metropofitat "Service'District irs=;fantiazy 198Q_ thee° €rsmant ted.Mgutatet i tr 6m,-Tbe stadr frnally Comrttissiore'-ooneudecf�=that 'tte__Aoun:taz hat::rnnre L �s opted by:the istature' a s c proms -A gave x. �gp #ttrctt to ado plans.. 'than enough taad far urban;develbament.te rond Re is anc!a�ountf arrotttar.- p J :year 20 0 1-fovrevor, tour m . t'3 later' tri'Aon::.188©" prntecter3thq-p�blicint ez '{;'Rtasapfatasa+tcoufd3ey� �,i4freiro •®x srtded that ackt �rledgec utdaart'$iro tr fled"-urkdee ,i�►f 6&goaIS-4 a-;statu11e citta _Te ®ue yffTnisdif-fcft 4 ;"•' €fi , ia'#"" �`, �f� �, Fiease tL}cam athinrT�¢r fo8€�ff stand 0310+h81Y"r3:�y `� . -ars! ici. ,- t4it-.ts,nril €ana�ao�' Cf3 .epi@frougFtp� sesar�supose€.to�acA 20 �4E?;es�sa�c�,.tfnuraias �43j�ace t1ot��;�.trtto 4t>te facture, sorsteatse u�datl� �ets£��a�a�-�._. �: 'tlrtishe� n�Car�tvatfors andk€�v®ng�tt aye� � tttia9g'l�.changaaiss,�he $:fit�iai<i�s�k�`�btt�r���.�, "- misai "'• �= tip. ot-.��ov#'e�rt :'In :alEdcptdoet: �-.} .: •`x:9•Jfs. s+�* Y.�i Vie}, 5 "�T,A *""s ",• '�iX `x Ir a'k�r <r ia'}� r.J� e SCK i7 8 r`r .ar frr'�sf'¢.Y •..tlI7iy 'Cif�.��{s tx ck :>t' �,lx'e-$lu{(.L+`s. :�� 'girls s J, C [i n, { i'�- '+..f`�" �.'R"� .,rr•:r� K ft � rYe lye 5 •CS c,:a. P y.. t 9 f„l. .s',d ri r ,f a.-14 tj={r.. j.`iv ••,x`. �-it, Sri.a•- ,C[„� .S'r � �'€ i `y ? Z •,� �;.s :� :. i:>r.lik h; 4 '%fF .o'Cs a' -r?'�a�(,.3 CK`.� +,•rf's`.Y}�, �" �r sis�-w's`•r tF> Y i'�• E'tx.�.y +.T Srr,�� ss �} t"�2ir� _ S4- r s. '?, Y<A mak- ,f,,tY� Y `� '�,5 "�f#'�'„o ,.��•F J�o-1 r.. - .•1;Tj �'R',a�-�i4 _L.T+-'�S`��,>"; w.+ i:t 1 t. 'c �'r. •�' �i<' r jr.,.• • r#f+i:�"kp `{�'...✓;�4�-.�I ' Eti W.i s +:� •"� } +I S k >. •� l'L � - It _ �..T . 7 y r.] .TWA. r �r a• err. h ,7+}�35�� ..�4 s:� �•t•, n.r ,s'`- ..x> :l t - •�i-f�' 4f�y@�-� '.Q .•"y F)q�,ji�1�jgQ r YY r'4' ,i¢}y�' 3 5 is"i. �y �AN a 'I> Jx @ 6+yL �•�a�- i". >, 7}{.'.yi',}i x t "`L r F.,.+_:,epi', t;�, .v.21 "44dd `K ,,�,y 3' t ,}A �_'� tl� :. "t�,'r`•-i'•T'1�a {- f i a �a�af `�3 _.•;s'� �P r, � i+.ra!' •Y+l4• ,quit - LK`�H'fi-I. .D 3•..F„e�`�]'�c"l ' t' �"1 :�"i�^ �'`�T�"' ,t�,�° f�}����� S ;1. Y_ Q � :l '•^� 1 t 1 M + S r sx-s.•P s �p`..,f'f�F"'. + y,,.,+wk3` .+.r' �,, - "� >. 3' ✓"�:: , r" `i 7 rr irk -� ,55e"rq �,.. I*+-:• 7'yr.rJ:-�,•-_.v -� '�' s. `• fy�� , . ' '•tn. S:..NPLF'; "x, <l,ss'y' f ff + f gs�;r -IY�..r !°`•'. f *.i 3 r - `t� f�.; f .i Cy""r-4 - mom- '�' ' ��t ?d ,G : �{"' r"f t s . 1k t- -s •�i��..nn' r- r e..` ka!''� �r fi �1 }r� /.�:}"+ r 'tit ����''� ���. �. �r,� "4 j',� Lt .A S ✓ : + A•A' ••(;.:.f..6 �• GY ;S i .C- �'• Y Y.-) - MF '{/a��} ,��},.� yf 7 y'.f" li't.' 1:C P , " ,y]'GYf'[' jyPf- � f I•'.2 " YJ.1 rd. L� y .. " f�,#.,}• -a•'•1a.F--e^i. i•Ls1 •�.b S-S' A 1 Vj �Ay '�'y.- 'v + 'y r•. 1a� ,'t-t'j�5' # by t `"eFytn. x h:'vr�� 'rt;l,�S';t+?,s'•.pv, !.'Fr S� 7 + 4th. r�' Y.}.�d•'s•. �'cc tt DJER�P 3 S A.y$-�.'Fk'P�F - .. - .,✓JFf -/.�, J S'ir .s �. .+ tt r� c1 ..c. P.� a ✓� .:1,.1•?"F�, � xt S:' `>J � r C g ,u., ,t..y+ r, 1+T,e- y �r z- 1•F 'F . E. > .. ��•'x 4a "fir ,„a ragPa"iIE carefully,'delve(ope ' �Cyiour_t�glsiatures E"� � " �r q apgMed threw tjMes Fn staiewlde� les of 3t�e-Ppje F �l f 4?{�� '}r Z'L�C r ¢onveFgrnp Ottk r s'i' � �`~$� dl *p ^k7 .> i Oregan s,4 a�rsrt "c nII eager. mores a ',�. ;r� �&�t +9 a.�gis �tur f3fi flcFlt°fr'JpJell�$tt n 'kt Vit ,; S,i�efore,_Tht� a .;mss ,i _��_ r sunaEva ar►d- It tr�a :sucjuJAb �t i0 a=tloer the#tireatst ter e o:carnent`df sty tati+ ,,�• �rucia(as c• '11�iors(frrIlle I»3tl `e'taattte of.i916 and; ? f.the countf and tCDC level,•#.ie prograr+t.facts yet , n?-`r1S78�arsris#h (P-gis, I?e'_ '1�+ ' t'� ranothsF'tra4tieg for survlva( Jrn,fi :t_egisiafure 43n'iYe ,i 97 c r 'NGPy ,2Sf fie" {mss n r�k, lE' 3i1 ' thL rrfr@Els. ` cane _ ,1t' _rh 't3S 3I f pres3ese � 'r= sEsre'cflplii�d et#bt(e� and the ;�+ „ cfe�#eatint t leg�siation ''piub!(c'dne ' astidecstattik [it+. ` E'i'e' osY:peop(e� Pioglam's futures depends orz ec�a�ting iegisia+io afar 2 . : + r rare underl! ±trr!�neauslrtit ijaift 9ft thaj,the,prcgram (� " 1more difficu!#tegusfative job j� d - J 1 - >:n,;�•" A. ♦-D•. ��,Z F .;snC+ wp0114iCalttlty�i ant , xlL/ia t., rester ti `::: i '!r '1 x ^ reachinga `g rstserS 2tRd"•'$[ a;a l�zis focal pians la i<-,hiarticle byState Senatars.L:B:Day{R-Satern"}and r >4� ' w 4: ^' r y ' CTed FiailocK•(D-Portland) highlights regislation-._that� F # ih@ near fcrtu2l i 9 '•-moi F' k 4x}rer s }. - s L ,4tieyaresponsnring Pressurtil Cl4Y S, N` r " , t�+ . Thoir:;art(c[a underscores tlte^fad# that the*teuitt , ' rf,>:`'r 'xj j % tirieRta(goatdfOregon's(ancluse.program is tocaF pians F(rst;:,,'L � . {& ufier. greatp ';:pressure Than sverl „`fhat..opera4e, over tlmeR (n _a'manner. cor.s!4tent't�!rth G - a :beforefo Ht�tgpr �sr(a#e{y r'eig ;oft' r0ocat pays.a - � ,eta2e tared Use standards ;(?svisL- iota( piarss_tu:stsee# x.cantorxnIrr �fat�pfaarr aEs `'" 1 !04N, ''state paticies_—r_ttie process that focal gnvernneri and bf4 •,t :i., j +, :'* •' '. Gt1i�G are now gang throuok js certainly inVortartt' s` Fees ci g3.Q�z �O Y�}TV ooiYrptlance`-r r�r `Bud !t-is'only..the first step to eet the basis oaf of deadNna�(tt _ st epean�+ [rr"any scacl adhnes�. a44 t '" ' 1 g ' �u�, faspansuble s4ateueEsie(arrd userp(aeus(ng �� . "(ocat bode sA(ppezttlRe�!<<piansbt�approvat ,y>' <z� _ : rx.! c :all of thec ate sit er F�4 ,Sep �regan s a6I�(#tr :ta L ala��`ntlyat goal. vr> 6 t 4 tans we�rd cdu and1 x ectec soa x' ` r�� � estToyed (f the 29?�^ 4og(5laiw.rg;teals :ta esfab((s3� nr a With 'YIn cagy "ote}tE,w'aprocadures at:the'kirid cont�ir�ed"in'the`Da}�-F-iaitock }t . L. " tCOC fee13� { jt_b(it::These proceduresassure thaLLCDC will de�'errnFr+ :govertir afcef'u f irt�theti Cn n y Qeseffving the (octet` whether.. c[iang s'dip:;�',acknow(edged" �cxt pthr+ r u ... $` lens bJ ap(rcrv(n th+3 1st qulckt to " et theJob—'' cnsttorm-to.stale-po.icy._V1lithos:t this critic 1. funcison Yy8 grad yrtthaut•r alar updating of.local plans (every- ,t; one on Y(cns tat cautsasuPlc a collapse byCD�" . $9 !} 9 c t�.,.A.a.•r��r3;i$QtFf~ €o`la.� �Cs��;.casi.:tt7at'rFa.�C?E2i} c"IJi�tf -.s °> � St id"��S't"..ess��'"seL���n�.,�' �^r+�+�i�•-�a-,�at:r�- r _-_. Wil+ h'F 5 creatfiii ' gorrTasip x =u +::r.vm�� rciasay aetrrtter tics race ers aara�ono fast-;�Y r yrs tffe •� _ '' 'ts�T `F :L �- >h. .: rtiStn �.• ,-^' '�1„�m� �•' Ya f rF��i t hs.l�E�t''f,e � ... `_ �•'X f3�''=°s' lmprovingJocatpians: r� <�� �:� t, � r, t a 'i t ' teglsiatlon neadedFNdi l$ahs ntent'i9 clear, b' C ' fy ti a �; ti j '• ;iaiwot taw make�`ncr sper.Itit�)1rF3B4s(ort'tQF, �rBSSlfi! 8i9IE3�C(tdTiFiFQ� - cteaFwithithe'numerous:charsges(cxat government wli( YEN ` .. Second as'Stat.pAttorn ,Ai�har€ -Beneier-`discusses p ,r =to--matte (rr tf►s future tok Slang LCDC'is:,no in his:article;'there.are grawing'indtcatians that Iota[ �>` _ > prav(ng:SlrtriTart}��:.ezisttng(s!w=criskes no..proVisiCA er+ : `-tom- at�yasrte (CGDC, state ar fes="age sties°, citizt*ns. L efficia(s are'3srtE�op y.admffi�is%eriri 't. l staid Isnd h p0 ,affecteti businesses and carporafloi ns,etc.)tv ask ;S ref use standa?rtfs'wtiic . haves been;incor rated in.local , '? ,rrP•' plans to dale�Tfi(s i3 brad:nE�eY>s�..;!-.eL�&B)C,premise O€..: s r t :review+mistakes or provisions in'Poral �+lattis. 1•: .f� { Senate Bii(riQt3'tkas to reject state':pTannin in laver of: v y ;e simp(yr: i'bci�ught.ta,LCDC'S tteRti©sr in use ` �, ti'local ptatinitig why Lgghf6rt'n3*'To stato sta»dards >; ts(Tial,.Rfghly;�Sressurized:acknowledgments .However„ tl_s aopraaCi� �$xQtln�s .wP 9:.� �. a�C'}'.(��'ty'�`A'?\� fi.•e'.1.# 4 ' .,prtt}�' I.4 LYr(E :ItirzC ow°Tt[riTentS Y P + T a� 11da � `#�* S "f governmen - ,t •:Compelfient(y,,,an� G�_o3c(ar a? �s.'{�.. f13i�;� r approv..K local glans: Curssrt evid2n rte t!a area of,y # �Ed tie (n erisetjr diff�cai .f(gt� nc#eed, a tregaf[ve t tarmlanaf,prgtes:ifiars lnc[rfta :{�a aslrtttt�tIori=i Yc r" �. r- ' °' a a ;Could tautl it :st "` �' rpr u 1000 FRIENDS GE OREGON 400 DEKUM BUILDING,519 S.W.THIRD AVENUE,PORTLAND,OREGON 97204(503)223-4396 October 10, 1980 Mr. George Samaan Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, FIE Salem, 'OR 97310 Re: City of Tigard Request for Acknowledgment of Compliance Dear Mr. Samaan: 1000 Friends of Oregon objects to acknowledgment of the City of Tigard comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances as in compliance with the statewide planning goals. Specifically, the plan and ordinances fail to comply with Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards) and Goal 10 (Housing) . These ob- jections are discussed in detail below. In a letter dated August 8, 1978, 1000 Friends provided the city with written comments regarding implementation of its hous- Ing pian. i s COAL 7 OBJECTION The plan's "Environmental Protection and Preservation" ele- ment identifies three major development limitations which exist in the planning area. These limitations include: 1) flood plains and wetlands, 2) runoff and erosion, and 3) soil insta- bility ,(p. 8) . Environmental Protection and Preservation Policy One provides that the city will: "designate areas of physical limitation (poorly drained, seasonally flooded, ground instability) and incorporate these designations in the city Zt')311 TftT !'fYf�i T1�r�n� �.•.� _ .. ..._ .��.__,_�... development restrictions according to the dis- tinct characteristics of the constraints and anticipated limitations." (p. 9) T:in city's zoning map does not reflect that such incorporation has occurred. Further, although the zoning ordinance contains a chapter providing for land use in "sensitive lands," no mention is made of the "graduated development restrictions" which the policy states will be developed. To achieve the requirements of Goal 7, the city must a-rend Mr. George Samaan October 1.0, 1980 Page 2 its zoning ordinance and map to include the provisions identified in Environmental Protection and Preservation Policy One. GOAL 10 OBJECTIONS 1. Tigard has not projected its need for housing to the year 2000. Thus, the sufficiency of buildable lands allocated for housing cannot be determined. The city has merely allocated \ land and stated the capacity of .those acres to accommodate hous-ing units. Such allocation presupposes a housing type distribu- tion, rather than accommodating identified needs. The city must first determine the number of acres necessary for residential development at varying densities, price ranges and rent levels, and then designate its buildable lands accord- ' gly. 2. Tigard's projected new construction housing ratio is unacceptable. said:In Seaman_ v. City of Durham, LCDC No. 17-025, the Cormnission . ". . .Plannin _ g jurisdictions must consider the needs of the relevant re ion in arriving at a fair allocation of housing -types. Goal 10 rep- resents the broader interests of all Oregon households. " (emphasis added) (Final Order, P. 9) This emphasis on local planning to meet regional housing needs was recently reemphasized in 1000 Friends v.' Lake Oswego, LCDC No. 78-024. Metro's regional urba growth boundary findings assume that local jurisdictions will pr vide for a new housing construction single family/multifamily ra 50 0_ Tigards' projected ratio for new housing construction, 79. 6/20.4, . falls considerabl.v shn-f- of Metro's assumptions. The fa lan for the provision of more multiple family housing units will effectively shift Tigard's responsbility to other jurisdictions in the region, placing the city in violation of Goal 10. The city must take action to assure opportunity fox new con- struction a� a ratio of at least 50 percent multifamily: 3. With the exception of single family residential develop- ment, all new construction In the city of Tigard requires Design Review approval (Boning Ordinance, 18.59.030) . Such approval de- pends upon standards and criteria which are vague and discretion- ary, and which violate the Commission's St. Helens policy because of their potential to discourage needed housing types. Mr. George Samaan October 10, 1580 Page 3 The ordinance requires that a development ". . .not impair or interfere with either the developmer-t use, or enjoyment of other prop- erty in the vicinity, or the orderly and pleasing development of the neighborhood or area as a whole, ". . .not directly, or in a cumulative fashion, impair, inhibit, or limit further investment or improvements in the vicinity, on the same or other properties, . .properly and adequately perform or satis- fy its functional requirements without being unsightly or creating substantial disharmony with regard to its locale and surroundings, . .provide a safe, pleasing and liveable en- vironment for those people utilizing the dev- elopment, and immediate neighbors •or community as a whole, (and) " . . .be properly and adequately landscaped. . . in keeping with the general appearance of the neighborhood or area, and the safe, efficient and attractive'development of the site. (Zo 18.59.060 (d) ) The ordinance further requires developments to: " . . .minimize or eliminate adverse visual effects which might otherwise result from unplanned or inappropriate development, design or juxtaposi- tion. Such adverse effects may include, but are not limited to those produced by the design and ocati-onal characteristics of: (A) The scale, mass, height, area and materials of buildings and structures; (B) Surface and subsurface drainage and appur- tenant structures; CC) Cut and fill or the reforming of the natural terrain and structural appurtenant thereto such as retaining walls; (D) Areas, paths and rights-of-way for the con- tai:uxaent movement or general circulation of persons, animals, vehicles, conveyances and watercraft; (E) other developments or improvements such as, but not limited to, utility lines, storage or service areas -rd advertizi*+g features, which may result in a diminution or elimina- tion of sun and light exposure, views, vistas, Mr. George Samaan October 10, 1980 Page 4 privacy, and general aesthetic value of the neighborhood or area.. (Ord. 79-40 51, 1979; Ord. 77-25 S10 (part) , 1977) ." (emphasis added) (ZO.• 18.59.060(d) (3) ) As standards for approval, the criteria enumerated above are precisely the kind which the St. Helens policy was intended to eliminate. If Tigard wishes to utilize a design review procedure, it must develop clear and objective standards which provide cer- tainty in the development approval process. It must also include qualifying language to limit review to how, not whether, develop- ment of needed housing types are providers. 4. Tigard's housing policy number 10 states that the zoning ordinance will be revised to "permit mobile home- subdivisions and parks. . .under standards which make them compatible with the neigh- borhood. " (Housing Plan, p. 3) I£ the city determines that mobile home parks and subdivisions are needed housing types, the standards for development approval must be clear and objective. Furthermore, if mobile home parks. are, in fact, "needed, " the conditional use procedure by which they are governed is discretionary. n i zonal use ordinance states: Following the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.84 of this code, uses designated in this title as "conditional uses permitted" may be permitted or enlarged- or altered upon authorization of, after hearing by the planning commission as pro- vided in Chapter 18.84. In granting approval of a conditional use the planning commission may re- quire, in addition to the regulations and stand- ards expressly specified in this title, other conditions found necessary to protect the best nterests of the surrounding property or neigh- borhood or the city as a whole. The conditions may include requirements increasing the ra uir=u lot size or -yard dimensions-.maintain-t.ne prop- erty an a character in keeping with the 'surround- ing area. . .If the site is inappropriate for the use requested, the planning comm3_ss3Lon may deny approval of the conditional use. (Ord. 74-36 S1, 1974; Ord. 7.2-52 S4, 1972; Ord. 70-32 5230-1, / 1970) . 11 . (emphasis added) (ZO 18.72.v1.0) Thus, the Conditional Uses ordinance fails to assure that i ' mobile home parks which meet objective criteria will necessarily .. be approved. The city must amend the ordinance to limit its scope and to include language which assures that planned densities sill not .be reduced, development costs will be minimized, and needed housing types will not be excluded as a result of the imposition' of reasonable conditions. Mr. George Samaan October 10, 1980 Page 5 5. Multiple family residential development of more than two units is permitted outright only in the A-2 zoning district. Cer- tain requirements of this district have the potential to discour- age or altogether prohibit all new multiple family residential development in Tigard. First, the imprecise nature of the "additional requirements" clause (ZO, S18.24_050) provides: "Additional requirements appli- cable in the A-2 zone include but are not limited to the follow- (emphasis added) . This provision gives the city license tnto impose virtually any condition it wishes. It can potentially increase the cost of multifamily housing beyond the ability to pay of those for whom it is intended, or prohibit such housing al- together. The city must include qualifying language to the effect that conditions imposed shall not prevent the provision of needed hous- ing types at affordable prices or rents. ' Second, the Ail district specifically requires owners of apartment dwellings to screen such units "by, a fence obscuring the sight of normal adjacent pedestrian and vehicular traffic" when the apartment dwelling in an A-2 zone shares a common boundary with any other residential zone. (ZO, 518.24.050 (3) ) . There is no reasonable or objective justification for the imposition of this requirement which merely forces unnecessary costs upon dev- elopers and, ultimately, consumers of multifamily housing in the city 71 RECOMI4ENDATS ON Based upon the objections identified above, 1000 Friends of Oregon recommends that the city of Tigard's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances be continued to permit the city to make the changes necessary for compliance with LCDC Goals 7 and 10. Sincerely, Debbie Schiedel Flan Reviewer DS/eec cc: Linda Macpherson, Aldie Howard, Joe Cortright Department of Energy v 7-5 %nCTOR Nnrem LABOR & INDUSTRIES BUILDING, ROOM 102, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE 378-4040 November 14, 1980 Dear Sir: We would like to obtain copies of the adopted comprehensive plan, plan implementation measures, and plan technical report for your jurisdiction. ODOE will review your pian in order to make recommendations concerning energy conservation and utilization of renewable energy resources. Our recom..nendations will include references to the best available information including use studies, experts, energy documents and funding sources. If all of these documents are not presently available, please fill out and return to us the enclosed status sheet. Also, please send us any amendments to these documents, both those presently available and future amendments. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Henry S. Markus Conservation Specialist: nand Use HM:cs 02998 Enclosure OREGON BUSINESS PLANNING COUNCIL 1178 CHEMEKETA. N.E. SALEM.OREGON 97301 PHONE(503)370-8112 i STAFF: KATHERINE KEENE ^ Planning Director October 24, 1930 DAVID S.HILL Natural Resources Director Mr. George Samaan Departm�at"of Land Conservation and DeVelopment 117 Court Street N. E. 5-11 era, OR 97310 /Subject: Tigard Comprehensive Plan Review Dear George: As you know, I attended Metro's work session on the Tigard Comprehensive plan on October 16, 1980. It is my understanding that the City will withdraw, or the Department postpone action on the acknowledgment request in order that additional work can be completed by the City. Because today is the Department's deadline for comments and objections on the Tigard plan I am writing to preserve an opportunity for the Oregon Business Planning Council to submit our comments at a later date assuming that the plan will be rescheduled for Commission action. Based on the discussion at Metro last week it appears that many issues which would have required an objection from us can be resolved in the next few months. Please contact me as soon as possible if my understanding of the situation is incorrect. Sincerely, Katharine Keene i l aitit i ily KK:paw cc: Linda Macpherson A 1 d i e Howard Sue Klobertanz o� MEMBERS; -ASSOCIATED OREGON INDUSTRIES-- Oregon Forest tndostnes Counsel.- Oregon Council -OREGON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS OnEGON- COLUMBIA C!nAPTER ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTOcIS -Ci W:ucflon fnousrry Advancement Fund•OREGON STATE HOMEBUILDERS ASGOCtA TION URED Suite 203 1 3850 Portland Rd. N.E. Salem, (Oregon 97303 SSS Phone: 364-2470 - October 22, 1980 Mr. W. J. Kvarsten, Director Dept Land Conservation & Development 1175 Court St NE Salem, OR 97310 Attention: Mr. Georg Saman, Lead Reviewer Re: Objection to Acknowledgment of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Kvarsten: Oregon Manufactured Housing Dealers Association (OMHDA) has reviewed the Tigard Com- prehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance. In general, we found the Plan documents to contain a wealth of valuable information. However, for the reasons noted herein, OMHDA must reluctantly object to acknowledgment of the Plan at this tiine. I Goal 10 requires that Comprehensive Plans provide for the housing needs of Oregon resi- dents. In order to satisfy this requirement a Plan must first determine the housing needs of the residents of the City and then assure that adequate numbers of housing types are accommodated to meet the identified reed. The "Housing Plan" document iden- tifies a need for manufactured housing within Tigard, but the extent of this need hasn't been quantified. Unless this is done, it isn't possible to determine whether the Plan provides sufficient buildable lands to meet the need for manufactured housing. II The LCDC Housing Policy requires that needed housing be permitted either outright or subjected only to objective conditional use criteria. Ordinance 79-83 provides that manufactured housing is a permitted use within all R zones. However, 79-83 requires that the permit only be issued following a contested case proceeding as specified in S 18.84 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 18.84. 11 gives the Hearings Officer power to ". . .attach such conditions as may be deemed necessary to protect the interests of the public". OMHDA submits that 18. 84.11 may violate the "Housing Policy" because the potential exists that needed housing will be subjected to vague and subjective approval criteria. This could have the effect of discouraging the provision of needed housing. III Goal 2 requires that, "The plans shall be the basis for specific implementation measures. These measures shall be consistent with and adequate to carry out the plans". The Comprehensive Plan adopts the following policies, (see Ordinance #77-22). October 22, 1980 Objection to Acknowledgment of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan page two Policy #2, "The community shall promote and encourage a diversity of housing densities and residential types. . . Such housing should include... mobile homes". Policy #10, "Revise the Zoning Ordinance to permit mobile home subdivisions and parks in suitable areas and under standards which make them compatible with the neighborhood". Policy #13, "Accelerate the review process for approval of development propo- sals where the quality of the review is not adversely affected". Ordinance 77-443, "Unnecessary standards or restrictions: The City should make every effort to reduce delays in the development process which could cause in- creases in ultimate costs to the consumer". It is OM DA's position, that requiring a contested case procedure in granting a permit to develope manufactured housing where the standards for approval are open ended, is con- trary to the above cited Plan provisions. Additionally, 18.824.11 may violate Goal 2, because it is not consistant with the Plan Policies. t has come to our attention that the City has requested that the Acknowledgment review be delayed so that certain changes in the submittal can be made. OM,EIDA requests, that the City address the hereinabove concerns. In the event that the resubmittal addresses our concerns, we will withdraw our objections. Thank you for the opportunity to raise these issues. If we can be of further assistance to you or the City, please feel free to call upon us. Sincerely, Donald W. Miner Staff Attorney DWM:st cc: Liz Newton, Planner City of Tigard Sue Klobertanz, Washing County Linda Macpherson, LCDC Portland Office Charley Hale, Oregon Mobile Park Association OMHDA Washington/Yamhill Chapter Dealers ' of OC , �i Den rtment of Transportation �rY of TiGAR Ru VICTOR A'IYEFf TRANSPORTATION BUILDING, SALEM, OREGON 97310 <IpVEpAw October 22, 1980 IN REPLY REFER TO FILE NO.: PLA 16-4 Alan Michelson, Mayor City of Tigard City Hall Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mayor Michelson: Our Department has reviewed the Tigard comprehensive plan and ordinances which were submitted to LCDC for acknowledgment. The review has been limited to the impact of the plan and ordinances on our Department's transportation and parks and recreation programs. Your plan addresses many of our concerns well . We do, however, have some comments for your considera- tion. The Six Year Highway Improvement Program includes a number of projects in the Tigard area, including widening I-5 to six lanes between the North Tigard and South Tigard Interchanges, adding an interchange at ORE 217 and 72nd Avenue, a TSM project on 99W, and several signals and turn lanes. Despite these projects the most recent draft of the regional transportation plan indicates the following levels of service on state high- ways in the Tigard area by the year 2000: I-5 "D" and better ORE 217 "D" and better US99W "F" Hall Blvd. "D" and better Scholls Hwy. "E" and "F" Because of the transportation problems outlined in the Regional Transportation Plan, MSU is completing a study of the west side and will initiate one for the southwest (including Tigard). The results of these studies will deal with such problems as those found in Tigard. We feel that the City of Tigard recognizes that the highway improvements underway or planned may be the last for some time and that future answers to Tigard's transportation problems lie in more intensive use of existing facilities and mass transit. Comprehensive plan policies, however, are couched in terms of ` "should" instead of "will". For example: Alan Michelson Page 2 October 22, 1980 --"Methods of discouraging private automobile use and encouraging other modes of travel should be supported." --`'Alternative iiiodes of transportation should receive increased emphasis." As the plan is amended we ask that further consideration be given to the relationship between the city's anticipated growth and its transportation system. More specifically, we ask that the plan's transportation policies be strengthened and that a strong policy be included to work with MSD and our Department to find solutions to transportation problems and needs in the Tigard area. Leo Huff, our Metro Transportation Planning Representative, will be working with your staff over the next few months on addressing these transportation concerns before the LCDC acts on Tigard's plan and ordinances. In addition to this transportation concern we also have comments regarding the plan's treatment of historic structures. The pian refers to two recognized historic structures and in- cludes a policy commitment to developing an index of historic sites and a program to protect historic structures. Since that two recognized structures are either in current public owner- ship or being restored for use as a historic museum we feel that it is probably not necessary to have an implementation measure to assure their protection. As additional sites or structures are identified, however, it will be important to have a policy and implementation measure to assure their pro- tection. Our State Parks and Recreation Division staff would be glad to assist the city in this future effort. We would like to be involved in future updates of the plan and ordinances. It will be helpful if you direct information on possible future plan revisions to Leo Huff, our Transporta- tion Planning Representative and Paul Taylor, our Parks Piu1-1-11-a;ig Representative. We would also appreciate your sending Leo notice of proposed zone changes and subdivision approvals along state highways. Addresses and phone numbers of our representatives are enclosed. Sincerely, Robert E. Royer, Assistant Director Policy and Planning Enclosure cc: W. J. Kvarsten/George Samaan Linda Macpherson Sue Klobertanz Leo Muff, Paul Taylor v � ODOT REGION PLANNING REPRESENTATIVES Leo Huff Transportation Planning Representative Metr000litan Branch 5821 kE Glisan Street Portland= OR 97213 238-8226 Paul Taylor Parks Planning Representative PO Box 149 Corbett, OR 97019 - 375-2261 or 238-7491 IV-J oma ! CiTY OF TIGr ftp 9 PUBLIC UT/L.f T Y 110NER OF OREGON VICTOR ATIYIEM LABOR & INDUSTRIES BUILDING, SALEM OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-6351 oovEw.011 October 23 , 1980 Mr W J Kvarsten, Director Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court St NE Salem OR 97310 Mayor City Hall Tigard OR 97223 The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) , by letter dated September 8 , 1980 , requested that the Public Utility Commissioner review the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan prior to its certification by the Land Conservation and Development Commission as br=ing in compliance with ORS Chapter 197 and the Statewide Planning Goals. That portion of the Comprehensive Plan relating to public railroad-highway. crossings has been reviewed_ Page 119 , discusses a proposal to combine the Southern Pacific' s and Oregon Electric's tracks. This would cause both railroads to utilize one track and eliminate the need for the other track. COMMENT This agency strongly supports the Citv' s pro- posal for consolidatien of railroad operations through Tigard. The Commissioner ' s statutory responsibilities with regard to grade crossings are found in ORS Chapter 763 and have been summarized in attachments to our agency coordination program which was furnished to the City of Tigard by our letter of June 9, 1978. The Commissioner will reserve the right to question and f disapprove future grade crossing applications or the r Lo Mr. W. J. Rvarsten October 23, 1980 Page Two retention of existing grade crossings included in the Comprehensive Plan if they can be shown to be unnecessary. It is requested that this agency be informed of your Commission's action on the City of Tigard' s Comprehensive Plan. David J. Astle Assistant Commissioner Rail-Air Program vkb/0015V ccs SIR 854, SUB 1 FD-Line, General File 3E-Line, General File STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INTEROFFICE MM40 TO: George Zama n, DLCD DATE: October 24, 1980 Bob Jackman, DEQ R'- CE1V�C 0 C T 3 p 198U SUBJECT: Tigard - Objection CITY OF TIGgHV The Department finds the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and implementing measures adeq �-rro o for DEQ concerns under LCDC Goals 6 and 11 except f noWe could find no discussion, inventory or policies on noisplan documents. Inaddition, pre-permit requirements, for evidence of proposal noise potential effects, in zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.030(2) (Industrial Park Zone Administration, pages 284-285), should reference DEQ noise standards and be included also under the conditional use section (18.72, page 305) and other industrial and commercial sections. I personally received this week a nuisance complaint on noise from the operation of a large chain grocery and variety store complex (commercial zone, I presume) just inside the city limits of north Tigard impacting residences in the county, just across the street. The complainant was calling representing Washington County Community Planning Organization (CPO) 4 and asked for help in measuring the noise levels against DEQ standards. She also asked if the Tigard or county plan Policies and ordinances prevented this. I had to tell her that nothing in the city plan and ordinances could ("zero" content on this) and that since DEQ has no permit authority for noise, neither could we before the fact. IN ORDER TO COMPLY with Goal 6, the city must: Develop a noise source inventory, policies which will ensure that develcpment and activities within the city will comply with statewide noise standards, and implementing measures that will effectuate the policies. BJ:s (1) GSD108.MB cc: City of Tigard Sue Rlobertanz, Local Coordinator METRO Plan Review Team Linda MacPherson, Cindy Fosdick and Jim Claypool, DLCD ( Northwest Region, DEQ Air Quality Division, DEQ Solid Waste Division, DEQ -- Water Quality -_ 1 a,i.vi=3vTt, �s:Q �t F Department of Environmental Quality 522 SOUTH`.^:EST 5TH AVE. PORTLAND. OREGON VICTOR ATIYEH MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1760. PORTLAND. O =GON 97207 October 24, 1980 W. J. Kvarsten, Director Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court St. , N.E. Salem, OR 97310 Re: Objection - Tigard Acknowledgement Dear Mr. Kvarsten: The Department reluctantly objects to LCDC Acknowledgement of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan because of deficiencies related to noise control. The attached memo sets out the basis for objection in detail, along with our perception of what is needed to remedy the objection. We will assist the City in whatever fashion we are able to address these concerns. Sincerely, William H. Young Director RDJ:s (1) GSD108.LB Attachment cc: City of Tigard Sue Kloberstanz, Local Coordinator METRO Pian Review Team Linda Mar_nherson, DL-CD Field Representative Jim Claypool, DLCD Field Division Secretary, DLCD DEQ AQ DEQ WQ DEQ SW DEQ NC DEQ NWR s vil M ' Q N 1 H O _ H 6-4 C N � O f a co 1 • W a � • H O A cn M a uy N 6 �D N } ra �8 0. O M cn a H H � ^ 00Ln X U x _ cli to � N ! a0 1 1 .-a 1 rn 0 O • x t z 1 cti Aj W 1 CO O I H 6W Z " -4U O I H W 41 U M I W c� W z 1 V3 a�1 3 I O Fs+ CO p W J co W z ' zo k.00 H li 60 M '.1 rn O �t E H O V] ^ q al ^ N a . .M cNn e v 41 cn cn H H - W N cn •O ' O� N M a co ca A 1 a cn CD O toil I O a a cn ^ 0 Z = 1 U H H H F+ 1 H 14 H-a a 1 U W 1 C En A 3 U 1sa co 1 U W V w N O FO L7V e n-- C4 q _ N N Q