The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 08/29/1983 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate AUGUST 29, 1983, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start 10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are TIGARD, OREGON 97223 asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less; longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by con- tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. 1. SPECIAL MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 3. AMEND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE NO. 83- 3 City Administrator RECESS COUNCIL MEETING 4. TURA MEETING 4.1 Call to Order and Roll Call i 4.2 CID Financing Report 4.3 Adjournment RECONVENE COUNCIL MEETING 5. DEVELOPMENT CODE - PUBLIC HEARING - (continued from 8-9-83) o Public Hearing, Opened o Summation by Planning Department o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Staff Response o Public Hearing, Closed o Consideration by Council 6. CONSENT- AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 6.1 Approve Board & Committee Appointments 6.2 Approve Stone/Borders LID Bancroft Agreement 6.3 Approve Amendment to Administative Agreement 6.4 Approve Tigard Arco-Non Remonstrance Agreement Resolution No. 83- 6.5 Receive and File: Memo From City Attorney - Access to Personnel .' Files. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 8. ADJOURNMENT (ch/0316A) r T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L f SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 29, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors: Tom Brian and John Cook; City Staff: Doris Hartig, City Recorder; Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning and Development; Liz Newton, Associate Planner; and Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel. DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM, MEETING WAS NOT CONVENED UNTIL 8:25 P.M. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS (a) City Administrator noted items distributed this evening, and clarified Council Calendar for September meetings. He also reported a Washington County Public Officials Caucus at the Rock Creek Community College on August 30, 1983. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (a) No one appeared to speak. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 83-44 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS, ADDING PROBATIONARY PERIOD. �- (a) City Attorney commented on memo distributed explaining the 3 issueq raised by ordinance and stated the City has the authority to make the changes recommended by the City Administrator. (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cock, to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8:33 P.M. COUNCIL MEETING RECESSED 5. TURA MEETING (a) ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Wilbur Bishop; TURA Members: Tom Brian and John Cook; City Staff: Doris Hartig, City Recorder; Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning and Development; Liz Newton, Associate Planner; and Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel. (u) CIP FINANCING REPORT o Consultant Lyle Stewart reviewed with Board his financing report. He noted the two alternatives for financing methods are: (one) to contract with City for services prior to the receipt of the tax increment for fiscal 1984-85. This would create a debt and would allow the projects to proceed without borrowing money or selling bonds. The .second option would be to borrow $250,000 on a short term basis in 1985 and sell $1,000,000 urban renewal bonds in 1988. PAGE 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 29, 1983 o Attorney Sullivan requested clarification if the proposal is to be ( implemented before 9/20/83 election. Stewart replied there would not be time to complete report before the vote and recommended the City not create indebtedness until the voters decide. o Motion by Board Member Brian, seconded by Board Member Cook, the consultant prepare the final report with amendments indicating both alternatives as discussed. :lotion approved by unanimous vote of Board present. (b) TURA RESOLUTION NO. 83-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS. o City Administrator explained the purpose of the transfer was to send out information regarding the election with the City newsletter. o City Attorney stated he had no problem as long as the information doesn't advocate anything and gives phone numbers of both sides. Motion by Board Member Cook, seconded by Board Member Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Board present. (d) ADJOURNMENT: 8:55 P.M. i COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED: 8:55 P.M. 6. APPROVE BOARD AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (a) City Administrator reported the Selection Advisory Committee recommended appointment of the following: Myrna Pinkerton - Park Board; Milton Frye - Planning Commission; Jane Miller - Library Board. (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to appoint as recommended. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. APPROVE STONE/BORDERS LID BANCROFT AGREEMENT (a) City Administrator commented the intent was to approve agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City. (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve and authorize signing. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 83-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT W. JEAN. E 4 i f PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 29, 1983 1 't (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. j 9. APPROVE. TIGARD ARCO NON-REMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT j i (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. 'r Approved by lxnanimous vote of Council present. s F 10. RECEIVE AND FILE - Memo from City Attorney - Access to Personnel Files (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 1 11. DEVELOPMENT CODE - PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from 8/9/83) (a) Public Hearing Opened ` (b) Planning Director noted his memo of 8/26/83 regarding industrial uses in the CBD zone. He suggested Council receive testimony from the } majority and minority opinion. o Bill Cox, representing the majority opinion of the Policy Committee testified for light industrial uses in the CBD zone and the allowance of pre-existing uses and grandfather rights. o Gary Ott, representing the minority opinion, 9055 SW Edgewood submitted a statement that the Committee majority erred in its conclusions ; did not meet the intent of Council's direction and the recommendation was not in the best interest of Tigard. He recommended keeping the existing uses grandfathered and limit the industrial uses. s o Pat Furrer, TURA, Advisory Committee Chairman, commented he was upset by decision of Committee and feels it is not in the best interest of the City. o Dennis Brunn, representing the A.I.A. , Chairman of a special committee to evaluate and review the development code, suggested his 1 committee have more time to review the code, he opposed the 20% landscaping requirements, buffer zone, supported lower standards for yard setbacks and parking stall standards. He commented on the potential loss of useable land and offered to go through the code with City staff. o Councilor Brian suggested he submit his comments in writing to the City. o Bill Cox, Randall Company, 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite #300, supported Brunn's testimony and emphasized the City was trying to contain urban sprawl and provide economic opportunities for development of industrial and commercial land. He recommended cutting back the landscaping and parking requirements. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 29, 1983 o Van Camp, 8800 SW 57th, Portland, Oregon, owner of Air King site, r agreed with testimony of Cox and Brunn regarding restricting the use of the land and making it difficult to develop property. o Dan Dolen, 3907 SW 130th, Portland, Oregon, property owner on Burnham and Main, opposed the landscaping requirements. o Wes Meacham, 7533 Edgewater, Portland, Oregon, representing Time Oil Company, 15900 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, requested their property be incorporated with retail fuel sales along with convenience stores and be allowed in the light commercial area. o Staff suggested this use be added a a conditional use. o Jim Miller, representing the small property owners in the triangle area discussed the size of parking stalls and suggested Council conserve space. o JB Bishop, Suite 303, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. , Portland, testified against the 20% landscaping requirements, yard setbacks, parking stall spaces, and emphasized the economic use of land. o Geraldine L. Ball, representing herself and DJB, Inc. , 11515 SW 91st , testified regarding water being diverted on her property. o Staff responded Mrs. Ball's testimony does not relate to the code but to the map and wetlands designation and suggested she bring back for October 10th meeting for discussion. o Bob Bledsoe, NPO #3 Chairman, 11800 SW Walnut, noted a discrepancy in staff report and discussed the suggested waiver of fees for appeals; discussed private vs. public roads and allowing a 24 foot private access for 3-6 dwellings. o Council and staff discussed the review of the code for conflicts and inconsistencies. Staff reported they will review and bring report to Council's attention. In addition, staff will report on every item discussed in public testimony as well as bring staff recommendations. During the discussion stage by Council, staff suggested some public input be allowed at that time but no new information, only clarifying information. (c) Public Hearing Closed Consensus of Council was to close public hearing and continue Council consideration until September 12, 1983. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 P.M. / ,Y cri�C.-o City Recorder - 'City 0/7 igard ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tigard (DH:lw/0398A) PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 29, 1983 TiMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 1_1111i al P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-03E NO tn(_195 BEA`:ERTON.OREGON 97075 AUG C'vleo Legal Notice Advertising �'iN ,9 1983 • ❑ Tearsheet Notice C/ry OF TIGARv City of Tigard • P.O. Box 23397 • Q Duplicate Affidavit Tigard, Oregon 97223 • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. I, Susan Pinkley being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard Oregon in the aforesaid county and state; that the LEGAL NOTICE a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for one successive and consecutive in the following issues: �iug_ust �^'� `ti983 Subscribed and sworn ore 4thi t 26. 1983 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Feb. 24, 1986 AFFIDAVIT 1 l Date Aug. 29: 1983 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (please print your name) VISITOR'S AGENDA: - NON• AGENDA ITEMS: I _ ff Name, Address & Affiliation Item Description €. } t t {6 f. 1 { 1 _ t f 1 t�. t t TIGARD CITY COUNCIL - August 29 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARINGS PLEASE SIGN TO TESTIFY WAKE ADDRESS (CHE K I SUE YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON 0 N 6 0 y U) a > o b r4 Cu N > U C7 u O 4 L G w w G b G ro p, H G u u • + IN a G o a +J 0 U w W• 4 u q ro .° 0 OTHER (Please Specify) w a rq G A 0 a a N a a 0 � 0 A ° �, S v G.y N 6 na v-4 oo i.i O a M o A o O a G N r+ r4 .-+ G r4 N U -H b a 0Uo-4 a �> �qaCc>u a o w > .n a b ro a of.rA. .�n94 p H aaNi En4*## # a## E �� a l �.. Sao t.w. �re�Q �,c �. � ! /� �, _r w• lir v ;w cm/s f 101pt4 Kc.R"', Te 3G 3. /OJ 21 >< X 1,X llol� 10, ,� Ix I px� vvve4-�' ah , ao, tio-�Lt NE bom' �oA�c, _- ov i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: City Administrator SUBJECT: Agenda Item #3 - Amend Residency Requirements Ordinance No. 83- i I have spoken with Ed Sullivan and Susan Schneider of the City Attorney's Office regarding the questions raised 8/22/83 by Mark O'Donnell of that office. i The ordinance as submitted on 8/22/83 is recommended to you for approval. Please bring your copy of that ordinance from the 8/22/83 meeting. A C S f f i 4 k (BJ:pl/0483A t 4 Y f t e l i F It } O'D�NNF_LL. DATE August 29, 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N W. HOYT STREET TO Mayor and City Council, City of Tigard PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM City Attorney, City of Tigard RE Residency Requirement for Department Heads A proposed ordinance was considered by the City Council last Monday evening and continued until tonight. This proposed ordinance would modify TMC §§ 2. 06. 010 and 2. 06 . 030 in the following ways: 1. To change the offices subject to the requirement that department heads be residents of the city within 120 days of appointment; 2. To change the 120 day for residency so as to run from the date of the probationary period (normally six months) , rather from appointment; and 3. To change the "extension period" which may be granted by the city council to a department head in which to comply with the above requirements from 30 days to an indefinite period, as well as to broaden the grounds upon which such an extension may be granted. Mark O'Donnell, who sat in for me last Monday, raised the issues j: of the definition of "permanent residency" and whether the restrictions on such residency were constitutional . The use of the words "permanent residency" , though unusual , is reasonably equated with mere "residency" , i.e. , the dwelling at a specific place with an intent to do so for the forseeable future. I can find no authority which differs "permanent residency" from "residency. " See, e.g. , ORS 247 .035. I am of the opinion that the word "permanent" is superfluous and that the word "residency" is the operative word of the requirement. Further, until overturned by a court of competent jurisdiction, the present residency requirements should be deemed valid, at least as to department heads. 3 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, section 12. 59 . A review of Oregon authority leads me to believe that such a requirement is constitutional as applied in this situation. Oregon State Bar Committee on Continuing Legal Education: Local Government (1982) , section 6. 14 . Further, I believe that council would act within its legislative perogative to change both the period in which an extension may be granted and the grounds upon which such extension may be sought. The requirements are those made by ordinance, rather than by Charter and the council retains the ability to change legislative policy on personnel, would it so desire. In short, I am of the opinion that "permanent residency" is equivalent to maintaining residency within the city for the for- seeable future and that the Code sections are valid and EJS:mch 81129/83 Page 1 O•DONNELL. DATE August 29 , 1983 SULLIVAN a RAW-IS ATTORNEYS AT LAW To Mayor and City Council i727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 FROM City Attorney 15031 222-4402 ( RE Residencyn Requirement for De artmet Heads 4 i constitutional. I would find these sections met if the affected chased or leased a department head purdwelling or resided with another person with the intent of permanent residency and, thus, could be a lawful voter in Tigard. i I will be happy to discuss this matter with you further at your f i convenience. e 1 I 1 t 6 s EJS:mch 8/29/83 Page 2 i I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 11 AGENDA OF: August 29, 1983 AGENDA ITEM #: / g DATE SUBMITTED: August 23, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: 1 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: TUFA Financial Report REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: WAM CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY TURA on July 25, 1983, heard a report from TURA Consultant Lvle Stewart on Capital improvement priorities. Lyle has now prepared a summary of financing methods contained in Working Paper Number Nine. Lyle will be present to discuss the new information at the TURA meeting on August 29, 1983. Attached for your review is the new working paper number nine as well as table 30 A, B, and C which make up working paper number eight. Working paper number eight was previously submitted to you. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION submitted prior to Lyle's presentation. Council should review the information Upon completion of the presentation, Council should give direction to the consultant whether additional work is required or accept the document. K VI S D PUBLIC IA�PROVEMENTS PROPOSED® A (l aC3) COST a® T I TES n 19 � L.La� 5, t TIGARD U A FUMDice!`4 U CEi COAPILF-0 0Y '5TA,FF � COASut,WAT ••.Juet 19, 1983 I Uf �UNOINC, SOURCtS r-p-10 9-V I P 6 L I C I AAF RO V E M lr- rS TOTAL TAY, iNCaEMF-UO T TH E2 500MCES ISACIUDING ALL EKGltIEfeWIJG y t�eOMt�llSTtigTl�lE 003T3 CO T PROCEEDS AS W0raD u- $(19 83) °% $ (1983) a/o `.6 (1983 Soup-a 1.1 SANtrARY SEwEV- S+. acrors rZ.Q..+o burnha.,S4- 18ro Copp O — too 136,600 SEwc-R-Rxio 1.2 STorLm QRAtgf (oMmerctol E:+ to fa.n+to Crk 1 40 800 SO 70,400 50 -70,400 l_ID 1.3 MAN.ST. BRI DGE 352, 10 0 52 111 too 68 240 ppa SrATr-- 1-4 Oµ-OK (AWI t{w o CoM.nerctcl T, u.<1 S+.s. 104100 37- 2'2,+ 100 68 80 0o STATE. >- ASH Sl" (SourN) •- Rt k+-oC-Way 41,160 50 140,55a 50 ^,0,550 1.10 dI-Ho 3q3, loo 50 19 Co,550 50 196,cSo LID d ttlo X34-,700 50 1 t-1(-65c) 5o 117, 350 SOF t TIGARA 5T. SxTst`+s+oFt To AsH ST- - tih-a2{• 1 D--gck ® 181,400 80 _305, 120 20 76, 1-80 WD dl�+o ul t1k-oF-ate. 469 400 801 315, 510 11) q3,88a LID dt+fo - Rcb-"4'G R.RTroctcs ,586, 700 80 •469,360 20 111, 39-0 D-lt�nc�A� C' L� 500+71 0C ffla.. S+. 1,1 Co 11 500 '1,0 251 300 8Q 11 009,200 I-ID MAIW STIR-GST t'EQES�(L%At4 AtAn4 n rg-r OW-c-Trzsrr-(' k'AtLe-A Ki CXb 80 +q7"('40 20 114-,400 L.tD Wr-At-4No C"Qje- 1940 800 15 20,800 50 -70,000 palVAz"E Q� t.7 dt++a - 35 So,00a sDF 'i 3 F RW3 C2x-� PIN6-c 234?00 15 34100 42.5 1001000 S>,c - 42•S 100,6dt3 STAT 5utj To•rAl_5 i 5,7�,DOo q-fo.90 2 bg6,45o 53.Io 3,052.50 ~1-1 p" = l-OCAL IMPI?AVEMEt1T DIST• ��SDC" =S�S7EM5 pEaJElOC'MF�.1 i C�IARG� • "Sp F" =STORM Ot?�.11.1 FUt`i0 L.AS H1GHESI pR101;?-1T`( N0 1. S`E2tC-5 19 NUMERICAL ORJ3ER LOWER PPR021T`( = No 2 SEIZJes -111-53 TALE REVISED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS P ®I SES® � {iaC3� COST T� ATE5 n 1983 LLA 5, flGARD WMIN, Fumzl"115UQCFe> CAMPII-60 6Y 'STAFF C-31ASWA9T ••JUL-1 19, 1M REIII 1=UNDING SOURCES PRIaR.1•tY �x p()C�L_ l G 1 M P T2 V E M 1S t�-rs TOTAL TAY, INCRr-MEb1T OTNE� r�OU2CE� tNuvotNc Au- EtAGweeaIKG aoMtrttsrwoctice cosTs �83, u�o (q83) (1483 AS �rE a0►�GE 3uttNHArn STREET P>=Co*+srQucTtoN 27 ,000 I10 I IG,400 LlD I.5 4t,40b SDG ; Z.1 d;++oSDf 1 di++o - 5 19,$O� Gro. 30 000 GO 13$ 000 20 46,000 LID TIGARO SrRtrsT ReC1]NST2JCTtoN Aoc•NWy +o Ave)� _ 15 '34,500SDG d +to `�• dio - S 111500 SAF / • a k GONJnEtulAt SZ1zc6T 9cor+sCu�lcrionl (t'u•n S+ {° q�`' 25l o00 60 154-,'LOO20 51 400 LID d,�4o - i S 38 55O SOC :. - 5 12 8S0 `EDF C,oM, MCIAL •5TLSET 11sr-ONSTRJC-TION -17,1Ob T7, 200 LIO Z.3 d iso � 15 28 950 SDC �, - 5 9,r,5o SDF d Ro LI0 I.l 25O 50 9 625 50 8,roz5 ASN 5TRMT Nau-rN Vt k4 o-'Wa 25,075 50 25,8 5 LID 2.4 di{{o -- Conc�•roc.�ton 51 75C) 50 LlQ . difco R.e.Gtzonm 1449,5(30 w�5�^0 7c�rr-75a -0 71-?50 OMM1frf,4' 40 g,��.00 (_I 1) ASH STW-T- o+.1'STRucTtoN (Sco�Ti �-o ( _ t g 4o,7c?o SDG 6,900 SDF a atdo — E 25 ,,i SCe�C-�1N5 5r. P-ECoNSTfZuC-vic S.t:, S M T! 103,500 4e� 4-43 `r cli{te 15 15, 5?•s sDF. S 5,17 S diHcl UO Z•G SCc.1FFINs 5T Ext^-NVatj (T° Hall 61vd. - RI I4-a-44 115,000 So 51,5�o Sa 5�.Soa d�il, 57 50 o So 28 750 50 4 g,�5o t.ICi 'L-10" = LOCAL IMP�VEtA011 1 01St• ••SDG" =S`fST AS OEVEI-OPMEc.1 t C11AR�%� • '"SD Fff =STORM pP_n.tt.1 FU1•lD sty e' HIGHEST c�RIORIT`l NO l S�FuteS 19 NUMEMCALOrwea LowF- - REVISED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED, TA15M G bar-6) COST ESTIMATES ?n 1983 DOLLAM, t T16A D UMH 50UC COMPILED BY 'STAFF � C04SULWAT ••JUL,( 19, im RE"AL MU of FUNDING 15,I)OI .C5-5 PUIOQcw x jPU Rj L l Cl k M P 12 V E.M E—K TS TOTAL TAX INMEMEMT OTNsiz SOURCES 0 114CLOOIRG ALL COSTS c-o T PROCEEDS _ AS NO'rSD twtr. a--- tt,(19SS) ,/. *, CI983) °/o $ (1983) SOUMCE CNIC CSWrea LAND i� 130lUDltlC,5OOC X00 O loo 4R98Q!$j SU6TOTA1_ (2-) 3 SBLA500 111,900 x,816,600 l� i 5 74 o ao 4GAo 2 qo 45 SI-10 '3,051,55'0 � ",JQ iFRJ606L1t•`� 'CbT _ 3 558 500 21.51 11 1l9oo 18.49 2 816 (000 _ GrZAt-AQ 'i TN- 500 31.14 S,4-(c8 350 (ol.8r. 5, Gc) SO LOCAL IMPWVEMEW i DISC.; ''SDC" =SY5TEMS owsLOpMElii 04A.7-GO; '"SD F"=S-TOR-M MAIM FUND L.&s 4-1IGHEST T0R10RiT`( N-0 1.SERIES 111 tALMAS 1CALOP. SZ LOWER.. PRIOfLtr f v4 2 S�TLiss T'19'°J CONTRACT BORROWING . WITH CITE PRIOR. TO ALTERKA-TIV� $UMtAAI7L'-( 00 TWO THF: RRCI;IPT 0� TAX TURA CONTRACT WIT�1 GIT`(•, FIN ANC 1 143 MT14009 1 f4CUAEN I Torf-15CA L 84'85 1985 51AOD..T TvZM 14M(6M.3) .ACO fb^cerg'D OM T..UP-A COWTIZACT5 WITIA pov.$250, )60; 1988 ISSUE alZOWTIA SCCOA MIGN13� CITY. .. :roz P[DOECT UR-ZkW VMWEWAL. B014D5 -6v 0!`lITM A 13.01 TO RATE IMPI-RMEWTATIO" ---A $1,00o,000 ••' THR6E DRbT WILL br, !KrABL151460 SEPAVATR DEZT5. p To BE OF I�RETSCT5V* VALUE OF PROJECTS f�c�Q ESTIMATED To BE COMPL&TEp�' 'f0 8tc COMPLETEDWORKIN A14HUAL 111T �tyq JST 2Np SAX At1NUAl. ANNVAI_ PAPI5CAt_ ittGREM6NTPRAJEGT pROJEGT PrEm R YHAtt PROG8ED5 ExpeDIruacs 'ARI R[TY PRIORITY expr-mrruaes PRIORITY PRIORITY 6110 NINE 1984-85 t$to IS,t6o '2,87od5o 825,930 15,000 ie7o,2o0 825,730 • TAaLF '��. I je5-8(0 46,150 41,010 3,028,950 883,750 40,000 3,o31,t i o 893,750 VIM ANCIAL 17F-TAILS OF 1885-87 94,240 86,400 3,154,570 945,610 000 9,223,290 945,610 1`uR,q COt.ITtLACT 1PlG �OZ ►987-88 l Sr "0 146,1 50 3,229,240 1,0 { 1,800 100,000 3,34©,920 I,OI I,E00 P1zoJt:.CT' IMpL-aMSKlTA'rlot4 1988-8y 223210 2t 1,650 3,243,(.40 1,081630 800,000 x,783,340 1,082,630 WITR CITY 6F TIGA lD 198990 'L94,Gga 7.81,720 9,158,970 1,158,410 100,000 4„878,670 1,158,410 TAFSLE: ' � �¢ 1990'91 380900 380,900 3,036,300 1,239,500 100,000 2,974,(.4° 1,239,500 FItJANCIAL DET/a1L5 C� ° 1991 -42 48o9Qo 480,910 2,762,580 1,326270 9,00,000 2,gS8,2zo 1,328,270 1. CON?R.aCTl1l4 Vtt6TH CITY 1992-43 572780 572,780 4,383,180 1,419,110 400,000 x,690,370 1,419.110 2. EiO1zROW `LSI�,UOO 1985 1998-94 64(.040 645,040 1,903,460 6,568,.440 5.30,000 x,378,720 1,516,440 3. ISSue Lmz.Baws '• 1988" 1994-•95 l 16,680 716,680 1,32a,5Go 1,624,780 500,000 41045,23° 1138,470 Foe I,000,QOO 1495-96 812,220 612,220 600,780 t,S38,970 700,000 1,488,400 , 199 +-47 409 409,230 couP�nreo 1,646,700 7 430,0$30 892,5 230 40 1,8(.0,160 1947-98 3l 1,710 378160 O 1,383 810 fc7ro,Z30 279,840 1.990.370 Al- TOTAt_5 §,(x80000 5,660,000 5,680,000 BALANCE �F9S1,730 8N �?47c,`1 NA 997 TURA c N 1997 l..A. 5Tt✓WART 6-19-83TU e e # VALUE OF AROJEGTS 't'o BE GOMI°L6T8.D,tnl'FLATEt) A 74/ C�ETZYEAR••TUBA'S S$jAIRE,56t5 Tf%81.B5 30•A,B,G FINANCING PLAN WITH 114COME BASED 014 -r�BLE 3J. G QG T14 SCSNAP,IC.� V m4 T ...Te (p t mol I T iC, R D ISR Abd 1-U A C014TRACT WITS CITY 5 Mr- of POLIC WORKS PRIOR ` O COLLEC`CIgGN TAX INCR.LM6ENT PROCEEDS RENEWAL AREA TAX I1,ACl2EMG.V1T U.SY WUS A-r VALUE O!"WORK TAX RATE dFS 13J l�1400 TO Bk COMPl.6TED AVAI1,AG L SPENT 15ALANCG.. CUMULATIVE iST 2Np :=052 DURING AT YEAR 2SV6NJe PlZIOQITY PRIORITY Y�R v�a �°_. s�T PRoJKTS PRr�JECrS 1991 -8z mal-a3 1483-84 4'ro9o,450 ��I qcG 1934-85 l?$20 15 !50 G7o 15 150 2,J� �5 30 1985.86 ,420 �,dto "1 4►o S7,lco o2s,2so 8 ,-iso lol GSo 86 x¢00 15,,I-So 143;560 3,154- 5 70 94- 1996-97 I,� 1987-8a 17f 9443 1461 0 25.790 U9,110 "'219 1,01 I,aoo 1988.89 000 9-ii,650 37,350 501 340 3,2-4'1,690 I,0A2,6,30 1984-Ra 331,440 281720 49 Mo 78s08o 3,13�,97p I,15s,�TIo 1990-91 A30,100 380900 50,000 1,163.980 ?. 031,300 1,239,5 14QI-9l 530,910 111910 50 000 1444 n 2,i�7,5a�� ' 'zti,'2° 1982-93 612,780 572,79o. 93,000 4'L 17 670 2,387 ISO i,t119,l to 19Q3-94 696 0$0 644,404a. �0 000 2 863 710 1,9�3,96o I,513,440 1994-95 764,480 _ 716 Ago 50000 3 5Eo�tjo 1,320,560 1,624 730 1495-96 4-391Glo 600,780 1,:'.8,970 1996-97 9Sry 30 409.230 50000 5301SMO COMPLErE 1497-98 328 1 bo78 I6o 0 5,480 000 o 1383 810 pLAhr �Nc�� 4� � Tl G A ,D U R AN GROW. 14 SCENARIO x gATF. ® � � Pj'Y 4590P.T TERM NOTE ��t�o,��) � ��t�D 155t�� ($ I,000.000) SAL R 8. . 2. PROJ�-� FINANCING COQ 5 AINVAL AINUAL InITca65T 4' PAYfWEUTS TOTAL FUNDS F010 EARNED P¢E PLANNIN4 PROJECT PA'(JAmTS AVAILA13L6 OALAUCS ALI1.IUALR FOLLOW A TAX IIdVESt 8010 ADA1191STV COMMO�:TRA�T o1 SFIORT OK RE6lEWAL (p I t'RO�EG( ��5 CUMMFNTS iµCRTsMENT >Z55EILVE P2EP.Cp$TS pAYMEtdTS Z 000 � 1 0�00,000� 6XPE�NDITUttE $R FISCAL PROCEEDS fuNDQ 1% . $ YEAR $ i6 $ 148E -82 0 0 5550 0 0 tq$2-63 5.550 5550 ° 0 0 11,1`10 0 o CoNTOALT WtT>• OTYPo1sucWe�cs••Srnarfaol.vtstc►1 !483-84 11,190 11,190 ° o i5,odo ►7,820 4820 1984.85 17,820 15,000 0 - 40,000 ° 0 X0,000 299,570 259570 Bottaovt $250,000 fot>• 5Yas 14 ►Q8$•86 rol50 20,000 12830 ° 42,830 353,8( 0 260980 1926-S7 94,240 ° 349 83 0 4 17,67 0 67,840 DEPwR $177,oao �a 8010 ItESEIU/la fU1D qe� 1987-88 156,690 177000 !60,000 72,830 9..23,210 IS93O 10000 800,000 72,830 176,490 1,114,8.20 1,291,050 111,230 ISsug'80.�os taa. taYasCJ12` 19£sa'89 160,000 72,830 1 7699 0 349 820 465,320 l l 5,500 I9a9-90 294,191 17360 2fT{QE SNoeT•« wts�Yb D 1990'91 390,900 18930 !00,000 72,830 176990 344820 496,400 146.580 o ►76,940 4.76,990 627,48014;q 27,480 150,490 1441-92 400,900 9.0,630 300,(300 - ; 4.00o,000 22490 0 176990 576,490 723,270 146,280 1492-93 572'780 500,000 0 176990 676,490 742,320 t 1 5,330 Igg3"qq 646,040 24,510 67 ,yg0 32 o1 I SS,02o SdO,000 0 17�o,ggo 6 8 , C) 1994-95 716,680 26,720 7 0 076,990 967,240 90,250 00,000 0 176,99 1224 O 1995-96 812.720 29,120 700000 0 176,990 876,990 999,480 9 TEasuriATct�" teaoaaasKT 1996"97 Q09,230 31,740 676,230 0 (76,990 853220 853,220 0 ReTta`of 1497-98 9 1 1 7 10 34,59 0 B�EIO Q.eseav6 Fina �1►rrewwr AvAN46E 17aa P¢o3• AL TOTAL TAx INCON1141 V^t-%J6 acs of ikreMT Aw,,Aeu eAAW&u 0 7 349,020 T07�.LS 5,680,000 242020 263,740 495► 230 364150 1,76990 TIGA121) URBAN �Rc�� C-rs PAYMe T 504 F®UL CURRENT LLAR �iALU ®� t�3��1�65��Q ��OVEMIayTS uNDIN� OF PubLIC t PRUJ5GT FIR57' PRIOt21TY PRo�GTS SECAU 9RIORICY PpOJ6CT5 COSI I6ALANCt VALUE s BALANCE 65TIMAT6D VALUE 10LATIOW OF WORK ANNUAL OF WORK OF WORK ANNUAL OF WAR REMARKS F15CAL RATA To 6E DONE EXPENIDITp¢E To o DWI To 0�pON£ EXP�OITURE TO 1�DOVE ►983-84 ut 269�45v o 2,696,450 IL pt 3 825,93 0 1984-85 F- nt �,885,2do 150002,870,100 883750 198586 40tU 3,OZ I,I I o 40000 3,o31,1 10 — 0 0000 3,17 290 3 a 945,61 O 1986-87 I,W°. 3,143,190 2 ' ,200 1987-es _ Z 1,446 110 100000 3,348,921,ol 1 0 _ r_ 1,082,6so _y N3° 3,583,340 Woo Cc)2,783,340 r 1988.89 1989-9c7 Q-t. '1,478 I70 l00000 2,8"18,170 Q ZO 1,239,500 1990'91 -x II 3,079,G4o 100000 2,y79,G4o V 1,316,170 3,1 88120 300000 2,888,120 O 1491-92 w u� 1,419,► t o 1991-93 Q�� 3,090,390 40000 0 2,G9o,39O a 1,5 l 8 4qo I9Q3-9�r _1x� 2,87 q --120 _500,OOtl .,378,720 w i 624730 1994-95 tLoO 4,543,230 Sooaoo2,oas,ti3o N ZQ (,738,470 1495-96 2 3 2,188x}00 7 od,00 o f 488 4o0 70o,00p Sq'L 590 I gco,16U 1996-97 —u 1,591590 I,99o370 $ ►,990,370 4"0 P910¢lTY PROD. [9991 VAIVa 1997-45 Q R5b,07o 616,230 478,9fL0 _ 2'78,840 1'r PF1021TY PROJ• " 1447 VALUE Q N } 0d F}-p ,� L6Q .yl0 Ig97 VALUE Of UµFtN�SHED PAOJCCTS 0oa 1: r- $� W}a �°P>NaQpad� 3 °' > aa c °0 W CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 29,_ 1983 AGENDA ITEM : DATE SUBMITTED: August 24, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Code REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is information concerning the third public hearing to be held by the Council on the Development code. Staff will address all issues raised by individuals upon completion of the public hearing. Members of the Council must also determine if the changes suggested by the Planning Commission on the errata sheets should be incorporated into the code. Please bring your copy of the Code as well as your copy of the errata sheets. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council may adopt a version of the Development Code which incorporates various changes suggested by the Planning Commission or members of the public. rr SUGGESTED ACTION l Staff suggests that the City Council complete the public hearing phase of the process then consider the many proposed changes, and adopt those modifications which the Council feels merit approval. i C.ITYOF TIVA1 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: August 24, 1983 RE: Community Development Code ' i On Monday, August 29, 1983, the City Council will conduct perhaps the last public hearing on the code. Staff will hand deliver a list of all issues raised at your prior hearings. The list will provide the following i information: the page number of the code addressed by the issue, the person proposing a change, the area of concern raised, and the staff's opinion on the issue. During your final deliberations on the code it will be necessary for the Council to act on the code as proposed as well as the errata sheet prepared as a result of the Planning Commission hearings. Council will need to accept or reject each of the Planning Commission recommendations. Also attached for your information are exerpts from "The Satellite Earth { Station Zoning Book" supplied by Jon W. Nelson of Universal Satellite, Inc. This document may assist you in your coordination of 18.139 pages VII-36 thru VIII-40, the accessory use section of the code. Staff will be prepared to address all issues previously raised as well as any new concerns raised at the hearing on Monday. We will also provide you with a report from the CBD Development Policy Committee which will meet on Thursday, August 25, 1983, to discuss the uses to be allowed in the CBD. t z z F (dmj 0076P) 12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOY•.23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 C11YOFTIGrAFM WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: August 26, 1983 RE: Report of CBD Development Policy Committee On Thursday, August 25, 1983, the CBD Development Policy Committee, created by the City Council met to formulate recommendations to the Council. The following members participated at the work session: J B Bishop, representing NPO # 1; Van Camp, property owner; Bill Cox, representing Property Owner Robert Randall Company; Deane Leverett, Planning Commissioner; Gary Ott, NPO # 1; Jack Schwab, TURA Advisory Committee; and Bill Monahan, Planning Director (non voting member). The Committee discussed the proposed prohibition of industrial uses in the CBD zone as created by the interim zoning passed in March. In addition, a discussion of grandfather rights for non-conforming uses was held. Setbacks for property adjoining a residential district were discussed in light of economic development consideration. The Committee reached the following consensus: Page III-44 of the development Code, 18.66.040 (J) - Revise as follows: "J. Wholesale, storage, assembly, distribution 1. mini warehouse 2. light manufacturing" Actually, further analysis of the proposed code shows that on pages III-14 and III-15 the definition for Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution by type are clearly defined. Therefore, if the Council chooses to allow light industrial uses in the CBD it should reference: S Light Industrial f a.) Manufacturing of Finished Products b. ) Packaging and processing Or, the Council may wish to limit the light industrial uses further to those uses such as pharmaceutical, computer assembly, etc. If the Council accepts the Committee recommendation, light manufacturing would be a conditional use throughout the CBD. 12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 The Committee then reached consensus that there should be a PD overlay on any application under this section (the light manufacturing conditional use). t As a result, the decision for granting a conditional use under this section of the article would be made by the Planning Commission rather than the Hearing Officer. IIIIIIIIIIIIM The final item approved by the Committee for recommendation to the Council involves the area of pre-existing uses and grandfather rights. The particular problem of Security Storage was presented by Bill Cox. To prevent interpretation of the grandfather rights on a unit to unit basis rather than by structure or parcel, Bill Cox recommended the following addition on page I-20: Existing "Structure or Building. That which is build or constructed, an edifice or building or any land, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Proposed Addition: "This shall not be interpreted to include individual parts, rooms, or units comprising a structure." Council should be made aware that the Committee was not unanimous in its recommendations. It is expected that members of the Committee as well as the TURA Advisory Committee will be present at the August 29, 1983, meeting to provide input. i i i C WM:dj(0143P) t Page 2 t I I I c®n Electric c., I nco • • CONTRACTING e • COMMERCIAL § INDUSTRIAL § RESIDENTIAL 6445 N. E.Union Avenue Portland,Oregon 97211 Phone: (503)289-8894 August 26 , 1983 Planning Department City of Tigard City Hall ( Tigard , Oregon 406 c ' Gentlemen: Y �CfS3 e p D U _ I would like permission to build six additional CA�Nik' �'c1&D two-bedroom apartment units on my property at Fioj 9655 S . W. McKenzie Street, Tigard . The lot I wish to build on is of sufficient area to accomodate six two-bedroom units , and I will have the required parking space. The sewer line and the water are already extended into this area. In talking to Mr . Monahan this morning, I was made aware of the present zoning which could require a thirty foot setback from a residential area. If I have my directions correct, the Kings Choice Apartments would be immediately to the south of this lot and the vacant property belonging to J . B . Bishop on the north. I do not think the thirty foot setback should apply in my case since I am not building any commercial buildings , only apartments in addition to the 32 units I already have. Please advise me what I can do to comply with the zoning requirements and at the same time maintain an adequate setback to protect my existing apartments from a commercial development on the Bishop property. Very truly yours, K.\. V . Allison s August 29, 1983 Mayor Bishop and Members of the City Council City of Tigard Burnham & .Ash Avenue P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: CBD Development Policy Committee, Minority Report On Thursday, August 25, 1983, the CBD Development Policy Committee met to develop recommendations to the council regarding the land use within the CBD. I was in attendance at that meeting and voted against the language and recommendations placed before you. I am submitting a minority state- ment for your consideration. The Minority Statement was written for the reasons developed below and is presented for discussion as follows: o The committee majority erred -in its conclusions and recommendations to the council. o The committee majority did not meet the intent of the council's direction. o The committee majority did not represent the best interests of the citizens of Tigard. 1. On page III-43 of the development code, 18.66.010 it states that: "The purpose of the CBD zoning- district is to provide for a concentrated, central commercial office and retail area which also provides civic, high density residential and mixed uses." The majority recommendation to include Light Industrial uses is con- trary to the stated purpose of the CBD. Pat Furrerr, Chairman of the TURA Advisory Committee, has indicated that the TURA Advisory Committee has voted consistently and virtually unanimously to restrict industrial uses in the CBD. The CBD district has been presented to the NPO's, CCI, Planning Commission, City Council, and citizens of Tigard as an commercial professional district which would enhance downtown Tigard. Allowing City of Tigard r- August 29, 1983 Page 2 Light Industrial uses throughout the CBD would be contrary to those representations. 2. Item number 4 on the CBD agenda states: "Discussion of polity for transition from industrial to commercial uses." The discussion of transition from industrial to commercial uses was not actively pursued. The majority of the discussion centered on preservation of industrial land. Instead of addressing the issue of reducing the industrial area as a goal of the CBD, the committee majority chose to increase the industrial uses by recommending light manufacturing as a .conditional use within the CBD. 3. The comprehensive planning process has developed over a long period of time with considerable input from the Council, staff and Tigard citizens. To allow a radical change in the uses of an approximate 137-acre parcel of land (similar to a zone change) at the last minute in the planning process, denies the.public access to the planning process and defeats the intent of the planning process altogether. To permit light industrial uses which: do not attract shoppers to the CBD area; increases the cost for utilities; may discourage residential and professional development; and does not enhance downtown Tigard as is the Council's stated goal. In order to address the conflict between existing Industrial uses and the goal to revitalize the downtown Tigard area, the minority report suggests that the Council allow existing Industrial uses to exist indefinitely under a grandfather clause with the following provisions: 1. "Limit the industrial use to that which is presently in place. 2. Prohibit any expansion to the existing uses or facilities. 3. Not allow expansion of the existing facilities for industrial use. 4. Any new use on the property would have to conform to the CBD uses. Thank you for the opportunity to present the minority position. C Sinc ely, 0 el 116 cting Chairman, NPO #1 PAGE" SUGGESTED BY � AREA 07 CONCErm STA" OPINION ACTI0IA ' 1 . E-2 Bob Bledsoe r 18.08 and 18.10 referencesi-io the Comprehensive Support .Planning Commission {z •:,., Plan recommendation �a 1-3 Councilor Brian "subdivisions" Correction noted 1-13 JB Bishop-(, Clarification of 18.16A All approved applications which have not expired will stand 1II-21 JB Bishop Definitioa of "Public Support Facilities" Add definition on page III-5 to definition section. •.e;r. r 1II-23 Kevin Hannay 7,000 Square foot lots in the R-4.5 zoning The 7,500 sq. ft. lot has been Bob Bledsoe or 7,500 square foot lots. established in.the R-4.5 zone and '= Bill Cox should be retained. = III-25 Planning Staff lot sizes for attached units in the R-7 zone 7 5,000 sq. ft. as recommended by CCI. Bob Bledsoe ' �rw 111-32 Kevin Hannay R-40 zone is not realistic. Retain R-40 designation. 111-34 Hark Baker Allow daycare in commercial zones Allow daycare in C-11, C-G, and C-P zones as a permitted use. III-39 JB Bishop Front yard setback in C-G zone 10 feet Staff agrees Bill Cox III-39 JB Bishop 20% landscaping in C-G too high Retain 20% landscaping =' T,II-39 JBBishop ��"'"'" side yard setbacks for commercial abutting Retain at least 201. r; Bill Cox residential should be 1011,. 111-39 City Council""' Flexiblo sldeyard setbacks.,in commercial zones Staff recognizes that flexible Bill Cox to be determined in Sito Dvelopment Review setbacks would require more clear ; standards, need uniforta aiii is- +` s tration, possibility of- challenges p to application of standards. It is 3 easier to administer uniform set- <" backs. III-44 Dick Sturgis Section 18.56.050 - Is it `equitablef Retain requirements outlined in Lot Development Review determine setbacks Section 18.56.050. .�,wgmr :nn'Fee..,-.,,.,--.-......».-...,--..-........-....... .-......�.-.._....._.-,.__...._ .__...._-_........._-..-..,.,..,..-.,,....n,..,.+,.v.ne4r. -...,.-...-.....-•.,..a<... .............___._z..�....�.._._,- Nils�rrearvnauric•e;:.e++aenv..sasevixrvr..r.em.. Act SUGGESTED BY AREA OF CONCERN STAFF OPtZ�II018 ATIOCTIO7�7;;; : ::':;° 3YI-4S Carl Johnson WIPO# 4 issue of special setbacks for CP Retain 201 setbacks "" abutting residential zones. 111-47 Tom Brian A1low daycare in Industrial Park Zones Allow daycare in I-P as lea of the total complex as a Conditional Use 1Y--4 Kevin Hanway Distinction between developing areas and estab- Development as PD in developing lished areas and allowing development as PD. areas is allowed, not required. Supports allowing development in developing =^ areas without PD. IV-30 Planning Coimission Planning Commission to hear Sensitive Lands Saves money to have P.C. hear Sensitive Lands, However, H.O. has been effective and this process allows one individual to evaluate proposal in an objective manner. V-3 Kevin Hanway Clarify density transfer Support Planning Commission recommendation, change numbering Clarify language. V-5 Bob Bledsoe Mobile home parks and subdivisions should be Planning Commission and staff agree Conditional Use in the R-3.5 zone. Bob Bledsoe Mobile Home Parks should be a minimum of four Retain one acre minimum acres. Bob Bledsoe Retain the 10,000 sq ft minmum lot size for Staff agrees duplexes in the R-4.5 zone. Councilor Scott Require brick walls around mobile home parks Staff surveyed surrounding cities ' Screening is considered.under Site :Y.R Development Review. Ho specific Iyr(.ti_ requirement for brick walls is implemented in any city surveyed. '; Y-8 Bob Bledsoe 18.94.030 add new subsection R ..."The maximum Staff agrees ?Vf number of manufactured/mobile homes in the park shall not exceed the amount calculated in section 18.92. mow: r t•5i l COUNCIL AGS SUGGESTED BY AREA Qin CONCERN STAFF OPINION ACTION -26 Jim Miller)LQ- � Parking stall size - 9'x 18' regular, 816" x Mistake in errata sheet, 9'6" x 15 compact 18' - standard, 9' x 15' - compact Jim Miller ' Double! stripe parking stalls Not necessary, parking stalls are wide enough if staff suggestion is approved. -42 Bob BledsoelY'' Allow 24' wide paved private access for 3 - 6 Retain as staff proposod with input dwellings. from Fire District. r -43 Jim Miller Clarification of 18.112.090 Refers to access drives -13 Jim Miller �� Landscaping percentage requirement too high Retain 20% requirement I-38 Jon Nelson Restriction that any, accessory structure over Couneil should review information aft. in height not be allowed within aft. of on satellite dishes supplied by buildings. 15taff from Universal Satellite Inc. I-38 Jon Nelson 10' height restriction on accessory uses 1llow sintelite ightdishes only to be ding mount? to allow for reception of signal. VII 38-39 City Council Prohibit satellite dishes on roofs Staff agrees lI- Bob Bledsoe Approval standards for Home Occupations 18.138.0406 drop use s"...ahall nd n services Herm POrt3r add to 7 The direct sales or service VIII-22 Bob Bledsoeu/ Minimum Right of Hay and street width modify language proposed by staff exceptions. v.11-26 Bob Bledsoe Final lift of asphalt within 3 years Retain as recommended in Code. VIII-29 Bob Bledsoe 5' Planter strip on collector and arterials Retain 5' requirement. COUNCIL AGE " SUGtiMM BY AREA OF CONCERN STAFF OPINION ACTION Bill Cox CBD zone and affect on industrial users Recommendation of special committee will be presented at 8/29 Council meeting Bob Bledsoe Density transfer Add A & B as proposed by NPO #3 to 18.92.030 and 18.40.040. JB Bishop Parking spaces for compact cars should be Staff agrees. labeled as "compact". JB Bishop "�`" ,/��` Allow 25% - 30% of parking spaces to be Retain 25% compact spaces. Bob Bledsoey� '6 A.2 add language The purpose of the Code is to guide development to urban density Vacant land does not meet criteria or qualify as established areas Bob Bledsoe 18.85.030 Add language Retain as proposed. Bob Bledsoe 8P) Automatic waiver of application and transcript Require City appointed bodies to fees for City appointed bodies. specifically request Council initiate application. (Procedure currently used for City Staff.) Councilor Brian Provide a better index to the document Staff agrees - it will be provided i Chapter 18 . 86 Established Areas The reason for having this Overlay District in the Code is unclear. Its purpose is not related to having an orderly transition from rural to urban land use, as per Goal 14, but rather is to assure "compatibility" (an undefined term) of any new development with pre-existing development. Section 18.86 .010 A and B. Nevertheless , it is difficult to understand how the application of this zone will actually do anything, as Section 18. 86.030 (Standards for Development] simply states that development shall be in accord with applicable Chapters of the Code - whish is presumably the E case with or without this overlay. However, if there is some way in which application of this overlay district could result in residential uses otherwise allowed by the underlying zoning district not being allowed in an "established area" . (e.g. , attached residential units or mobile home subdivisions not being permitted on RE-7 zoned land within a residential "established area") , it would probably violate Goal 10 and LCDC' s St. Helens Housing Policy (now a rule) and threaten the City' s ability to comply with. the Metro area density/split requirements. r Incidentally, why are the designations of all the residential zoning districts (Chapters 18.44 through 18 .58) listed with an "E" after the "R"? Isn' t the "E" only for "established areas"? My comments on Section 18 .86 . 050 would be similar to those for Section 18.80. 020. in Section 18 . 80. 050 E— I . , change "18.88 . 020" to "18.86 .020" . Chapter 18. 88 Developing Areas Unlike the previous chapter , this chapter definitely does something, as development of land under this overlay is subjected to the Planned Development provisions of Chapter 18.80 (except for single family residences, duplexes or a two-unit attached residence) . Section 18.88 .030. However, the relationship between this chapter and Chapter 18 .80 is unclear . This seems to be a way of imposing a PD overlay zone without going through the process of -Section 18. 80. 020 or 18.80 . 320. Under this chapter , only the owner or his agent can apply for a Developing Area overlay. Section 18 .88.050. However, why would an owner voluntarily want to impose such restrictions on his property? What would he gain? (See comments on Section 18.92.030 below. ) My comments on Section 18 .88.050 would be the same as those on Section 18.80 .020. i. 30 - f the obert 11 nanaall company Kristin Square 6 9500 S.W. Barbur Blvd. • Suite 300• Portland, Oregon 97219• (503) 245-1131 Telex #360557 August 29 , 1983 City Council City of Tigard 12755 S .W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Adoption of Tigard City Code (hand Delivered) Dear Mayor and City Council Members : I am handing you this letter to summarize some of The Robert Randall Company' s concerns about certain provisions of the proposed city code. At the time 1 am writing this letter I have not had the opportunity to review your Planning Staff' s errata sheets arising out of the public hearings you held on August 8th and August 9 , 1983 . With those considerations in mind I will briefly address some of our concerns . In general we appose the set back standards which exist in portions of your code. We find them to be impractical, un- necessarily inconsistant with the demands of surrounding com- munities and above all else , 'apparently in violation of Oregon Statutes and state-wide land use goals . IMPRACTICALITY AND INCONSISTANT WITH NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS The set back requirements are impractical because they establish standards which when applied to certain lots , may render those City Council Page Two t^ lots unbuildable or subject to stringent variance requirements . For example , the side and rear yard set back standards in the general commercial zone (18 . 62 - C-G Zone) -and Neighborhood Commercial zone (18 . 60 - C-N Zone) , where they abut a residential zone, impose 20 feet set backs . This set back is twice as large as Beaverton' s and four times that required by Portland. On an 100' X 100' lot zoned CG or CN, surrounded by residential zones on 3 sides the net buildable area is reduced (when added to a 10 to 50 foot front yard set back) to only approximately 60-65% of its original size. This figure does not include an additional reduction necessary to accomodate parking. Since many of the uses allowed i the C-G and C-N zones will , con- sistant with economic real '_es , want to locate near residential zones (ie drive-in restaurants and convenience stores) the use of the smaller lots for these uses will be prohibited. We sug- gest those set backs be revised. The code also proposes set backs where apartment zones (R-12 & R-20) abut a more restrictive zoning district , (ie single family residential zones) which are, at a minimum, three times more severe than those required by Beaverton and four-plus times the requirements of Portland (both of whose plans have been acknow- ledged by LCDC) . We see no practical reason for such large differentiations . Without sound reasons behind the imposition of such set backs it is questionable whether LCDC will acknow- ledge Tigards comprehensive plan. Tigard must impose standards in its plan which will enable it to shoulder its fair share of regional housing needs (Seaman v. Durham) and aid in preventing urban sprawl. l i 1 i City Council Page Three STATE LAWS INACTED BY 1983 LEGISLATURE AFFECTING COMMERCIAL ZONES t s The 1983 Legislature, responding to the growing awareness that LCDC was protecting housing (Goal 10) , farming (Goal 3) forest r to products (Goal 4) and tourism (Goal 5) at the expense of industrial and commercial economic concerns , required a shifting of planning emphasis to include protection of industrial and commercial lands . This shift is enunciated in Section 17 of House Bill 2295 which was recently signed into law by Govenor Atiyeh. In pertinant part section 17 states : "SECTION 17 . (1) In addition to the findings € and policies set forth in ORS 197 . 005 , 197 . 010 and 215 . 243 , the Legislative Assembly finds and . declares that , in carrying out state-wide comp- rehensive land use planning, the provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities throughout the state is vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of all the people of the state. "(2) By the adoption of new goals or rules , or the application, interpretation or amendment of exis- ting goals or rules , the commission shall implement all of the following: t **(a and b not shown)** " (c) Comprehensive plans and land use regulations t shall provide for at least an adequate supply of ._ sites of suitable sizes , types , locations and ser- vice levels for industrial and commercial uses con- r sistent with plan policies . "(d) Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for compatible uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses . l i Relating this law to commercial zones shows that comprehensive plans imposing set back requirements which have the effect of i rendering unusable , commercially zoned property, will not be acknowledged by LCDC. We believe Tigard` s proposed code does exactly what the legislature has said should no longer be done. • k F. City ;,ouncil Page Four Also, there was discussion at the last few hearings about the possibility of imposing flexible set back standards . We in- itially thought that to be a possible alternative however , upon reflection and in light of the above quoted changes in the law we have decided such an approach would be unacceptable. This change in position is based on the appearance that the law may be circumvented by not imposing excessive set back standards in print but only in practice. In addition, as a practical consideration, such "flexibility" does not give cit- izens a warning of what is to be expected of them. In add- ition it imposes more work on city resources . PARKING There appears in the code, parking "slot" size configuration ' which are unnecessarily large given todays demands and realities . Much testimony was heard on this subject on August 8 and 9 , 7.983 , and we incorporate that testimony into this position paper (letter) . The legal wisdom of such larger than necessary park- ing requirements is *questionable considering the legislatures desire to make commercial and industrial lands more available. VARIANCES (18 . 134, 010 and 18 . 134. 050) The criteria governing the granting of variances existing in the proposed Tigard code may not give the City the power it wishes to retain. It may not allow the city to correct , on an individual request basis , hardships unintentionally imposed by terms of its new code. The words "undue and unnecessary hardship" in 18. 134. 010 (Purpose) and "hardship" in 18 . 134. 050 (Criteria A-5) are terms of specific meaning which have been City Council Page Five y interpretted by the courts and LUBA as being extremely res- trictive and nearly impossible to meet. See Faye Wright Neighborhood v. Salem 1 OR LUBA 246 (1980) ; Faye Wright Neigh- borhood v. Salem 3 OR LUBA 1-120. (1981) ; See also 3 Anderson American Law of Zoning 2nd Edition, Section 185 . (1977) . ZON 6xis4►n Wes OLVVI At the August 25 , 1983 , meeting of the CBD Development Policy Committee the above subjects were dealt with in an attempt to solve problems arising from application of the standards con- tained in the proposed CBD zone. In general the issue before the "committee" can be defined as : "Are the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the proposed CBD zone sufficient to recognize- � pographical restrictions existing resource and to and protect ongoing business within the zone?" , The committee decided they were not and proposed that the words assembly and/or light manufacturing be added to 18. 66. 040 (J) . In addition it was decided that Planned Development Overlay Zone treatment be imposed on uses requested under the revised 18 . 66 . 040 (J) . Finally, the committee unanimously agreed that to protect uses housed in multi unit structures from being faced with termin- ation the definition of structure or building found in 18 . 26 . 030 (Pg I-20 proposed code) be modified to include the sentence : "This definition shall not be interpreted to i include individual parts , rooms or units com- posing the structure or building. " City Council Page Six i i This Company is in full agreement with the recommendations r of the committee and urges the City Council to adopt those recommendations . i t Very truly yours r f THE ROB RT RANDALL COMPANY ` a William C. Cox General Counsel/Vice President WCC/llt t ?AGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY rable Revise 18.104 to read "Additional Yard Setback �f Requirements and Exceptions" ;.ontents L-1 18.02 D 2nd Line "citizens" "persons" John Gibbon L-2 18.04 B - entire sentence 1-2 18.08 A "Land may be used and a structure" "Land and structures" John Gibbon 1-2 18.08 B "Each development or use shall comply with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan" 1-2 18.08 C 2nd Line "...or Code provisions, the "the most restrictive or that imposing the John Gibbon provisions of this Code shall control" higher standard shall govern" 1-2 18.08 D 4th Line ". . .Ordinance. No fee. . . "Code except as provided by Chapter 18.134 Requirements." and 18.150" 1-2 18.08 E 2nd Line ". . .ordinance" ". . .code" 1-2 18.08 E 5th Line ".. .in Section 18.08(A)" ". ..specifically by this Code to the contrary" 1-2 18.10 1st Line "Applications and other "Each development and use application and other procedures" procedure" 1-2 18.10 Line 3 After City of Tigard "as implemented Kevin Hanway by this Code" 1-3 18.12 A Line 5 ". . .Council as provided by "Commission as provided by Section 18.32.060(c) 00.02.060 D" 1-3 18.12 B Line 1 After guideline "as provided in subsection (A) above" 1-3 New 18.12C "The Diroctor shall keep on file in the Department of Planning and development a record of all interpretations" WE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY L-3 Line 2 make "subdivision" into "subdivisions" 1-3 18.16 B Entirely B. "All development proposals received by the Director after the adoption of this Code shall be subject to review for conformance with the standards under this Code." 1-3 18.18 A Line 2 "premises" "structure or use" 1-3 18.18 B Line 3 "permit" "building permit application" L-3 18.18 B Line 2 "premises" "structure" 1-4 18.20 B Line 2 "whether intentional "The equities of the situation will be evaluated or otherwise" by the applicant and the Director" 1-5 18.22.010 A Entirely "The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the standard and governing legislative and quasi judicial amendments to this Code and the zoning district map" 1-5 18.22.020 "chapter" "Chapter" 1-5 18.22.030 A(2) Entirely 1-5 18.22.040 A(1) Entirely 1-6 18.22.040 A(2) Entirely 1-6 18.22-040 A(2)(a) "Proof" "Evidence" John Gibbon L-6 18.22.040 A(2)(b) Entirely 1-6 18.22.040 A(3)(b) Entirely Kevin Hanway John Gibbon 1-6 18.22.050 After A "legislative or. .." before quasi judicial ?AGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY L-7 18.24.010(b) First three lines through New B "where this Code imposes greater "covenants" restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regulations" 1-7 18.24.020 2nd Line after use ", divide" L-8 18.24.050 lot Line after development "for use" L-8 18.24.050 3rd Line "and a public nuisance" Kevin Hanway L-9 18.26.030 After. Abut or Abutting Lots "or Adjacent or Adjoining" 1-10 18.26.030 Appeal at end of 4th line "that was considered by the Director" L-10 18.26.030 "Building: See structure" 1-10 18.26.030 Under Building Arrangement - "Building Type Non-residential - Buildings delete entirely 1. not designed for use as human living quarters comprised of the following types." L-11 2. Residential - delete entirely "Buildings designed for use as human living quarters comprised of the following types." L-11 2(a) After single - "family" After 3rd line "see definitions for mobile home and dwelling unit" L-11 2(b) After single - "family" L-11 2(b) 2nd line "structure" "dwelling unit" L-12 2(d) After single - "family" 1-12 2(d) 2nd line After side "on separate lots or development sites" L-12 2(e) Entirely 'AGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY L-12 2(f) "Multi Dwelling" "Multiple Family Dwelling" 3rd line After "located on a" "single" L-12 3(a) 6th line - "gross" '°net" L-12 3(b) 3rd line - "government" "governed" L-12 3(d) 3rd line After occupied "by" L-13 After definition for Commission, new definition "Complex - A structure or group of structures developed on one lot of record" L-14 Family 3rd line "need" "be" "are" 1-14 Family 3rd line "living together in a dwelling unit" 1-14 Fence 2nd line "as a barrier" 1-15 Definition for "Final Action, Final Decision Final order A determination reduced in writing, signed and filed by the appropriate approval authority, and 1) With respect to the Planning Director, 1-15 A decision made under Sections 18.32.060(A) and 18.32.210 of this Code, appealable to a further Approval Authority, and subject to Council review. 2) With respect to the initial hearing body, a decision made under Sections 18.32.060(B) or (C). 3) With respect to the Council, a decision made under Section 18.32.060(D), and subject to a Petition for Rehearing." 1-15 Findings - Delete "Findings. A written statement of the facts determined by the Approval Authority as the basis for making its decision. Approval Authority applies the relevant approval criteria or standards to the findings in order to reach its decision." i ?AGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY L-15 Floor Area - Entirely "Floor Area. The gross horizontal area, under roof,of all floors of a building, measured from the exterior walls, excluding vents, shafts, courts, and space devoted to off- street parking." 1-16 "Implementing Ordinance. An ordinance adopted to carry out the comprehensive plan, including, but not limited to the provisions of this Code." 1-16 Legislative (MEED DEFINITION) 1-16 Lot after subdivision add "or partition" 1-16 Lot Coverage lot line "development site" "lot" in place of 2nd line After "vertical" "and horizontal" 2nd line At end "and parking spaces" 1-16 Lot Line, Front. 3rd line after the delete Lot Line, Front. 3rd line after the "shortest through lot on line 4. of the two property lines which abut the street" 1-17 Major Partition - Entirely "Major Partition - A partition of land which creates 3 lots or less within one calendar year and includes the creation of a road or street." 1-18 Person at end of 1st line add "Official Advisory Committee of the City" 1-19 "Quasi-Judicial - An action which involves the application of adopted policy to a specific development application or amendments." 11-1 18.30.020(A) "An application" "A request" 0)5. Entirely 11-1 18.30.030 PEE-Application Conference "18.30.020(B) Any persons authorized by this Code to submit a request for approval may be represented by an agent authorized in writing to make the application." ?AGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED By 11-2 18.30.040 Time period for Application Time period for Request submission Submission 11-2 18.30.040(8) and (C) delete 60 "30" LI-2 18.30.050 "Application Submittal Requirements- Refusal of an Application" 11-2 18.30.050(D) 2 Entirely 1.1-2 18.30.050(D)(3)(a) 2nd line "90" "60" 11-3 18.30.050(D)(3)(b) 2nd line 1190" "60" (E) 2nd line 18.32.060 18.30.060 11-4 18.30.070 (A) and (B) Entirely 11-4 18.30.070 (C) Entirely "Within 60 days after a request for a legislative change pursuant to Section 1.8.30.020(A) 11-9 18.30.140 A 1. 2nd line "and other. .." 11-10 18.30.x.50 C - 90 60 11-12 18.32.010 3rd line after plan "or Code," 4th line after of "these" 11-12 18.32.020 A Eliminate 1,2,3,4 "l. Order of Council; 2. Resolution of a majority of the Commission; 3. The Director; 4. T.U.R.A., a neighborhood planning organization or City of Tigard Advisory Board or Commission; or 5. Application of a record owner of property or contract purchasers" ?AGX DELETE ADD SUCCESTED BY LI-13 18.32.040(c) Entirely Kevin Hanway L1-14 18.32.045 A 3 Line 1 "60" "30" End of line 2 - "except as provided by Section 18,32.210; a) lot acne "as provided by" "pursuant to" 2nd line after 18.32.090 "except as provided by Section 18.32.200" L1-14 18.32.045 A 3 (b)(2) lot line through acknowledged L1-14 18.32.045 A 3(b) - New '1(5) waiver of information or additional information required by the Director" L1-16 18.32.055 B 1st line "or... standard" B.1 after provision "or section of this Code" 2nd line after waived "of found to be inapplicable; or" L1-17 18.32.060 B. 3 entirely L1-17 18.32.060 C. 2 At end "as provided by Section 18.32.260 B, the Coamission shall receive proposed legislative changes twice yearly not more than 75 days and not less than 45 days before the first Commission meetings in April and October." 11-17 18.32.060 C New 3 "Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.130." 11-18 18.32.060 D. 3 last line - 18.32.320 (B)(1) and (2) 11-19 18.32.080 A (e) 2nd line "Director" "Council" 18.32.080 A f "The appellant and" before (A) 11 L1-19 18.32.080 A (f) 1118.32.220" "18.32.240" PAGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY 11-19 18.32.090 Contents of the Notice "For Public Hearings" 11-20 18.32.090 A. 6 2nd line "that" "of whether" 11-23 18.32'.140 A "person wishing" 18.32.140 A - After any "party to an appeal who dishes" 11-24 18.32.170 Record of Proceeding "For Public Hearings" Li-25 18.32.170 C (2) at end "including in the case of an appeal taken pursuant to Section 18.32.260(A) the record of the Director's decision as provided by Section 18.32.210(B);" 11-25 18.32.180 The Decision Process "of the Approval Authority" 11-26 18.32.180 E. 1. a. after carryout "applicable provisions of" 11-26 18.32.180 E. 1. c - Entirely d. lot line "as a part of" "to" 11-26 18.32.180 E. 2 "a. tiinimum lot sizes; b. larger set backs; c. preservation of significant natural features; or d. dedication of easements." 11-27 18.32.180 After 3. "The final decision may grant the application with respect to less than all of the parcel which is the subject of the application." 11-28 18.32.190 A 2 After "case of a" add final 11-28 18.32.190 A 2. 3rd line "signed" 18.32.190 C 1 After 18.32.080 add "and 18.32.200" PAGE DE1,19TE ADD SUGGESTED BY , 11-28 18.32.140 C 4 1,that a"° "appeal on" "of whether a" a(a) and (b) Entirely New a, b, c "a. In the case of a final decision by the Council, the statement shall explain briefly how a Petition for Rehearing may be filed pursuant to Section , the deadlines and where information can be obtained." "b, in the case of a final decision by the Hearings Officer of Commission, the statement shall explain briefly how a review can be taken pursuant to Section B, the deadlines and where information can be obtained." "c, in the case of a final decision by the Director where no appeal has been field, a statement of that fact and that the decision Is, therefore, unappealable". 18.32.200 After Notice of "Proposed" 11-28 11-28 18.32.200 A "An action", "18.32.050(A) "The Director's proposed action", 1118.32.060(k) 11-28 18,32.200 A. 1 lot line through "notice" "Within 3 days of signing the proposed decision" Kevin Hanway WAM:pm(01 P) RDD SUCCESTED BY ?AGE DELETE t1-29 18.32.200 C - love C to D, New C "The Director shall post a copy Of each notice of decision at City Hall; and each notice of decision shall be published in a local news- paper of general circulation." 11-29 Now D - Dove 1 to 2 New #1 "The nature of the application in sufficient detail to apprise persons entitled to notice of the applicant's proposal." New 5 - "R map showing the location of the 11-29 property." L1_2g 18.32.210 R Z - 3rd line after "prior to" Add "The appeal application to the Commission shall delete "remaining" be treated as if it were filed under Section 18.32.060(C) b, The appeal to the Commission shall be the only appeal opportunity for decisions by the Director. c. De Novo reviews of the Director's decision by the Commission shall be completed within 60 days of when the appeal is filed. 11-29 18.32.210 R 2 Line 6 delete 1118.32.060(8)" 1118.32.060(0)" 18.32.210(8) 1st line after "shall be made" add 1.1-30 "within 20 days after accepting an application and shall be made". 11-30 18.32.210(0)(1) Line 3 - everything after 1118.32.200(0)" "to section" 11-30 18.32.210(C)(2) - 18.32.090(H)(5)" 1118.32.200(C)" 11-30 18.32.210 D - Entirely "The Director shall give notice Of the proposed decision as provided by Section and shall report to the Commission and Council the Notices of Proposed Decision given under this section on a regular basis before such decisions become final. The Director shall give notices of the final decision as provided by Section " I _. ?A+GR DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY 1.1-31 18.32.220 After "The Effective Date of the Decision" add "of a Public Hearing". After "Any decision made" add "as a result of a public hearing action". Line S after 1118.32.260" add "B" LI-31 18.32.230 7th line, delete "decision" "City action" 11-31 18.32.240 A (1) Delete entirely "In the case of the review of a decision made by an Approval Authority other than the Director, the person appeared before that Approval Authority either orally or in writing." LI-31 18.32.240 New B "Requests for party status may be accepted by the Approval Authority up until the close of the public hearing on the matter." 1.1-31 18.32.250 2nd Pane after "notice of the" - "proposed or" 2nd line after "decision" - "respectfully" 3rd line after "appeal" - or review" 11-32 18.32.270 2nd line - "18.32.050(A) 1018.32.060(A) 11-32 18.32.270 B(3) Line 1 - delete "only" 18.32.270 B 3 Kevin Hanway lot line after "written" - "and oral" 1st line after "such" - "written" 11-32 18.32.270 New B 4 "Reviews on the record by Council of Hearings Officer or Commission decision shall be completed within 40 days of when notice of review is filed." 11-33 18.32.280 A 4 - Add "or in the case of a proposed decision by the Director, the date the proposed decision was filed, and the date notice of the final or proposed decision was given." 11-33 18.32.280 - Delete "C" entirely ?WZ DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY 11-34 18.32.320 - Delete "B" and "C" entirely Kevin Hanway 111-1 18.40.010 Low Density Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Per Net Acre 1.8 1.7 3.7 3.5 4.9 4.6 7.4/12 7/12 Lll-1 18.40.010 minimum lot size in square feet 115,000/3,0501- for 5,000/3,050"for medium density - SF 115,000/3,000" Minimum lot size in square feet for "none" high density - 111,080" L11-4 18.42.020 A(3) "Two dwellings" "Dwelling" 111-5 18.42.020 (A)(6) After "disordered" add "mentally retarded" 111-5 18.42.020 B(4) delete "Pubic" "Public" 111-11 18.42.020 C 19 "services" "sales" 111-23 NO CHANGE - much discussion was held concerning the pros and cons of changing minimum lot size from 7,500 to 7,000. The Commission voted 3-2 to retain 7,500. 1.11-23 18.50.030 18.50.040 Bob Bledsoe C. Mobile Home Parks and subdivisions, Between C & D Chapter 18.94. The Commission voted 3-2 to change the mobile Home Parks from a Permitted to Conditional Use. 111-23 The Planning Commission referred the issue of minimum lot size for duplex lots to the City Council. In a 7,500 SF minimum lot size area, should the minimum for duplex lots be 7,500 SF or 5,000 per unit, therefore 10,000 SF for a duplex? 111-33 18.58.050 E Delete "60" 1080" Kevin Hanway 'AGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY 111-34 18.60.030 B between 2 and 3 add "Day Care Mark Baker Facilities" 111-38 18.62.030 B between 6 and 7 add "Day Care Mark Baker Facilities" L11-38 18.620.050 - C.1 1125" C.1 "10" In addition, the Commission voted unanimously JB Bishop to support a side yard and rear yard setback of 20 feet or over for 18.62.050 C 3 and 4 Lll-39 Also, Planning Commission notes that an issue was raised concerning 18.62.050 E. JB Bishop suggested 85% instead of 80%. Commission expressed concern. 111-41 18.64.030 B between 6 and 7 add "Day Care Mark Baker Facilities" John Gibbon 18.64.030 D Add to read "Transient Lodging/ Art Verharen Restaurant (on the same parcel) L11-41 18.64.050 C(1) 1125" "10" NOTE: Commission voted 3-2 C 2 "25" 1,15" Jim Miller 111-44 18.66.030 C After "Residential Use Types" Add "(See R-40 for development standards)" 111-44 18.66-040 H Delete "Center" L11-47 18.68.050 C 2 3rd line "chapter" "Chapter" 111-48 18.68.080 A thru F, "chapter" "Chapter" 111-50 18.70.030 B 9 before "Fuel Sales" add "Vehicle" 111-51 18.70.060 A thru F, "chapter" "Chapter" 111-54 18.72.080 A thru F, "chapter: "Chapter" LV-3 18.80.030 Line 3 "six" "twelve" Kevin Haaway ?AGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY IV-3 18.80.030 B 2 2nd line "six" "twelve" Kevin Hanway 18,80.060 A Add at end "See Section 18.88.030" IV-5 18.80.060 C 1 delete "zone' LV-5 18.80.080 A 2 - two places - "lot" "site" Kevin Hanway IV-6 18.80.100 3rd line delete 113" 117" Kevin Hanway IV-7 18.80.120 B 3 After "ratio" add "attached or detached, for example." LV-7 18.80.120 B 9 2nd line "specified" IV-7 18.80.120 9b Delete "or" move to after "C" 18.80.120 9 Add "D, area" Kevin Hanway LV-8 18.80.160 C 1-6 Delete "plan" in all places each place that plan was removed add 'concept" Kevin Hanway and in 6 "and proposed" LV-9 18.80.220 A 2nd line "15" "12" Kevin Hanway IV-9 18.80.230 A at end "for approval of a concept plan". LV-11 18.80.230 B 3 A Entirely IV-11 18.80.230 4 A and 5 C 5 4001 48" John Gibbon IV-11 18.80.230 5 b 2nd line after "observable" add "from adjacent units" IV-12 18.80.230 9 A 1,2,3 Entirely "Location of all signs with the development site" IV-13 IV-13 18.80.240 A 5 c - at end add "(See Soil Conservation Haps)" IV-14 18.80.240 A 5 e "week" "weak" IV-14 18.80.250 A & B "18.32.050(A)" "18.32.055(A)" IV-14 18.80.260 "Site" "Conceptual" f1� 'AGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY CV-15 18.80.250 W(C) At beginning "schematic Kevin Hanway drawings of" LV-15 18.80.260 A 10 A 11 Entirely Kevin Hauway IV-16 18.80.270 A 2 Entirely "A statement from a registered engineer supported by factual data that all drainage facilities are designed in conformance with the City's Master Drainage Plan. This shall be reviewed by the City Engineer." EV-16 18.80.280 A 1 After "The" add "Conceptual" IV-16 18.80.280 3 "and proposed" IV-16 18.80.280 New 4 (Change 4 to 5) "General location and function of proposed plant materials (Buffer, shading, cover, etc.)" 4 IV-16 18.80.290 Entirely "Specify location, size and how the sign meets clearance requirements." IV-19 18.80.340 line 3 - "Requires" "Request" IV-28 Planning Commission expressed concern over "Riparian" 18.84.010 D. They believe in 1978 the intent was to mention of "City should take recognition of health, safety, and welfare." Effort should be made to recreate the language Intended in 1978. Also, delete "Reparian" IV-29 18.84.010 B 3a prior 18.84.010 B 3a before "on" add "as prepared by CH2M Hill" IV-29 18.84.015 D - The Planning Commission requested that this language be clarified at the Council level. IV-29 18.84.020 New D "The Planning Commission shall approve, Planning approve with conditions or deny an application Commission for a Sensitive Lands Permit as set forth in Section 18.84.015 (B)(1) IFl1 _Ar nFrXtE ADD SUGGESTED BY [V-29 18.84.020 Old D 3rd line,delete (1) 1V-30 18.84,020 P after "The clearings Officer" add Planning Co®. Planning Commission." CV-30 18.84.020 G After "The Hearings Officer" add Planning Comm. "Planning Commission. 18.84.020 G 1 2nd line after "Hearings Officer" Planning Comm. add "Planning Commission" [V-30 18.84.020 H 3rd line "Request a hearing "appeal the decision" before the Commission" [V-30 18.84.020 H 1 2nd line "approved" "acted upon" EV-30 18.84.030 A 2 after is "not" EV-30 18.84.030 B after "Hearings Officer" add "Planning Commission" IV-30 New 6 - "The Director shall deliver copies of Planning Comm. the final action of all sensitive lands to the Planning Commission." IV-31 18.84.040 A "Hearings Officer" "Planning Commission" Planning Comm. LV-31 18.84.040 A 3 Entirely Comm. linen [V-31 18.84.040 2nd line after "is" "Allowed only in the area designated as commercial or industrial on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map" LV-33 18.84.040 D 3 at end add "as prepared by CH2K Hill" LV-35 18.84.080 A 7 after the "concept" IV-37 Section 18.86 - 18.86.010,.020,and .030 the Planning Commission suggested that the language be reworded to relate better to the language of the Plan. I ?ACIE ADD SUGGESTED BY UN:I,RTE "nine" xevin Banway 1-1 18.90.030 3rd line six Bake 2nd sentence beginning with the words -2 "These regulations" into part B. 3rd sentence will be item A. 1-2 Reword 2nd sentence by deleting "flood- Add "floodlights" and after "areas" add "or Kevin Banway lighting" construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work. .." 1-3 Renumber 18.92.020 - make item 4 into item 2 Bob Bledsoe 1-3 18.92.020 B Last line entirely Kevin Banway 1-3 18.92.030 A Delete "unbuildable" 1-4 18.92.030 A 2 at end of first line before the add 11125' of" 1-4 18.92.030 A 2 2nd line after "per" add Kevin Banway "gross site" 4-5 18.94.020 A - delete entirely 1-5 18.94.030 A - delete entirely 18.94.030 J 1st line after park add "or V-6 subdivision" 18,94.030 K after "home" add "in a mobile home V-6 park or subdivision" 18.94.030 N after "home" add "in a mobile home V-6 park or subdivision" V-8 18.94.040 A 4th line - 1118.32.040 D" 1118.32.140 D" 18.104.020 B 2 h after "pacific" add "Highway" Jim hiller V-9 V-10 18.104.020 C - Delete sentence starting Frith "Collector streets" - leave in the street names r. PAGE DELETE ADD SUGGESTED BY V-10 18.104.020 C 4 - delete all from "Collector Street" leaving in street names. As a result all will have a setback for the district plus 30 feet measured from the center line of the street. The entire list of street names should be put in alphabetical order. V-10 18.104.020 B - delete "Street" 18.104.020 B 3 After "Grant" add "Avenue" Jim Miller o After "Murdock" add "Street" V-11 18.104.040 title after Kevin Hanway "Between" add "Multiple Family" V-14 18.105.020 delete "Church, School or Government" V-15 18.106.020 C 2 "good quality" "high grade" 1-16 18.106.030 Staff will add to this section by specifying the size for street trees. 1-26 18.111.020 delete 19 18 Jim Miller The Commission voted 4-2 to recommend the following standards for 18.111.020 A Regular spaces 9' a 18' (including stripe) Compact spaces 9' z 15' (including stripe) 1-26 .18.111.020 A 3 "Twelve feet wide and 19" "In accordance with the applicable State and Federal standards at least twelve feet wide and 18" 1-35 18.111.040 A 1 end 2nd line after "compact Sue Van Lom spaces" delete remainder 1-36 18.111.050 B 1 and 2 stab. width 4'0", "9'6"" 9'10"" 1-42 No change to 18.112.080 A, however, NPO #3 would like the standard * of dwelling units/lots to read "3-6" instead of "3-5" and "7 and above" instead of 4 and above". ?AGE DELETE Ani) SUGGESTED BY 1-48 18.112.134 B 2 "show intent of initiating" "show positive steps have been taken to initiate" 11-4 18.120.060 A 1 11150 " 11100V" Kevin Hanway 11-8 18.120.100 A 9 - delete "and" 18.120.100 A 9 at end "if requested by the Director of Planning and Development" 11-9 18.120.130 A 3 b entirely "That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated" 11-9 18.120.140 A 1 at beginning add "Typical" 11-9 18.120.150 A 1 At end add "where applicable" 11-13 18.120.180 A 6 1160" and "611 "48" 914" 11-16 The Commission voted 4-2 to retain 18.120.180 13 C 20% landscaping standard. JB Bishop felt it was too high. 111-36 18.139.020 A Add "greenhouses" 111-38 18.139.050 C 1 "barns shall not exceed 700"' After "except" add 500 SF for a garage and barns Bob Bledsoe shall not exceed 1,000' all-40 18.139.060 B Wew 4 added between 3 and Old 4 "The location of any accessway to the proposed structure" fill-22 18.156.030 E Minor Collector moving lanes 11211 Herm Porter was "2-3" 1111-26 The Planning Commission expressed concern over 18.156.030 2 4. Bob Bledsoe had expressed concern that the final lift should be placed within 3 years. (WAM:pm/0123P) q O'DONNELL. DATE July 6, 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO William A. Monahan, Tigard Planning Director c 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET and Tigard Planning Commission PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 �~ 15031222-4402 FROM Edward J. Sullivan, Tigard City Rttorney� RE Comments on Tigard Draft Development Code } i ts on the June, 1983 Prelimi- nary Draft Tigard Community Development Code for your review and any 4 4 necessary action. The staff did an excellent job on the Code and, you will find, most g: of the comments deal with legal and procedural matters rather than matters of planni-ag policy. f As far as possible our review attempted to touch upon issues of s clarity, internal consistency and goal compliance. Because of budget considerations, however, we were not able to review the Code against Z the Plan to assure that these implementing measures are sufficient the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. I recommend and adequate to carry out s that such 4 review be done, if possible, prior to submission of the Plan and implementing ordinances to LCDC. We found three major areas of concern in the Code: 1 . It is probable that HB 2295 will pass and will require that development applications be approved or denied within 120 days of v their filing. That time period is impossible if all avenues of review or appeal are exercised. We have made some suggestions at pp. 20 and 21 so as to shorten some of the periods provided for in x the Code. s f 2. There needs to be a greater coordination amongst the various procedural sections of the Code and additional clarity in Article II of that Code. We have made a number of recommendations on these k points as well. 3. There is also a need to be mindful of the constraints placed on the city by State-wide Planning Goal 10 . Without reviewing the inventory data, the Housing element of the Plan and the zoning maps, it is impossible to come up with firm conclusions on these issues. I recommend that this be done as well, prior to submission, as Goal 10 will be the major focus of LCDC attention during acknowledgment review. Aside from the areas of concern listed above regarding the Code itself, there are four other areas. which may be problematic at acknowledgment review for the city. These four areas would require a review of documents outside the Plan for a determination of goal compliance. These areas include: 1. "Baker Conflicts" -- I.e. , conflicts between the zoning maps and the Comprehensive Plan designations or policies. 2. Adequacy of measures sufficient to carry out plan policies - LCDC is particularly concerned Wath the implementation of Goal 7, EJS:mch 7/6/83 • Page 1 O'DONNELL. I 'ATE July 6, 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS f ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW To William A. Monahan & Planning Commission 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031222-4402 FROM Edward J. Sullivan f RE Comments on Tigard Draft Development Code_ e relating to Natural Resources and the conflict resolution process described by that goal. The city is currently working on "EESE" i findings for some areas of concern. However, such a concern is not e limited to Goal S. Wherever there exists a policy direction taken e by the Plan, there must be, generally, a corresponding implementation provision of the city's ordinances to carry out that plan. s 3. Coordination with Washington County -- Tigard has chosen to have an "active" plan, i.e. one with jurisdiction outside its city limits. The adequacy of implementation measures, such as zoning, subdivision and public improvement standards, is one of the i four outstanding issues between the city and the county which must be resolved prior to submission. 4. Goal 10 -- Again, the long history of this goal and its application move me to request that you authorize a review of Tigard' s efforts toward compliance prior to submission. Z hope you find these comments to be of assistance. Please advise R us if we can be of further help. t cc: Bob Jean, City Administrator EJS:mch 7/6/83 Page 2 f• UA I t d U l I C G 0 , 1 0 0 1 , SULLIVAN A�RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Edward J . Sullivan ,727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM Corinne C. Sher ton RE Tigard Community Development Code You asked me to review the City of Tigard ' s Community Development Code (June, 1983 Preliminary Draft ) . I reviewed mainly for clarity, internal consistency and Statewide Planning Goal compliance. The mayor problem I found was confusion in the administrative procedures of Article II , and lack of coordination between that Article and procedural sections of chapters in other articles . I also found that the Administrative Procedures now in the Code would almost inevitably prevent the City from making its final decision on a development application within 120 days of filing (as HB2295 would require) , if the provided for appeals/reviews are exhausted; and have suggested means to correct this (see pp. 20-22) . Finally, I found some potential Goal 10 problems , the severity of which are impossible to determine without seeing the City' s inventory data, plan and zoning maps , etc. In addition, I must stress that in a review limited to the Code itself, as mine primarily was, there are several types of problems that I would have no way of detecting. These include ( 1 ) inconsistencies between Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning districts ("Baker" conflicts ) ; (2) failure to implement Comprehensive Plan policies (of particular concern here is the apparent lark of any Code provisions aimed at protecting Goal 5 resources - the stated purpose of Chapter 18 . 84 , Sensitive Lands Overlay, is to protect the health and safety of the community through regulation of development on floodplains, drainageways , steep slopes or unstable land) ; (3) the consistency and adequacy of Washington County implementation provisions vis-a-vis the Tigard Plan (Tigard has an "active" Plan) ; and (4) provision of sufficient amounts of vacant , buildable land to meet housing, commercial , industrial , etc. , needs . In the comments below I have attempted to point out broader t problems , as well as suggest specific corrective language where- possible. There are also several places where I simply indicated that I could not understand the provision in question. If the City explains these sections , I ,assume that I would then be able to suggest a way of making the meaning clearer . For Chapter 18 . 32 alone, I suggested a way of reordering the sections . i f ARTICLE 1 . Introductory Provisions Chapter 18 . 04 Effective Date. B. What is the purpose of this subsection? I do not understand it. Chapter 18 . 08 Compliance and Scope. A. Under this Code land may be "developed" (e.g. , land division) apart from being "used" . Therefore, change the first line of this subsection to: "Land and structures may be used or developed by" ; B. Transfer the first sentence of this subsection to Chapter 18 . 10 (see comments below) . C. Is this subscction consistent with Sec. 18 . 24 .010 B? I think so, as this one deals with conflicts between this Code and other laws/regulations (except that the use of "or Code provisions"! in the second line confuses the issue; perhaps this phrase could be deleted) , whereas Sec. 18 .24. 010 B deals with conflicts between different Code provisions . Perhaps it should be referenced here. r E D. I assume that this subsection was not meant to negate the possibility of obtaining a variance or exception (e.g. , pursuant to Chap. 18. 134 or 18 . 150) ; on the idea that if one of those processess is successfully completed, the lot area, set back, etc. is not being reduced below that required by "this ordinance" (note that usually the term "this Code" has been employed) . However , the second sentence of this subsection is very confusing. It implies one can make a "fee conveyance" of a portion of a lot , for a "public use" , while leaving a structure on the remaining portion of the lot with less than the area required by the ordinance. Neither of the quoted terms are defined. Is such a process exempt from partitioning requirements? There is no mention of such an exception in the partitioning or variance chapters (see Sec. 18 . 150 . 110 and 18 . 152 . 130) . E. This subsection is also very confusing. Is it supposed to mean that yards , parking spaces , etc. can' t be double-counted - (for more than one us.e)'?. If so, what does "except as provided in Section 18 . 08(A)" mean? Perhaps the last line should read: °'***provided specifically by this Code to the contrary.." - 1 - t � 1 F l c Chapter 18 . 10 Consistency with the Plan and Laws . I suggested including the concept found in the first sentence of Sec. 18 . 08 B in this section. The sentence as currently written carries an implication that all development/use approvals must be based on findings of r consistency with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (Plan) . F While the Code does specifically require this for some approvals (e.g. , conditional uses , Sec. 18 . 130 .040 A.7 . ; z subdivisions , Sec. 18 . 150.050 A. 1 . ) ; it does not for others (e.g. , temporary uses , Sec. 18 . 137 . 040 ; home occupations , haps the sentence could be modified to Sec. 18 . 138.040) . Per recognize that compliance will be insured either through direct application of the Plan policies or through the a approval standards that have been placed in the Code. a Chapter 18 . 12 Interpretation. ubsection relate to Chapter 18 .43 A. How does this s (Unlisted Uses)? In many instances it will be unclear whether a proposed use falls within a category listed in a zoning district (and therefore would be subject to a "request for interpretation") or is , infact , an i "unlisted" use (therefore subject to the special procedure of Chapter 18.43) . Decisions made under this 4 subsection are appealable to the Council , while those under Sec. 18 . 43 .040 B (as well as all other decisions by the Director) are appealled to _the Commission pursuant to Sec. 18.32.260 A. The reference in the final sentence of this subsection to appeal provided by "00 .02.060 D" must be incorrect . I suggest making these interpretations appealable to the Commission, pursuant to Sec. 18.32 .260 A, as other decisions of the Director are. You should also require that a record of the Director ' s interpretations be compiled. B. I am uncomfortable with this subsection because there is no definition of "guidelines" in the Code, nor are ; lie input, publication of , there procedures for pub appeal of the adoption of , etc. , these "guidelines" . If these guidelines were limited to the interpretations made by the Director under subsection A and the unlisted use determinations made pursuant to Chapter 18.43 and also procedural matters , there would be less of a problem. However , I do not think you can allow the Director to develop substantive refinements for modification of the Code' s standards through this undefined "guideline" process . i t f k E. s 2 0 Chapter 18 18 Pre-Existing Approvals . A. Presumably the word "subdivision" in the second line should be plural . B. This subsection is confusing. It apparently states that certain developments "for which all approvals had not been received prior to the effective date of this Code" (does this mean ones which have received some approvals , as opposed to no approvals , prior to the effective date?) shale be reviewed against standards "applicable to sp,cific site improvements and construction and design" (specifically what standards are included and excluded here?) . Basically, it is not s are to be exempted clear which developments or use from which code requirements . Depending on what the answers to these questions are, there could be some problems with this approach. Chapter 18 . 18 Certificate of occupancy. What are the "premises" referred to in this section? The term is not defined in Sec. 18 .26 . 030 . Also, what is "the permit" referred to in subsection A? It would make the most sense if this section were intended to refer to building permits only. If so, this should be stated. _Chapter 18.22 Amendments to the Code and Maw This chapter supposedly sets out standards and procedures for legislative amendments to the Code and the Code Map. To the extent that procedures for these changes are covered by Chapters 18. 30 and 18.32 (see below) dealing with them in this chapter is duplicative. In addition, there are places in this chapter , particularly paragraph 3 of subsection A of Sec 18. 22 .030 where provisions regarding Plan Amendments are included. I think what is necessary is to separate this chapter into two substantive chapters - one dealing with amendments to the Code and one dealing with amendments to the Plan. These two chapters could remain in Article I or they could go in their own Article,. In structure they would be similar to the chapters in Article VI1 (Development and Administration) . They should state the substantive standards and criteria, purposes for and conditions that may be applied, to amendments of the Code and Plan. They would be different from the chapters of Article VII mainly in that the activities governed under Article VII can only be quasi- judicial , whereas amendments to the Code and Map may be either quasi -judicial or legislative; and thus may be governed by the procedure of either Chapter 18.30 or 18 .32 . - 3 - With this in mind , and assuming that Chapter 18 .22 basically remains applicable to amendments to the Code only, I will suggest a few changes to this chapter . Sec 18 22 . 010 Purpose._ A. Change the wording to read "the purpose of this chapter is to set forth the standard and purpose governing legislative and quasi-judicial amendments to this Code or to the Code Map." Sec. 18 . 22 .030Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures . Delete paragraph 2 of subsection A, as it deals only with Plan Amendments . Sec. 18 . 22 . 040Quasi -judicial Amendments and Standards for Making the Decisions . A. I would delete paragraph 1 and make subparagraphs a, b, and c, into paragraphs 19 2, and 3. As I have stated below in my discussion of Chapters 18 .30 and 18 . 32 , it is preferable to have substantive standards in the separate chapters governing each type of decision, rather than in the procedural chapters . Subparagraphs a, b, and c, as written, do tconflict g with Sthe general language I have suggested 18 . 32 . 180 A (which is presumably the section intended to be referred to by paragraph 1 ' s reference to Sec. 18 .32 . 100 A) . Paragraph 2 should be changed to simply read that consideration may also be given to proof of change, etc. , as is stated in subparagraph a. Subparagraph b should be deleted for the reasons given in the discussion of Sec. 18 .30 . 140 B.2 . This section and the following Sec. 18 . 22 .050 (Conditions of Approval) purport to apply only to quasi-judical Code amendments . They should either be expanded to include legislative Code amendments , or parallel sections addressing standards and conditions for legislative Code amendments should be added. Chapter 18 . 24 Enforcement . See. 18 .24 . 010 D. Is this subsection consistent with Sec 18 . 08 C see previous comment)" \ - 4 - Sec. 18 .24 . 020 . In the second line, after the word "use" insert a comma and the word "divide" . F Sec. 18 .24 . 030 B. In the third line, I assume the word "property" is really supposed to be "properly" or perhaps "promptly" . .Sec. 18.24.050 . In the first line, after "development" insert "for use" . Chapter 18.26 Definitions - Abu t efinitions .Abut or Abutting Lots . Are the term "adjacent" or "adjoining" used in this Code? If so, you should include them here. Appeal . If "appeals" are taken always from a decision of the Director (as opposed to "reviews" of decisions by the Hearings officer or Commission) , shouldn' t the last line of this definition state "that considered by the Director" . Building. This term is currently defined later in these definitions under "Structure or Building" . It would be helpful to the users of the Code to list the term "Building" here under the B' s, and simply say "see Structure" . Building Arrangement . In light of what follows , this term does not seem to be really appropriate. The more appropriate term would seem to be "Building Type" . 1 . Nonresidential . The opening sentence here, preceeding the description of "detached" and "attached" types, does not explain what "nonresidential" buildings are. This term is not otherwise defined in the definitions . However, relying on the definition of "residence" which is included in these definitions , I suggest _ changing the sentence following "nonresidential" to the following: "Buildings not designed for use as. human living quarters , comprised of the following types :" . 2. Residential . For similar reasons , replace the first sentence with the following: "Buildings designed for use as human living i 5 �p i quarters , comprised of the following types : " . ( b, Single Detached (Zero Lot Line) . For uniformity, change "s4ructure" to "dwelling unit" . d Single Attached. In the second line, after F "side" insert "on separate lots or development sites ," . e. Attached. In the second line, after "side" insert "on separate lots or development sites ," . E f Multi-Dwelling. In the third line, after "located on a" insert "single" . s. of The term "development site" , used in this sectisn not i the definition as being different from a "lot" , more defined in these definitions , but shousdetb6�t in this F serious problem is that the terminology definition is not generally used throughout the Code. in Article III (Zoning District For instance, " Classifications) , terms generally used are single famil detached residential units" , "single Tamil attached residential units" and "multiple fa7na7ni E dwellings" . Furthermore, although the term "single attached" here clearly means only two attached dwelling ' "attached" which means more than units (as opposed to two attached dwelling units ) , in Article III the term al units" apparently "single family attached residenti is used to include any number of attached residential units. See, e.g. , Sec. 18 . 52 . 030 E. There are also residential types of uses listed in the z�lne�e districts of Article III which are not covered by definitions e.g. , "group care residential" and "group residential" (see, e.g. , Sec. 18. 54. 030 E and 18.54.040 E) . Presumably these are considered to be a type of residential building. Do they fit into one of the types already listed? If not , a new type should be described which will include these residential buildings. (See also comments on Chapter 18.42. ) 3 Commonly Used Terms . a. Cluster . In the last line, should the term "gross density" be changed to "net density"? Net 1 density" is the term used in Chapter 18.92 (Density Computation) . b. Condominium. In the third line, change . i "government" to "governed 6 - r In the third line , after '°occupied" i ns ' d. A artment House. " , and sitar "residence of" ,-- ert "bY> > t insert a comma. Dwelling Unit . A "mobile home" . seems to fit this ,itr, • This would seem to mean definition of "dwelling alifies as a "single ( family) that a mobile home q as defined under "building detached residential unit" , arrangement" . This would seem to mean that under Article III , individual mobile detached homes aresidentre rial anywhere that "single (family) somehow doubt units" are permitted use. However , I that that is what was intended, as "mobile parks and h subdivisions" are listed separately in arately in the zo and are allowed only pursuant districts of Article III , ter 18.94. If this was not to the requirements of Chap intended, = suggest that you modify the definition of or perhaps "dwelling unit" to exclude mobil arra gement (types) , more preferable, under building residential" list "mobile unit" as a separate type of building. "are" . The In the third Pane, change "need" to are Fareaneil_y_ " living together in a last phrase of this definition, ot seem to be necessary. dwelling unit" , does n l , Site-obscuring_ In the second line, delete "as a Fence barrier" . public Not all findings are made after a p the Findings— s are included in the staff report by hearing. Finding is the basis for Director which, under Sec. 18 . 32 . S�c$'18 . 32. 045 A. 3 .13- 0) the Director' s decision. See, case Furthermore, such findings seem to be required in any by ORS 227 . 173(2) . I suggest that you change this definition to the following: the j "A written statement of the facts determined r rmimaY kin its Approval Author.ity as the baap liesthe relevant decision. Approval Authority app approval criteria or standards to the findings in order to reach its decision. Home Occupation. In lines 6-8 , the phrase "nor manifest any characteristic of a business in the ordinary meaning of the term" is unnecessarily repeated. Homeowners Association. In the fourth line, change "lot" to ,+tp" , is used his de to an Lot . The term "lot" l t" not necessarily throughout j ust t o e thosecreated by r any parcel of land, 7 - subdivision. See, in particular , Chapter 18 . 152 concerning partitions of land. For this reason, I suggest adding to this definition, after "subdivision" the words "or partition" . You should also consider , in light of your use of the (currently undefined) term "development site" , as dicussed above, how the term "lot" differs from "development site" . Lot Coverage. Here again, the term "development site" has been used. Its use here should be considered when developing the definition of "development site" . Lot Line, Front . In the third and fourth lines, the phrase "street having the shortest dimension of the two streets bordering the lot" is unclear . I cannot tell whether this means the shorter or longer of the two property lines abutting the adjacent streets . Major Partition. Change this definition to read as follows : "A partition of land which creates three lots or less within one calendar year , and includes the creation of a road or street . Minor Partition. In the second line, delete "that" . Parcel . In light of the discussion concerning the definition of "lot" above, this definition should be deleted. As stated above, the Code's Chapter on partitions and the rest of the Code as well , refers generally to "lots" rather than "parcels" . Private Street . This definition seems unncessary as it seems adequately covered by the definition of "road or street" . Residence. It would be useful to define the term "residential use" as well as rhe term "residence" . The terms "conmercial use" and " industrial use" have already been included in these definitions . In addition, you might want to specify more clearly what structure comes under the definition of residence or residential use, or refer to Section 18.42 . 020A. Review. This term is not currently included in the definitions . However, as you have included the term "appeal" and, under this Code, a "review'! is distinct from an "appeal" you probably should include such a definition. Story, First ._ When one first comes across the reference to " first story as defined herein" in the definition of "basement" , it is somewhat difficult to locate this i 8 - definition. I suggest you list " first story" under the F' s and state "See Story, First" . ARTICLE II Procedures For Decision Making Chapter 18 .30 Legislative. A basic problem with this Chapter and the one that follows (18. 32 Quasi-Judicial) is that neither these chapters nor the definitions chapter define the terms "legislative" and "quasi-judicial" . I suggest that you adopt an objective distinction between these two so that you do not become embroiled in protracted disputes over whether a proposed change is "legislative" or " quasi-judicial" . 'you could use the number of ownerships affected by the purposed change as the distinguishing factor . As long as you are providing adequate procedural safeguards, I do not think that you have to be directly concerned over your definitions or that these terms match the definitions which have evolved in the courts over the years . It seems to me one of the major advantages of having a separate legislative plan/zone amendment procedure is to streamline it by removing some of the burdensome procedural ( requirements of the quasi-judicial process . To that end, I would delete from this chapter all reference to "application" , and limit "requests" for legislative amendments to the Council , Commission, Director , _ neighborhood planning organizations, and city advisory boards - i .e. , eliminate applications by property owners (Sec. 18 . 30. 020 A. 5 . ) . Under the definitions suggested in the preceeding paragraph, F a property owner could always apply for an amendment effecting his property through the quasi-judicial procedures . Such a change would enable, for instance, the elimination of Sections 18.30 .030, 18 .30 . 050 , 18. 30. 060 , and 18. 30 . 070 A and B. Sec. 18. 30. 070 C. would then be modified to begin as follows : "Within 60 days after a request for a legislative change has been made pursuant to Sec. 18. 30.020 A:" These changes that I have suggested seem to be consistent with Plan Policies 1 . 1 . 1 and 1 . 1 . 2, and Implementation Strategy 2 thereunder , concerning Plan Amendments . Sec. 18 . 30 . 140 The Standards for the Decision. This chapter is supposed to deal with the procedures ffor legislative E r decision making. 'There are only two types of decisions - (" Plan, Amendments and Code Amendments which will be considered pursuant to this chapter . As I have stated above concerning Chapter 18 . 22, I recommend that there be separate substantive chapters on Plan Amendments and Code Amendments , which will contain sections setting out the substantive criteria for these decisions . Similarly, the chapters of Article VII (Development and Administration) and VIII (Land Division and Development) currently contain sections setting out the approval criteria for, e.g. , conditional uses (Sec. 18. 130.040) , variances (Sec. 18 . 134.050) , home occupations (See. 18. 138. 040) , subdivision preliminary plans (Sec. 18. 150.050) . To have specific approval standards set out in a substantive chapter and also more general approval standards set out in a procedural chapter such as this will greatly confuse the issue. Before using this section as a basis for a standard section to be placed in a substantive chapter on Plan Amendments or ' Code Amendments , I would make the following changes . In A. 1 . , "and other applicable state statutes" should be deleted, as these are included A.2. Delete B.2. The contents of this paragraph, with the possible exception of "possible negative or positive attributes of the proposal" , seem more appropriate for a section setting out what evidence will be considered relevant and/or admissable at the subject public hearing. You probably should add a subsection to Sec. 18.30 . 120 (Hearings Procedure) similar to Section 18. 32 . 150 (Evidence) to deal with this issue and generally to state that oral or written statements relevant to the subject proposal and of a type generally relied upon by prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs will be accepted at the hearing and considered by the Approval Authority. With regard to the phrase "possible negative or positive attributes of the proposal", these certainly would be relevant facts , and I doubt that you intended to establish by this phrase lack of negative attributes as a substantive standard for the decision. Therefore, it seems best to leave subsection B. 2. out of any standards section altogether . Chapter 18.32Quasi -Judicial ._ The counents made above with regard to the need to define the term "quasi-judicial" apply to the use of this chapter as well as the previous one. See. 18 .32 . 010 . At that end of the third line, add "or Code". In the fourth line, before "decisions" insert "these" . - 10 - Sec. 18 . 32 . 045A. 3 .b. (2) . This subparagraph should be modified to recognize that the Statewide Planning Goals will always have to be applied and considered in the instance of a quasi-judical plan amendment. Sec. 18 . 32 .055 . With regard to subsection B, it is unclear because of the use of both "and" and "or'! in paragraph 1 , what combination of these three paragraphs must be met in order to jusitify the waiver of a requirement - i .e. , can the Director waive a requirement if 1 and 2 or 3 is met ; or Is it if 1 and 2 is met or 1 and 3 are met . It is also unclear as to what "the provision" referred to in 1 is . Does this paragraph mean that the Code provision setting out the requirement for information or the approval standard must itself state that that requirement or standard can be waived? In any case, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the Director can be authorized to waive a substantive approval standard (as opposed to finding the substantive standard inapplicable) . This seems equivalent to granting a variance without going through the process of Chapter 18 . 134. Since, under either reading of paragraphs 1 through 3, the Director would have to comply with paragraph 3 , and find that a specific approval standard is not applicable, it would seem preferable to delete any mention of waivers of approval standards from this section. The section would then simply refer to waivers of specific requirements for information, a much less sensitive issue. I do not believe ` that the Director needs specific authority ' simply to find that an approval standard is inapplicable. With regard to subsection C, if the idea of granting waivers to approval standards is deleted from the preceeding subsection, subsection C would still be appropriate. However, it is not entirely clear under paragraph 2, on what basis such a waiver of a specific requirement for information could be challenged at the hearing on the matter before the Approval Authority. Would the only basis for such a challenge be that subsection B. 1 . had not been met or that the finding made by the Director pursuant to subsection B.2. was not correct? In making the latter decision, would the Approval Authority simply rely on its judgement rather than that of the Director? Sec. 18 . 32 .060 Approval Authority Responsibility. B. The hearings Officer . Paragraph 3 of this subsection seems to be contrary to Sec. 18. 22. 030 A. I . That section states that the Commission shall act on zone change applications as provided by Sec. 18 . 32. 060 C. C. The Planning Commission. At the end of paragraph 2, add "as provided by Sec. 18. 32 . 260B" . An additional t - 11 - I paragraph should be added to reflect the direction currently in Sec. 18 . 22 . 030 A. 3. that the Commission should decide on applications for zone changes with a concurrent application for a Plan Map Amendment, with mandatory review by the Council as provided by Sec. 18 . 32 . 260 B. Perhaps paragraph 3 of subsection B, discussed above, should be modified to state that , except as provided in this new paragraph of subsection C, the Hearings Officer will decide on Zoning Map Amendments. With regard to paragraph 8, the process of applying plan designations and zoning districts to newly annexed land is not really set out in Chapter 18 . 136 (see comments on that chapter below) . D. The City Council . With regard to paragraph 1, see the comments above on subsection C. 8 . In paragraph 3 , the third line, after "Section 18 . 32. 260" insert and (2)" and delete the rest of the line. F I find a good deal of confusion in Sec. 18. 32. 080 through N 18.32.220 , which deal with the decision making process .of the Director , Hearings Officer, Commission, and Council . I suggest rearranging these sections to deal with the following subjects in the following order: (1 ) Decisions by the Director and Notice of . 210 Director' s Decisions . . 200 c - (2) Proceedings and Decisions by the . 080 through . 170 Hearings Officer, Commission and • 220 Council and Council and Notice of Same. (3 ) Decision Process and Notice of Final . 180 Decision by all Approval Authorities . . 190 There is confusion in these sections , particularly in .200, . 210 and .090 A. S. , concerning (1 ) whether thi Director ' s decision is final when signed or becomes final 10 days after signature if no appeal is filed; (2) whether the Director must send out notice of his decision as soon as it is signed or whether he can wait until it becomes final and/or the ten days have elapsed; (3) the date when the decision of the Director becomes effective. The comments that follow are based on the approach that (1 ) - the Director must give notice of his "proposed" decision as soon as possible after signing it; (2) decisions of the Director become final and effective 10 days after notice of the "proposed" decision was sent if no appeal has been filed; (3) notice of the final/effective decision must be given by the Director; (4) decisions by the Hearings Officer , Commission or Council are final upon being signed and filed; and ( 5) decisions made by the Hearings Officer , Commission or Council become effective on the 12 - i F E `k C: MMM 10th day from the date notice of the final decision is given, ��- unless a review is taken. Sec. 18.32 . 210 Decision by the Director (to be inserted after Sec. 18 .32 . 070 ) . A. I . In line four , delete "be final made" and insert "become final" . In '_ ine five, after "notice" insert "given pursuant to Sec. 18.32 . 200" . The final - sentence of this paragraph states that, if appealed, the application shall be treated as if it were filed under Sec. 18. 32.060 B. This would mean review by the Hearings Officer . This seems to be contrary to the statement in Sec. 18 . 32.0600.4. that appeals of decisions made by the Director will be handled by the Commission. They can be handled by either one, it. just needs to be consistent . The same problem is found in the last sentence of paragraph 2 of subsection A. C. The initial sentence of this subsection should be changed to read as follows: "A proposed decision made by the Director shall become final and effective 10 days after notice of the proposed decision is given pursuant to Sec. 18. 32. 200 unless :" c In paragraph 1 of this subsection, the _final two lines should be changed to the following: "to Sec. 18.32 .200 C." (note that the current phraseology of "but in no case less than 10 days after notice is given pursuant to Sec. 18.32 . 200" appears to make no sense. ) In paragraph 2 of this subsection, the final line, change the section reference to 18 . 32.200 C. D. This subsection should be changed to read as follows: ':The Director shall give notice of the proposed decision as provided by Sec. 18.32 . 200 and shall report to the Commission and Council the Notices of Proposed Decisions given under this section on a regular basis before such decisions become final . The Director shall give notices of the final decision as provided by Section 18.32 . 190." L. I am suggesting that this subsection be deleted because I am suggesting that the similar subsection D of Sec. 18.32 . 190 be transferred into Sec. 18. 32. 180. Subsection B of this section requires that decisions by 13 - s 't 1 E the Director be in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 18. 32 . 180 . This change would seem to make this f subsection E redundant except for possibly the phrase that the decision "will not limit the development options on the portion not approved as part of the application" . Is this intended to be a limitation of the D'irector ' s authority to impose conditions pursuant to Sec. 18. 32. 180? If so, it appears to be an unnecessary and undesirable limitation. change "18 .32. 090" to F. In the second line, g "18 .32 . 190" . In the third line, after "notice be given" delete the rest of sentence. I do not think that you can or should authorize the Director to apply conditions to an approved development after notice of the decision has been given unless you go through the procedures for a new administrative action. Section 18 . 32.2 00 See.Notice of3 2 .Deci ions b the Director . (to be inserted a This section title should be changed by inserting the word "Proposed" before the word "Decisions" . A. In the first line, delete "an action" and insert "the Director ' s proposed action" . In the second line, "18 . 32 . 050 (A)" should be changed to "18 .32 .060 (A)" • In paragraph 1 of this subsection, the initial sentence should be changed to read as follows : I ' "Within days of signing the proposed decision, notice- shall be sent by mail to: " The idea here is to get the notice of the proposed decision sent out as quickly as possible, because the decision will not become final and effective until n days from the date such notice is given (assumingo appeal is filed) . I suggest using three or five days . I note that the 100 feet used in subparagraph b of paragraph 1 is different than the 250 feet used in Sec. 18 .32 . 080A. 1 .b. for notice of proce gs before keep the . other Approval Authorities . I suggest this uniform by using 250 feet in both. In subparagraph e, it states the fee is to be established In Sec. 18 .32 .080A. I .e• a similar by the Council . ed subparagraph stateshthat ould bee emade thefee wilsameeinaboth. by the Director . I urge you to add a paragraph 2 to this subsection which would provide that the Director must post copies of his proposed decisions in the Planning office or 14 - t - 4 location where they can easily be reviewed some other that ` by the public. You might also consider requiring some sort of notice of the proposed decisions be given in a newspaper of general publication, as this might be the only opportunity affected parties would have to learn of the proposed decision before it becomes final . C. The contents of this subsection concerning lce ntte isrectorf the notice of the proposed decision by should be replaced by what is currently found in paragraphs 1 through 5 of subsection A of Sec. How5ragraph oft subsection e AroftSee. 18 32 090 shouldhe initial statement be 5 to read as follows: "The nature of the Director ' s proposed action, a statement of where the adopted findings of fact , proposed decision and any statement of conditions can be obtained, the date the Director ' s proposed decision will become final and a statement that : " Sec 18 32 080 Notice of Hearings officer , Planning Commission and Ulty Council Proceedings tnow to follow Sec 18. 32 . 200 . A. l . f. insert "the At the beginning of this subparagraph, appellant and" . Change 18 . 32 .220 to 18.32. 240. Sec. 18 . 32 .090 Contents of the Notice. This title should be changed to sta Comsniss entsanof Cite the Notice of Hearin s officer Planning Council Proceedings ." A.5. This paragraph should be deleted because notice of proposed decisions by the Director is new being covered by Sec. 18.32. 200 . A.6 . In the second line, delete "that" and insert "of whether" . This change is necessary because in some proceedings , i . e. reviews conducted by the Council , only written argument (and probably only by the parties) , will be accepted. See Sec. 18.32 .270 B.3• Sec. 18. 32 .140 Subpoena or Deposition of Witnesses . A. Change the beginning of the subsection to read as follows , "any party to an appeal who wishes to subpeona or depose witnesses may seek to do so . - It is desirable to limit recourse to this procedure to those parties that have an interest in the appeal . l 15 - ��- Sec. 18 . 32 . 170 Record of Proceeding. There should be added to this section title the phrase hr SeCitf the Hearings Officer , Planning Commission, decisions made by the Director are Council" . Records of covered by subsection B of Sec. 18. 32.210 . C. The term "Approval Authority" in this subsection should be changed to "Hearings Officer , if the proceeding Council" . it should be stated that , pursuant is an appeal from the decision of the Director to Sec. 18 .32 .260A, the official record shall include the record of the Director' s decision as provided for by Sec. 18 . 32 .2108. It' s possible this r2which considered to be included under paragraph 2 , states that all materials submitted by the Director to the Approval Authority will be part of the record. However , theoretically the Director could choose to submit less than the complete record of his decision, oulddd which I do not think would be desirable. you ursuantato " including, in the case of an appeal taken p Section 18. 32 . 260A, the record of the Director ' s decision as provided by Section 18 . 32 .210B" to the end of paragraph 2 . See. eW 8 - 0 200 The reser tedl after Dateoff 18.32- ion 170 `� eal or Nevi The title of this section should be changed to "The Effective Date of the Decision of the Hearings Officer , of Planning Commission or City Council" . The effective date e. the decisions of the Director is taken care ec under Sec. 18 .32 .210 C. In the first line of this section, after "made" insert "by the Hearings Officer, Commission, and Council" . In the fourth line, delete "an app insert "a" . In the fifth line, add a "B" to "Sec. 18.32 .260" . Sec. 18 . 32 . 180 The Decision Process (now to follow Sec. 18. 32 . 220 - The title of this section should be changed _by adding "of the Approval Authority" . A. As was previously discussed at the beginning of this section on Article II , it is preferable that substantive standards governing different types of development applications be found in the substantive chapters dealing with each type of developement . It would therefore be a good idea in paragraph 1 , to delete subparagraph a, and modify subparagraph c so 16 that it states "the relevant approval standard found in the applicable chapter (s) of this Code or other applicable implementing ordinance. " This would mean that if compliance with comprehensive plan policies and map designations was a standard listed as a criterion for approval in one of the substantive chapters, this subparagraph would also say that that had to be meet . However, at present , subparagraph a makes comprehensive plan policies and designations a completely separate approval standard, raising the possibility that the city may be obligating itself to apply these policies in every approval of a development application - even when the Plan policies have been fully implemented by the Code provisions . B. Delete paragraph 2 for the reasons stated with regard to Sec. 18.30. 140 B. 2 . , above. E. 1 . Subparagraph c of this paragraph should definitely be deleted. LCDC will not accept having this type of condition being able to be imposed on all types of development approvals . This is .because such provisions can interfere with the clear and objective standards for housing approval that are required by Goal 10. it is , of course, possible for the city to impose a "computability" standard on specific types of development proposals , and to impose conditions as a means to carry out such a standard. Change subparagraph a to read "carry out applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan" . In subparagraph d, delete "as a part of" and insert "to" . i E.2. This paragraph starts out by stating "conditions may include: " However, subparagraphs a through a which • follow this opening, do not seem to fall under this statement. Rather, it would appear that they should be made into individual paragraphs 3 through 7. An opening statement sv..h as "conditions may include" is usually followed b"7 a list of the general types of conditions which may be imposed on development approvals (e.g. , larger minimum lot sizes , larger set backs, preservation of significant , natural features , dedication of easements , etc. ) . Do you wish to include such a list in this section? Also, at the end of this section you should 'insert what is currently Sec. 18 . 32 . 190 D as a new subsection F to this section. This subsection appears to fit better into this section than into Section 18 . 32 . 190 . With regard to this subsection, however , how does the grant of authority to t � a A - 17 - t i S 4 t approve an application with respect to less than all of the parcel which is the subject of the application relate to the authority given the Director under Sec. 18.32 . 050 to propose "alternatives"? Are such alternatives to be limited to he entire parcel? For instance, if a approval of less than t zone change application is for an RE-40 District , is it possible for the Director to recommend as an alternative approval of a zone change to the RE-12 District? If so, may the Approval Authority grant such a different approval . If you desire to give the Approval Authority such ability, this subsection should be so modified. Sec. 18 . 32 . 190 The Final Decision and Notice of the Final Decision. A.2 . In the first line, insert "final" before "decision" . In the third line, delete "signed" and insert "signing of the final" . C. In paragraph 1 , change the second and third lines to read " 18 . 32 . 080 and read 2 follows: been given; " . Change paragraph 4 to §. "A statement of whether a party to the proceeding may seek review of the decision as follows : "a. In the case of a final decision by the Council , the statement shall explain briefly how a Petition for Rehearing may be filed pursuant to Sec. 18 .32 .320 , the deadlines and where information can be obtained. "b. In the case of a final decision by the ommission, the statement Hearings Officer or C shall explain briefly how a review can be taken pursuant to Sec. 18 . 32. 250 B, the deadlines and where information can be obtained. "c. In the case of final has decision c i s i o filed, the Director where no appeal statement of that fact and that the decision is, therefore, unappealable" . Sec 18 32 240 Standing to Appeal or Review. A. Z . The use in this paragraph of "or appeared in writing before the Director in a decision made by the Director" , is unclear . Since there is no notice of or participation in the initial proposed decision made by the Director , probably the only individual that will r have "appeared" before the Director in writing will be 18 - t ME r the applicant himself . Is this intended to mean that ( only the applicant can be a party to an appeal of a Director ' s proposed decision? I doubt that that was intended. I would suggest recognizing that, in the matter of an appeal from a proposed decision made by the Director, the only qualification that need be met is that which is currently found in paragraph 2 of this subsection regarding being affected or aggrieved. Thus , I would suggest rewording paragraph 1 to state as follows: "In the case of the review of a decision made by an Approval Authority other than the Director, the person appeared before the Approval Authority other than the Director either orally or in writing; and" . B. I suggest adding a subsection B to this section which would provide a procedure for people to request party status is an appeal or review from the Approval Authority. People can be required to do this a certain number of days before the hearing in front of the Approval Authority ( i .e. to do it in writing) ; or it could be specified that reques -s for party status may be accepted by the Approval Authority up until the close of the hearing on the matter . Sec 18 32 250 Computation of Appeal Period - Petition for Review Time Period. On the second line, change "final decision" to "proposed or final decision, respectively". At the end of the third line add "or review" . Sec 18 32 270 Type of Appeal or Review Hearing - Limitations of Review. A. In the second line, "18.32 . 050 A" should be changed to " 18 . 32. 060 A" . Once again, with regard to the final reference in this subsection you need to decide if appeals of the Director's decisions are to go to the Hearings Officer pursuant to subsection B of Sec. 18. 32 . 060, or to the Commission under subsection C of Sec. 18.32 . 060 . Here you have used both. B.2. and 3 . These two paragraphs seem adequate .lira relatio: to reviews which are taken pursuant to Sec. 18. 32. 260 B. I . , upon the filing of a Notice of Review. However , these provisions limiting the grounds for review to those included in such a notice and to only written argument, do not seem adequately to cover review taken 19 - pursuant to Sec. 18 . 32 . 260 B. 2 . and 3 . , which are reviews taken upon the Council ' s own motion or upon referral of a matter to the Council by the initial hearing body. In such instances, no one will know what issues are subject to review. In these instances it would seem most reasonable to open the review to all potential issues , and although it certainly is possible to limit such reviews to written argument only, it would seem desirable to at least give the Council the authority to hear oral argument if it so desires . This would be particularly desirable for reviews initiated by the Council on its own motion, as presumably the Council would have certain concerns concerning which it may wish to question the parties . Sec 18 32 280 Notice of Appeal or Review. Add to the end of this paragraph "or , in the case of an appeal of a proposed decision by the Director, the date the proposed decision was filed; and the date notice of the final or proposed decision was given" . C. This subsection should be deleted with regards to "reviews" , because limitation of the grounds for review is covered by Sec. 18 . 32 .270 B.2 . With regards to "appeals" , this subsection appears to conflict with the provision of section 18 . 32 . 270 A that states that "appeals" of a decision by the Director shall be conducted as if under Sec. 18.32 . 060 B or C, which would include public evidentiary hearings . Also, it generally seems inappropriate to limit the grounds for appeal of a Director 's proposed decision when no one except the applicant was guaranteed any input to that proposed decision before it was made; and indeed may not even have known that the decision was being considered. Thus, new persons who are affected or aggrieved by the Director ' s decision, other than whoever filed the initial appeal may well appear and wish to raise new issues at the evidentiary hearing. I think it would be unreasonable not to allow them to do SO. _Note on Time Limitations Imposed by Restrictions in liB 2295. I have been asked to determine whether the procedures in the Code for handling quasi-judicial development applications meet the requirements of HB 2295 that final action by the local government be taken within 120 days of when the application was initially filed and deemed to be complete. For this purpose, I have reviewed the time limitations to be found in Chapter 18.32. 20 -- - 1 First consider , development applications which are initially ( reviewed by the Director pursuant to Sec. 16 . 32 . 060 A. I can find no time limitation on the making of the initial proposed decision by the Director. However , under Sec. 18. 32 .045 A. 3 . , the Director has 60 days after accepting an application to prepare his staff report . Therefore, the Director can certainly take at least that long to make his proposed decision. I have suggested that the Director be given 3 or 5 days in which to mail notice of his proposed decision. There would then be an additional 10 day period before the Director ' s proposed decision became final . Thus, if there were no appeal , and the Director made his initial proposed decision with 100 days or less, the 120 day deadline would be met . On the other hand, if an appeal were filed and pursued to its conclusion, it is practically certain the 120 day time limitation would be exceeded by far . The following processes would have to occur: ( 1) review by the Director pursuant to Section 18 .32 .060A; (2) review by the Hearings Officer or Commission pursuant to Section 18 . 32 . 260A; (3) review by the Council pursuant to Section 18 .32 .260B; and (4) possible rehearing by the Council pursuant to Section 18. 32 . 320 . Under Sec. 18 .32 . 310 A, Approval Authorities , on appeals or reviews , must act within 60 days of the filing of appeal or review. The total time course for pursuit of a decision originally made by the Director would likely include the following: ( 1 ) at least 60 days for the proposed Director ' s decision; (2) another 10 to 15 days for notice to be sent and an appeal to be filed; (3) 60 days for the Hearings Officer or Commission to makes its decision on appeal ; i (4) 10-20 days for notice of the Hearing Officers or Comrni ss i ons decision to be sent and a Notice of Review to be filed; (5) 60 days for the City Council to conduct its review; (6) 10-20 days for the Council to send notice of its decision and a Petition for Rehearing to be filed; (7) 10-20 days for the Council to reject such a Petition for Rehearing and send notice of its final decision, or probably an unlimited amount of time for the Council to act on the Petition for Rehearing if it is accepted. These seven steps total from 220 days to 255 days on up. With regards to development applications initially decided upon by the Hearings Officer or Commission pursuant to Sec. 18 . 32 . 060 B and C, again there appears to be no time limitation for the making of the initial decision. However , there is st-ill the provision in Sec. 18.32 .045 A. 3 . that the Director has 60 days to prepare his report . Such a report must be available some time before the public hearing which is required to be held by the Hearings Officer or Commission. In addition, such hearings require at least 10 days notice. After that 10-20 days will pass, before notice of the decision is given and any notice of review is filed. From that point , *hese decisions would follow steps five through seven as outlineu in the previous paragraph. Thus , for development applications originally acted upon by the 21 J Hearings officer or Commission, the C3aY final redecisionre between all � and 190 days or more to reach administrative remedies are exhausted. Both of these processess obviously far exceed the 120 day o limitation that would be in p PoOpan bong would be2295 . hee Y to take the meet . this limitation, Y following steps: ( 1) Eliminate Petitions for Rehearing of Council decisions . (2) Allow for only one appeal from proposed decisions by the Director . Since such an appeal would have to be conducted on an evidentiary basis. (as there was no opportunity for most people even to know of the decision or submit evidence to the Director befoorehe for p made his proposed decision) , l�alocond conducted uld be logical ither by that appeal to be a de novo appif the Hearings officer or the Planning Co�thel Council the single appeal is to t the Council , would have to get into the business of conducting evidentiary hearings, which I doubt that it wants to do. (3) Require that an initial decision by the Director be made within 40 days from when the application is filed ete, and that an initial decision by an and deemed complher than the Director be made Approval Authority ot within 60 days . This change would probably have to be accompanied by an amendment of See. 18. 32.030 days in provide that the Director has only, e•g. , which to prepare the staff report . (4) Require that de novo reviews of the Director ' s decisions by the Hearings officer or Con-mission be completed within 60 days of when the appeal is filed; and require that reviews conducted on the record by the City Council be completed within 40 days of when the Notice of Review is filed. ARTICLE II1 . Zoning District Classifications and Requirements Cha ter 18 .42 Use Classifications . This is an excellently written Chapter . The list of "Residential Use Types" in Section 18 . 42 . 020 A. 1 . - 8 . takes care of almost all of the concerns I expressed earlier in this memo related to the "Building Arrangement" definition 22 - in Section 18 .26 .030 . Is there some reason why those "Building Arrangement" provisions have to be in Chapter 18 . 26? Perhaps all you need there is definitions of "detached" , "attached" , "zero lot line" and "multi-unit" that are separate from the use of such building types as residences , commercial establishments , etc. After all , under the definition of "group residential" use in this section, couldn' t a detached dwelling unit, a number of attached dwelling units , or a multi-unit dwelling each be put to this use if the requisite number of unrelated people lived i n them? The only question remaining is with regard to paragraph 3 of subsection A ("single family attached residential units") . The word "two" should be deleted from the definition. The use of the term elsewhere in Article III (e.g. , Section 18 .52 .030 B. ) clearly includes more than two units . Chapter 18.43 Unlisted Uses ._ You should add a procedural section to this Chapter to explain who can ask for such a decision by the Director (e.g. , the same persons that can initiate quasi-judicial development applications under Section 18. 32.020) . You should require that notice of such a decision by the Director be given in some way (e.g. , as I have suggested for _ proposed decisions under Section 18 . 32 . 200) . Current Section 18. 43. 040 B would be included in such a procedural section. It would simplify matters if whatever procedures are employed are the same as those for other interpretations of the Code by the Director pursuant to Section 18. 12 A. Chapters 18 .44 - 18 . 58 Residential Districts . Each of the types of residential use listed in Section 18 .42 .020 A (except for children' s day care) has been listed as a permitted use in one or more districts . However, it is impossible for me to determine whether adequate vacant buildable land has been zoned for each needed residential use, as is required by Goal 10. Nevertheless , DLCD staff have warned me that they will give severe scrutiny to a zoning scheme which meets the required 10 dwelling units/acre density and MF:SF 50 : 50 split by zoning a relatively small amount of vacant , buildable land at the very highest density ( i .e. , RE-40) . 23 - ARTICLE IV. Overlay Districts Chapter 18 . 80 Planned Development . It is best to keep the procedures for all quasi-judicial development applications as uniform as possible ( i .e. , to follow the basic procedures for notice, hearings, decisions, etc. , set out in Chapter 18.32) in order to avoid confusion and duplicated efforts . I have reviewed the procedural sections of Articles IV through VIYI with this principle in mind. Sec 18 80 020 Administration and Approval Process . A. Is there a reason not to allow the persons listed in Section 18 . 32. 020A.2 and 3 to apply for PD approval? If so, specify tht this subsection will control , irregardless of Section 18 . 32 . 020 . If not, simply reference Section 18.32 . 020A, except state that initiation by the Council or Commission is pursuant to Section 18.80 . 320 . C. It is not necessary to include this subsection, as it is already found as subsection C. of Section 18.32. 030. I suggest inserting another subsection between C. and D. , ( stating that an application for conceptual PD approval must be accompanied by the information required by Section 18 . 80 . 160. D. These individuals and groups (and others , too) are required to be sent Notice of the Commission' s impending hearing/decision under Section 18 .32.080 A. 1 . b. and d. Is this section intended to imply that those persons/groups listed in Section 18.32.080 A. 1 . a. , c. , e. and f. will not be sent Notice? That would be unwise. If not , why not simply state that Notice of the PD proceeding before the Commission will be given as required by Section 18 . 32 . 080 - . 030? E. This subsection should be changed to read: "Action on an application for conceptual planned development approval shall be in accordance with Section 18 .32 . 110 - . 180 and the following: "l . The Con-rnission shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application in accord with Section 18. 32. 180 and the standards in Sections 18 .80 . 230 and 18 .80 .060 . 24 "2 . Notice of the Commission' s final decision shall be ( given as provided in Section 18 . 32 . 190 . 113 . The Commission' s final decision may be reviewed by the Council as provided by Section 18 . 32. 260 B. " F. Change the first line to read "where a conceptual Planned Development has been approved. . " . G. Change the first line to read "within one year of the date Commission approval of the Conceptual Planned Development Plan is given, " . Is the statement that the Director ' s action on the Detailed Plan is "ministerial" intended to mean that the requirements of Section 18. 080 . 200 and .210 do not apply? This action is listed as quasi-judicial in Section 18. 32 . 060 A. 11 . 1 . In the fourth line, insert a period after "Commission" . There seems to be some discretion involved in the standards of sub-paragraphs a. - e. Wouldn' t it be simpler to proceed under the provisions of Chapter 18. 32 for decisions by the Director? 2 . It would not be fair , and probably unconstitutional , to allow appeals and testimony only by the applicant , and not by other i affected/aggrieved parties . H. Change to read: "Modifications to approved Conceptual or Detailed Development Plans may be made as provided in Section 18 .80. 120 and 18 . 80 . 130 . " Standards not used to reducing sites below underlying zone. Sec. 18 . 80 . 030 Expiration of Approval ._ F. Change the reference to 18 . 32 . 260 (B) . Sec. 18 . 80. 050 Applicability of Zone as Condition of Approval . Does this Section mean that , in approving a commercial or industrial development (e.g. , in a site development review) , the Approval Authority may require that development may proceed only under a PD overlay zone? If so, it should be worded more clearly. Does it imply that development as a PD 25 - cannot be required as a condition of approving residential development? If so, is that a desirable limitation? Sec. 18. 80 . 060 Planned Development Allowed and Disallowed. C. Unless this subsection is intended to negate subsection B. , in the first line, after "Established Area" , insert "that is not zoned residential" . In paragraph 3, is the reference to "Chapter 18. 92" correct? Chapter 18.92 does not contain compatibility provisions. Sec. 18.80 . 100 Phased Development . A. At what stage does this Commission approval of a time schedule occur? It appears to relate to approval of the Detailed Plan, but that is the role of the Director under Section 18. 80. 020 G. and 18 . 32 . 060 A. 11 . Could the Director approve the time schedule? Sec. 18 . 80 . 120 Major Modification. C. Change the beginning of the fourth line to 1118 . 80 . 020 A - E for conceptual development plan review and Section 18. 32 . 060 C. 9 .11 Sec. 18. 80 . 130 Minor Modifications . I B. In the second line, change "following the Director ' s review" to "as a decision by the Director pursuant to Section 18.32 . 060 A. 6 . " . Sec. 18. 80 . 140 Application for Approval of Preliminary Plat . In the last line, change "planned development" to "conceptual planned development plan" . Sec. 18. 80 . 160 C. 2 . Change reference to Section 18 . 80 . 260 . Sec. 18 .80 . 220 Revision of Proposed (Conceptual ) Planned Development Plan. Revise title and text to add "conceptual" before "planned development". Sec. 18.80 . 230 Approval Standards ( for Conceptual PD Plan) . A. Add to the end of the first sentence "for approval of a conceptual PD plan" . � 13 26 _ f MINE Sec. 18 . 80 . 320 City Designation of PD. B. and C. Without a Conceptual Development Plan, it will be impossible to meet the criteria of Section 18 .80.230. Therefore, special criteria for approval of city- initiated PD zoning should be included in this section. I suggest changing the final line of subsection C to "following criteria: " The criteria listed could simply be the inverse of those in Section 18 . 80. 330 A. 1 and 2. Also, in the second line of subsection C, "hold a public hearing" should be changed to "review the proposed application of the PD zone pursuant to Section 18. 32. 060 C. 5". Sec. 18.80 . 340 Effective Date. This section is unnecessary, as the effective date of Commission decisions is covered by Section 18. 32.220. If retained, "appeal" should be changed to "review" , and Section 18. 32 . 220 referenced. Chapter 18 .82 Historic Overlay District { Sec. 18. 82 . 020 Administration and Approval Process . A. See comments for Section 18 .80 . 020 A. C. See eonTnents for Section 18 .80 . 020 C. D. At the end of the first sentence, add "pursuant to making a decision as provided under Section 18.32. 060 B. 4." . Delete references to Section 18.82.040 and 18 . 82 . 050. Only Section 18 . 82. 030 is relevant to application of a Historical Overlay District . E. In the first sentence, change "appealed" to "reviewed by the City Council" . Delete paragraphs 1 and 2. Who may seek review of the Hearings Officer ' s decision should be governed by Section 18 . 32 . 240 . Under that section such persons must have participated before the Hearings Officer and be adversely affected or aggrieved. It seems unfair to allow such persons to appeal an approval , but not a denial . F. See comments for Section 18 . 80. 020 D. Move this subsection between C and D. 27 - 4 X \ j • G t F G. and F. whereas . f These subsections refer to demolition permits , to !, A F appear at first glance to relate only imposition of the overlay district . This section apursuant provals to be intended to cover all approvals made pete this Chapter . A better alternativese would to to cr 8sh separate subsections in 5 procedures for ( 1) application of the Historic Overlay District; (2) ance (2)f assuanceexterior alteration/new of demolition construction permits; F would apply permits. Some subsections, e.g. , A - C, to all three, of course. In addition, how does an application for imposition of an Historic Overlay District (which is in reality a zone change) relate to the requirements of Chapter 18 .22 concerning Code Map amendments? % f they c not apply, that should be specified ( if that zone change Chapter does not apply an general to imposition or this could be stated in removal of overlay district , i, Chapter 18 .22 itself) . Sec. 18 . 82 . 050 Criteria for Demolition. A. and B. These subsections are procedural and should be g: transferred into Section 18 . 82. 020 . Chapter 18 .84 Sensitive Lands f Sec 18 84 010Purpose_. A. Somewhere in this Chapter there should be a reference to a specific map(s) where ehese areas adequately rshownl ne ison tthe unless the overlay basic zoning district map. j D. The meaning of this subsection is unclear . Sec 18 84 015 Applicability of I7ses . geway" B. The terms "land form alteration" and "draina should be defined in this Chapter l or Chapter+nl8.26 . 1 do not understand paragraph 4. locations pursuant to these provisions , not b�he provisions themselves, which are to be app If so, this is taken care of. in Section 18.84 .020 D. and E. , and this paragraph can be deleted. Also, what is the relationship between thin overlaadditionand the underlying district? I assume that , in "alteration" having to comply with this Chapter , 28 - or "development" must also be permitted by the ! underlying zone. Their relationship should be set out somewhere. Sec 18 84 020 Administration and Approval Process . A. and C. See comments on Section 18 .80 .020 A and C. D. Delete the first line and "deny" in the second line; and add to the end of the subsection "shall be reviewed and acted on by the Hearings Officer pursuant to Section 18.32.060 B. 2 . 1 . E. Delete the first lane through "deny" , and add to the end of the subsection "shall be reviewed and acted on by the Director pursuant to Section 18.32.060 A ." Note: "sensitive land permit applications pursuant to Section 18 . 84. 015 (B) (3) (a) and (b)" must be added to the list of Director ' s decisions in Section 18 .32 . 060 A and removed from the list of Hearings Officer ' s decisions in Section 18 .32 . 060 B.2 . G. See comments on Section 18 . 82 .020 E. H. See com'nents on Section 18 .80 .020 D. �- Also, I note that there is no mention in this, Sectionof the possibility of an application for imposition of the Sensitive hand Overlay District . I would think there might be instances when someone, particularly the Council , Commission or a neighborhoor organization might want to initiate such an- action. Would it simply be handed as a Code Map Amendment under Chapter 18. 22? See 18 84.040 Approval Standards . Subsections A, B, C and D simply state the Hearings Officer or Director "shall make findings on the following criteria" , and Section 18 . 84 . 020 F states they "shall apply the standards set forth in Section 18 . 84. 040" . In neither place is there a specific statement that the Hearings Officer or Director shall approve an application for a sensitive land permit only if it complies with the standards in Section 18. 84. 040 or can be made to comply with conditions) . This deficiency must be remedied. A. S. This paragraph does not seem to be phrased as a standard. Does it mean the permit cannot be ' approved if it is for undeveloped land within the greenway as of September 1 , 1981? What are the definitions of "undeveloped" and "greenway"? 29 — s f Chapter 18 .86 Established Areas h�Y e The reason for having this Overlay District in the Code is unclear . Its purpose is not related to having an orderly transition from rural to urban land use, as per Goal 14 , but rather is to assure "compatibility" (an undefined term) of any new development with pre-existing development . Section 18.86 .010 A and B. Nevertheless , it is difficult to understand how the application of this zone will actually do anything, as Section 18 . 86 . 030 (Standards for Development simply states that development shall be in accord with applicable Chapters of the Code - which is presumably the case with or without this overlay. However, if there is some way in which application of this overlay district could result in residential uses otherwise allowed by the underlying zoning district not being allowed in an "established area" . (e.g. , attached residential units or mobile home subdivisions not being permitted on RE-7 zoned land within a residential "established area" ) , it would probably violate Goal 10 and LCDC' s St. Helens Housing Policy (row a rule) and threaten the City' s ability to comply with. the Metro area density/split requirements . Incidentally, why are the designations of all the residential zoning districts (Chapters 18 . 44 through 18 . 58) ( listed with an "E" after the "It"? Isn' t the "E" only for "established areas"? o My continents on Section 18 . 86 .050 would be similar to those for Section 18. 80. 020. In Section 18 . 80. 050 E. , I . , change "18.88 .020" to " 18 . 86 .020" . Chapter 18 ., 88 Developing Areas Unlike the previous chapter , this chapter definitely does something, as development of land under this overlay is subjected to the Planned Development provisions of Chapter 18.80 (except for single family residences, duplexes or a two-unit attached residence) . Section 18 .88 . 030. however , the relationship between this chapter and Chapter 18 . 80 is unclear . This seems to be a way of imposing a PD overlay zone without going through the process of -Section 18. 80.020 or 18. 80 .320. Under this chapter , only the owner or his agent can apply for a Developing Area overlay. Section 18 . 88.050. However , why would an owner voluntarily want to impose such restrictions on his property? What would he gain? (See comments on Section 18 .92 . 030 below. ) My comments on Section 18 . 88. 050 would be the same as those on Section 18.80 . 020 . 30 (- This chapter could cause the City Goal 10 compliance problems , if it is applied in a way that could frustrate attainment of the density and split envisioned by the underlying zoning. This could be perceived to be the case if this overlay is applied to areas whose specific features would not otherwise require PD development techniques to achieve the planned for density/split . ARTICLE V. Supplemental Provisions Chapter 18 . 92 Density Computations Sec. 18. 92 . 030 Residential Density Transfer . B. It appeared from the provisions of Section 18 . 80 . 080 A. 1 . and 18.80 .230 A. 2 . a. of the PD Chapter that PDs cannot receive any type of density bonus . Does this subsection change that in any way? Are PDs subject to the transfer limitations stated in subsection A of this Section? If not , this subsection doesn' t make that clear . Chapter 18 . 94 Manufactured/Mobile Homes f This Chapter will be scrutinized by LCDC to see whether the approval standards are clear and objective (assuming the Plan identifies mobile homes as a needed housing type) . I feel the standards are reasonably objective. Chapter 18 . 112 Access , Egress and Circulation Sec. 18 . 112. 132 Administration and Approval Process . D. Add to end of the first sentence "pursuant to Section 18 . 32 . 060 A " [Note: "Variances to Access Standards pursuant •to Section 18 . 112 . 132" should be added to the list of Director ' s decisions in Section 18 . 32 . 060 A.] AR'T'ICLE VT . Site Development Review Chapter 18 . 120 Site Development Review The fact that this review process is required for all development other than single family detached dwellings and 31 - duplexes (Section 18 . 120 . 020) will subject it to intense LCDC scrutiny vis-a-vis Goal 10 requirements . The basic r is whether use of this review question they will be asking process will keep development from attaining the densities allowed by the applicable zoning district through delay, f increased cost , design limitations , etc . Since this chapter , at Section 18 . 120 . 180 , includes six pages of approval standards , it would be unreasonable to think that , no matter how objective they are, they will not cumulatively have some adverse impact on cost and speed of =_ approval , even though they are desireable to ensure attractive, high quality development . h LCDC has in the past O.K. ' d review provisions such as these, but only if the standards are as objective as possible and the ordinance includes a purpose statement (and usually the Plan a policy, as we to the effect that the City is r committed to providing needed housing and attaining the densities allowed by the Plan Designation and zoning district and will not use the review process in a way that frustrates those goals . Such an approach was first agreed to in the review of the City of Tualatin' s Plan and the wording in question is generally referred to as the "Tualatin" language (See attachment at end of memo) . Current Plan Policies 6 . 3 . 1 and 6 . 3 . 2 seem to run counter to this thrust . In addition, even with the "Tualatin" language, such an r extensive review process will probably not be accepted if it includes standards which individually are perceived as discriminatory, or if the code does not include a means of granting exceptions to particular standards if their strict application would frustrate achieving the desired density for no important purpose. With regard to the former consideration, an example of a t suspect standard is found in Section 18 . 120 . 180 A. 2. a. (4) "comparable in scale with surrounding buildings" . Such a standard could be used to block multi-family/attached dwellings anywhere they adjoin a single-family detached residential area. It is not necessary to drop such a standard entirely. It could be modified with weasel words such as "wherever practical" , or modified to provide that some gradation in scale towards the edge of the new development is sufficient . With regard to the latter consideration, the exceptions provisions of Section 18 . 120 . 170 could be enlarged in scope to include more of the approval standards . 32 - ' ARTICLE VII . Development and Administration Chapter 18 . 130 Conditional Use Sec. 18 . 130 . 020 Administration and Approval Process . D. See comments on Section 18 . 80 . 020 D (except that under this Chapter review is by the Hearings Officer, rather than the Commission) . E. In the draft I have, the reference to acting on the application in accord with "Chapter 18 .32" has been replaced with "Section 18 . 32 . 110" . In general , for all the development processes covered by this article, it would be better simply to state in the administrative sections of these Chapters that , except where specifically provided to the contrary in the subject chapter , action on an application will be made pursuant to the appropriate paragraph of Section 18 . 32 . 060 ( in this case, Section 18 . 32 . 060 B. 1 . ) . Add a subsection stating that the Hearings Officer will approve an application for a conditional use permit upon finding that it meets the standards of Section 18 . 130. 040 and 18 . 130 . 150 . Sec. 18 . 130 . 040 Approval Standards . A. 1 . b. The use of "any possible adverse effect" , if strictly interpreted, could become a basis for denial of virtually any conditional use" . A. 3. This is clearly a non-objective standard. It could cause Goal 10 compliance problems if the City is relying on providing any of its necessary housing types through conditional uses . Chapter 18 . 136 Annexations Sec. 18 . 136 .020 Administration and Approval Process . The process set out here does not agree with the provisions of Section 18. 32 . 060 C. 8 . and D. 1 concerning "preliminary review of plan designations and formal imposition of zoning district designations" to annexed lands by the Commission and " formal imposition of plan designations" by the Council . For instance, shouldn' t the Conmission' s action under Section 18 . 136 .020 D include a choice of zoning district, conditioned on becoming effective upon final 33 - action by the Boundary Commission? Assuming Section f- 18 . 136 . 020 E means there is to be mandatory council review of the Commission ' s annexation recommendation (and also its plan designation recommendation? ) , shouldn' t this be noted in Section 18 . 32 . 060 C. 8? Is there to be possible Council review of the Commission's zoning decision pursuant to Section 18 .32 . 260 B? Section 18. 136 . 030 Approval Standards . Is annexation intended by the Plan to be a major means of controlling conversion to urban land? If so, the standards in this Section do not seem sufficient for the task. I have not found any other sort of conversion controls in this Code. Chapters 18 . 137 - 18 . 139 The internal references in these chapters , and the references to these chapters in Section 18 . 32 . 060 A, do not agree with their current chapter numbers . Also there are now two Chapter 18 . 1391s . ARTICLE VIII . Land Division and Development Standards Chapter 18 . 150 Land Division - Subdivision No provisions have been made for approving modifications of approved tentative plans . Also, is there some reason for using differrent variance standards in Section 18 . 150 . 110 B and 18 . 134. 050 A? Wouldn' t it be simpler to use the sane ones? Chapter 18 . 156 Street and Utility Standards How and when are these standards to be applied? For instance, there is no reference in the approval standards of Section 18 .80 . 230 (Planned Development ) , 18 . 120 . 180 (Site Development) or 18 . 150 . 050 (Subdivision.) to requiring compliance with Chapter 18 .156 . 34 - SAMPLE "TUALATIN" LANGUAGE Excerpt from City of Tualatin Zoning Ordinance (relating to design review standards ) : "the Board shall , in making its determination of compliance with the requirements set forth, consider the effect of its action on the availability and cost of needed housing. The Board shall not use the requirements of this section to exclude needed housing types . However , consideration of these factors shall not prevent the Board from imposing conditions of approval necessary to meet the requirements of this section. The costs of such conditions shall not unduly increase the cost of housing beyond the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of this ordinance. The Board shall have no authority to affect dwelling unit densities . " Excerpt from City of McMinnville Zoning Ordinance (relating i to criteria for zone change process ) : In addition, the housing policies for the McMinnville Comprehensive Plan shall be given added emphasis and the other policies contained in the plan shall not be used to: ( 1 ) exclude needed housing; (2) unnecessarily decrease densities ; or (3) allow special conditions to be attached which would have the effect of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. " I k f i r f r SAMPLE "TUALATIN" LANGUAGE Excerpt from City of Tualatin Zoning Ordinance ( relating to design review standards) : "the Board shall , in making its determination of compliance with the requirements set forth, consider the effect of its action on the availability and cost of needed housing. The Board shall not use the requirements of this section to exclude needed housing types. However, consideration of these factors shall not prevent the Board from imposing conditions of approval necessary to meet the requirements of this section. The costs of such conditions shall not unduly increase the cost of housing beyond the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of this ordinance . The Board shall have no authority to affect dwelling unit densities ." Excerpt from City of McMinnville Zoning Ordinance (relating to criteria for zone change process) : l In addition, the housing policies for the McMinnville Comprehensive Plan shall be given added emphasis and the other policies contained in the plan shall not be used to: (1 ) exclude needed housing; (2) unnecessarily decrease densities ; or (3) allow special conditions to be attached which would have the effect of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. " fy. n 1 r ! x q.tt;��11 ,x t i�j' l �_�':l x{� • r yc:7 .� HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PORTLAND 15555 S.W. BANGY ROAD, SUITE 301 (fry•}V73 `. LAKE OSWEGO, OREGi?PI 97034 503/684•-1880 ® {i✓(�•J(v THE HOUSING CENITEft JUN 1 71983 j. CITY W-- TIGAKD PLANNING DEFT. June 15, 1983 Mr. Frank Tepedino, President Tigard Planning Commission P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR - 9,7223 Dear Mr. Tepedino: This is to notify the Planning .Commisslon that the Home Builders Association will not testify on the draft community. development code at the June 21 public hearing. The code has just been released and we received our copy today, June 15. That does. not leave enough time for me or our interested members to review the document and to reach consensus on changes before the first hearing. We definitely intend to testify at the July 12 hearing. t By-. that time, we :should also have been able to meet w:'th city staff to reach tentative agreement on as many of our concerns as possible....;. We are .delaying our testimony until July 12 so that our time and the Commission's is used most efficiently. Sincerely, L Kevin L. anwa Staff Attorney cc: Wialli.ar6'Mon an Mayor_''MIlbi.&.Bishop Gary Reid 1, .- Tigard . Oregon. 97223 • June 1, 1983• RECEIVED Mr. William Monahan, Tigard Planning Director & Staff JUN 21983 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Councit CITY OF r/GARI) City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon, 97223• Dear Mr. Monahan and Staffs We are writing this letter in reference to the Tigard Community Development Code which is to be discussed by you and your Staff and The Planning Commission at a meeting on June7, 1983, at Fowler Junior High School at 7: 30 P.M. We are requesting that Day Care or Child Care CenteB notbe allowed in established low density single family residential neighborhoods. For the past three months , our neighborhood has been deprived of its serenity, quietness and character because of such a Day Care facility operating out of a rental house in our cul-de=sac. The owners of the property are incurring severe damage to their front and back yards and the inside of their house. This incident has caused unnecessary noise with cars coming and going from early morning until ater E P.M. My husband and I find it difficult to sleep and I have had to purchase ear plugs to enjoy our backyard - because of the excessive noise from all the children. Our neighbors and ourselves bought our single family homes in a low density residential area to getaway from the noise and conjestion of density living. We are citizens and taxpayers-An the City of Tigard and would appreciate your consideration to eliminate Day _Care Centers or similar facilities from established low density single family residential neighbor- hoods in the new Tigard Community Development Code. Also, our property is adjacent or across the street from the Central Business District within the T.U.R.A. boundary and we understand that a step-down code will be used to protect our neighborhood from high density development allowed within the C. B.D. and T. U.R.A. boundaries . If a 25% build-up is allowed when property is in the Flood Plain, density would be allowed to the developer. We are requesting that the Tigard Community Development Code be specific and state that only duplexes and/or single family attached dwellings_ be allowed as a buffer between low density single family homes in the establised neighborhoods adjacent the T. U.R.A. Special Zone within the Central Business District. Thank you for your consideration, Si cerely yo rs,& Paul and oria Johnson 9300 S. W. Hill Street Tigard, Oregon, 97223 . i � � Y r�'St� l�,'�• J Vim\ � ,9 � �yG, Jy BAKER .lune 2, 1983 REALTY CONVANY i Mr. William Monaham City of Tigard Director of Planning & Development P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Monshan: In reference Vo our conversation this morning, I would like to request that the City of Tigard allow Day Care Centers in all commercial zones. Presently, the Community Development Code reads that Day Care is allowed in some residential zones as a conditional use, but not in any commercial zones. The Day Care group that I represent, Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. , typically build schools to accomodate 100 to 150 children. As we discussed, a facility of this size would create traffic problems in a residential neighborhood. I have checked the zoning ordinances and found that Day Care Centers are an out- right use in the following communities: Portland, Gresham, Vancouver, Beaverton, Tualatin, and in Multnomah, Washington and Clark Counties. Since Tigard is in the process of reviewing their Community Development Codes, now might be an appropriate time to investigate the feasability of including Day Care Centers as an outright use in all commercial zones. Sincerely yours, ,TIM BAKER REALTY CO. 1750 sw skyline blvd portland,onegon 97221 503 292 0761 Mark E. Baker MEB/db dHONE 286-1611 SEATTLE TACOMA PORTLAND STOCKTON OAKLAND SAN PEDRO 7 AR E 1 L C PA Y S �®� LOS ANGELES o . s 12005 N. BURGARD, P. O. BOX 03117, S7.JOHNS.STA 'F�.b ^N O X7203 7�ETHYL GASOLINE ;li�-`�`} _ 1� I, 41 ♦ ...� IJ f.�/ GI I y U;= T iGAKG PLANNING DEP1. June 21, 1983 City Council d Planning Cu:c¢nission City of Tigard Re: Additional uses in M-3 Zone Location: 15900 S.W. Upper Boone. Ferry Rd. Gentlemen: Time Oil Co. wishes to include a mini-market and deli operation along with our fuel sales in your M-3 zone. � . Our company feels that such an operation would compliment the area needs. We would like to ivite the City Council and Planning Commission to inspect one of our present locations. We operate a very clean fuel and convenience store operation. Please contact me if you would be interested in looking at our operation. Sincerely, Wes Meacham Property Manager WM/rp CITY OF 11GAKD PLANNING DEPT. 1-43b :3. v, . doth sun6 it; 1 t _77 on i,-, cp .-J.1i le e tr e--- L chic la 1..-i r,.- CJ CL JL :0 I. Ef J_L I J:ULI NORRIS, PEGGS & SIMPSON 720 S.W.WASHINGTON STREET, PORTLAND 97205-(503) 223-7181 May 12, 1983 Mr. Bill Monahan Director of Planning & MY O IIGAR D Development PLANNING DEPT. City of Tigard P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 r i Dear Mr. Monahan: 1 On behalf of Farmers Insurance Group, owner of approximately 17 acres of undeveloped land located in the Tigard Triangle, we would like to point out the omission of a hotel use under the Commercial Professional zone. We apologize that we did not notice its exclusion earlier and hope that the final zoning codes will make provision in appropriate locations for such use. We would like to stress that we are currently discussing our location with a national hotel group, thus our belief in the need and demand for hotels in the Tigard Triangle is real rather than conceptual. Referring to City of Tigard Ordinance #78-9 which outlined neighbor- hood goals and policies to be considered for incorporation into the comprehensive plan, the ordinance states that there are 108 acres in F the Tigard Triangle potentially designated for Commercial Professional r development and that the intent would be to attract a sizable suburban office park complex. Quoting from Page 9, "The office park complex will require supporting land uses such as eating and convention facilities. These ancillary uses should be located on an individual permit request basis." On Page 10, Policy 26, "Within the office park areas, supportive uses such as eating, entertainment, motel and convention facilities are conditional uses subject to the finding of the Planning Commission that compatibility with adjacent development is assured and there is a need within the office park area for the proposed use." With the improvement of the 72nd Avenue interchange and the recent start of construction of the improvement of the Haines Road overpass, the potential for attracting a major hotel to the Tigard Triangle has been vastly improved. The access from both Highway 217 and I-5, the scope of surrounding office land, the absence of abutting residentially zoned property and the hub location of the Triangle in suburban Portland create an area that is ideal for such a use. i x 4' r, J PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SAN J08e: SACRAMENTO HONOLULU TACOMA LOS ANGELES p 11illCillillill Mr. Bill Monahan May 12, 1983 Page 2 i We ask that prior to final adaptation of the zoning codes that will accompany the new comprehensive plan, you reassess hotel use in the Commercial Professional zone within the Tigard Triangle as a permittable use. We also ,ask that sufficient flexibility be provided for in design to allow a density that will permit construction and operation of such a facility to be economically feasible. Perhaps these issues could be controlled by the site, facility and design review process. Farmers Insurance Group has had an excellent relationship with the City of Tigard and are proud to be a part of your community. Our interest in and commitment to the City of Tigard is obviously long term E and we want to cooperate with the Planning Department in every possible way. If you have any questions that we can answer regarding our request, we would look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, NORRIS, BEGGS & SIMPSON J. Vie resident DO/jm/20 i cc: Mr. Graham K. Ritchie Director of Real Estate Investments t Farmers Insurance Group Dennis O'Neill i Norris, Beggs & Simpson i i t E f E i Dear Mr. Monahan: City of Tigard Planning Director: Sunday, June 24, 1983 Copies to Council-Planning Commission-NPO's Subj: Accessory Buildings i Thank you for forwarding on to me a 1979 Edition on Group M, Division I information. May I now, at this time, within a few days, receive from you Section 103 Appendix Chapter 11 for agricultural buildings (Exception: Where applicable). Noted in your June 21st letter reference to private garages, carports, sheds and agricultural buildings come under Mi noting these types of structures are permitted in residential areas. How does our current Comprehensive Plan address R10 R7 zoning agriculture 4 pole metal buildings with galvanized roof requiring no on site inspection except when adding electricity a State of Oregon license is required? From the information furnished me accessory buildings may be 300' with 10' height (300' being ground floor area). "Barns" showing 1700' ground floor area and . one story (is one story 30'-25'-20'-15'-12' or less?) on one acre? The Planning Dir, shall review plans and make conditions on site review-for accessory buildings over 120'. Sites under 120' or agricultural buildings do not require on site inspections? In your letter you state "the City is not proposing to establish any type of architectural design review related to any structurd". Note in the proposed Comprehensive Plan no materials are in language form for R7-R10 or any other zaing? Egress and ingress , if needed, is addressed during -the initial review of an accessory structure proposal plan. This review does not include accessory "barns-agriculture buildings"" What about materials on agriculture accessory buildings "whereas galvanized metal roof will either be painted brown, or will be reroofed with shake shingles or other acceptable roofing materials in establi8hed neighborhoods to retain the character of the area? Example: The City of Tigard irr 1982 without notice to adjacent home owner's issued a permit #3318 for "MI storage" yet it has been used as a full garage complete with trailer pickup and electrical machinery contrary to the intent of the permit being MI "storage" agriculture designation was indicated and there is no on site inspection in this established R10 neighborhood (the Deed Restriction was ignored)? Gravel roads were created for "barn" egress and -ingress. According to your recent letter the Director shall "review" accessory sites but no language on roads exists, nor materials? Permit #3318 indicates a height of 12' yet the "agriculture barn" sits 18' high on the lot and measured 2413" length and 24'5" width and having a galvanized shiny roof adding 5' to height! No on site inspection having been classified "agricultural storage?". _ - F During my research on the Legislative intention of no on site inspection for agricultural accessory buildings the State of Oregon farmer's asked for an "emergency' structure and so this exception on agricultural buildings was created with limited use in certain zones. Your June 24 letter confirms: "According to the Uniform Building Code all structures, except agricultural buildings as defined by ORS, over 120 square ft. are required to complete an on site inspection". Under 18.139.030 D: The Diro shall approve, approve with conditions or deny any application for an accessory use of structure. The Dir. shall apply the standards set forth in Sec. 18.130-150 of this Code when reviewing an application for a _variance. 15.139-030 E-1: The applicant may request a hearing before the Commission if the action of the Dir. is to deny or to approve with conditions. My question is during the process 30 days i'RIOR to applicant's original request mailed notices be given to owner's of record within 100' so that one is informed on his neighbor's intent and how it will affect his property. (We never rec. any notice?) Seems as though only when the applicant _ does not agree with Dir. conditions or approval may he appeal to the Commission? Why.- is all this power given solely to the Planning Dir.-? 18-139-030F2- Allowing Chairpersons of an official recognized neighborhood Planning Organization, if the property which is the subj. of the application lies wholly or partially within the boundaries of such organization notice? This Code provision has 'faults' as currently areas have not been contacted by the NPO Chairperson having appeared without benefit of NPO input. ��,_ .,, /?��sj„a �is•{o� RM TES GWS. li SLA Oehl a �r REALTORS CONSULTANTS ,guly 5, 1983 JUL 8. 1983 CITY-OF TIGARD PLANN104..OEP'i'. •Plaririiiig` Director .. ,� _ Cit rot . ot Ti d' .' =12'755'SW Asti'. Ti4ard, 70R 97223 Dear Mr. Monihan, Z'certainly enjoyed talking to you on the .phone and look',forward to meeting•::you'An �the `future. Iii regards to our conversation .concerning. the- .89 acre parcel of land which is currently land- 'locked bet�veen ;Art Verharen' s 2 .55. acre parcel and the Genetal 'Motors property, I would ask -that you consider the •€ollowing': A. The .89 .acre parcel. was purchased frons the ..State Highway..:.Dept. in July •of 1981. The State;�thas been recevtn ayients4n..fi.he. Property sin�e,'t'ha ,�tifre b�comesor w �r .:.: , e -F- I dab he rema�zii'�izc eveng .+�. i. YC �Y�' ?" d �'1 r J •vt a••Y - 'S. irS,u=�YTj L- �Y� Y 7� 4�: `•, '�o-��r t •c �,� tl^^ 3 ue.`S•.: sw• �_ Xi` ,„ fl t -4`: ti �. -�t.n ;y r,• • . � .* rl�}• :�` �:k��- s'�i*?�{� Yes{•v } t ••. Y t.�� lt��r�! .+,+C�?` -4:•G� ~�`�,Z �•' ��y�1�- ��i!�•��F��( .. 1, .'•i. Y i Ji 3n'everyone''s {best; interest 'to seeh� city's `tax';base>'developed to :its•.=full •potential This ;.._ parce3y�o ;property .developed°could'Y dd; sigtn.i A... nt y to: ttae�taz`base. Because of its 'current `zbriing of commercial/professional and its freeway- visib lity �4 it has. great potential. for development in conjunction with 'Mr.. Verharen's property. - c. would' like .you to consider putting '.a provision in the Coffi�unity Development Code similar to: the.•State o1E_.Oregon's "statutory.•.way. of necesei y. ;ratxi ch:." :,statesif' a County Board of .Commissionersj�can.;impress 3n��lease�ent over. one- private.,owner .to.'open, access t' ie �`anzl=locked parcek--••coE an®cher 'private,`�'Lparty.' Perhaps:'another idea might be that any future develop- Ment Elf. Mr. Verharen's property be subject to proper access - to the -89 acre parcel . AsI mentioned over the phone, I believe there may be some precedent for this type of requirement in Clackamas County. Page 1 of 2 49870 e.w..Parkway PO Box 75i \Wdsc-nefl12.Ore9w 97070 (503)682-3076 Page 2 There are probably many other questions to be answered, so please feel free to contact. .me either at home or at the office. I want to thank you for your consideration in this- manner. Sincerely, e_ A�? . Geoff Petrie . - GP/lt Enclosure l 2987o S.W. Partway PO BaX 751 VAibonville.Oregon 97070 (503)692-3976 bvvl/'t J YY 1/tetv Complin7ents ®f �IFEC®TQT� INSURANCE COMPANYY�'ASttlt�iC:7 ON C()ctt�i'f -DR�€GCEN 3 T- +�41 'OZ C � SCALE 1"� O0� taJ SEE M A P � •n is 1 36 V8 ��' f• °9e fay : •a'��'4 Pod as a a•= is - 1 400 0 300 2°'® 100 p+• i I I$Ac P 5 4�t 7.36Ac w v a w ^ � a► «_ J off m s r w a• b r G 3 C S • w a � _ M - 1 OfOM s •_ � . • ... ase off• t�r•a'6a _ L--qwrvS ec•°s•y s.7 •. �� : .—� 41 AC .I. r q `1A ` -^ w �. e b of \`\. tom• -__. ._. - _._.. .. /-��• a e �. � Governmental Restraints on.M Ownership Rights l Udder the "allodill system,"recognized in the United States, which permits private parties the right to r'• own title to real property, the title holder has a myriad of rights of ownership. However, there are certain rights which government possesses which are a restraint upon the freedom of the private i landowner. } 1. Eminent Domain—this is the power of any governmental body to claim private property for a public purpose. This is accomplished through the process known as condemnation. When such occurs, the private owner must be paid just compensation which cap consist of the fair market value of the actual property taken plus severance:#amages for the diminished value of any remnant 3 u propom Oregon, the power of eminent domain, by afatute,:can be used by a railroad or private tatdity ,u.coinpariy to, acquire aright of sway easement.for extending railroad tracks or an clactric power 'Imre Mao; the `s�tattit�ory way'_f.'nec�e'ssity®' procesd whereby a CounV oard of COz im rens'an ease en ss n ccess to the landlockedarcel of another .... e party u extensicinW the Po, er of emixi ut domain. < . .. r a >. a }F 11,9 S Fe. ,gwers ts: .c .n ' t o goverr;izten to ertac rcaspn e.controla gecessaryfoF the; c l ,. _ Y - .y... s tir 3 r r� safety;+gaelfare or rsso -. :of society a a whole. Such powers have.imposed•restraistt.aysr private t rt 1 i �. '' landowners in'the_fo;rt}'pf zoning laws;and other'public land use controls;street access limitations, �, ? ,. enviro6mental restrait'its and the like. x; In Oregon, cities;}have+the authority from the Oregon Legislature to zone'property since 1919 {F t• �' Counties were gra�ttcd authority.in 1947 and iz} 19s9, the state entered the local zonin$:procesa ` '.b}► comtpellin' lolal unit�`�f governizaent to create Comprehensive P1ans,as'overall guidelines for . li ria use ansl develppMerit:In 1973,-Schate Bill 100 (ORS Chapter 197)-created the.l.*d Cott ery .... ' and.DeveIoptnent CArrimrssion with_the dujy to create state-wide planning gurglelines as d to moeiiOr acrid cinpel loca7l units to follow$uch-giti4lelaries.. r Based upon ih pohcy-power of govcrniatent which primite laws and regulations wht h are r'ason ' t- r.`� :abl} nece +to protect the public healt#t safety,welfare-or morals.To be valid un cr most con r• � t sutupia� tsidards;:the:public land pse'controls'must be reasonable, not discrim: tom or'- -Z.!. ,; f , 'app&"c4t;oia, imd nori-contssFatory. (however;;.a-zoning ordinance which ;s asona}ile s rte '�' �: • *; va"t eVCR 4 thg ar-suff-ZM a dollar loss in not bean able to rase-_the arcelffor; Q g_ `ose oul wh8cNISY i 'ult lra unique rncreaaeti vatl14c),*`' i �` :,, .r ,..ted ' -~ 7 a t., €e p�6ssa i+ �f.Publi f$? �str� �dy, pe a Farce of OceSq�t 1�eal Pro CT co he aivw dart:and or:zopin ra on as in ffeet, o Ianilowncr•in se Poperty,;£�u Y ty;oiahoq f uch provlsrons, Wei :syscli "tp occ r, 9 gov'crnmental body may file ;t§tci enjout�; :l r' olacing;o er•fi itm:_continuing•such uses':eyen to"the extent that a violating s cture on ,04C .l b{c somt sd. Should the govepmental body fat4 to act, a private cltizen'of t = urisdict3on r� r'rirvolved miry\ itiat"tha litigation.Criminal penalties against the viotatoc-tray also a exacted .:�,,.• appropriate cas s' �" r `<<�' t Pte-existin-ANon-coltfiscming Use . t�Kr••_ An exception t ' the gbove statement exists ut the instance a 1_rdowner wa, ins a pareej st to a:cc;tain wa `praoc Zo-the-cnactn eni �of,the Toping or comprehensive code p;ohib ions. du"to a princi le of American law hat prohibitions in law cannot be retroactively` plied.-Tlilis• ` : such a Lando ert'has a."grandfather's right" to continue the pre-existing use even uch'Iaw rc not in conformr ty;with the change ua the law: In'most jurisdictions; however, such:right•is only to.continue i not to expand,such re-existinguse,'l'hui,a wood-frame'dairy barn on ode used ;a$:a dairy., eforc Z. chane ta:"residential use only:•could be repaired but nonreconstructed tt ' airy.,b g P t with concrete=block'constrt action, or any other construction technique which lengthened the no :r; } mai economic fife. of the Structure .In some jur4dictions,.a pre existing use structure which is :: = t .• f destroyed by fire or other casualty cannot be.rebuilt. A r * = Yatiances, achtionas Use Permits,and Zone Changes Under Oregon law; a variance is a icquest• of-a landowner to use property contrary to the`per- mitted use,due to unusual hardship imposed on the specific tract by the zoning code. For instance, .� a parcel in a "residential use only"-area may have no practical possibility for residential use be-. _. � ter•$ ` cause it abuts a busy highway. The governmegtal body may weigh the request and find that,the r ' Y ". 2. Non-Freehold Estates These interests are held by those who rent or lease property and are a mere personal prop- erty interest sometimes called a chattel real a. Estate for Years. An interest or estate in land for a fixed period of time, such as a year a month, or week. Usually created by a lease, with the owner of an estate in land trans- ferring use of the land to another person in payment for rent. By so doing, the owner f relinquishes his right to occupy the land for the period of the lease. The tenant, in turn, has agreed to pay rent for this period.The tenant does not own the land but has acquired a leasehold estate. A modern and better title of this interest is an estate for a -s stated term.: Estates from Period to Period: These'continue from one d6fignated period of timr.to another (yeas to year, month "t,> month, etc.) and automatically renew until one {arty gives.the other the proper notice of termination. ry f °f. C. Estates at Will: This is a tenancy created with the consent o the landlord,intended to continue for an indefinite period of time. It may be created by express agreemeftt or I by operation of.law. A tenancy at will is created when a te#iant enters into.posse§sion under an agreement for the execution of a lease for a specific time,but the lease is never reduced to writing. Courts have ruled that, where a tenlnt goes into possession_of a property under a lease which is never executed,a tenancy at will exists: ; Z. d. Estates at Sufferance: Where month-to-month tenant stays on the.premises (after proper notice to vacate has been served), or if a lessee holds over after the expiration.of s' f a lease, we-have an "estate at sufferance." It is not really an estate in land as the tenant F ; is wrongfully withholding possession of the property and may be legally evicted at the landlord's demand. Non=Poigessdiy.ynteresis Which 'Are Not Estates in I:aetd =`Sone non-possessory:in F arc regarded as an incorporeal interest in real property only an thus provtdes..the holder . not cd a mere limited right to use property of another. Theseare �tsidered as estates in land. .'; The common types of such non-possessory and non-estatd interests include: ix a. Easements - a *Right to use another's property. *Irrevocable by the Grantor. 1. Appurtenant *benefitting a specific parcel of property. *benefitted parcel called Dominant Estate or Tenement *subjected parcel called Subservient Estate or Tenement *BENEFIT ALWAYS CONVEYED WITH TITLE TO DOMINANT ESTATE 2. In Gross *not benefitting a specific parcel of property: i = ' *personal right to grantee. - �6�i *n errable, except for commercial easements ingross which, because of invest nt an necesstty are transferrab b. Licenses *Limited privilege to use another's land *Revocable at will of landowner. EXC I N where consideration paid, not to revoke without stated eau C. --Wo it a Pendre I *Right to take part of soil (gravel, minerals, oil; gas, etc.) or products from land (crops, etc.) 19 I MEE= f P. W. HUGHES & ASSOCIATES ING6Rr0 CiATSO j 1590 WOODLAND TERRACE LAKE OSWEGO.OREGON 97034 Telephone 503 — 636.2523 i April 29, 1983 i D.J.B. Inc. t E 11515 S.W. 91st Ave. ' Portland, Oregon 97223 Re: Drainage Study, D.J.B. Inc. Property " Within S.E. 4 Sec. 36, TIS, R1W and N.E. 4 Sec. 1, T2S, R1W Gentlemen: At your request I have conducted a reconnaissance survey of D.J.B. Inc. properties adjacent to the Landmark Ford Agency on S.W. 66th Avenue. . f Purpose of the investigation is to determine the source and disposition of surface waters within the area, especially in relationship to the proposed construction of the I-S Haines Interchange. The natural surface drainage at the D.J.B. Inc. property is southwester- s ly. Over the years the drainage has been modified to accomodate develop- ment and improvements. At the present time, surface runoff from the east side of I-S is carried beneath I-5 and S.W. 66th Avenue to`a drainage way which flows westerly immediately north of the D.J.B. Inc. property. Some of the runoff is carried by storm sewer and ditches from areas be- yond the natural surface drainage. On April 21st, 1983, I discussed the future drainage plan with the Oregon Department of Transportation survey crew working at the Haines Interchange site. The party chief informed me that the plan is to channel the runoff parallel to I-5 to the I-5 - Highway 217 Interchange. The distribution of surface water on the D.J.B. Inc. property as of April 21st is shown on the enclosed map. The small area of saturated soil in j i GEOLOGY — HYDROLOGY -2- the norther part of the property is surface runoff along the drainage way which receives it's flow from east of I-S. The larger area of satur- ated surface soil is caused by a septic tank failure and possibly other waters from the Landmark Ford Agency. In summary, the D.J.B. Inc. property, historically was not an area of wet- lands. The problem of poor drainage and soil saturation in a limited area are the product of changes in land-use over the past 20 to 25 years. I will be available for further assistence on an as-needed basis. Respectfully, GERTIF/F� OR.GON AUL W. HUGHES Paul W. Hughes, ? Engineering Geologist �c Em PWH/ah Encl. .c r r►t N.♦ n ckLr� _yr i tom, ,�J�Y G,'r_- CIE:P—'ILC I I \ arc I Ltfv I kA I � 131-C=t. \ alp[ ✓-f/.�'� 7'E r r rGk).,._. • LL i.:� 1w:`\'+� ( I f.�.l'�, 4 �`�• N-1 G^tel -1 �� . � . Q n V _ � I-T np .. fgq ES P. W. HUGH & AiSOICIATAS � iMcowwR+wevtLtd -. -res. .. E a 1500 WOODLAND LAKE OSWEGO.OREGON Teier*x a 603 — June 6, 1983 D.J.B. Inc. � 4 11SIS S.W. 91st Avenue ' 1 6 Portland, Oregon 97223 Re: Development Sui:.ability, D.J.B. Property Adjacent vacated S.W. Dartmouth Between S.W. 66th F 68th Tigard, Oregon E Gentlemen: As requested, I have expanded upon my original investigation to determine if any of the property falls within the category of Sensitive lands, as defined in Chapter 18.57, City of Tigard Comprehensive I=1an. Sensitive lands are thine potentially unsuitable fur :ievelopment because l.) location within..the•100-year floodplain, 2.) within a natural 'drain- ageway, or 3.) on steep slopes. The property does not lie within a lowland nor adjoins a water course or body of water which has or may be covered by floodwaters, and therefore, not within any floodplain. Chapter 18.S7 defines drainageways "as those areas which convey sirnifi-_af-it seasonal concentrations of water over the surface of the land." The term "drainageway" is not used in the Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw--Hill, or other available texts. I assume the term as stated refers to both than- == nel or sheet flooding. neither of which takes place on the property. YjS 1u, l 1tS ': . Finally, steep slopes are defined as "portions of the ground surface which GEOLOGY — HYDROLOGY y , 3�T i C have a slope of twelve percent or greater". Slope, normal to the contours across the D.J.B. property, measured on the Lake Oswego 7.5 minute Geolog- ical Survey Quadrangle sheet, indicates vertical elevation difference of 45 feet within a horizontal distance of 650 feet, which is a 7% slope. It is apparent that the D.J.B. Property is not within a sensitive zone as defined. T `,'ill he ava i lahle for flit ther :,-s i�t<_-nce on an needed basis. s Respr•c t ft;l 1.., T r Paul W. l Iugh,.s, Engineering Geolo ist cc: Fred Anderson / OREGON\\ , Attoniev-at-Lah _�VPAUL Tigard, Oregon 97223 .e :.!• .i_•.. :r• .r •�. .,.. lfsf Y .,ti,.�1 •'a...' cit •i l��N <i. �,x• :-.�r•� •4`17,4 i.'a .�'t �` P. W. HUGHES & ASSOCIATES INCORIORATIM 1590 WOODLAND TERRACE LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 Telephone 503 — 636-2523 July 12, 1983 Mrs. Geraldine Ball 11515 S.W. 91st Avenue Portland, Oregon 97223 Re: Development Suitability Tax Lots 5700, 6300, 6500 & 6600; 23-81 Tigard 1S. 1 36DD Dear Mrs. Ball: I have examined the referenced lots to determine if any of the property falls within the category of Sensitive Lands, as defined in Chapter 18.57 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 1 Sensitive lands are those potentially unsuitable for development because of 1.) location within the 100-year floodplain, 2.) within a natural drainage- way, or 3.) on steep slopes. Your property is not within the 100-year floodplain nor is it located on a steep slope (greater than 12%) . The center line of a drainageway does, how- ever pass through the northern edge of Tax Lots 6300 and 6600. I question whether this is a natural drainage. Water in the drainage is transported from properties east of Interstate 5 by culverts beneath I-5, S.W. 66th and 68th Avenues. It appears to be a man-made drainage. It is my understanding that all surface runoff will be carried southward, parallel and adjacent to S.W. 68th Avenue which will serve as the approach to the south-bound on-ramp at the new Tigard Interchange. GEOLOGY — HYDROLOGY r i -2- i Upon completion of the Tigard Interchange, all surface water runoff will be channeled to the Public Right-o£-war and your property will therefore # not be within the "Sensitive Lands" catagory. E Respectfully, i Zel ' f Paul W. Hughes, Engineering Geologist W MI€JwNES /Aa Aqa �i9 IL PWH/ah i i I t i 4 i f { i E c t i i c F t t 5 i. s P. W. HUGHES & ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 1590 WOODLAND TERRACE LAKE OSWEGO.OREGON 97034 Telephone 503 — 636-2523 July 12, 1983 DJB Inc. 11515 S.W. 91st Avenue PorC-and, Oregon 97223 Re: Ground Water Levels Vicinity of D.J.B. Inc. Property Tigard -I-5 Interchange Gentlemen: At your request I have examined the water well reports, on file with the State Water Resources Department in Salem, in order to determine the depth to ground water in the area surrounding your property. The source of ground water is from local precipitation which infiltrates downward and laterally in a southwesterly direction. The aquifers are located at several horizons between lava flows or within fractures which have developed within individual lava flows. The enclosed water well reports are representative of ground water depths adjacent your property. The depth to ground water varies from 49 feet to greater than 500 feet below the land surface. Ground water beneath your property is estimated to be at depths which will not hinder any potential development. Respectfully, ,:7 OMOON a./ iJ /✓�ls� PAUL W. HUGHES Paul W. Hughes, •5/ 14411 Engineering Geologist ` e G � ,yB; G�oyO PwH/ah GEOLOGY — HYDROLOGY n !"5 00 (� - WATER WELL REPORT State Well No. 1... STATE.OF OREGON .JUN8 1983 StatePermit No. ....................................... WATER RESOURCES ®EPS'. (1) OWNER. (10) LOCATION OF WELL: Name- Jobn and '..-onlc'l Koba.si c County Clackamas Driller's well number 7-93 _ Address LLc5 S.r RedandO S' V4 r'(1'fy Section b T- 2S R. 1E W.M. Citv 80rtlanc State CR 972J1 Tax Lotrlr Lot Blk_ Subdivision —� Address at well location: 13707 S71 Rod--'yrs Rd. (2) TYPE OF WORK (check): Portland Oraaon New Well M * Deepening❑ Reconditioning❑ Abandon❑ (11) WATER LEVEL: Completed well. if abandonment•describe material and procedure in Item 12. Depth at which water was first found (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PROPOSED USE (check): Static level 1711 ft.below land surface.Date'-�"O� Rotary Air ❑ Driven ❑ Domestic X! Industrial ❑ Municipal ❑ Artesian pressure lbs.per square inch.Date --_— hoary Mud 7 Due ❑ Irrigation O Test Well ❑ Other ❑ C X Bored ❑ Thermal: Withdrawcl ❑ Reinjection ❑ (12) WELL LOG: Diameter of well below casing ....................r�.+......... Depth drilled rjrj�j ft. Depth of completed well 57 5 ft- ( CASING INSTALLED: Steel $1 Plastic ❑ Formation:Describe color,texture,grain size and structure of materials:and show Threaded ❑ Welded thickness and nature of each stratum and aquifer penetrated,with at least one entry ......b...'Diam.frorr711:IS...1.ft.to-.540 ft. Gauge .250..................... for each change of formation.Report each change in position of Static Water Level ............'Diem.from...............ft.to...............ft. Gauge .............................. and indicate principal water-bearing strata. ir-LINER INSTALLED: MATERIAL From To s�(L �r 21 Dian,from 536 ft.to..5.`J�......ft. Gauge2�18.8..-•••••••-•-•••••••• Cls _s• + _ o, 0 � o •n� at .�� d 21 1L(6) PERFORATIONS: Perforated?& Yes ❑No -a Cinders—"ed 1 1�2 T< of perforator used `ror ^ i52i65 Qld oy_r.o Size of perforations 1/8 in by 12 in. 16 r 1 t� Clay —s 'c —bro::n 3 8.......perforations from.� 7......ft.to...............ft -: Clay —_ ;1 . —bra._ 178 292 ...................................................perforations from...............ft.to...............ft C . zr_c a nr1-,r-bro-.7n292 2 97 ............... perforations from...............M to...............ft. 297 a C13T Z�lil� 1 _ 111 `or) SCREENS: Well screen installed? ❑Yes PJ No Cl a -= 27 —� Manufacturer's Name ................................................................................•--• C12`l-S�;?C� ��3_'1 37'' TS-pe ........................................................................ Model No...................... Cl2 -_:rpl' rr !!1-ri )sl 33 Djam. ........................ Slot Size............Set from...............ft.to...............ft. Swale l'1 �1 Diem. ........................ Slot Size............Set from...............ft.to...............ft. (,' V_rP d . _43, L48 Drawdown is amount water level is lowered Cla,,_crr_anul Pr-bro;Tn L,L.8 LC1.1 (8) WELL TESTS: below static level ), 1,4197 Was a pump test made? ❑ Yes M No If yes by whom? - Cl =-.r,r=nui nz-"r-)r0'--Tn 1197 519 galJmir.with ft.drawdown after hm. Con^ a -' 539 j 11 Air test cal dmir.with drill stem at ft. hrs. Sailer test 20 gal/min.with 2 26ft.drawdown after 1 hrs. Artesian flow R P m. 1� �3 Depth �; 19 � Completed- .rature of water th artesian flow encountered............ft. Work started [i-'r o � �•-7 195 3 (9) CONSTRUCTION' Special standards: Yes MI No❑ Date well drilling mnchine moved off of well -7 19 Well seal—Materia!used .tee._! At ................................................. Drilling Machine Operator's Certification: Well sealed from land surface to.......................l�l.( ......................................ft. This}p�pp�++++��4 was const ed under y direct supervision.Materials used 10 and inforon re Labov �tueW t knowledge and belief. Diameter of well bore to bottom of seal.....................rn L (Signed) ......Date 5.-R......l �•-- Diameter of well bore below seal..............C.....in. (Drilling r Number of sacks of cement used in well seal ..............................71......:.. sacks Drilling Machine Operator's License No. .......3�................................. �d lrou,h...�..-inch..P._i-�..... How was cement grout placed? a i.?l^;?.,-......f.=... _ Water Well Contractor's Certification: .be.t.,•.s en..�.Q-inc�..::ol�..�l>,d...G.-z�lch...��'i: ...z,..�c.................. ................................................................................................................... . This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is true to Was pump installed?..tl�.................. the best of my knowledge and belief. W Type............HP............Depth............ft : �- Name q.-5. .. . . ..rell..a??.2..S..... J�?lIJ•.? !?print) �I -i drive shoe used? Cd Yes O No Plugs............Size:location............ft. (Perron,firm or corporation) (nfx 7 or n L.__any strata contain unusable water? ❑Yes )&o Su ti01• .r ii�T_'. 111Y3L?k e y,••91+ ._•;,(::Z.2 Address 3 .- Type of Water? depth of strata � ..... .. Method of sealing strata oft (Signed) SC . . + .................................... _ 4r Well Co�rl 1Vas well grave!Pncked? [7 Yeses Flo Siu of gravel:..................... Contractor's license No........ .....Dat......!!.............5_t].............19.33. Gravel placed from........................ft.to........................ft. NOTICE TO WATER WELL CONTRACTOR, WATER RESOURCES DEPAR•17MENC, SP'126W.6'90 The original wW rlr t copy of thia report SALEM.OREGON 97910 are to be filed with the •+n,t....�r,...,,rti_.r•.....r....r.�__._.:_.. SPATE OF OREGON APR 6 1983 State Permit No. ....................................... PLEASE TYPE ortA7 L'i1 C)URCES DEPS. OWNER: (10) LOCATION OF LL: t�. .te John :Hedlund Countv Clackamas Driller's well number Address 240 S. W Birdshill Loop SE . NW y Section 6 T. 2 W R. 1 E. W.M. City Portland Oregon 9729Qte Tax Lot0 Lot Elk Subdivision Address at well location: (2) 'TYPE OF WORK (check): New WellX3 Deepening❑ Reconditioning❑ Abandon❑ (11) WATER LEVEL: Completed well. If abandonment.describe material and procedure in Item 12. Depth at whichwater was first found 125 ft. (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PROPOSED USE (check): Static level 40 ft.below land surface.Date 4/4/83 Rotary Air XX Driven ❑ Domestic XX Industrial ❑ Municipal ❑ Artesian pressure lbs.per square inch.Date Rotary Mud❑ Dug ❑ Irrigation ❑ Test Well Cl Other ❑ 611 'J gored 'J Ther—al: Withdrawal ❑ Reinjection ❑ (12) WELL LOG: Diameter of well below casing ............................. Depth drilled 200 ft. Depth of completed well 175 ft. (5) CASING INSTALLED: Steel ElPlastic XX Formation:Describe color.texture,grain size and structure of materials;and show Threaded Q Welded )IIFormation: and nature of each stratum and aquifer penetrated,with at least one entry ......6...'Dian.from=......I......ft.to.......5.0...ft. Gauge FV.G-20.0............. for each change of formation.Report each change in position of Static Water Level ............Diam.from...............ft.to...............ft. Gauge and indicate principal water-bearing strata. III LIIYER INSTALLED: MATERIAi. From To S'wL ......4 'Diam.from.......55........ft.to.....1.75...ft. Gauge .PVC.-200 Brown clay-occ.rock fragments 0 6 Gray-brown boulders & rock 6 (S) PERFORATIONS: Perforated? 29 Yes ❑No Gray-brown basalt fractured ilype of perforator used Drill Size of perforations 3/8" in-orw diameter in. hard 9 22 120 115 17 Brown basalt, dirt occ.soft 22 25 ...................................... perforatipnsfrom... ......ft-to... ..5 ..ft. Black-brown basalt & lava ...................................................perforations from...............ft.to...............ft. coarse grained 25 40 ................................................... perforations from...............ft.to...............ft. Black basalt odd. dirtV brow ) SCREENS: Well screen installed? ❑Yes ®No streaks 40 80 .( LfacturersName .................................................................................... Red--brown & black basalt stye ks80 95 1 _ Type ........................................................................ Madel No...................... Gray basalt hard coarse Diam. ........................ Slot Size............Set from...............ft.to...............ft. grained 95 155 w.b. Diam. ........................ Slot Size............Set from...............ft.t................ft. Red cla & Cla stone 155 1170 (8) �LELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is lowered Brown cla --stick 170 200 below static level A+s a um test made? ❑ Yes XXl o If ves.by whom? galdmin.with 129 ft.dr-awdowr after 2 hrs. Air test gal./min.with drill stem at ft. hrs. Bailer test gald"n.with ft.drawdown after hrs. L-esian flow m. ` operature of water Depth artesian flow encountered............ft. Work started 4/1 /83 19 Completed 4/4/83 19 (9) CONSTRUCTION: Special standards: Yes❑ No k7 Date well drilling machine moved off of well 4/4/83 19 Well seal—Material used ...........Ciemel]t..grOUt••-pZUS...glrl................ (unbonded) Nater Well Constructor Certification (if applicable): Weil sealed from land surface to...............5.0................................................ft. This well was constructed under my direct supervision.Materials used 1 11 and information reported above are true to my best knowledge and belief. Diameter eE well bore to bottom of seal..........1.0.......in. t0 25 r 8 �O (Signed] ..... ...Date...... 19......... Diameter of well bore below seal...........6. .......................................................... ............, ........in. 5O Number of sacks of cement used in well seal ............. ........................... sacks Bonded Water Well Constructor Certification: How was cement grout placed? Pumped through casing.-at 50'. Band Issued by: Great American Insurance t round level tnumbera Surety Company Name ...... ............................................................................................................ This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is true to ..................................................................................................................... the best ofmy knowledge and belief. Was pump instslled7.......n9.............Type............HP............Depth............ft. Name A. M. 4+.4? SEN...S7.EIr� ..DR.I.G�.tI.�.G•t...C.0.1-s...lmc.r.............. Was adnveshoe jwd. ❑Yes IXNo PlugsSize:location............ft. ePerson.tartnortorpo tions fly'prorprrnti Did any strata contain unusable water? ❑Yes 30 No Address ..... .. .Tualatin Valley.Jiwy Q,),Q.ha.....OR..... ........... of Water? depth of straw \ '� r^ �, (Signed] .... '�1..!�.r................................................................. r�tethad of aeali+uf strata off 5` ` Westar well c—scr,ac..— Was well gravel packed? ❑Yes XXNo Size of gravel:....... ...... `Cy N•,)Aa] iE t Date ti 14./63............19......... Gravel placed from........................ft.to........................ft NOTICE TO WATER WELL CONSMUCPOP. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT. SPe45292b90 The original and first copy of this report SALEM.OREGON 97110 are to be filed with the within 30 days from the date of weii completion. ^� ......r . .. ... .:r_ .� . . ... ...._ .. . .�-t ....�-.-}"--��.'..'��•'.cw•�..e•r,.Q«n-vrr,..+arrv�;�ro..^r...,..-.�-•moi.^�'Ir�G cry--t!�r.+'.-:.�rY. Theoriginal and first copy WATER WELL REPORT of this report are to be 5 1 filed with theSTATE OF OREGON A R 3 '97wtr Well No. —........_ ....__.._...:_._..._......__- STATE ENGINEER. SALEM. OP_EGON 97310 (Please type or print) --�—�— - No- within 3G days from the date STATE C T�v i P! 6i4te Permit No. of well completion. (Do not ;vrite above this line)37 t ^t[.L. `1) OWNER: (10) LOCATTO• OF WELL: �J✓1��5• County /ifS Driller's well number �1 W N Name !! J/r. ,�_ C V/%Section T. CR, R. / Address '-S +/�'� Bearing and di_atance from section or subdivision corner (2) TYPE OF WORK (check): New Well DI Deepening n Reconditioning Q Abandon ❑ It abandonment.describe material and procedure in Item 12. (11) WATER LEVEL: Completed well. (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PROPOSED USE (check): Depth at which water was first foundoZ,•5� _ ft. Rotary '% Driven ❑ Domestic M Industrial ❑ Municipal ❑ Static level .2el X ft. below land surface- Cable ❑ Jetted ❑ Dug [3Bared ❑ Irrigation Q Test Well ❑ Other ❑ Artesian pressure lbs. per square inch. Date Z_ .d CASING INSTALLED: Threaded/❑ Welded o _,��77 (12) WELL LOG: Diameter of well below casing ._._i�—•__-- �? Diam. from i ....._.— ft. to ._. �..!__ ft. Gaga -VS� ..4'._ Depth drilled ��! ft. Depth of completed well �P ft. — -- Dlam. fromft._ to ............._....__— ft. Gage ------------_--------•----•---" Formation: Describe color. texture, grain size and structure of materials; Diam. from _..____...—..-_._ ft. to __...___ ft. Gage -----------—........ and show thickness and nature of each stratum and aquifer penetrated. --»`-` with at least one entry for each change of formation. Report each change to position of Static Water Level and indicate principal water PERFORATIONS: Perforated? ❑ Yes X No. strata. MATERIAL From To SwL type of perforator used Size of perforations in. by in. a _ ft. perforations from _.__�___-_—ft. to -_-------__-__- perforations from-.—_. _ ft- to .._ _ __._.___ ft. X/ perforations from ft. to -- - r7) SCREENS: Wen screen installed? ❑ Yes )0 No 'Z inufacturer's Name _ --— ---• -__�—.- / Type Model No. _..__._----_._....__ �.Lt 3 /T C� Sds/i+r 5 l•�'7/ All, j Warn- _ _Slot size_.--Set from ft" to ._—.....----.—.. ft. Diam_ Slot size Set from ft. to __. ft �¢ `tw ,dJ-r.t'p Sa/ wnZ c2•5� e�Z`�� 0 8 ($ WELL TESTS- Drawdown is amount water level is ) lowered below static level Was a pump test made? Yes ❑ No If yes by whom? Yield J0 gal/min with '7Zt'7 ft drawdown after t:�Z hrs. l � w • w Bailer test gal./min. with ft. drawdown after hrs. Artesian flow 9-p-m �y.�� a - .— " :York stn ted '�" 19 i47 Completed 3 1� - + - liperatur^ of wat'3J 'Depth artesian flow encountered ...._...__..._.... tet. Dale well drilling machine moved off of well �� -- pZ 19 (9) CONSTRUCTION: _ ro`� ,/ Drilling Machine Operator's Certification: Wen seal—Material used ��'Y��'=b- •_•_�_- --• -..-....._._.._... - C-_C••••-•-- This well was constructed under my direct supervision. Well sealed from Land surface to ____'1 T-- --- •-••-----"--- "- — ft. MateriaMuand information r orte above are true to mY Diameter of well bore to bottom of seal ._._ .... ..- In. best knoand beliej� O� s43ate/ ..._. in. [Signed ---�//._+ ! .-! 5 ^ 19. Diameter of well bore below seal .._»�.•-- / �11nC Machine Operator) Q - Number of sacks of cement used in well seal .._ .f...... ......__........_ sacks Drilling Machine Operator's License No. ------ --" ......---••-......•.... Number of sacks of bentonite used in well seal ._.. •••------•••• sacks Brand name of bentonite —_.__...-_.__.___—."_____.» -----»-•----••-••-••--••••• --" Water Well Contractor's Certification: Number of pounds of bentonite per 100 gallons This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is -• water lbs./loo gals. true tq�best."y kno ledge and belief s a drive shoe used? ❑Yes No Plugs Size:location ---_-----_ ft' Name _. . fl r cczperation) (� La or D Did any strata contain unusable water? ❑ Yes p(j No p _ �� Type of water? depth of strata Address ... �/-�.......... ,tJ Method of sealing strata off [Signed ....... = ................ (Water Well contractor) Was well gravel Packed? ❑ Yes No Size of gravel: -----------------_-.._----_ ``rr' 0 �-y Contractor's License No. �.. Date --•-`�� ........... 19../..- Gravel placed from ..�.�—.---- ft. to .,__....—_.-.--••— ft. • (USE ADDITIONAL _^[MEETS /F NECESSARY SP•456W119 f1 L= NOTICE TO WATER WELL CONTRk;ctiORJAN ( iORn The original and flrst COPY WATER WELL REPORT � 1 � �- 1 of this report are to be `� ��_� E ht G„�_ State Well No._�.-__. .-. tiled with the c V _ __..-_..-._..._.- STATE "LeaseENGINEER. SALEM, OREGON'9731�1 4 OF OREGON t- within 30 days from the date "-' "-""y• 0 `- V lease type or print) State Permit No. ......... .... f of well completion. _ - (1) OWNER: 11 WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level _ ( ) lowered below static level Name : ! Was a pump test made? Yes ❑ No If yes by whom? Address � �' � _ Yield• y gal/min w''`t��ft. drawdown atter firs• (2j LOCATI OF WELL: •• / Bailer test gal./min. with ft. drawdown after firs. County r�G 5/►' Driller's well number Artesian flow g.p.m. Date 1'4 Section T. A. W M Temperature of water Was a chemical analysis made?❑Yes NO Bearing-and distance from section or subdivision corner (12) WELL LOG: Diameter of well below casing me a� I� �.�1 \� W ` /tom Depth drilled A "S !t Depth of completed well f< pJ Lt. Formation:Describe by-color,character size of material and structure,and show thickness of aquifters and the kinct and nature of the material in each stratum penetrated, with at least one entry for each change of formation. MATERIAL FROM TO (3) TYPE OF WORK (check): CWell N Deepening❑ Reconditioning❑ Abar.don ❑ j _ h ci.andonment• describe material and procedure in Item 12. (4) PROPOSED USE (cheek): (5) TYPE OF `JELL: Rotary ❑ Driven ❑ Domestic Industrial ❑ Municipal ❑ Cable Jetted ❑ Irrigation ❑ Test Well ❑ Other ❑ Dug ❑ Bored ❑ (6) CASING INSTALLED: Threaded ❑// Welded Diam.from �_ �it.to - `l it. Gage Diam.from_.. _._-ft.to _--ft. Gage ___.._.v 47 Diam.from_.___- -__ft.to_----- --._ft. Gage (7) PERFORATIONS: Perforated? ❑Yes X No c► Type of perforator used / Size of perforations in. by in. -11 G*i perforations from ft. to ___.......................... ft. .l r .� •SC _ / _ perforations from ..-•-...................... ft. to ...................._.......... ft. _. perforations from -........................_.. ft. to -................_............. ft. —�-perforations from _._-_......_.. __.__.._. ft. to .._.._.._..----.______ ft. -�--_�perforations from __-----------------_ ft. to -----_--_.__..__.... ft. (8) SCREENS: Well screen installed? ❑Yes Lq NO Manufacturer's Name ................._.-_._.-.--.---.---_---.-.-..--.------ - _ ..................._.............. Model No. _......_........------........... -- ( �.'f _.._._._-Slot size .._.__---..._ Set from ...................... ft. to ......_............-. it. Work started ;L--W✓19 Completed ! -'V Diam. Slot size __....-__. Set from ._.__...._...........ft. to .........._............ ft. Date well drilling mechine moved off of well (G--4- 19 (9) CONSTRUCTION: (13) PIi1VIP: Well seal-Material used in seal _..... ... ... ......... ._._........_._....._._._....._... Manufacturer•; -N .. •..._----.--..-_------------_------.-.--. --------- -4,27-Cl - - .. - DePth of seal _. -.5 ._.�/._.._..__ ft. Was packer used? _...r 9.-f✓-•---._-- Type: -.. •. .............._..._.. _ _ .... Diameter of well bore to bottom of seal -_...... .I......_ in. Were any loose strata cemented ef12❑Yes 5i(No Depth ......................... Water Well Contractor's Certification: Was a drive shoe used? ❑Yes ;&No This Well was drilled Wider my jurisdiction and this report is true to the best of my ledge and bel' f. Was well gravel packed? ❑Yes R No Size of gravel: .....__._..._.___..___._ ` Gravel placed from_�.-..-_-__.----M_ft.to-.------._.-.---------._.- it. - ` . ...................`..--•--- /�/eperrsssoon,�fi{�'or curporat on) Ype D .y strata contain unusuable water? ❑ Yes allo S5.!��s� /�u!�z� ... '7 Type of water? depth of strata Adie --- Method of scaling strata off Drilling Machine Operat is Li se ----- •--••-------------_.....__.. (10) NATER LEVELS: ��•// -ISigned� .. ..._. ....................... S'�tic level /{• 2 ft.below land surface Date ((7Water Wcll Contractor) Artesian pressure lbs. per square inch Date Contractor's License No.C7a.-7- Date .-. _...-7�czC P_..._.. 19••ft?- (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) 5 i The original and first copy of this report NATER WELL REPORT �y are to be filed with the j<//� WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT. S ATE OF OREGON State Well NO. ............... 111 SALEM. OREGON 97310 (Please type or print) ` State Permit No. --------_-------__---—------_............. within 30 days from the date . k of well comp?etion. (Do not write above this line) { : (1) OWNER: I (14) LOCATION / OF WELL: Name ��U`/dsY`C(� VV 4,L 4�• _ County �r/1_C ,A pDriller's•- � W.M.number /•.3 o�T�J l� �3 / /1r,% Section / T,7� R. �/� M• Address •—�- ��T4��I /tests ine -- Bearing and distance from section or subdivision corner (2) TYPE OF WORD (check): New Well ❑ Deepening ( Reconditioning ❑ Abandon_ ❑ i If abandonment, describe material and procedure in Item 12. (11) WATER LEVEL: Completed well. (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PROPOSED USE (check): Depth at which water was first found e.Q*7a ^3CCf ft. Rntazy V Driven ❑ Domestic Industrial ❑ Municipal ❑ Static levelO ft below land surface. Date J7—/,A—Y, .- e D Jetted ❑ ❑ Bored ❑ Irrigation ❑ Test Well ❑ Other ❑ Artesian pressure lbs. per square inch. Date r f (5) CASING INSTALLED: Threaded ❑ welded ❑ ( ) /~ I2 WELL LOG: Diameter of well below casing .._-b................. t Diam. from ....... ft ft. Gage ...................... Depth drilled ��'U ft. Depth of completed well -I'ller ft. { Diam. from ........................ f. to ............. ......... ft. Gage ...._........_»..._.... ,�� Formation: Describe color, texture• grain size and structure of materials: C / =r. .------ Diam. from ....................... ft. to ................_...__.. ft. Gage and show thickness and nature of each stratum and aquifer penetrated. j with at least one entry for each change of formation. Report each change in ,(6) position of Static Water Level and indicate principal water-bearins strata. PERFORATIONS: perforated? ❑ Yes (�tNo. Type of perforator used MATERIAL From To SWI. Size of perforations in. by in. _— perforations from ............ ft. to ............._................. ft. perforations from __ Pt. to _. ft. ... perforations from ....... __ ft. to it. Ov y-S I SCREENS: well screen installed? ❑ Yes nufacturer's Name ------ No-__.._._... Type ----------------------_-----------_,-----»------------------------------ Model No. »----------------------------------- Diam. ....._.-......Slot size............... Set from _-------------------- ft. to ........................ ft. Diam. Slot size Set from ft. to ft- ( $ WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is 1 ) lowered below static level �• >,. l`- /a pump test made? IKYes ❑ No If yes, by whom?O,de',4O0-C ````lll `' F.- 4 1 eld- /40 gal/min- with �jc ft*`drawdoWn after r� hrs. WATER RESOURC SALE:' r $^l.ler test gal./min. with ft. drawdown after hrs. •�L� _- sian flow g•P•tn• /� Temperature of watet�� Depth artesian flow encountered ft. Work started !7 "719 L" Completed�y� �G 19 �n� Date well drilling machine moved off of well ! - /,I19 j C (9) CONSTRUCTION: Well seal—Material used ............... ............................................... Drilling Machine Operator's Certification: it from rand surface to .._ .. ��i/�/ This well was constructed under my direct supervision. Well seated t 1/ Materials and infor at' 7poZrte above are true to my DianI of well bore to bottom of seat best kn led and belieDiameter of well bore below seal ................................ in. [Signed ._.- ..-.�/ - •--••----- •- ate .._ _.__../4'1-. Q- -• - (Drilling Macht a Operator) Number of sacks of cement used in well seal ................................................ sacks How was cement grout placed? ................................. ..................................................... Drilling Machine Operator's License No. .1.&Q4........................... ...................................................................................................................................................... "'• eater Well Contractor's Certification: ..............................................................................0........--......................---........................................ This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is _....................................................................................................... ii true to est o �,v kno edge and be,/,e..,, 1� 2 drive shoe used? ❑ Yes ❑ No Plugs .........._. Size: location ........_... ft. /— _ �ye��•( "-�LIC.�' Name . tri-_. or Did any strata contain unusable water? C Yes rx No erson, t orpornuon) Type of writer? depth of strata Address . .../....,,... .K... i_ . ..#.......: ;61—k Mcthod of sealing strata off Si ed G.. �� -•-- rr: Was well gravel packed? ❑ Yes KNo Size of gravel: (Water well ontractor) ........................... / Gravel placed from ft. to _._......... ft. Contractor's License No. '? -.FT.. Date ... -� �--••-• 19. 'r3 ................ (USE ADDITIONge. �•-- NOTICE TO WATER WELL CO= C=OR The original and first copy E WELL REPORT of this report are to bejr CA filed with the OF OREGON State Well No. :—. .........::-.�•�•----------- — STATE ENGINEER.SALEM.OREG N 9 10; F�+` r f_.!•(� ( e type or print) within�o days from the date (�t.• State Permit No. �•'- �� .� (Da nos write above this line) ................................................... of well completion. : r 1 to •�� OWNER: (11) LOCATION OF WELL: (1) Name !±rQ. Audrey Bake countElgelca-nas Driller's well number 57-62 Address 24250 S W. 65th, Tualatin, Or. 97062 Y.1 '. 107 I; Section 6 T. 2S R. 1E w.Ba. Bearing and distance from section or subdivision corner (2) TYPE OF WORK (check): New Well Deepening❑ Reconditioning❑ Abandon O If abandonment, describe material and procedure in Item 12. (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PROPOSED USE (check): (12) WELL LOG: Diameter of well below casing .....6tt.................. Rotary ❑ Driven❑ Domestic Industrial Municipal O Cable 0[ Jetted ❑ � [3Depth drilled 250 ft. Depth at completed well 250 ft. Dug ❑ Bored ❑ Irrigation ❑ Test Well ❑ Other ❑ Formation: Describe color. texture, grain size and structure of materials: /tea- CASING INSTALLED: Threaded Welded and show thickness and nature of each stratum and aquifer penetrated. .� ❑ J0 with at least one entry for each change of formation. Report each change Di... from ._.......... ....... ft. to .._--------4Q.-.._ ft. Gage .._L�..�.2�0---- in position of Static Water Level as drilling proceeds. Note drilling rates. Diam. from . ft. to ...... ......._. it. Gage ........................ MATEWAL From To SWL ..." Dtam. from ...... ft. to . ...... .......... ft. Gage ---.....-......-...... ........ Srarl'C �'_?. 1 1 PEIiFOftATIONS: Perforated?❑ Yes ]iD No. Broken rock and -1 a 7 1 31 31 Rocks reed hard greX_ .1e of perforator used Rocks •„t �",�1 grt C Size of perforations in. by in. �y,`�. ha p , i perforations from -- ft- to Rocks_ hard Bey- 21 1 36 perforations from .._..._ ft. med. O _.._._.—_.. perforations from ...._.__-_-•--_.._. ft. to ..__----_-------------------- ft. Rock ha 1 � perforations from --- --__ ft. to _..._.. ft. Rock, mid. hard,_b��n ' 150 .......................... perforations from ........................... ft. to .............._................ ft. Rock, hard,—gry. 180 2 O 118 (7) SCREENS: Well screen installed? ❑ Yes (X No — Manufacturer's Name ._..._....__....__................_._.................................-................................ Type.__._.—.—._.--....... .: _ ._.»..—._._._..._._...Model No. .. ---......_.-.._.. Diam. ................ Slot size ..........-..... Set from::__.......__..._... ft. to ----------------------- ft. Diam. ................ Slot size ................ Set from ............__......... ft. to ........................ ft. (8) WATER LEVEL: Completed well. — Static level 118 ft. below land surface Date 9-3-69 lan pressure lbs. per square )Welt Date (9 WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is ) lowered below static level Was a pump test made?❑ Yes 1]No If yes,by whom? 19 69 Work started Aug. 19 1969 Completed StDt. 15 ),eld: gal./min. with ft. drawdown after hrs. L Date well drilling machine moved off of well SaDt. 16 1969 Drilling Machine Operator's Certification: This well was constructed under my direct supervision. Mate- Bailer test F2 gat./min. with 75 ft. drawdown after 1 hrs. rials used and information reported above are true to my best Artesian flow g.p.m. Date knowledge �gd beli >�: -,� Temperature of water t✓1 ysls made? Yes CZNo (Signed] DateS::Ilt....23 1�0 oWas a chemical anal O "' "" (Dri If a Machine op;rator) - (10) CONSTRUCTION: Drilling Machine Operator's License No. ......_...•39.8........................... Well seal—Material used ........__.........den_ r te... ............................... — Depth of seal .._._.................................._.. ...._......_.........._....4.Q_......--.......................... ft. Water Well Contractor's Certification: r•'-meter of well bore to bottom of seal.—__—__....10...... !n. Thit well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. _e any loose strata cemented off? ❑Yes tri No Depth .............................. NAME StiSf.7..11iJ1a111._.PxOa.a............................................................ _._...._.. Was a drive shoe used? J1 Yes ❑ No (Person, firm or corporation) (Type or print) Did any strata contain ua sable water? ❑Yes Ti No 5112 ►tieF..l��eLou�Illin.M111waukie CT• 97222 Address .......... -_-•..............�........ Type of water? depth of strata //e Method of sealing strata off (Signed] 1t7L. - -•- -- •............................ (Water Well Contractor) Was well gravel packed? ❑Yes....... ft. to .._...................No Size of gravel: ................................ Gravel placed from . ft. Contractor's License ................. No. .... ........ DateSt_op _�3.._...__....., 14 �1.. ..._. The original and first copy'Atl)")jj�brL, $ id ImATER WELLREPORT are to be filed with the WATER RESOURCES DEPART-AENT. 2197 9 STATE OF OREGON State Well No. . ............5 SALEM. OREGON 97910 within 30 days froQm y1 ERe RESOURCES DEPT(Please type or print) of well comp(etlon, (Do not write above this line) State Permit No. _...___.�. - SALEM. OPEGON __.......... -) OWNER: (13) LOCATION OF WELL: Mame Mrs . Audrey Bake County Clackamas Drfller's well number �_,7-69 (79) Address 21)250 S. 11. 65th Ave., Tuct la.tin, Ore. N_T es Niif % Section 6 T_ 2S s• lE W.M. (2) TYPE OF WORK (check): 07062Bearing and distance from section or subdivision corner New Well L-l. Deepening 552 Reconditioning ❑ Abandon ❑ If abandonment. describe material and procedure in Item 12. (11) WATER LEVEL: Completed well. (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PROPOSED USE (check): Depth at which water was first found 342 ft. Rotary EJ Driven Q dustrial 3`20 79 Cable E3 Jetted ❑ Domestic M In ❑ Municipal Q Static level 185 ft. below land surface. Date Dug Q Bored ❑ Irrigation ❑ Test Well Q Other ❑ Artes!nn pressure lbs. per square inch. Date ( 'ASING INSTALLED: Threaded ❑ Welded ❑ (12) WELL LOG: Diameter of well below casing ........6..�_.__»__.._ Diam_ from ...._._»._.»._. -- ft to ft. Gage ...._......_.»_»__ Depth drilled 360 ft. Depth of completed well 360 ft. ................_.Diam. from ...._............_•__- ft. to ..................._. ft. Gage .....---------- .....». Formation: Describe color, texture• grain size and structure of materials; ................_' Diam. from ..................... ft. to _.........._._......_. ft. Gage ......................_ and show thickness and nature of each stratum and aquifer penetrated. with at least one entry for each change of formation. Report each change in ((77E'RFORATIONS: Perforated? ❑ Yes ?� No. position of Static Water Level and indicate principal water-bearing strata. Type of perforator used MATERIAL From To SWL Size of perforations in. by in. Basalt hard e 250 329 ......................_.»... perforations from ..._�.._.—_—_.._.. ft_ to ............._............... ft. Basalt grey and brown 329 342 ..................._— perforations from ..... v._..__....— ft. to ............ _ ft. Basalt b18.^,k and broom Soft: ................................ perforations from .......... _—__.»_ . ft. to ...................__-_......... ft. 20 IIl 342 1 351 185 /(7) SCREENS: well screen installed? ❑ Yes §? No Basalt Grey- Hard 351 360 i ifacturer's Name Type ....................�r._._.__._._._.__.... . ..-.-—� Model No. .......____. FO r the O r t i na.l d r i l l i nzr log e I e r ••••------• yo our well Diam. ................ Slot size ...._....�_.._ Set from --------_----------_- ft. to ------------_--------- ft. re^Ort -6 dated September 2 y69. Diam. ___ .—... Slot size _...__. Set from ................_._»_ ft. to .........._....__ ft. (8) WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is lowered below static level Was a pump test made? ❑ Yes (9 No If yes. by whom? Yield: gal./min- with ft. drawdown after hrs. Baiiaitr t 20 gal./min. with 1 1 0 ft. drawdown after 1 hrs. Artesian flow K.P.M. erature of water Depth artesian flow encountered ft. Work started 20 19'7 9 . /1 O 19 7q Completed (9 r T F F (9) CONSTRUCTION' Date well drilling machine moved oft of well 3`20 1979 � Well seat—Materia) used ..................................................... Drilling Riaehine Operator's Certification: i Well sealed from Land surface to ..........................................................................-_... ft' This well was constru4ted under my direct supervision. Materials used and information reported above are true to my ff Diameter of well bore to bottom of seat . .............. in, best kno �e and bzli\G�f. Diameter of well bore below seat ................................ in. [Sigzied]w .\�.� V�. , Date -------3/26 •19.79 Number of sacks of cement used in well seal ...... sacks o t. l iiachine Op ator) 718 Daniel V. 1tI�I `A�i How was cement grout placed? DriLing Machirle Operator's License No. ............................................ p ............... ............................................................................................................................................................ Water Well Contractor's Certification: This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is true to the best o,, my knowledge and belief. drive shoe used? ❑ Yes ® No PFugs ..........., Size: location ............ it. St@]_nLiBn BIOS . Drilling CO. Did any strata contain unusable water? ❑ Yes SCJ No ______ Name _____ ____________________ _ _____ ____ ________________ _g_ (Person. fir_ m or corporation) (Type or print) Type of water? depth of strata Address -3923 S. E. Hilly Ave.f MR lw., Ore. 97222 ............................ Method of sealing strata off �/ (Signed] ,:.:�>;'_-.i_•.._..�I?/.._.,...X:,,'�rt-.....��`�. ...__._.._.................. Was well gravel packed? ❑ Yes C.?No Size of gravel: ................................ Ronald F. McConnell (water Well Contractor) Gravel placed from _........................... ft. to _................... ft. Contractor's License No. .... Rate Mf9:9h 29........_...__. 1979 (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS 1F NECESSARY) SP•436&M-114 t-- City of Tigard Planning Commission Tigard, Oregon 97223 f E E Submitted by: Reynold Kordatzly Solder Shack 8900 SW Burnham - r-24 Tigard, Oregon 97223 i t July 12, 1983 i INNIS E SNA`Vj 8900 S.W. Burnham Sp. F-24 Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-2100 My name is Reynold Kordatzky, owner of The Solder Shack located at 8900 SI"J Burnham, Bldg. F-24 Tigard, Oregon 97223. The Solder Shack is a small family-owned business specializing in stuffing and hand soldering of printed circuit boards. On May 2, 1983 I rented Bldg. F-24 which was advertized in the newspaper as light industrial warehouse and office space. The property manager, I,Ir. Don Powell, indicated to my wife and I that our type of business would be permitted in this building. I went to Hillsboro City Hall and was told Tigard handled their own business hermits. I telephoned Tigard City flall and was informed they did not require a business permit but the building had to be inspected by someone from their office prior to occupancy. On May S, 1983, NIr. Ed Malden, Engineer from the City Planning Department inspected my building. I was informed by Mr. Walden (with ?sir. Don Powell, ( property manager present) I needed to make sure there were proper exit signs posted and a lock on the rest room door. We would be allowed to have approximately 6-8 employees. Mr. l:'alden expounded on how the city of Tigard encourages small businesses, like myself, to operate here and this location was ideal for small companies to get their start. Nothing was ever mentioned to me about obtaining a business tax license or that this property i;as not properly zoned. Knowing I had followed proper procedures, I started to do some remodeling. We put in an air-circulating system, drop ceiling, a wall partition, flores- cent li, -ts and did extensive painting, including carpeting the office and window caressing. I also purchased new and used furniture and equipment for the business. I then contacted the State for nay I.D. nwnber, withholding tax payment forms, Tri-Flet excise tax forms, and my employment tax rate. I also received my Worker's Compensation Insurance thru S.A. I.F. A business bank account was established, business cards and business letterheads were printed, telephone installed, and thirty (30) business Form letters were sent out to I)i"ospcc- tive customers using this new address. On June 22, 1983 I was informed by Mr. lion Powell , property manager, that this Property was not zoned for my type of DUSiness and this zone change took place March 1, 1983, two (2) months prior to my renting and having the building inspected by Mr. Ed 11alden. a 4, i i sHACAs i 8900 S.W. Burnham Sp. F-24 i Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-2100 Page 2 On June 23, 1983, I telephoned Mr. Walden's office to explain what had taken place and was informed by having Mr. Walden inspect my building two (2) things were accomplished -- 1) structure requirements met type of business operation and 2) properly zoned for type of business. All I would have to do now was. to apply for a business tax license and pay the $50.00 fee. This was the first time a business tax license was ever mentioned to me. I applied for my business tax license the same day and was informed I would be notified on approval. June 27, 1983 I received a phone call from The City Planning Department in- forming me my application had been denied because the property was not zoned for my type of business. I spoke with Liz Newton who stated she would permit me to stay thru July 1983 pending the outcome of these hearings. The Solder Shack operates a highly technical business, stuffing and hand soldering of printed circuit boards from electronic companies. This type of business is very clean and quiet. I would like to bring to the attention of this Board there is no difference in my business operation than the Tigard Farm-Out division of Tektronics, who share the same building complex with Tigard City I:all on SIV Ash, less than one (1) block from my address. The Solder Shack is not a manufacturing company; merely a company providing service to the electronic industry. I respectfully submit my request to be able to remain at 8900 SIV Burnham without facing the overwhelming cost of relocation, loss of business, and interruption of production. Because The Solder Shack is a small family business, there is a great possibility of losing everything my wife and I have invested. Thank you. V lv truly you , Reynold Kordatzky RK:b It r 71 i HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PORTLAND 15555 S.W. RANGY ROAD, SUITE 301 1 LAKE OSWEGO. OREGON 97034 503684-1880 THE HOUSING CENTER July 12, 1983 Mr. Frank Tepedino, President Tigard Planning-Commission City of Tigard Dear Mr. Tepedino: As promised, the Home Builders Association has reviewed the proposed community development code. Our intention in recommending changes to the code is primarily to assure that it works as a practical document in the real world. -Vie do raise several policy issues but most of our comments are more in the mechanics area, asking such questions as what information is needed and when does the city really need it. We have met once with your staff to discuss the Planned Development sections and have agreed on a number of changes the Commission should adopt. Those comments are included with our other comments, which are presented in the order of the code sections. 18. 08(B), 18. 10 - Add language so that developments shall comply with the comprehensive plan "as implemented by this code." This addresses ambiguities raised by the Supreme Court's ruling in Philippi v. City of Sublimity. 18.22. 040(A) (3) - We are unable to locate in the plan a requirement that quasi- judicial decisions show a poblic need for change. This should be deleted. 18.24 050 - This approach is appropriate only if the nuisance ordinance requires findings showing a nuisance to exist, rather than automatically declaring nonconforming uses to be nuisances. Definitions, Floor Area - We suggest that only the potion of the lot actually covered by a structure be included in the floor area. The area under over- hangs should not count as part of the floor area because it does not affect soil permeability or the mass of the building. 18. 30.020(A) (5) —Contract purchasers should also be permitted to apply for legislative changes , just as they are for quasi-judicial changes. 18. 30-050(D) (2) - if applications are accepted only twice each year, then all valid applications must be accepted and acted upon within the established timeline. If 60 days will not be sufficient, then set 90 days as the timeline and do away with the mandatory waiver. 18.30. 140(A) (4) - The reference to the comprehensive plan is unnecessary. The code and other ordinances implement the plan aldo/should be sufficient. Home Builders Comments JL1Iy 12, 1983 Page Two 18. 32.040(C) - We object to all mandatory waivers of deadlines and to provisions which aqf�&brize the Director to refuse applications which refuse to grant the waiver. 18.32.200(A) (1) - Rather than "at least 5 days after", shouldn't this read "rro more than 5 days after" 7 18.32.230 - The 12-month period should run from the date of the final cit action. 18.32.270(B) (3) - Applicants should have the option of presenting oral argu- ments on appeals. Written arguments do not allow for sufficient communication between`Ahe council and the parties to the appeal, hindering the council in its decision making and seriously affecting the rights of the parties. 18. 32.320(B) - Mandatory petitions for rehearing are a waste of all parties' time. Each side has already presented its best case so the rehearing is nothing more than a formality. 18.50 - The R-4. 5 zone"uld allow lots of 7,000 sq. ft. rather than 7,500. The additional 500 sq. ft. adds virtually nothing to the lot but it costs the developer approximately one lot for each two acres developed. That amounts to a substantial cost that must be spread amcd�hg the remaining fewer lots. 18.54.050(C)(5) - The 30-foot required setback is excessive. We suggest this be changed to "the lesser of twice the required setback of the abutting district or 30 feet." 18.56 050. (C)(5) - same 18.58.050(E) - It is unclear if the lot coverage standard is intended to include parking areas. If so, this is too low. (The Home Builders continues to believe that the city relies too heavily in its plan on densities of 40 units per acre.) 18.80.030(8) - Extensions should be granted for 12-month periods, rather than six. 18.80.060(A); - (B) -'Vle do not believe that the existence of planned developments should be the major distinction between established and developing areas. The function of those designations should be to provide a buffer between areas that have developed over the years under the old standard lot size and setbacks. and the areas which must develop more densely to reflect LCDC standards and shrinking land supplies. The ordinance provides a mechanism for allowing PD's in established areas, but has no similar mechanism for allowing standard subdivisions in deve- loping areas. While PD's may be desirable in many instances, they involve much more work and aggravation for the developer and the city. It is reasonable to believe that standard subdivisions will be appropriate in many instances and they should be allowed if the meet the standards of the underlying zone. 18.80.080(A) (2) - The references to lot should read site. r Home Builders Comments July 12, 1983 Page Three 18.SO.100(A) - Phasirg of PD's over only 3 years in effect means no phasing. The period should be extended to seven years, the same period allowed by statute for condominiums. Many projects even have 15-20 years phasing plans. 18.80.120(B) (3) - Notations should be added to clarify that "type"refers to single family vs. attached vs. apartment, etc. 18.80. 120(6)(9) - Clarify to show that the percentage reduction refers to square feet or lineal feet. 18.80.220(A) - In our discussions with staff, they said that while applicants are required to submit all revisions at least 15 days before the hearing, there was a corresponding obligation on the city to notify the applicant of required revisions at least 30 days before the hearing. We are unable to find support for that in the ordinance. If it is not in the ordinance, language to that effect should be added. 18.80.230(B)(3)(a) - This section is unnecessary since the subject is covered in 4(a). 18.80.230(8)(5) (b) - Add "observable from the adjacent dweeling uni'ts." 18.80.230(B) (9) - The information requested regarding signs is much more detailed .than the developer can be expected to have prepared at this stage. Information on the proposed general location of sigis would be approporiate at this stage. 18.80.240(A) (5) - Indicate that these are the hazard areas'as specified by the SCS. 18.80.260 and following - These sections should refer to "concept plans" for the various areas, rather than to site plans, grading plans, etc. As currently labeled they imply a greater level of detail than is actually expected and will create unreal- istic expectations-in those reviewing the plans. 18.80.260(A)(6) - Locations of proposed utilities should require only schematics. 18.80.260(A)(10). (11-) 2This information is not necessary at this stage of review. 18.80.270(A)(2) - This should be clarified to state that retention is not required by implication. 18.80.280(A)(1), (3) - Regarding the irrigation system, only an indication of the type of system to be used _should be required. As to proposed landscaping, the concept plan should indicate the general location and the function if a specialized function. 18.84.040(A)(9) - A performance bond should be permitted in lieu_of a cash deposit. 18.84.080(A) (7) - As before, schematics for proposed utilities locations should be sufficient. 18.84.090(A)(3)(d) - The cut and fill calculations call for too much detail for this stage of the review. General data from the engineer should suffice. i i . s { Home Builders Comments i July 12, 1983 Page Four 18.90.030(A) (3) - Work should be.allowed.to. continue past 6 pm without a permit. (Work often continues during the construction season till 8 pm and beyond. E :18.912.070 .'Tractor equipment moving about the site will transmit heat across the property line- when it;approaches the line as it must. Such equipment should be exempt from the rule. 18.92.020(A) (d),(4) - `Removing sensitive lands and dedicated park lands from the net i site area before calculating the allowable density In effect results in no density transfer. F The purpose of the transfer is to move structures from land that is unbuildable or should € be preserved onto lands that are easily buildable without reduction in the number of units allowed. These sections should be deleted. 18.92.030(A) (2) - This should read "not exceed the maximum number of units per s gross site acre." ' C 18. 104.040 - Clarify that this applies only to multifamily structures on the same site. 18. 104.100 - Is the 10 foot setback on flag lots consistent with the setback requirements E in other standard districts? i 18. 111.020(K) (3) - This is an incomplete sentence. 18. 111. 130(A) (2) - One covered parking space per detached or attached single family dwelling in addition to the garage is excessive. The requirement for a third covered space should be de eted. 18. 120.060(A) (1) - Requiring a bond for 150% of the estimated project cost is excessive. Most jurisdictions require only 100 or 110%. 18. 120. 130(A) (3) (b) - Should read "problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated.11 18. 156.030(E) - The rightof way and roadway widths for local streets are excessive. People no longer desire the wide boulevards through their neighborhoods and the extra width creates unnecessary costs which thgresidents must pay. A 40 ft. ROW and 28 ft roadway width should suffice. 18. 156 080(C) - Where oversizing is required, the developer should be reimbursed by new developments which hook up to the system during the following 10 years for their proportional share of the cost. This system works quite well in a number of other jurisd'►ctions. r We will continue to review the draft document and will notify the staff and Commission at the earliest possible time of any changes we propose. fr k Sincer ly, K!it anwa k, Staff Agtorney r STAFF RESPONSE TO HOME BUILDERS COMMENTS 1. Suggestion: 18.08 (B) "as implemented by this Code. . ." Response: Staff recommends that this phrase be included. 2. Suggestion: 18.22.040(A)(3) ". . .public need" Response: Staff agrees that this section should be deleted. k 3. Suggestion: 18.24.050 "nonconforming uses are public nuisances.. ." e Response: The phrase "and a public nuisance could be deleted without changing the intent of this section. 4. Suggestion: Definitions, Floor Area. 11Area under overhangs should not be counted as floor area" t Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and would suggest the following: Floor Area. The gross horizontal area, under roof, of all i floors of a building, measured from the exterior walls, E excluding vents, shafts, courts, and space devoted to off-street parking. s 5. Suggestion: 18.30.020(A)(5) Include contract purchases on list of possible applicants for legislative changes. Response: After reviewing this issue and the intent of legislative t changes, staff believes it is more appropriate to limit legislative change requests to the Council, Commission, City staff and recognized City civic organizations. 6. Suggestion: 18.30.050(D)(2) Establish timeline and do away with waiver. f Response: HB 2295 which was passed by the Legislature during their recent session will require applications to be acted upon within 120 i days of submittal. Staff is now in the process of reworking its review time to comply with State law. i 7. Suggestion: 18.30.140(A)(4) Delete reference to applicable comprehensive plan policies. t� Response: A Legislative change is usually based on a local jurisdiction `�- plan policies in some way regardless of the type of change, therefore staff believes it is important to include this f language. t G C r E 8. Suggestion: 18.32.040(C) Response: see #6 above. 9. Suggested: 18.32.200(A)(1) change "at least 5 days" to "No more than 5 days" Response: Staff agrees and has suggested language to say "within 3 days.. ." 10. Suggestion: 18.32.200 "from date of City final decision" Response: Staff would agree with this suggestion. 11. Suggestion: 18.32.270(B)(3) Include oral agreement. Response: Staff would agree with this suggestion. 12. Suggestion: 18.12.320(B) Delete mandatory rehearings Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion. 13. Suggestion: 18.50 R-4.5 should allow lots of 7,000 square feet versus 7,500 square feet Response: Staff has checked with various other jurisdictions in the metro area and they do allow for 7,000 square foot lots versus 7,500 square feet. Staff does believe this size is appropriate and would support such a change, however, this may be a policy question to be resolved at the Council level. 14. Suggestion: 18.54.050(C)(5) and 18.56.050(C)(5) Change language of required setbacks where multiple family zones abut single family zones. Response: The community has demanded a buffer area between these zones. 15. Suggestion: 60% of lot coverage is too low, and City is relying too heavily on R-40 Response: Staff would suggest this figure be changed to 80 percent and include parking areas as definition of lot coverage suggests. There is only one small area of R-40 in the entire planning area. The Home Builders have suggested more medium and low-medium density to allow for more 5,000-7,000 square foot SF lots which staff believes in appropriate if the City wants residential ownership versus renters. The Council, however, has rejected this concept in order to retain larger lots. J 16. Suggestion: 18.80.030(B) Extension should be for 12 months versus 6 4 months. Response: Staff agrees that 6 months nften does not give builders a choice if 6 months is in the middle of January: 12 months seems appropriate. 17. Suggestion: 18.80.060(A), (B) Allow PD's in Established Areas and disallow PA's in Developing Areas if standard subdivision. Response: Staff agrees that not every proposal in a Developing Area need go through the PD process if it meets standard requirements. The attempt by staff was to allow for more flexibility in Developing Areas, but also allow standard developing. Staff suggests the following: Section 18.88.030(C) C. If a development proposal within a Developing Area meets all of the standard criteria set forth in Chapters 18.44 through 18.72 (zoning district classifications) then such a development need not be reviewed through the PD process; except those properties and including an area within 200 feet of an Established Area. 18. Suggestion: 18.80.080(A)(2) Lot should read site. Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion. 19. Suggestion: 18.80.100(A) Phasing PD's over 10 years rather than 3 years. Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion. 20. Suggestion: 18.80.120(B)(3) Clarify "type" Response: Staff will include examples of residential types, i.e. single family, multiple family 21. Suggestion: 18.80.220(A) Staff obligations to developers regarding review and exchange of information. Response: In section 18.32.030 Pre-application conference, staff is required to supply information to each applicant regarding policy and ordinance requirements. Staff is suggesting that the time period be shortened from 15 to 12 days before the public hearing. 22. Suggestion: 18.80.230(B)(3)(a) ibis section implies a duplication of private outdoor space. i 4 F x Response: Staff believes this section is somewhat redundant to section = (4)(a). Perhaps (4)(a) could be expanded to include multiple E family and single family attached residential units with ground floor limits, this section (3)(a) could be deleted. 23. Suggestion: 18.80.230(B)(5)(6) add "observable from adjacent dwelling units" Response: Staff agrees to this change. 24. Suggestion: 18.80.230(8)(9) There is too much detail required for conceptual signs. Response: Staff agrees and offers the following change: "Location of all signs with the development site" The remaining language could be deleted except for #(4). 25. Suggestion: 18.80.240(A)(5) Reference Soil Conservation SErvice maps for these hazards. Response: Staff agrees to this input. 26. Suggestion: 18.80.260 Indicate that the plans are conceptual only. Response: Staff agrees to this input. 27. Suggestion: 18.80.260(A)(6)(c) Recommend schematic location of utilities Response: Staff agrees that the words "schematic drawings of. . ." in form of subsection (c) 28. Suggestion: 18.80.260(A)(10)(11) Omit this subsection because they are not necessary at this level of review. Response: Staff agrees to this change 29. Suggestion: 18.80.270(A)(2) Not to imply retention of drainage water. Response: Staff is in the process of clarifying this requirement with the Public Works Department. 30. Suggestion: 18.80.280(A)(1),(3) This subsection requires too much information at this level of review. Response: Staff agrees and offers the following change: "(l) The conceptual location of required irrigation systems. (3) The location, size and species of existing plant materials and the general location of landscape areas; and" f 31. Suggestion: 18.84.040(A)(9) A performance bond in lieu of cash. Response: Staff is in the process of reviewing this subsection with Public Works 32. Suggestion: 18.84.080(A)(7) Require only schematic location of utilities. Response: Staff agrees and suggests including the word "conceptual" before "location". 33. Suggestion: 18.34.090(A)(3)(d) Too much detail required for cut & fill at this level of review. Response: Staff disagrees, and believes that it is imperative that the Hearings Officer or Director have adequate information in which to review a Sensitive Lands proposal. 34. Suggestion: 18.90.030(A)(3) No permit required for construction after 6 pm. Response: Because it is often necessary to work until dark to complete construction projects, staff suggests changing this section from 6 pm to "until dark". 35. Suggestion: 18.90.070 Tractors also transmit heat across property lines and should be exempted. Response: Staff suggests the following language: 2nd sentence . . ."signs, floodlights of parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work. . . In addition, the second and third sentences in this section should be reversed. 36. Suggestion: 18.90.020(A)(1),(4) Remove private streets and park land from density calculations. Response: Staff offers the following change: (1) Keep subsection (A) as is and change Section 18.92.030 A. to read "Units per acre on land area(s) listed in Section 18.92.020(A)(1)(4) may be transferred.. ." 37. Suggestion: 18.92.030(A)(2) Change language to read "not exceed the maximum member of units per gross site acre." Response: Staff agrees that the language change states staff's original intent in a simpler way. 38. Suggestion: 18.104.040 Clarify that this section applies to only t" multiple family structure on the same site. Response: This was staff's original intent and offers the following language to the section title to clarify this issue: 18.104.040 Distance Between Multiple Family Residential Structures. . . 39. Suggestion: 18.104.100 10 foot setbacks as flag lots. Response: All side yards are 5' in residential zones, however, the Code is offering more structure placement flexibility in a flag lot initiation. It could turn out that a side yard would abut a rear yard of an adjacent structure (not the norm in standard lot situation) and the additional 5' adds more privacy for both structures. 40. Suggestion: 18.111.020(K)(3) Incomplete sentence Response: It is a complete sentence if it is used with introduction phrase on page V-20 "Required parking space shall. . ." 41. Suggestion: 18.111.130(A)(2) Requiring 3 parking spaces for single family. Response: Ibis section only states that 2 spaces are required for each single family structure. One of those spaces must be covered. 42. Suggestion: 18.120.060(A)(1) 150% bond is excessive rather than 100% or 110% Response: Staff is reviewing this issue with the Public Works Department. 43. Suggestion: 18.120.130(A)(3)(b) Missing wording Response: Staff agrees with comments; sentence should read 01problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated 44. Suggestion: 18.156.030(E) Excessive local street width standards Response: Staff is in the process of reviewing this issue with the Public Works Department. 45. Suggestion: 18.156.080(C) Oversizing reimbursement Response: Staff is in the process of reviewing this with Public Works Department. F i S t 1 4 i Fyre/7378E r Minutes of NPO 3 Regular Meeting k at the Home of Michael Smith � 11645 S.W. Cloud Ct. 7 :30 pm July 5, 1983 1, Call to order by chairperson Bledsoe at 7 :30 pm. 2, Roll call : Pres<>nt were Bledsoe, Ramsdell , Smith, Mortenson, and Porter(8 00 pm) . Excused absent were Fyre and Moonier 3, The NPO found one error and four omissions in the minutes of June 20, t 1983. The corrected minutes are as attached. l he 4. Chairperson Bob Bler3 . Community distributed copies soe Planwheotlatest n chherecieveduponrequestfrom Plan and Bull Mountain Wash. Co. Planner, Rick Daniels. l s of eletter from PO 3 to 5. Chairperson Bledsoe distributedraft cOPie tionsinthe letter. ed t• City Council. The NPO requested r`ferences about the hurray said he had not been able to find the language the transportation 4, Blvd. extension; these were made in a motion adopting laced as map. The NPO directed the Chair to request this subject to be p an agenda item before council. 6. Co-mmunity Development Code: ribbon, representing the Eomebuilder' s a. Bledsoe reported that John Association, requested that the let size for then her5jbeis3acteozs. ft. , like most from 7500 square feet to 7000 sq. � `�� time spent by e`„ryone NPO 3 concluded that. because of a-L involved, we support the compromises that a.<'ve be_c made, a:��l we oppose lv this suggested change. It would change the Overall density calculations. Berman Porter will re3resenr. L':1c NF":) Jul';' !2 before the Planning Com-mission o:: thin issue. b, In 18.30.040 A on Page II-2, the NPO would like to suggest that "twice per year" is too often and too costly to be making legislative changes to the comprehensive Plan. the NPO C. In 18.32.090 in regard to 18. 32.270 B & 18.32. that any appeal to asserts that the notice should include .a statementnt council will be on the basis of written argument or correspondence f - - our sugestion of allowing recorded verbal argument is only unless t a accepted. 4 I' i d. 18.86.010 F3 (Established Areas) Add the following: "A primary consideration in the review process shall be to preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established areas." 4 e, 18.86.020 A 2 (Established Areas) Delete sentence in parenthises and add: or if not so developed, the parcel is not contiguous with a is similar for criteria for developing area, Developing Area." This 18.88.020 . F f, 18.86.030 (Established Areas) add: " Within an Established Area new development shall be of the same type and density in order to protect t the character of existing neighborhoods. A primary consideration in all phases of the deveopment val process shall be to preserve r of the adjacent established areas." and enhance the characte r 7. NEXT MEETINGto be held at Fowler Jr. High July 18 at 7:15 pm. 8_ Adjourned at 10:10 pm. 4a G' i f i S Ila >g f E l Fyre/7165E Minutes of NPO 3 Special Meeting Fowler Junior High School 7:15 pm in the Library June 20, 1983 1. Called to order by chairperson Bledsoe at 7:22 pm. 2. Present were: Bledsoe, Smith, Mortenson, Porter, Ramsdell, and Fyre. Moonier absent excused. Minutes cf regular meeting held June 13 were read and approved. 3. Monahan's letter of May 12 to Wash. Co. Bill Monahan listened to members' concerns that his letter did not reflect the City Council's stronq position with regard to the Murray road issue. Monahan responded by asserting that he chose, as a compromise aimed at prese vying a good working relationship with the County, not to voice the Council's strong position but rather to take a softer approach and point out that they, the County, were not following their own analysis. The issue of Co. right-of-way (ROW) in the urban planning area was discussed and Monahan mentioned that no options are to be precluded, i.e. , County ROW standards will not be precluded in urban planning areas. Some general discussion followed concerning traffic plans for the Becktold property. There seemed to be a general understanding that in the Urban Planning Area even if the County ROW standard, are applicable the Cit,-., retains route determination. Monahan was thanked for taking time to repsond the the conserns of the NPO. The NPO directed the Chair to mcdifv a Letter t:le City Council stating NPO 3's position regarding Monahan's letter anti to point out t!iat there is a growing perception that City staff actions are often times irconsistant with the positions taking by the city C--)unci ? during Cou'icil meetings. 4. Continuation of an open review of the Community Development Code resulted in the passage of the follwing recommended changes: a. Add "NPO" to the definition of "person" in section 18-03.030 aa. Add NPO to definitions. t b. Drop "if active" from A-I-C Sections. 18. 32.080 A d and �- 18.32.200 A c and others. f . � c. Add to 18. 32.055 (page II-15 in the CDC) and 18. 30.060, page II-3 an item A.4 "The Director shall cite in the Staff report the additional information required, the reasons for requirement, and the authority for the requirement. Add item "h" to 18.30.070 C2 and an item 5 to 18.32.045 A3b: "A statement of additional information required, or the waiver of required information, with reasons and authority for the action." J d. Modify sections 18.94.020 6 030 to reflect the following: -Mobile home parks and subdivision will not exceed density limits of the underlying zone, and, be conditional use in all established areas. 18.94.020 (Mobile Home Subdivisions) (V-5 of CDC) A.1 should read "Permitted outright in developing R-7 and all multiple family zoning districts" and A.2 should read "A conditional use permitted in 3.5 and 4.5 residential zoning districts". 18.94.030 (Mobile Home Parks) A. 1 should read "Permitted outright in developing R-7 single family districts and all multiple family districts, and " A.2 should read "A conditional use permitted in R-4.5 districts." e. 18.92.020 Density Caculations Suggest the follwing changes: 18.92.020 A. 2 should become A.3 A. 4 should become A.2 A.3 should Become A. 4 1 The new A.3.a should read: Single family - allocate 208 of gross acres remaining after subtracting areas referenced in A.1b2. for public facilities; - The new A.3.b should read: Multiple family - allocate 158 of gross acres remaining aster subtracting areas referenced in A.1b2.for public facilities; 18.92.030 Residential Density Transfer should be changed to read as follows: Units per acre on unbuildable land area(s) listed in Section 18.92.020 (A. 1) and (F,.2) may be - And add Section A.2 No units may be transferred from land dedicated to the public for park purposed if such dedication was in lieu of paying the SDC for parks. f. It was mentioned that Transition Zones and Road Restriction are not in the CDC. 4- r [C 2 f Qb f C { g, Zoning districtsj. In 18.48.40 (R 3.5) delete Mobil Home Park as conditional use In 18.50.30 (R 4.5) delete Mobil Home Park and Mobil Home Subdivision as permitted uses. In 18.50. 40 (R4.5) allow Mobil Home Subdivision as conditional use, and allow Mobil home Park as conditional use provided the housing density is not thereby increased. h. In 18. 30.050 B 3, 18.32.040 B3 and 18.32.275 B-C-D Specify the waiver of fees and transcript costs for an application or appeal by the Planning Commission, Parks Board, or the NPO' s. i. In 18.32.270 B 2 "The review . . . by Council shall be: The subject of Written argument OR RECORDED VERBAL ARGUMENT only 1. ---- 5. Other Business It was agreed to get the Urban Planning Area on the City Council's November meeting agen-3a. 6. NEXT MIEE^aING to be held Tuesday, July 5, 7:15 pm at Mike Smith's house. 7. Adjourned at 10 pm. `t R E r i I RESPONSE TO NPO #3 COMMENTS AND OTHER COMMENTS 1. Suggestion: Allow civic organizations to be exempt from appeal fees. Response: It would be more appropriate to separately list the fees and as a tagger to fee statement, list the those organizations that would be exempted from those fees. 2. Suggestion: Mobile Rome parks R-3.5 in Single Family areas. Response: Mobile home parks are listed as a Conditional Use in R-3.5 zones (R-LO) which would require the review of the location of any proposed park in a public hearing. In addition, it allows more alternatives for mobile and manufactured homes which are in demand. 3. Suggestion: Change minor collector to only 2 moving lanes. Response: Staff agrees with this change since it would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Suggestion: Exception to street widths is Established Areas. Response: Staff is now in the process of reviewing this issue with the Public Works Department. 5. Suggestion: Allow restaurants within hotel/motel complexes as separate structures. Response: Staff believes this is an appropriate use provided the complex is one parcel of land. NPO #4 Val Allen made motion that we recommend for addition in proper section of Comprehensive Plan that there be a 50' set-back required around the boundaries of Low Density Residential areas in the Triangle-Larson seconded. Motion failed. Val Allen made motion that we recommend for addition in proper section of Comprehensive Plan that there be a 50' set-back required around the boundaries of Low Density Residential areas in the Triangle - said setbacks , many include parking area, access and landscaping - Larson seconded. Passed 6 - 1. Carl Johnson moved Council adopt 8' 6" including stripe X 15 for compacts and :have compact parking zones labeled compact. Seconded by Iry Larson and unanimously passed. Gordon Martin moved that the existing 207 landscaping requirement be changed from 207 to 157 or more - Carl Johnson.— Seconded - Passed 5 - 2. i RIM ENMEEM9 N .. •.. ► / ♦ .�7yf�i,syr *t � 7� �+< 7 10 ' ( • '. J Ott`'•1 F s; at•,�. �rt f�' {f rw it 49 r ! r, +Kt • y .. ,:. ♦ t 4 s � -..�.. T' _ •mss t t � •�L�.f.� I Y �yl6i !i�•S 1 i * A a� � t ,r.r"'• I -•.� - •f 1� t�L � �'1 I�� .^ YTS S.� �f, Y i � rr. Y - -� � Y f � S Y]� y : c: • t.a:..'r'C,,��..r. 3 _'' Aj[- . _- a ��< �s � r}� ..'y' � •.may �t`r�.N�'r �t t"*''� .f r>�t .C't..t so,Zif+• '" ' ��iJ..iv"'ti f„ ''• .. � �•. '.. •awQ�y�Ni to Ni"Jm �slµ"." "' ;<@ .�. - •: _ -.'<-'`aA.a'w�`��p.'c- .! r sr'•� m.•rte �„r^- � -..:•, ,�, -i sm _;tit�...Y�?y.'S.S.4fi1 i! rotyL�•• vr"` y'? ',,'�- � .. JMT Jl MOM jp r ». < � t �,r.y�-� "M�+� ,,•. ,�f�rf►,•+tea �„�',++!r � � �• t }•`r y. f.; s. ! +! - y,.r.. - .Ata )7"' .•t� K _ t ) � kyr •`♦i. � 1�• � _r )7 'tel a � - Zr�-� �:w ;,*' t„,�,, '� ,.-fir�r� ',� ��►, •:. �: r, -• '��.'` i 1. ,r-. � � r i;..' .�. �� , 'T` y �'►��,. ,..1n'pr a -S- - .�, ,• ,S � ''3{" rt•, it y fY � IOL Local ft4ulati®n ®f Sat ' to Antennas A A. Police Power Many communities require building per- L,ocal governments have an established mits for any construction of a significant interest in the proper and ordered develop- nature. In order to obtain these permits, ment of the community. Within certain the structure will have to meet various ~':= bounds, they are empowered to regulate buildirig and &*ty code its. C,en-- that development: The Constitution of the erally, a fee must also be paid for such a United Mates reserves various governmental Permit Such restrictions, which are design- powers to the states. Among these powers ed to protect the safety of the community's is the `Police power." Many state constitu- residents, are a legitimate function of the tions grant such police power to local community. Reasonable restrictions ground- governments? 'These powers enable com- ed in public safety concerm if.fairly applied munities to legislate for the general public to satellite receiver construction and instal- welfare, as well as for the protection of the lation, present few problems. On the other citizens' health, safety and morals, and in hand, if the fee is exorbitant; if the applica- some states, the `physical attractiveness" of tion for a satellite installation is unreason- the community. Included within the scope able, or the time required to obtain the of police power is the power to make and approval is unreasonably lengthy, these enforce reasonable zoning regulations. codes can act as a practical barrier to Typically, a local community acting through satellite installation and may be challenged. its Town Council will adopt zoning laws In one case, for example, a city is seeking which govern the use of private real estate. to enforce a fee of$200 for a routine per- These zoning restrictions are often admin- mit and impose an eight week processing istered by a Zoning Board or Architectural time. In arguing against the imposition of a Review Committee which, at least in the large fee on the installation of an earth sta- first instance, makes the deteimiriation of tion to obtain a variance hearing condi- whether a particular structure is or is not tional use peimi% or a building permit; you -- _ consistent with the law. should Point out that the fee cannot be re- B• BuMiig Codes souped. You should demorshate that the In addition to a eating zoning laws, the antenna is installed for non-profit purposes, Police power is used to justify the adoption if this is the case, and that the added cost Of building and safety codes. Ilu se restric discriminates in favor of commecal enter- erpoweir local authorities to tions- inspect Poses.and against private communications. � the construction of certain structures, as SPACE is advised that amateur radio opera- well as specify some of the materials that tors Have often been sit in obtafriing go into the construction. Typically, the waivers of such fees on this basis. Finally, restrictions are administered by a building because buiWing codes are based upon inspector who determines whether or not safety concerns, a &Ading permit may not to issue a building permit be withheld on aesthetic gouhds. See i Section III(A) for a discussion of aesthetics. f i 1 2 For example. see Cal. Cons} arc. XI, §7. F E 3 C. Deed Restrictions the purchaser has never even seen a copy Another type ca restriction sterns from of the covenants. This is not to say that if the desire of an individual to control the your property contains a condition, eovenarht future use of property that is being sold. or restricdon-hpairirV your ability m install When real estate is pwdlzsed, the deed a satellite receiver, you cannot challenge granting tine to the property may contain such a provision. But; you should be aware various conditions, covenants or restrictions. that, at least--historically, the odds are stack- Often, tackOften, developers or builders who wish to ed against you in challenging such a restric- maintain a certain "character of the neigh- tion after the property has been put-chased, borhood" will include such restrictions. This The most f wjent W of deed restrictions is'particularly true in the rase of planned is made by land developers. If your property communities that were constructed in the is 1xated in a recent development or a late 1950s through the early 1970s. Planned community, you should examine Before purchasing any real estate, a carefi* the deed which conveyed to you thorough search should be made of the title to the property in order to deieennine if title to the property to determine the ex- t h re are any restrictions on the installationistence of any conditions, covenants and of earth stations. Once the entire subdivision restrictions that might limit use of the has been sold, the land developer will Wt. Property. This information can be obtained c* turn over deed restriction enforcement at the Town Hall, Bureau of Records or rights m all lot owms in thee community. other similar location. It is recommended Tlie right to enforce such restrictions may ( ' that this research be done by a title in- to a Ne3gihborilood Horrhe• surance company or qualified attorney who owners association, an Architectural Com- I�M3°+VS how to "search a title" and guaran- Plhance Comstepmittee off'the Village TSPS. So, file firstis fwafdosdy tees the accuracy of his or her Work deed that you have for Mr realreal estate to Should a deed not be examined before determine if there axe the-property is Purchased, the purchaser,— any motions on its in most cases, will stM be bound by any use Winch would hr4md i oih your installing restrictions in the deed. Most courts will an earth station. -Such reskicii ns might pre. assume that a veal estate purchaser has vent the erection of struc hues of a certain r • proved any restrictions contained in a deed, �' 'e�g't or proximity tb file property lineseven if the purchaser- did not bother to ' The deed itself may,have only a vague rd rets to "rest ictions of record or the read the relictions beforehand. Very often Ike and the only record of tine conditions, courts engage in what is known as a `legal covenants and restrictions may appear in the fiction"; they imply an agreement to the subdivision dedication of the developer far ' conditions contained in the deed even if back in the chain of titre. 4t, l �- { 4 V, C i t,. ti If You are purchasing a new house from was not a "building' within the meaning of a developer, a copy of the conditions, the covenant limiting "building height" to s covenants and restrictions should be one story. The court stated that if the com- demanded in advance of the purchase. Plaining Parties had desired to exclude all (Perhaps this can be obtained through a structures not orgy buildings)real estate agent.) You may make acon- lain height, they might have easily foul tract of sate contingent on the absence of y an aPPropr•'ate language to express their Y deed restrictions or covenants of record Pose° which could be interpreted to prohibit in- stallation of a satellite receiving The right to enforce a deed restricting nl antenna the height of structures or buildings may ` Again, this has proven particularly useful in >. amateur radio situations, as, at least until be waived or abandoned. This occurs most frequently when an individual fails to have settlement, it places the burden of aster- taining the existence of restrictions on the pretqously insisted on strict compliance with seller. This may also be useful where the the limitations or where the court finds, as homebuyer purchases from the developera matter of fairness, that the cost of com- directly. Prior to purchase, the prospecve Plying with or removing the violation far home purchaser may also wish to consult exceeds the slight infraction of the with any existing neighborhood Architec covenant:6 Any change in the character of tural Compliance Committee about how it the neighborhood may also justify a court's i would feel about an earth station rehsal to enforce a height restriction. In installation. challenging a deed restriction on a satellite The courts have ordinarily enforced a receiver dation, carefully check the valid and properly drawn covenant impos- exact wording of the restriction, and on ing maximum height restrictions when the whether it has been previo4sly enforced or language clearly stated such limitations. It is ignored. Your success in making this argu- generally assumed, however, that because ment will depend on your ability to show the tendency of such restrictions is to limit that the existing violations are significant or the Otherwise proper use of property, such similar in character- to the earth station an- languuagee should be narrowly interpreted. A tenna. Attention should also be paid to deed miction may be so vague or ambig• whether- the neighborhood has charged nous in its wording diet it is unenforceable. ficiently so that a court could find the suf For example, the court in Karsoff u. historical reason for the covenant in the LUCertari s held that a IS-Wt-high billboard deed no longer exists.' i ' l 103 A.2d 812 (Conn 1954) ! - ° See Appendix Il for cases concerning ambiguously worded restrictive covenants. 5 1',Wsol? v. Ormsby, 151 N.W. 817 (Iowa 1915): Rich u. t 1 e See Hobnes Harbor Water Co., a Page, 508 P.2d 6281973).W 353 (Mich. 1939). ' See Hbey emy u. Evw. 159 A. 857 (Pa. 1932). 5 i t It should be emphasized that deed nance restricted.only "billboards." The argument, of course, was successfiitly made r restrictions are different from zoning ordi- that a satellite antenna was not a billboard. nances. Deed restrictions are imposed by the seller of Property They may be en- D. ,Nd&bor Cortse�iV' C?rdinances forced through legal action by neighbor- In some areas, the municipal authorities, hood associations or other property owners wishing to proscribe certain property uses, in the neighborhood. Zoning restrictions have provided by ordinance that permission are adopted by a Community Council, for specified uses or types of construction Zoning Board-or similar organization and not be granted unless the applicant fust are enforced by the Boards and Town obtains the consent of a certain��o� Councils. of the neighboring property Once local building codes and deed likely to be affected. It is possible that such restrictions have been researched, local an ordinance covering the use and con- zoning ordinances should be examined to stYuction of"ShxKtxres" or "I.�uildiW may determine if they can impact on earth be construed by the Zoning Board to apply station installations. Wile deed restria- to satellite antennas as well. Should this be tions, zoning ord mm cannot be faund the case, duwe:are several goin'ds on by examining the documents of title for the which to de.-1rons ra the inappropriateness I property. InsteM, a thorough review of the of the "neighbor eonsenr ordinance. Vie local law must be made. Again, the help of no case law specific aUY addresses the issue a professional is recommended. Also, do of neighbor consent with regard to satellite not take anyone's word about what a par- antennas, there is considerable Awe r ocular zoning ordinance says.. not your friends, not your. neighbors and not the local Zoning Inspector. Ask for a copy of,. rovtsion in or a-citation to, the _p- { the law which supposedly restricts earth ' stations. Take a look at it yourself or have # your attorney do soYou may find, for . r i example, that a provision which the City Inspector or Architectural Compliance Committee says applies to your satellite receiver really does not app1Y. In at least one community, a local ir>spector had said that 9iistallation of a.sat.,ellite receiver was banned under the law while the local ordi- blend`wi hh Berri archilec� lo f 6 a:, t law in other related areas suggesting that a visions would virtually make the right to ;a successfi:l argument may be made against bind or erect a structure dependent on the such "neighbor consent" provisions. whim of owners in the vicinity, without : A strong argument against a "consent" guidelines-or standards, the result being F ordinance is that the act of entrusting unequal treatment under the law- Appendix neighbcrs with the rVht to decide what I lists cases bearing on this argument ^'•i ` can and cannot be erected or conducted A related weakness of a "consent" ordi i within a certain zone is an unlawful delega- nance is that it gives individuals the power tion of legislative authority to individuals. In to arbitrarily rant permission to conshuct 4 many cases, the courts have held "consent" or use property in a certain manner. A f e�:..•t, Provisions invalid as an attempt to delegate neighbor has the power to exclude one type � to property owners a power exercisable only of structure or use and allow another similar F s :�: `• by duly yelected legislative Such pro strucdxune or use with no act:,al distinction or justifiable reason for such action. Such-an k arbitrary and capricious power which is disaiminatory and is capable of being used without guidance or restraint can be readily fro G A third area of concern respecting neighbor consent ordinances is that they are often overly burdensome, inconsistent or un- fair in their application Finally, the or- a ) dinances may constitute an improper exercise of the dice power by municipal authorities- In permitting individuals to deter- i s mine whellwr certain lawful uses of property = offend the health, safety or general welfare, ' d)ey are violating the kmdamental poliicy of K h: fashaonrabTe " stgtiara sitings,arr? tested before Name police 'i 3 stucdon beom k F. :r + In some instances, the courts have refused to find "consent' ordinances invalid on this basis and have instead upheld these ordinances finding that the ordinance in question was not an improper ! delegation of power but involved a power reserved by the people to themselves. The argument i made is that both the Federal and State govemments are creations of the American People and v are thus able to wield only such power as the People expressly permit The Supreme Court found that people could properly keep for themselves the power to have a say in how property is used. See Eastlake y Forst City&gap &es, hrc, 426 U.S. 668 (1976). Note, however, that the Supreme Court stated that if the impact of the referendum could be shown to bear no relation to the police power, the fact that the voters of a community wished it, would not mean the ordinance was necessarily constitutional. 9 See State ex ret Daniels u. Kasten, 382 S.W. 2d 714 (Mo. App. 1964). i i0 Annot, 1 A.LPL 4th 1021. rr See Appendix I listing cases. See also Annot, 1 A.LR. 4th 1021. r $ 7 t . t i InL B6ses for Zqnfii lResbictions A. Arc Zo_rm g Recognizing these problems, many states The safety and public health of a eom- severely restrict or do not allow zoning munity may be protected by reasonable restrictions.which are based solely upon t. budding codes. However, earth stations do aesthetic concerns. However, care should not generally pose a threat to public health be taken to counter any evidence submit- or ubmitor safety. The usual reason a community ted to the Zoning Board concerning public restricts the size or p'Yacement (i.e., in the safety matters. The satellite owner should back or side yard) of an earth station is not let any such testimony go unchalleng a based on aesthetic concerns. A member of ed. Often, courts will cloak a decision bas- the Council or community may not like the ed on aesthetics in the mantel of public way the dish looks, or may believe that the health. The court in Pmma a Leslie. 12 I installation of the antenna might reduce for example, in prohibiting the installation property values in the neighborhood. Zon- of an amateur radio tower, took pains to ing restrictions which are premised on point out that there was testimony that the aesthetics may be challenged at both the amateur radio tower presented a potential Zoning Board or Architectural Compliance hazard to children.rs i Committee level as well as in the courts. One argument in support of a zoning Zoning restrictions premised upon aes- law based ori aesthetics is that restrictions tthetic concerns suffer from several weak are necessary to prevent construction which nesses. FtA any regulation based upon reduces the value of surrourxiing veal estate. 1 aesthetics ignores the fact that what is not_' 'I phis argument has been used to oppose pleasing to one person may be pleasing to the installation of satellite earth station ! another. In fact, what is not pleasing to antenna& There is no evidence_that the in- t station decreases � one person at one time may be teasing at siailaizon of an earth some time in the fuhme, and vice versa. property values. In_kct, the available Pantitting restrictions on earth stations evidence suggests the opposite. . l - based on aesthetics may be opening up a Satellite4ed television setts are electronic "Pandora's box" of unreasonable regula- hearths around which families are gather- tions. Sudi reasoning would seerningly ing. Earth stations, like other modern con- allow zoning restrictions or. the shape, type sumer items, such as solar heating panels and color of houses, or even the kind of ' or saunas, have become a reality in many shrubbery or grass seed used. It is virtually areas. They enhance the desmabnility of the impossible to done the public taste and neighborhood and may acbuady improve equally_impossible to protect something as the value and marketability of homes which undefinable anal limitless as public taste. are adjacent to that of the earth station 12 3 N.Y. 2d 384, 144 N.E. 2d 381 (N.Y. 1957). 13 See Dukewinier, Zoning for A &hetic Objectkc A Reappraisa4 20 Law and Conterrp. Prob. 218 (1955). 8 • F e f tLF C (_ t l • M f owner. As did radio and television before station installation an "accessory use" J them, satellite earth stations provide an "accessory " or a use "incidental r electronic eye and ear on the world. Own- to" the normal use of the land? If it is ership of a satellite ewth station constitutes determined to be such a use or structure, a statement that the individual will neither then installation of the satellite receiver is g take a back seat to technological develop- permitted. If it is not such a use or stnuc l ment nor compromise his.or her access to tore, the receiver may not be installed or a information. This reflects favorably on the special permit or other authorization may property owners and the neighborhood. In be rewired before it may be installed. short, there is simply no basis in fact or A second type of miction that may im- :a logic for a zoning law predicated upon a pact upon zoning decisions, particularly in fear that the installation of a satellite areas zoned for commercial buildings or 1 receiver will depress neighborhood values. structures or for multi-unit dwellings, = =` Appendix M of this manual contains a list places height limitations on various.types of of decisions summarizing what the law of structures and creates specific exceptions to each state is with respect to aesthetic these restrictions. Often, these exceptions zoning. will include such structures as chimneys, B. IWes ®f General Onfinames ventilators, sky lights water tau3cr, and � May wed Satellite Antennas .similar structrures. Problems of interpret There are several different types of ing these statutes are encountered when E zoning ordinances that; without specifically the exceptions do not specifically include E mentioning earth stations, may impact satelliLe receiving antennnas. If the antenna I upon zoning decision=_ governing installs- is considered to be a "similar ," it tion in a residential or commercial area By will be an exception to the rule and it may far, the most common type of ordinance be installed without concern to height l -restrictions. If the antenna is not con- first divides property into residential and l commercial-�sifrcations.-It permits "ac sider ed to be a "similar �," it may not be installed in such a manner as to E cessory uses," "accessory �" or exp-the height limitations, absent special uses incidental tcr the main use of the permission of one type or another. land. In .Host jurisdictions that have not ' adopter a specific law targeted at,•antennas A third type of restriction specifically of one type or another, this is the sort of governs antennas. Usually, these moons law that will be encountered. The question were adoptedto regtrlate use of outside TV F for the Zoning-Committee or Berard and anter or amateur radio antennas. The ultimately for the court will be: Is an earth question then arises: Do these restrictions F also apply to earth station antennas? i 3 Y E: t 9 i 4 ) . e 'M 6 4. "Incideritai" or "Accessory Use" "the character of the district and itspeculiar Many zoning ordinances contain a state- suitabiity to particulw uses, and with a view ; meet providing that uses that are "inciden- to conserving the value of buildings and en- tal' or "accessory" to the normal use of eourag ng the most appropriate use of land € the land are permitted. Sometimes ex- throughout the •" amples of"accessory uses," "accessory Time court found that every tlmxigh the structrsres" or uses "incidental to" the antenna might be considered unarm by primary use-of the land are provided. If some, a homeowner could not be deprived of satellite rection is considered to be an His riglmt to use his property as he wtshed- "incidental" or "accessory use," it is permit simply because someone felt a particular use tel. if it is not so considered, an earth sta- was unattractive. Nor did the size of the tion may not be installed without a spacial antenna affect time courts demion. Time court r permit, There are no cases interpreting stated that the fact the mast(arid antenna) ' whether use of a satellite earth station V was considerably longer Chaim,time usual mast 3 9,1 ' such a use. (and antenna) did not take it out of the per- Some guidance on how the courts might milted and customary uses: "We believe that } look at whether a satellite antenna is an-: to.so hold place an unnecessary and t "incidental" use.of.property maybe found unwarranted block.in the road of proms r by examining cases that govern the installs- and in the legitimate enjoyment of private tion of radio antQrmrma.bowers. The courts property."rs The cases which follow this line have reached differing conclusions in these of reasoning do not accept the belief that a cases• The leading case supporting.the law maybe based on aestlmetics alone. Among conclusion that amateur radio towers are the factors tame court deemed to be important : incidental uses is Appeal of l"rt 13 The in reaching the conclusion that the antenna ordinance provided, in relevant-part as was an accessory or customarily inccadent use follows to home.q ";I p A lot:or premise may be used:for.any of.. , s:the.xie> . had not objected to a ted following;purposes: smaller aantenra which had been locad on the,m�#for seNeral jvam (4 Act"use 6s Ma sww lot u1`1 -, , s Wevlsiorp. ar nas were common in the cna+-a m ix"uddl to, arW oI the -area,,arx1�. above pi!t�res¢s and sant senor*dam. - •the role of amateur radio in fiutherirg tsvnetal fa a se�ne�hlbmikog .. undeIg around:the world as well as In adopft zoning restrictions, the board aiding M-civil d&nse and natural disarms. was empowered to take into consideration i i 1. 368 Pa. 121, 128; 81A2d 533, 535 (Pa. 1951). ms Id at 537. 10 i a t In trfllvge of St Louis Bark a Casey i6 All three of these cases may be cited for a similar conclusion was reached There, a the proposition that the reception of radio court, looking at three amateur radio waves is a use customarily incident to the antennas wtdch varied in height between ownership of private property. These cases 30 and 60 feet, found that the antennas should have favorable impact on the instal- were "customarily incident to a residential lation of satellite receivers. See Appendix use." The court recognized that the use of III containing a list of cases holding that radios in private homes was as universal as radio or TV towers are an accessory use in was the use of refrigerators. The fact that a residential use district the homeowner's radid equipment was When confronted with an ordinance F much more elaborate than that which was which defines various types of property uses normally used did not take it out of the and then permits only those additional uses "customarily incident" category. The court which are customarily incident or accessory found that the difference was one of to the property uses defined, the home degree, not of kind. earth station owner should emphasirk.that Reaching a similar conclusion, the court satellite receivers bring valued informational in D thnar a County Board of Zoning and educational programrrring into America's Appeal rT provided ftWdW guidance as to homes. They provide speaalized prograrrr- , ;1 the meaning of"customarily incident" The ming of intermt to children, women and court stated: minorities. Earth stations enable citizens to The uaords `uses customarily incident to watch the deliberations of the US. Con- single farngy duvEngs"mean the class gress, which furthers the goals of our par- of activity a family cushirno]I does it ticipatory democracy. Earth stations are or aboad their home R doe-; not lath the used to receive over a dozen religious ser- ^' . use to the identical activity chaser: by vices as well as movies and sporting events the neighbom_As long as the activity is of broad public popularity. At the close of foam of family hobby, reawtion or. 1952, there were an estimated 1110,000 edkr&bn it is per nE ble even though it earth stations installed on residential prop- nay be Mal unAw it is specifically erty bout the United States. Earth excluded by a zoning restrktion. 77se stationsare are just a different type of TV s fact thrit'not many people have amatew antenrm Just because a neighbor has not radw anA?trm no-xrwm. wclydes this yet chi.to. receive information via use than thefact that.not many people satellite does not mean that other property s have temzis courts pnxhrda their use owners should be precluded from doing so. 7:• I a t rs 216 Minn. 394, 16 N.W. 2d 459 Oinn. 1944). " 280 Ohio Mise 35, 273 N.E. 2d 92 (Ohio 1971). , 1 i 1 . The leading; case reaching the conclusion case before the Supreme Court of Colorado. that an amateur radio tower is not an ac-. The court found that the ordinance applied cessory or incidental use is Fresnell v. not only to persons seeking to erect area:Les& ra In that case, the court found that teur radio towers and antennas but also to a 40-foot amateur radio tower was not an owners of television sets, AMIFM radios. accessory tze.of the homeowner's property. and other devices which required the use 'This case may be distinguished kom earth of an antenna. The court, overturning the station use by several factors. The court in ordinance, found that tel accessory uses. AE=ff emphasized the fact that the antennas are peri u� permit for amateur radio operator, in addition to held that requiring a special receiving radio communications, also en- accessory uses is an invalid and emreason- gaged in transmission. This transmission exercise of the State's police power. activity separated the operator from mere This case is a strong precedent against an passive radio reception. An earth station ordinance which requires a "special use user could thus argue in those areas which permit' prior to installation of an earth stn- follow the Aasnelf rule for amateur radio tion antenna. You should argue, in these antennas-that satellite-reception, lace other circumstances, that a satellite antenna is a I'V c+ao tio, ;, a�rmere'pssi ` ' TV.anterirra.of tfi�e same ess6cstial rratxrre as "liable from the iczstalla any other TV antenna.If the more conven- tiori'of'ar arnate�'raclio'bower from which tional ones are pexmitlezl., therx e is no re radio waves «ire hansmitted. Amateur radio son for disallowing satellite antenna& It r towers are also much larger'stnrcta s than should be"noted, however, that the wort in rive-ciarly eartfi stations,'The court also the Bagso'rga'case did recog uze the s authority to adopt reasonable regtk found of_gpfimnce the lack.of evidence- of vidence kx�lity' j of thenumber of anteni of the type the gallons governingthe height of the antenna. defendant uished to erect in the area,.and 1 = thaitcaicTZi c> iif�d'ori sudli :- ;fact,�is may also be used to y • , quer concerns 1 the that an F }• r j. i at obtain aspeaal; Pity whe:h M-'&stere wish--issueis!very yimr�ar to the antenna. one farad by the Supreme Court of Colo- rado in Baysinger'a testy of Nort`hglerm:. r� In that case, the City had amended its zoning ordinance to require a special permit for "radio towers and antennas Earth llatron wlo statirnr crstar+ed to blend Various amateur radio operators challenged with seaside surroundings. the law as being; overbroad and won their 18 3 N.Y. 2d 384 144 N.E. 2d 381 (N.Y.1957). 19 575 P.2d 425 (Colo. 1978). }} 12 P IRS 1 • t'. r 1 J T H •I•w Y t yrit� `;��.4:Sr u : ••a: ,•• I • u +ups :. t :a �- •r � ♦ �l't c.1 w s' i • � . � ��' a -•..••J. • .fir ✓,t •i- :a t J, i 1 mk 11911 Ljl�tLf or 7 � � : 111 ►.L•: 1 rf.1• •• 1:1 !n )./ . • MIME-- 44, WA '.c ,� ; cr r I,. �tfl`P� a { .• I+ 'r. ,t'• • • •w—. •f r `�` R � .. 11 I �� • ./ �• • wit. •1 1. 4 f••.:•, •- 1 �.. I •� , c: I =f ♦ I I ♦ I• U F - J 1 }4 i IC I � ISI. ijega Arguments in ae 8 e Zon inreasonable __9 ons =k Zoning restriction that denies a home- transmissions of"signals, pictures and err all institunen- orvner ti�e'=iight to install a satellite earth .sound of all kirxis...including E i station"ai��;his'or her property may not be talities, facilities, apparatus and services."s leg Iit`Section II we discussed the police When Congress adopted the t;ommurd . i p r`w"')ulEh,provides the basis for local .- cations Act of 1934, it created the FCC to zoning;" ctians. When local regulations. regulate "communication by wire and radio intierGN% tli federal objectives in an area so as to make available...to all the people sueh-as`satellite communications, the local of the United States, a rapid, efficient i regulations may be unconstitutional and, nationwide and worldvdde...radio communi- - therefore, unenforceable. cation system at reasonable charges." In 47 �� Interest U.S.C. 152 (a), Congress directs the FCC to fA. r { ' The Congdon, Congess and the FOC regulate all interstate and foreign com- s The Constitution gives the federal munication by wire or radio. Congress has iverra? eiit'the power-to regulate.interstate gxmeri.the FCC sigmficant authority to t - in 4rde to Ae'n oraage commerce "maintain tllrot�t-appropt�aba aGlrrirlLS�df1Ve. i �try ° 11 any traits barriers between _ --intor.ft;*izason, states.and of radio hansmssson:niy �. lawsL v."l►grdu Video, 440 US.C. at 695, t$ud -fie.a direct and undue burden qwffiV FW v PodsvNe&M&aS&V Co., r 309 U.S. 134, 138 (1940)._Congress has �1 inbarstaf�oornrner+ce. FICC to " the larger 'ills_Comte-Clause of theUnrtsd the Stakes C nsti4don provides for the regula- and more effective use of radio in the tion,Of<GOr7flIr 2 among tfi�e several states public ��►' � 4? U.S.C. 3 ?► and to E hies.:Congress. and maintain federal control waver all the char- . w ,,��, { mels of inter and foifergn radio � tr' _ op tiarsnti�sloii"rigress ..47. U.S:C,3U1. r io,04n7rnl�i 1t t1On% ��y �} - L '.Y. pip ✓le Y/..w 4 �Aryii~a�2 ,t tat_pr�DVit -by Gds&"6mes 1C.` the r 5 ddbelli'�S to play III F eVlrlg national the i ,been held tp, subledt aclir °^' Fc ~p� si- mon ,- - .of.lrfe'fgr 51 .---nericans and confit=- have been enacted pursuant to this author:~ tr.Warta so ft to promote t ily including the power to regulate the a global communications network r t s' Cations v. Ogdem 22 U.S. 1. 84-90 (182.4). a U.S. Cons., art 1, §8, d. 3. 23 Miche&w 7br Corp. v Wages, 423 U.S. 276, 286 (1976): See also U.S c4n%7rdim Article 1• _ Sec. 8., d. 18. u See pedew!Racffo Cornrnissibn a AWson Byuthrs Radio 289 U.S. 266. 279 (1933). g Id 14 { f 4 F F t F i E i i which would be responsive to national satellite communications whereby both the needs. Congress has found that it is: space and ground segments of the technol- .the policy of the United States to are intended to ogy expand in the market establish,...as expeditioccsly as is practi- place unencumbered by regulatory restraint. cable, a Commercial Gwvnte cations While the FCU initially required that earth Satellite.SysieM as part of an brwmved stations comply with various technical sfan- 9Wd Mnmue cations network, which dards, these requirements were eliminated, will be rewauftv.to.the pub&c need's and the spec objective being that the mar k-et national obieatesr which will serm the place, not government restriction, should cormnunkations needs of the [rotted control the development of satellite receivers. States and other cow2bles and which B. Interference with Federal Objectives will contribute to world peace and A zoning law that limits the diameter of understandmgas a satellite receiver or restricts its placement Following up on Congressional directives, on an individual's private property interferes the FICC has, over the last twenty years, with federal objectives in several ways. Tfie continuously looked at the satellite area diameter of the antenna is directly related and taken great efforts to foster the to its ability to pickup satellite tiansmis- `:` benefits.of the technology.An-formulating sions. By restricting the 4ianietea° the muni- its policks-for',satellite development over a cipality limits the ab§ity-of ftrowner to dozen yea3s.ago,,,the-FCC •rioted.that: 7he most�'aaalue of domestk receive communications from all United States domestic satellites. •A zoning law satellites appems to He in the r pattazhal 11rhiting that &ameter amounts to both a fr�r'onrg nezu cor�vnr�xicah'ons ma;• restriction on the use of an individual's for ex�aa&rg the-bendidal role of ' private property as well as an interference ° °'t ' � forprivate the Congressional objective of Veda ' and maximizing satellite technology: for'deiaelopn4 new and drernnh'atesd Similar problems-are encountered with senlec esGS�t zt f7errt Pfae special character requirements`vhich force'satellite'antennas isfs.bf t1`ae,satel/eterliraulogrf. Realize to be Ideated on a side lnt'_or'liar_lcyard. In Boot of this "zfial.will teiqube bvioua- < live terh�alojrcaf Maui service plarmbtgmany cases, er+for�oeirierrt of sten restrictions rnzd can result in a practical ban.an earth sta- ,�;`: tions. In order for an earth,,station to oiler- lri=or+dertto r+enlize:dse potential of ate, it m� direr unencumbered have dirunencumbered line satellite commurdcations,_the Commission of fight to the desired sate-Ete. Satellite established an "open skies" policy forbansmissions in the 4-6'GHz range do not 26 Communications Satellite Act of 1962, Pub. L No. 57.624, §1020, 76 Stat. 419 (1962), 47 U.S.C. 701, et &W. 27 6z m F-VabAsPeneW of a Downeshc CoawvzzcatImu Satellite Facibhes by Acn_Caraasrne rlal s^. EhIalies, 22 FCC 2d 86, 95 (1970).. ``" 15 r bend. If there are trees, a house, a series local government regulation. In looking at . of buildings or any other natwal or man– areas of comparatively recent technological made structi.mes in a direct line with the development the courts have hequeritly satellite,.the earth station will not be able found that the fec!--al interest is paramount taxeceive the satellite•sigrial..AA line of sight and that:local regulation inconsistent with t may be,available from a givem location in the federal interest is preernpted..30 Again, c winter, but be blocked_.by 4oliage in the legitimate safety, considerations can be met surnmer.,Thus, aii,earth station installer by adoption and enforcement of reasonable pays;.par4icuiar..att6ition..to the line of sight building codes. It is.SFACV.% belief that a tui.make absolutely ceitain that: the earth zoning restriction which acts as a complete station is being installed-for all seasons. ban on the installation of a satellite receiver :�. The best location may be in a backyard in interferes with federal object. S.Y which case that is where the receiver will C. Satellite Communications is be installed. If, however, the optimal loca- Federally Preempted tion is in a front yard and a local ordi- Another challenge to local zoning laws nance prevents the installation in such an that adversely affect earth station installa- area, tfiei the ordinance has the practical tions is the doctrine of federal preemption. effect of preventing earth station installations doctrine prevents local governments ::ar�dadeYiying 4he'hoJiiebw!rier�tlie'full from regtatating.:subjects-:that Congress its. beneft'Of satffiW1Q5mriith MMti 6b& Such`a tended.to:regulate Aexclush*.:Federal law result-is1Jneori�n -*thO-Aqk—,rights to -supersedes-state law:when the state law, :use property:and:with Coirgressional intent "stands as an obstacle to the accomplish- to foster the expansion of satellite merit and exeardon of the full purposes wlulolo®a r' :--.: and objectives of Congress." There are 7be city; in defense of.its-zoning restcic- three principal grouuhds; on which a court bort,;;could argm that tyre federal govern- may base a Bing of federal preemption: menu's power in-these areas is.not absolute. co a Them rk urt.desmons �g 1.� doaniriant federal interest is ; j moo.�ha�E loyal« overriments shoadd 2. =off!e'-stA)jeI matter ortanue to't'r+eg�ate"f diose areas why ��yy�� lori4 _,. c e •�.�f �'yr - Lri4 t statlitl�rgl 3�.aiGll�GJiri .tes a iocal,gaverrrents: ave 4iartuorially regtilat- Como' rial''intent to regtdate the 9�.� it' dn dl5o be'a'rgto� 2 exterlt;Jt' 'is pos�'b?e; that and=stat�e.objectives ' 3.The local orditLvnce impedes or im- ' stiaiiid"be'a�oa�cile `1✓iain,ev r"local gov- p :the i,ealiiati'-of Cohgressionalhav '�rot lurrcally ulatad.the obss __ifts�llation of ath structs tati_ellite com- ,F ini wwis, like the a itoitsobrle`or airpllar!e, developed subsequent•to the evolution of Cf. San Dko Bediding Tmdes v. Cannon 359 U.S. 236 243-244(1959). Silves v AIL-w York Stock Erchange, 373 U.S. 341, 357 (1963). New York State Commission v. FCC 669 F2d 58 (N.Y. 1982) (New York State effort to regu- late satellite-supplied apartment houses preempted by federal inters in dewlopment of interstate communications) City of Burbank v Lockheed Air Ten; Trial BJc, 411 U.S. 624 (munWgW 1 restrictions on airport takeoffs and landings federally preempted).- 3r Homes v Davcdoue4 312 U.S. 52 (1942). City of Bwtw* v.Loddw rf Air Termara4 hv– 411 U.S. 624. 633 (1973). " Bay v Atlantic Riclrfaeld C r?Wany, 98 S. CL 988, 994 (1978). 16 Y i t F t i J A court looking at the field of satellite opment of satellite services to hilfill national communications should find that this is an objectives of world peace and understanding; area which is federally preempted because A restriction on the ground segment of that of a dominant federal interest The impor- communications system interferes with these tance of satellites in the nation's communi- objectives by preverting direct access to cations and intelligence network amounts satellite services. To the extent that such to a dominant federal interest Everything restriction prevents the installation of an- from transcontinental television feeds and earth station, it should be federally interstate telephone communications to preempted. national weather forecasting and strategic in arguing federal preemption in the field reconnaissance and surveillance for national' of satellite commuications, one Court of defense is performed by satellites. Appeals decision provides significant support Federal preemption also may be based and guidance. New Yorfc State C mm&sion on a federal statutory scheme. Satellite on Cable TelevL%bn v. Fedeml CDnrmzraca- communications is inherently interstate in hoes Corrmriss m 669 F.2d 58 (N.Y. 1982). nature. Recognizing this, the Congress has In that case, the coat upheld an FCC de- provided that the frequencies involved termination that the field of satellite inter- should be_regulated at the federal level. convected MDS microwave systems was fed- -The FCC approves new'satellites,-regulates emally pree mptred.3' Nese. York State had "power.and location of satellites, and main- adopted a regulation, the-practical effect of `w tains an'optional licensing scheme for which was to interfere with, burden and t satellite receivers. Thus, the nature of the limit service provided by MDS to apartment subject matter and the complex network of houses. The Commission and the court '•' federal regulation indicates that satellite found that the effect of the regulation was communications is a subject matter that the to reduce the number of reception points federal,government has manifested its in- which could view the service. Overhmming tent to-rr-gulate. It=:is, therefore, preempted the New York State regulation, the court �:-•: T under'the Second test. ' , found that it was the "effect rather than T tiie'third insb ikce kxal restrictions on the purpose:or.state:law-which was con- placeirieritW id eaith''station can under- trolling." In addition„ft::court found that �. mine Congressional objectives.-Congress a reduction in the number of reception established the FCC and inducted it to points in one area acids to costs in another promote the expansion of communications area, a result inconsistent with FCC obliga- services. It specifically encouraged the level- tions. This carne argument might be applied " MDS, or Multipoint 13istnbution Service, is a federally regulated, omnidirectional microwave ser- vice used in most cities to provide subscription programming to the residents of apartment houses and private houses Typicaliy, a satellite antenna picks up the subscription program and provides it to an antenna located at a high point in the center of the city. The subscription program is then _y transmitted in all directions throughout the city,-received by special microwave receivers installed on rooftops, downconverted and viewed on conventional television sets. 1~: 17 f r f s t f � 7 f 9 to satellite reception. Local zoning laws ing satellite communications contain multi- which have the effect of prohibiting satellite ple sources of informations-type program- r E installations increase costs to the public, a ming._including programming(such as news 4 result which is inconsistent with the FCC's and•religious services) that is not available goals, as expressed by Congress in the via conventional television. To the extent Communications Act that a zoning ordinance prevents the instal- In defending its zoning laws, the com- lation of an earth station or makes that munity may argue that the FCC does not installation very difficult to accomplish, it have: regulations governing earth station restricts the owner's access to information location and installation, therefore, it can- and may be in violation of the Fust not be argued that the Commission has Amendment preempted the field. The court in the New The First Amendment was originally York .State Gxmnkoion case found that it enacted to protect an individual's heedom i had previously upheld FCC preemption even to express opinions and ideas. Through the though the FCC itself did not have regular years, the courts have ftirther defined the tions governing the.subject35 Merely right of freedom of speech to include the t because:;tsr�.FCC does. not presently have effective dissemination of speech and ex-,:'. regiditiors; governing the.local installation pressioni The Supreme Court has held of earth stations.is an unpersuasive aiigu- that television-type programming is entitled ment against federal preemption of satellite to First Amendment pr+otectionn The First f: services. As the court in the New York Amendment protects both informational State Cenmr&an case found "Federal and entertainment prog wrimiri m This regulation need not be heavy-handed in right is not limited simply to the transmis order"to pr+eeriipt state regulation:' 669 cion of programming: it also encompasses - F.2d at 66. : the right to receive programming_ The D,;--Fid= nmdment- Court has dem,that viewers.and`- _ r. Another:problem.with enforcing a restrictive listeners have,�a.FicSt Amendment right'to locbLor�diharil `is based-bn the First ... . . . p�%•s9 f -Amendmendie,U.S. Constitution Exist F t 35 See BcookFi Cable TV v Kelly. 573 F2d 765 (2d Cir.) cert decried 441 U.S. 904 (1978). ` afPg 428 F. Supp. 1216 (N.D.N.Y. 1977); National Association of Regulatory fffVy Corruni.siaris u. FPLC. 525 F.2d 630 (D.C. Cir.), cert denied, 425 U.S. 992 (19767. Dtdaney v. San fhincisco MwL Crt, 11 Cal. 3d. 77, 510 P2d, 5 (Cal. 1974); Van JV&W Pub Whig Co. v City of 77msand Oaks, 5 Cal. 3d. 817, 821, 489 Ptd 809, 811 (Cal. 1971). ; t "ABC a United Sates. 110 F. Supp. 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) alyd sub nom, FCC a ABC. 347 U.S. 284 (1954). F 38 WkIem v New York 333 U.S. 507.•510 (1948). 39 See Reil Lkn Bcoadcas&g Co. a FCC, 395 U.S. 367. 390 (1969). k Z t I lg F f The First Amendment rights are particu- strafing a lack of alternative channels for laxly important in this context in those communication of the infomlation sought areas where there are limited alternative A statute which has the e,Teet of a conn sources of programming. As a general rule, plete prohibition of speech and expression speech may be regulated by place and time is generally not permided.40 Ibus, a zoning m many limited ways and if done with dear restriction that establishes, for example, and concise statutes which are reasonable_ various options for the instaRation of In Vayazia,Pharmacy Board.v.- Vv'y& a satellite receivers might be constitutional Coresuuner Coiozd4 425 U.S.-748 (1976), whereas an ordinance which operates to the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated the completely prohibit such installation might elements required in order to permit a not be.41 time, place, and manner restriction on the In analyzing an argument based upon right of free speech. The Court declared: the First Amendment the courts will be We have obsaved that tune, place and asked to weight an individual's right to manner resbictions are panz&sible if receive information against the community's Mey ars'justi(red u dhord refersvzce to the right to protect aesthetic appearances. The content of the regulated speech... serve Supreme Court in Mem Bzc. v City a sign govenvnental,.Ogms4 a&.. of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (19131) has &ave.open ample:al WXWM cluinnels provided guidance on how the scales -for co»mitoiicativn of the hzforrnatiom should be weighted. The case involved a 425 U.S at 771. city ordinance which attempted to restrict Among the arguments against a zoning the type of billboards that could be insta-IL ordinance preventing..the installation of a ed in the city of Sacs Diego. The ordinance satellite antenna is the fact that the interest perinitted on-site commercial advertising, served*does not further a "significant but prohibited other commercial and non- governmental interest" Also, if the local commercial billboards, unless permitted by cable system,or;other, media do:not.carry a one of hwlve specified exoeptions'(such as particular.ppm or sa-Ace which-you temporary political campaWbillboards.) 'desire'tD..uaWmasAre.hgious;clan- The city of San Diego claimed flie_purpose 'nel, this be iinioartant in,.making an making your of the ordince:was to promote the = First Amendment argument and:demon- "safety" and "aesthetics" of the community. b0-Cox v Alew Hkirq rte'31-2 U. 569 (1941). 61 Several state courts have addressed Constitutional issues in the context of rest4y-tons placed on amateur radio antennas. A few courts-have found, for example, that reception of radio waves is an inalienable Constitsstional right of all and usenet be controlled by zoning ordinances. See Appeal of Stwwrida. 115 Pitts. L 224 (1957), Sdvnigd v Board of Add 114 Pitts. LeW, 1 117 (Pa. � } 1966.) In California, however, a restrktion on amateur radio antennas which limited their height to 40 feet withstood a First Amendment challenge, the court finding that the miction was not a blanket limitation and that appellant could still trarLwd half way around the world. Shrooder a LOS Cerritos Mort Ct, 141, Cal. Rptr. 85, &389 (1977). It should also be noted that the ordinance i specifically provided for waiver of the restrictions by the Manning Commission. The continued precedential validity of this decision is brought into question in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the Metromedia, hic case diuusmd above. i E 19 1 •- • l 1 1 Y J F I / I /i ce / .• 1 it • •.� 11 -.• Y • • 1 - .• • •L Y• 1 +►i ^•-•! A r ♦.:a If s.rr:. • � w Y. I• r srn. J � • -•• •Y L' �' + 1Ii I. " 711> .ill/ K • I••• 1. •.. . -1 i PR:• ••w i is !Y:-s' s ♦.:r /•I / '� 7 If LI :•. •.1 1 � - 1 'l • 1 - :• ; /i / ./- I fI I'Ir' I I" 1 y./r♦/ f' �/ JI f/ I I I.I' fl. .-y,. ..�.. 1♦-.:/' .i ! si `I• i/ I ♦i :a I:. A sa yr l 1' /i i JY ••• ui a �/ ♦ / : / I -/, / �J J r ami rA w:«� •�). �• -�. :• i/: z >:L'. a.� / w.•a-:moi w ..:,. � � `•+ • .r- .1 f>.: • ••.' ri' ,� • r ylii of Y / r -•i . .s.,-1. • y -1 • .Yl.• • :y_ '• rF �6• f ,.di J �„ � f^ Y�� .� � s 1 �}3 '� r- y -.1 ,m,- There is at least one reported case govern- plete bar to your reception of satellite ing the applicability of zoning ordinances to programming- satellite antenna&. In Couge v. City of E. Antahvst Sn�ffa le. 249 Ga. 91 (19$2) the Georgia Often, the impetus behind the adoption Suprerr Cou t upheld the constitutionality of a restrictive zoning law will be the local of a Snellville, Georgia zoning ordinance fianchised cable television company. Some which provided that "st ixtxes shat.be cable operators look upon satellite earth permitted only in`rear.yards.•." A structure stations as potential competition. Such was defined as including a satellite antenna oeprators may go to the City Council or and the-earth station owner was enjoined similar body and convince it that the earth from maintaining in his front yard the station is "unsightly." Most cable television satellite television antenna which he used operators pay the city a portion of their for personal and business purposes where revenue. That portion could be reduced if there was a suitable alternative. The ordi- earth stations proliferate. na nce was challenged on a variety of To the extent that it can be shown that grounds, incluxiing the Fust Amendment the franchised cable television operator is The court, in holding for the city. fotaid attemptirg to prevent the installation of an that.tlie impingement•®n i�ir.-,.Gouge's First earth station-thrrxigh the-passage of;-or Ameaidmen'_rights_eras:minor.=It:found that discrirnirratory enforwnent of a"zoning' the o ia�x permitfed-,him-,to place the Win, such amity could be found to satellite•antenna.in his backyard. "amact act violate the Federal Antitrust Laws. Section which Mr. Goi;ge's-expert admitted. could 1 of the Sherman Act42 makes unlawful an (, be done with siightiy greater tense and ConslP' cies and combinations in reshaint inconvenierx ." Because ureic was an "ef- of trade. Section 2 prohibits attempts to fective aiteniative" for.receiving satellite in- monopolize any part of intersW com- formalion, the__eourt found no abridgement mere.. Section.5 of the.Clayton Act" pro- of Mr. Cot e's lnmxIment.ri&ts. �rrbits "unfair pcactiees in eorrrrnexee.".Gities — The court found that "die added:_experue and.2onir Boards should be especially. and incon_ t: mous of any such:at#c;mpts by cable sys- 1 _Y which,tlJ Iare��'�le Axdqance.unCAnstit u- 'IU tion.of.rwxicipa11ties^from clonal.As.an;arbafi:mid'unreasonable- the antitrust law is now extremely limited. exea�cise d.the-po ° �:'The Lie See.Community ��ommunkations Co.;W- .,6iid res_the.wisdom?in,the:First .C434 of Bcxdden Colorado.-102 S. CC 835 Arirendmerit area, of demonstrating that (1982). the ordinance,in question acts as a com- ez 2S Stat. 209 (1890 as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §1-7 (1977). r.- 43 15 U.S.C. 612 et seq. 21 _ _ s model Zones Ordhiance i The following.model zoning ordinances Section 3.2 imposes a requirement upon may be;used as prototypes.for an ordi- receiver,owners to minimize visual impact j mance in,your local,area; These ordinances of the receiver..Vi%W.:impict.is rmeasured maximizz the:right o�an.earth station•user from-die street Ievel.*This is ,importnt = to install.and operate his or her facilities because it may be very cfficiilt to com-' while incorporating provisions that protect pletely-shield an earth station-from an i -the concerns of Zoning Boards and adjoining neighbor's'seoond�iry view. �, Secti on.33 provides that-not more than ®rdimnce•I one earth station.should,be.installed unless Ordinance 1 was derived with some the residential property exceeds one•haif modifications from a California county ordi- acre in diameter. nance passed in 1983. Section 1 contains Section 3.4 imposes an affirmative a definition of a satellite television antenna obligation upon the owner of the earth sta- Section 2 specifies that satellite antennas, tion, to conform to applicable City Building like non-commercial-radio antennas are Code and Electrical Code requirements. permitted as accessory structures. Section 3 Requirements governing gnurxlimg and `autl6d2i "s't6df=iTidunting--but sets a-height• c0on °n or coma- =lirriitatioii Exeept5oi�-to'that height lin - biist'ble rriat�n`als'are�imiposed by Secti6n obtain 33• This Section also requires that the tion are,contemplated by-obtaining a � receiver be installed in a wind resistant eW use`peimit. A special use permit is also f contemOlated-in the event that a ground rwin=- insta ition exceeds:the height limitation Fiery. Section 2.201 allows installation oonii-Section 4. on the roof of a singe family imidence. F i,ally set k requirements are impossd but only where all other alternatives have on ga und-mounted satellite antennas by �.�ned and-found to.be unsuitable; a requw - rmit;be-obtained in event c►f aoof oaroin is also imt- ` k. tti lit .fit pos®d:•11je cntem fo?'+ .tile Ot4;�2;� of flus ordiiamce Provides are y sein This dtiaty sub .toLft exceptions contained in 're-duces'dipi'd -kes•of-arbi ` action or the st,:pf;the,ordir�lre..the antenna delay. ,, s 19Tth Back k r�t r r2 �^( .r �bPrA'.plaQ06i 3 } z 1 f case'of LrescdentialJProp�y, providm!a:hei&V and;diameter lirmitatim_ i 28 Ordilmance I `? An Ordinance Pertaining to Regulation of "Satellite Television Antennas" THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:" Section 1. A satellite television antenna is an antenna tie purpose.of which is to receive television or radio signals from orbiting satellites. Section 2. Acces �.sory b dings aril sbucbmes: a. � .:._ ;�• nirnon-commercial.,districts private:non-commercial.,radio television antennas and towers ? � are all.permitted as accessory strictures. b. In all zoning districts, ground-mounted and roof-mount, satellite television antennas are permitted as accessory structures. Section 3. Roof-mounted satellite television antennas: Shall not extend more than ten (10) feet above the height limit established for the zone in which the structure is located. Exceptions to these height requirements may be made by the approval of a special use permit under Section of this ordinance. Section 4. Ground-mounted satellite television ten annas: a. In oesidential zones, gr+ourK mounted satellite television antennas shall not exceed _ fifteen (15) feet inheight above the ground.-unless a Special Use Permit is r- f approved under Section of this ordinance. - In all other zones, ground-mounted satellite television antennas shall not exceed twenty-(20) feet in height above the ground unless a Special Use Permit is approved. b. Ground-mounted satellite television antennas shall be permitted in any requited rear, side or front yard provided such.structures are located at least five Q feet h+ani tris nearest part-of the maim bwldie)9.onsame lot and at least.6ve Q -feet front any rear, fr+mnt or side property line. THE FOREGO94C ORDINANCE was passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the-County erf , State of on the day of 19_, at a regular meeting of said Board, duly and regularly convened on said day, by the following roll call vote: f • 4 f j 4 This ordinance is dewed, with modifications, from a California county ordinance passed in 1983. E r i 29 M 1 f' } t 4 P 5 E t E ( 3. Antenna Size E 3.1 Subject to Section 2.20), in a non-commercial or single family zone, such antenna shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. including any platform or structure upon which said antenna is mounted or affixed. Such antenna may not exceed fifteen (15) feet i,i diameter in a non-commercial or single family zone. 3.2 Except in a commercial, industrial or multi-kmiiy'residential lone, satellite'television antennas shall be located and designed to reduce visual impact from surrounding proper- ties at street level and from public streets. I 3.3 Not more than one satellite television antenna shall be'alrbwed in any non-com- mercial or single,family zone on any lot less than one-Half(112) acre in size. 3.4 All antennas and the construction and installation thereof shall conform to _ applicable City Budding Code and Electrical Code regulations and requirements. 3.5 Antennas shall meet all manufacturers' specifications, be of non-combustible and corrosive-reststant material, and be erected in a secure, wind-resistant manner. 3.6 Every antenna must be adequately grounded for protection against a direct strilce of lightning. DELIVERED to the Mayor of the City of . this day Of -,. . 19—. .. ;Approve Netoed by the„4ayor.of the uty .of - this day ,THLS.IS TO CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted.,by the City Council of in public meeting assembled, on the day f of. . 19. and that the same was approvedhetoed by the Mayor of the ` City of on the day of , 19 - - i i This Clridinan err vwll borne effve'on they°of - :� `; 19 t • f a� S f • I f S f I 31 i. i ' I i may. r .13 C� T, ,a:..•.SCJ: `�i."' - �: W I� a - f4� r "f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 8/29/83 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: 8/25/83 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Board & Committee Appointments REQUESTED BY: r i DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Recommendations for Board and Committee appointments will be distributed Monday, 8/29/83 t F (l pF i f - k 3 !Rr t t R ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i i i i i scaaaaaaass c>asaaaaaas:=sssaaaaaaa===-c=a===c=c==cc=____==c===sas=a.c=sa=casa>caasac SUGGESTED ACTION r i t I t i M E M O R A N D U M t i DATE: August 22, 1983 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerri L. Widner, Finance Director SUBJECT: MONTHLY INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS FOR BANCROFT ASSESSMENTS BACKGROUND: Mr. & Mrs. Victor Borders are the owners of property in Tigard on 74th. This property is being sold to Mrs. Virginia Stone on a contract. There are two assessments against the property, one for sewer and one for street improvements. The City Council had an agreement with Mrs. Stone that a $75.00 monthly payment would be made to bring the accounts current. Mrs. Stone has failed to make these payments and the assessments are delinquent. Mr. & Mrs. Borders have filed suit against Mrs. Stone for non-payment of her purchase agreement with them. They have just been granted receivorship of all rentals from the property. The property has had the same tenants for five years. Mr. & Mrs. Borders had previously wanted to keep the assessment payments up to date, but had no income in which to do so. Now that they are in receivorship of the rental monies, they have offered to pay the City $150.00 each month until the assessments are paid in full. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION: The assessments mature in 8 and 9 years respectively. The normal payment cycle is semi--annual. Mr. & Mrs. Borders have offered to pay $150.00 monthly from the rents. The assessments are still attached to the properties. The alternatives are: 1. To deny the request for $ 50.00 monthly payments. 2. Accept the agreement of $150.00 monthly payments. It is recommended that the City Council enter into an agreement with Mr. & Mrs. Victor Borders to receive monthly payments of $150.00 from rents received by the Borders from the assessed property. In addition, Mr. & Mrs. Borders would have to sign Bancroft applications in place of Virginia Stone. A motion to accept and to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement would be appropriate. JLW:ms(0054F) t i i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 29, 1983 AGENDA ITEM h: , DATE SUBMITTED: August 24, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Consent Agenda Tigard Arco Non-Remonstrance REQUESTED BY: SDR 11-83 DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: WAM CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY The attached non-remonstrance agreement was submitted by Dennis Thompson, Tigard Arco. The non-remonstrance was required under site design review. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council may accept the agreement in conformance with the conditions of site design review, or reject. SUGGESTED ACTION f Staff recommends that Council accept the non-remonstrance agreement for Tigard Arco. r FILE ROJEC I!"iiA.'[E a TAX MAP: � DRESS: CONSENT COVENANT (NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT) Street Improvements t ed owners (including purchasers) of the real property described below do hereby e undersign the City of Tigard cord their consent to the formation of a local improvement on which the described property or the purposes of improving the public street or streets up rights to oppose or remonstrate uts. The undersigned expre�ssa�Yi pro mens districtlforuture the improvement of the abutting gainst the formation ofp contest the inclusion o£ particular cost items treet or streets, reserving only the right to right they may have under the laws of the n the improvement district proceeding and any g tate of Oregon to contest the proposed assessment formula. d and be binding scribed lan his consent and waiver shall run with thetitle period thede o fifteen (15) ears from the upon undersigned and all successor owners, ate of the last signature below. i of this consent covenant e •real property that is the subject is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" i tor(s) have hereunto set his (their) hand(s) and seal(s) .IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the gran this day of 19 12 (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) iy (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEA;) ; _ i _ - (SEAL) (SEAL) TATE OF OREG4 •f ) SS. unty of ) f� 1940 personally appeared the above named this day of .De S d acknowledged the �i�o 'going instrum=nt to be their voluntary act and deed. ` Before me: i `1 Not&ry public for Oregon `J My Commission expire 7 r EXHIBIT "A" Order NO. 336996 j Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5 and 6, ELECTRIC ADDITION TO TIGARDVILLE, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, situated in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. ALSO, all of Lots 7 and 8, in ELECTRIC ADDITION TO TIGARDVILLE, and E ALSO" a parcel of land lying in Lot 9, ELECTRIC ADDITION TO TIGARDVILLE, Washington County, Oregon, the said parcel being described as follows- Beginning on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 9 at a point 15 feet Southeasterly from the Northerly corner of said Lot 9; thence South 500 46 ' East along said Northeasterly line a' distance of 25.2 feet to the Easterly corner of said Lot 9; thence South 560 40 ' West along the € Southeasterly line of said Lot 9 a distance of 90 .4 feet to the Southerly corner of said Lot 9; thence North 46° 14 ' 30" West along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 9 a distance of 3 . 5 s feet; thence North 420 47 ' East a distance of 86. 2 feet to the point of beginning. L r }L f 6E Tdyq Lg f {y£t P A t f t 1 i Page 3 of Policy n 336996 t i E r REFERENCE FILE ACCEPTANCE `~ Approved as to legal description this 2 3 day of 19�3.�a� . 1 BY: j Engi ert+r�City of d, Oregon E Approved as to form this iday of 1916 BY: City Attorney - City of Tigard, Oregon 6 Approved this day of AJCrJ 19 i B hairpe so - City of Tigard, Oregon Planning Commission i Accepted by the City Council this day of 19 b BY: City Recorder - City of Tigard, Oregon y'P 2 _,-.TE OF OREGON )ss. County of ) on this day of 19 , before me appeared and both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said is the Mayor, and he, the said 4 S is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal i t corporation, and the said and i acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. f IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunt-+ at my hand and affixed ` my official seal, this day and year in this my certificate first written. Notary Public for Oregon My Commi ss ion Expires f t t E r Page 2 5 (o. S M E M O R A N D U M a TO: BOB JEAN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: aaSryr�v S�HNEIDER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY / 1. J DATE: AUGUST 24, 1983 SUBJECT: ACCESS TO PERSONNEL FILES As you requested, I am reiterating our advice to you when the issue of access to personnel files first surx,ced last spring. We recommended that you follow the provisions of your personnel rules with respect to access until we could provide a written opinion on the subject. That advice included an interpretation of your rules that City Councilors should not be allowed to access personnel. files at will . While the result may be an opinion indicating almost unrestricted access, that was our advice to you for the interim period. SS : dkr l CC Edward J. Sullivan O'DONNELL. DATE August 25, 1983 " SULLIVAN & RAMIS 1 A`fTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean - City Administrator 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 /!/] � 15031 222-4402 FROM S�11f$�Idl*hneider - Asst. City Attorney RE City of Tigard/Administration: Council Review of Personnel Files or Performance Reviews FACTS In March of 1983, a City of Tigard City Councilor was permitted to inspect the employee files of one or more city employees. The City Councilor is said to have shared that information with people who were neither city employees nor city council members. The incident raised a number of questions. Both state law and personnel rules include provisions for the release of materials in personnel files. ISSUES The specific questions you asked were: 1. As discussed at the March 22 , 1983 staff meeting, is it appropriate for the city council or an individual councilor to have access to the performance reviews of department heads by the City Administrator? 2. If the city council has the right to delegate any or all of its authority, or to consult with the City Administrator as to department heads, does it then have the right to legislative review of any or all personnel files? CONCLUSION The state statutes are controlling and favor disclosure -to . anyone with very limited exceptions. Within those exceptions, the city council, as the governing body, has access to all city records including personnel records. The city council may regulate access to those records within the excepted areas. DISCUSSION If there is a conflict between the state law and the personnel rules on this issue, the state statute prevails. See La Grande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or 137, 156 , 576 P2d 1204 (1978) . The state statute on disclosure clearly articulates a statewide objective that prevails over conflicting local enactments. The personnel rules provide that: "All employee records shall be considered 'CONFIDENTIAL' , and shall be accessible only in the following manner: (a) Contents of an employee' s files shall not be opened by anyone except the City Administrator or his appointee ` (appointee must have written authorization from the City Administrator specifying the purpose and dates) , am SKS:mch 8/25/83 Page 1 m'DONNELL. DATE August. 25, 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS _ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO Bob Jean - City Administrator. PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 (503) 222-4402 FROM Susan Schneider, Asst. City Attorney fr RE City of Tigard/Administration: Council Review of Personnel Files or Performance Reviews Department Head, the employee or their especially authorized representatives, or as may be required by a Court Order*** (d) No portion of an employee' s file shall be reproduced by any person without the written consent of the employee. (e) No information from the personnel file shall be released to outside parties except verification of employment, employment dates, and title without prior written authorization from the employee. " City of Tigard Personnel Rules, Section 1 . 4 . In contrast, the Oregon statute provides: "Every person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body in this state, except as otherwise expressly provided by ORS 192 .500. " ORS 192. 420 . However, the statute also provides for exceptions, including the following: " (b) Information of a personal nature such as but not limited to that kept in a personal, medical or similar file, if the public disclosure thereof would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy, unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence requires disclosure in the particular instance. The party seeking disclosure shall have the burden of showing that public dis- closure would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy; " (c) Information submitted to a public body in confidence and not otherwise required by law to be submitted, where such information should reasonably be considered confidential , the public body has obliged itself in good faith not to disclose the information, and when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure; " ORS 192. 500 (2) Exemption for Personal Information i The first exemption from disclosure is for personal information such as that kept in a personal file, medical or similar file. The determination of what comes within the exemption is a three part test. Kotulski v. Mt. Hood Comm. College, 62 OrApp 452, 455-456 (1983) . SKS:mch t 6/25/83 Page 2 O'DONNELL. DATE August 25 , 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW To Bob Jean - City Administrator 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 1503! 222.4402 FROM Susan Schneider, Asst. City Attorney RE. City of Tigard/Administration: Council Review of Personnel Files or Performance Reviews The information must first be "information of a personal nature. " The court has defined this as information which "normally would not be shared with strangers. " Id. Then, the disclosure of the informa- tion must not be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The burden is on the one seeking the information to disprove this element. Finally, the information may still be disclosed if the public interest by clear and convincing evidence requires disclosure in the particular instance. In two very similar recent cases where this exemption was tested, the first element of the test was not met. In Kotulski, the issue was whether the president of the faculty union was entitled to the names and addresses of all the part-time instructors at the college. The court held that the addresses were not "information of a personal nature" under the first element of the test. In Morrison v. School Dist. No. 48 , 530 OrApp 148 , 631 P2d 785, rev den 291 Or 893 (1981) , the request was very similar. The plaintiff, president of the teachers' union, sought and got the school district' s substitute teacher roster. t The next element of the test, that disclosure must not be an unrea- sonable invasion of privacy, has not been tested in Oregon. The federal courts have examined similar language in the Freedom of Information Act related to personnel files and have developed a four part test. The test is made up of the following elements which are then balanced. Church of Scientology v U S Dept. of the Army, 611 F2d 738, 746 (9th Cir. 1979) . First, what is the plaintiff ' s interest in disclosure? Second, what is the public' s interest in disclosure? Third, what is the degree of invasion of personal privacy? Finally, are there available alternative methods of obtaining the requested information? Id. Oregon might well adopt such a balancing test for the second element of its test. Such a balancing turns on the specific facts of the case. Even if disclosure of the information would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy, it may still be disclosed if by clear and convincing evidence the public interest requires it. "Clear and convincing evidence means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable_ " In Re Conduct of Chambers, 292 Or 670 , 64.2 P2d 286, 288 (1982) . The three part test is a difficult one. what this exemption means to the city in practical terms is that no personnel file should be released in toto to the public. Careful consideration should be given to the specific information requested before release. Most information in the file will be disclosable. However, it is likely that some information may not be. SKS:mch 8/25/83 Page 3 O'DONNELL. DATE August 25, 1983 :-'SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean • 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM Susan Schneider RE Council Review of Personnel Files or Performance Reviews Personnel evaluations would generally not be exempt. The Oregon Court of Appeals, citing New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) , has said that: "any privacy rights that public officials have as to performance of their public duties must generally be subordinated to the right of citizens to monitor what elected and appointed officials are doing on the job. " Jensen v. Schiffman, 24 OrApp 11, 17 , 544 P2d 1048 (1976) . (The District Attorney claimed an investigatory report was exempt from disclosure under 192. 500 (1) (c) . ) All other information should be measured against the three part test after the request is made. Anyone denied information may petition the county district attorney to review the information to determine if it may be withheld. ORS 192. 460 , 192. 450 . Exemption for Confidential Information The second exemption that may apply to information in the City of Tigard' s files, including personnel files, is that for information submitted in confidence. ORS 192. 500 (c) supra. (For purposes of this exemption, the information must not have been required by law to be submitted. ) To be exempt, first, the information must have been submitted in confidence at the outset. Kotulski at 457; Morrison at 156 . Then the "information should reasonably be considered confidential. And, the public body must have "obliged itself in good faith not to disclose the information. " Finally, and perhaps most difficult, "the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. " The first hurdle is difficult and was not overcome in either the Kotulski or Morrison case. Where information in an exempted category such as either of the two exemptions discussed above is mixed with information which must not be disclosed, the nonexempt materials must be separated and disclosed. ORS 192.500 (3) . On the whole, the overriding consideration should be that "the legislative history of the statutory scheme involved here indicates that the bill was drafted with [this] general rule in mind: government records are public information, and exceptions should be narrowly and specifically defined. " Morrison at 152 . Council Access Even if the information is not available to the public because it i falls within a statutory exemption, it may still be available to SKS:mch 8/25/83 Page 4 O'DONNELL. DATE August 25, 1983 +< i 'SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean • 1727 N.Nl, HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031222-4402 FROM Susan Schneider RE Council Review of Personnel Files or Performance Reviews he govthe ody the council in their capacity thistaccesseis1in ng btheirocapacitytas it should be emphasized that the public body and that information obtained in this capacity s the should not then be shared with the public. Generally, governing body with the power to appoint all employees, the city council has the same access as the City Administrator. However, to avoid chaos and fears of persecution orretaliation con the part cil access f of city staff, it may be wise to have a procedure to employee files. Also, where there is an exemption from public disclosure, the council may provide by rule--personnel rules, council rules orsootfar�aseto for how the information will be handled. They y g limit their own access to the files as they seem to have the h the definition current personnel rules, thougof outside p : not clear. 6 i Y55 1 t Z } s E1 t i i f i SKSamch 8/25/83 Page 5 MEETING SCHEDULE - SEPTEMBER. 1983 U D Y MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY August 28 August 29 August 30 August 31 1 2 7:00 PM HEARINGS OFFICER 7:30 PM WASH.CO. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC OFFICIAL. Tigard Sch. Dist. CAUCUS Board Room P.C.C.Rock Creek 4 5 6 7 7PM HRGS.OFFCR 8 9 1 L A B 0 R 7:30 PM NPO #1 PUBLIC HEARING DD A Y City Hall Durham Tr. Plant 7:30 PI4 NPO #4 NOTE: DRIVE City Hall 7:30 PH WASH-CO. HASH BASH! ! CAREFULLY 7:00 PM COUNCIL POL.ADV.BD. CDBG. City Hall E Cornelius Librar 1 * 1 ** 13 14 15 16 1 7:OOPM LIBR.BD. 7:30 PM PLANNING 7:30 Px NPO #7 7:30 PH PARK BD. Library Fowler City Hall City Hall 7:30 PM NPO #3 Fowler Library 7:30 PM COUNCIL Fowler P14 1 * 19 ** 20 21 22 2 2 7:0o PM HEARINGS OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 PM NPO #5 Durham Tr. Plant City Hall 7:30 PM COUNCIL 7:30 PH NPO #6 Fowler SS City Hall 25 * 26 ** 27 28 29 3 7:30 PM COUNCIL Fowler RM * Department Head Staff Meeting - 9:30 AM (City Hall) RM - REGULAR MEETING SS - STUDY SESSION ** Municipal Court - 7:00 PM (11075 SW Gaarde Street) SM - SPECIAL MEETING J {qy (Q , 1 I 1� .4r■��am OF TI G WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON MEMORANDUM August 26, 1983 CLAIMS DEPARTMENT LEONARD ADAMS AGENCY P.O. Box AA Beaverton, OR 97075 FROM: City Recorder RE: Glen K. Butler Claim Incident of 5/18/83 Attached is letter received August 25, 1983, from Mr. Butler requesting reimbursement for use of a rental car. Please process this request on behalf of the city. cc: Mr. Glen Butler 13735 S.W. 114th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 1 12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 i August 22, 1983 i t I Mrs. Doris Hartig City of Tigard I + City Recorder i P.O. Sox 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Claim against the City of Tigard Dear Doris: Attached is copies of billings from Sav-U-Rent-A-Car in the amount of $87.68. 1 have already paid in full the billing and I am sub- mitting copies to you for reimbursement. The loss of our automobile due to the accident on May 18, 1983 has been an inconvenience up until August 14, 1983, at that point the loss resulted in the necessity of securing a rental car in order to keep business commitments. I Your prompt attention would be greatly appreciated. ! ' Sincerely, Glenn K. Sutler 13735 SW 114th Ave Tigard, Oregon 97223 cc: Mr. Bob Wiesmann William C. Pritchett Company Insurance Adjusters P.O. Box 25087 Portland, Oregon 97225 bAV t-U-kLNT-A-CAR 6608 2400 N.E.82nd AVE. 9134 S.W. CANYON ROAD 1255 McLOUGHLIN BLVD. PHONE 256.2141 PHONE 297-2532' PHONE 657-1910 or 241-9785 R.O NO. PORTLAND.OREGON 97220 PORTLAND, OREGON 97225 GL ADSTONE.OREGON 97027 UNIT^NOS : LICENS r J?=✓`' /P� — /`%f�J /� YEA '' MODEL ,ND OL �/ LCat[E(P NT) ADORESS SPEEC)OMEfett '/ ._t( OUE DATE B TIME SP EEOOMETER �f !. ;N E 8 TIME Jq:. Ui ' CITY STATE OUT f •ter„ r I MILES DATE a-TIME VR ij�s a -' DRIVEN - OUT YY f1RMNAME. �•��°NVQ - CHARGES o RENTAL.RATE HOURs@ .-P ER.HO S - OU IN S ADDRESS: ..F:. DAY'. @ i_< $ HOME ADORESS ,•_; - ../:.r NO NE,� L/ $ CITY _ STATE - MON- @ Mil ES @ t•P ER Mtl. $ O DRIVER-5�l1 C.r STATE �DZ.J SALES TAX s CREDIT-REFERENCE: - • PERSONAL ACCIDENT INS. $ CREDIT CARD CO. /1 �+ - __CARD NO. I COLLISION PROTECTION $ oTNER: GAS TO FILL TOTAL CHARGES $ THE LESSEE MAY PERMIT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS TO DRIVE IF THEY . ARE QUALIFIED LICENSED DRIVERS AND 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER: .LESS CREDITS s a i TOTAL CHARGES S -t NAME AGE REASON _ - LESS DEPOSIT $ ._, FUEL GAUGE POSITION � BALANCE DUE s GAS OUT: E s 1h I<G..% GAS NOT INCLUDED CASH REFUND s GAS IN: E V. h F HWVOICE UNIT CUS7. t:CY MINIMUM CHARGE:1 DAY.PLUS MILEAGE- i I Q PARKING OR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS ARE RENTER'S RESPONSIBILITY. I f MAXIMUM LIABILITY ACCOUNT ACCT. NO. AMOUNT REY I By initialing"DECLINES"renter agrees to pay SAVE-U-REyT-A.CAR tot all toss or damage to vehicle TITLE 10 I (regardless of negligence)limited however to rC —per ocr:wrence provided vemcle rs s BASIC INCOME RENTAL CARS — operated or used in conformity with rental agreement E PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE MILEAGE INCOMRENTAL CARS COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER — ey initialing'ACCEPTS" renter agrees to pay the By this acceptance renter purchases accideiil incur- — sum shown in the adjoining column for each day or ante as described in the certificate of insurance C P 1 fraclion thereof that this rental agreement is in effect (available on request)and agrees to pay therefore a and SAVE-U-RENT-A.CAR agrees to waive .111premium as Shown m the adjoining column P A 1 claims against renter for collision damages to vehicle provided it is op$ral� r used in;&ejmrty w 0 -- with rental agreement.S U_ � kJ _.` - _ GAS TO Fill DECLINES ACCEP . DECLINES ACCEPTS — Renler Renter Renter Renter (nit.X Init X Init. - Snit X CUSTOMER CREDIT + "THE OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE BY ANY DRIVER UNDER 21 _ YEARS OF AGE IS PROHIBITED. UNDER PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 5 ON TAX SOURCE X00 CHAGE + PAGE S OF THIS AGREEMENT. LIABILITY INSURANCE DOES NOT sALREs PROTECT LESSEE OR DRIVER IF DRIVER IS UNDER 21.•" SOURCE 3JI CASH _ _ ------ _ LESSEE AGREES TO RENT THE �ABOVE CAR SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED ABOVE AND ON REVERSE SIDE. METHOD OF PAYMENT r IATUR Cel•LCCSEE CASH❑ AMER.EXPRESS❑ VISA U DENTAL AGREEMENT PRE RE / � MSTR CARD ❑ CARTE BLANCHE O DINERS O // OTHER--- OUT THER-- —— --- ------- -- '----- -- 1.67310(Ip-all Page 2 • SAV E-U-REMIT-A-CAR 15617 2400 N E 32nd AV[ 9134 S.W. CANYON ROAD 1255 McLOLIGHLIN BLVD. No. \ PHONE 256.2141 • PHONE 297-2532' • PHONE 657-1910 or 241-9785 R.O NO.. PORTLAND,OREGON 97220 PORTLAND. OREGON 97225 GLADSTONE.OREGON 97027 --' ---- UNIT NO: " L'ICEN D A— MODE A,NCp CCol.0.1 .t'/ L911111191(PIGTITI 4Z.,- OUE OAT[ 4.- . . ADOR Efs .j sPEEDOMerenr-T__,' DUE DATE • TIME fJ IN / ' - IN J C/[ / 7,2 SPEEDOMETER DATE • TIME-' t1 CITY STATE OUT.'. IN ( .-MILES - DATE a TIME �tf� (Iry1 .DRIVEN. OUT 1l Biedl rNONE I .. RENTAL.RAT5 - CHARGES BU IN ADDRESS: OURS! �/ . PER HOUR S d O (•NONE V� T'VV L� MOM.£ADOREfiS:' _ $ ... WEEK ! s CIT T - STATE oil $ ``•. -'.MtL ES:! tPER MILE S ORIVER•�SSL^KENS O�. lTA�T,E/ DATEE 'IRE - C / SALES TAX j CREDIT:'REFERENCE: �- PERSONAL ACCIDENT INS. $ CREDIT.CMO CO. CARD NO. COLLISION PROTECTION_ " $ OTNER GAS TO FILL TA L.CHARGES $ THE LESSEE MAYPERMITANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS TO DRIVE IF THEY . AREQUALIFIED LICENSED DRIVERS AND 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER: LESS CREDITS $ TOTAL CHARGES $ :NAM[ ... - AGE REASON .: LESS DEPOSIT $ FUEL GAUGE POSITION BALANCE DUE - S GAS OUT: E % 'A V F GAS NOT INCLUDED - GAS IN. E V. K 3G F CASH REFUND $ - MINIMUM CHARGE:1 DAY,PLUS MILEAGE. INVOICE UNIT COST. KEY PARKING OR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS ARE RENTER'S RESPONSIBILITY. QI MAXIMUM LIABILITY By Initialing"DECLINES"renter agrees to pay SAVE•U-RET-A-CAR for all loss or damage Ie vehicle ACCOUNT TLE ACCT.NO. AMOUNT XEr (regardless of negligence)limited however fb Ste[/ per occurrence provided vehicle is operated or used in conformity with rental agreement BASIC INCOME RENTAL CARS — COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE MILEAGE INCOME RENTAL CARS By initialing"ACCEPTS-• renter agrees to pay the By this acceptance renter purchases accident insur- sum shown in the adjoining column for each day or ante as described in the certificate of insurance CPI — traction thereof that this rental agreement is,n effect (available ori request)and agrees to pay therefore a and SAVE-U-RENT-A-CAR agrees to waive all premium as shown in the adjoining column P A i — claims against renter for collision damages to vehicle provided it is opera o•used r con' ily _ with rental agreement. v L ! CIL.ti GAS TO FILL DECLINES -, ACCEPT DECLINES ACCEPTS — Renler / Renter gentcr� Renter Inil.X Init.X ImI.X [nit X CUSTOMER CREDIT + "THE OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE BY ANY DRIVER UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE IS PROHIBITED. UNDER PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 5 ON TAX — CHARGE PAGE 1 OF THIS AGREEMENT. LIABILITY INSURANCE DOES NOT SOURCE Boo SALES + PROTECT LESSEE OR DRIVER IF DRIVER IS UNDER 21." souncE »o cnsH ESSE EES TO !FYy THE ABOVE CAR SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED ABOVE AND ON REVERSE SIDE. r ---� - METHOD OF PAYMENT efGAJATURE Of LEGrCE CASH❑ AMER EXPRESS❑ VISA❑ RENTAL AGREEMENT PREPARED BY: MSTR CARC7 ❑ CARTE BLANCHE❑ DINERS❑ OTHER OU:BY ul nY --- -- - .. .----_-_ 1.0510(10-911 P a q. 2