The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 11/09/1983 1IGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an GSS SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate } NOVEMBER 9, 1983, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, FOWLEKJUNIOR. 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 to2.minutes or less; longer , matters can be set for a future Agenda by con- tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. e* 1. SPECIAL MEETING: 1.1 Cali To Order and ,Roll Call t 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1' ' 7.30 0 CENTRAL "BUSINESS DISTRICT - INDUSTRIAL USES ALONG RAILROAD TRACK DISCUSSION <2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 16-83 Ed Lilly NPO #2.- PUBLIC HEARING Review of Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of a .Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the interim Zoning Map from medium density (A-12) .to Light Industrial (M-4) on approximately:' .89 acres. ' Located at 11225 SW Greenburg-Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map'1S1 35CA, lit 700)• c Public Hearing Opened t. Summation by Planning Department Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination Staff Response Public Hearing Closed Council Consideration 8:15 ''0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 12-83, ZONE CHANGE ZC 9-83 PCM ASSOC. PORTLAND'CRAIN NPO #2 - ORDINANCE No. 83- 8:30 3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CPA 2-83 ADOPTION OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY p DEVELOPMENT CODE .. e Public Hearing Opened Summation by Planning Department $.. .Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination '- Staff Response Public Hearing Closed y Council Consideration 9:30 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RATIFICATION Review for administrative and procedural clarification to all sections of the Plan including: CFA 5-82 S , Citizens Involvement; CPA 10-82 Natural Features and Open Space; CPA 7-82 Air, Water and Land Resources Quality; CPA 8-82 Economy; CPA 12-82 Housing; CPA 9-82 Public Facilities & Services; CPA 11-82 Transportation; CPA 6-82 Energy; CPA 13-82 Urbanization; CPA 14-82 Findings, Policies and pp Implementation Strategies and CPA 15-82 Comprehensive Plan Interim Zoning k Map; 1-83 Development Standard Area Map; 2-83 Community Development'Code. _. Public Hearing Opened Summation by Planning Department (5 w o Comprehensive Plan Elements - f5 o Buildable Lands Inventory 0 Comprehensive Plan Maps o Citizen Involvement Endorsement 0 Urban Planning Area Agreement gg 0 Ordinances ! Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination Staff Response Public Hearing Closed Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 83- 10:30 5, APPROVE TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO LCDC Director of Planning & Development 10:45 0 JADCO SENSITIVE LANDS DECISION REPORT 11:00 u, ADJOURNMEN'L iL 'A dpm A . TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL:' Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors Tom Brian, Ima Scott and Kenneth Scheckla. City Staff: DorisHartig, City Recorder; Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of 'Planning and Development. Legal Counsel: Tim Ramis and Adrianne Brockman. Mayor Bishop opened the meeting by noting this process about to be completed has been going on for 9' years and that this is a plan that is subject to change. 2. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT - ,INDUSTRIAL USES ALONG RAILROAD TRACK DISCUSSION. a. Planning Director Monahan stated the Council had indicated industrial use ;should not be allowed in the Central Business District. The property owners were at the meeting to request Council reconsideration to allow 115-120' for light manufacturing along the railroad. o Gary Ott, NPO #1` Chairman, questioned process and inquired if this item should not go back to the NPO and Planning Commission. lie felt it was an amendment to the plan. He recommended leaving the area as 'commercial. o Andy Jordan, Attorney, 1600 Std Cedar Hills Blvd., representing Marilyn Tarkianinsen, testified for the commercial zoning along Burnham and light industrial along the railroad- right-of-way. o Marilyn Tarkianisen, property owner,- read letter previously submitted requesting light industrial zoning along the railroad right-of-way. a Van S. Camp, property, read statement requesting light industry along the railroad tracks be allowed in the C.B.D. o Pat surrer, Tura Advisory Board, spoke of his perception of the past meetings and feels the zoning should stay as it is. o J.B. Bishop, Suite 303, 10505 Sid Barbur Blvd., NPO #1 member, testified for Commercial zoning. b. Council, staff and members of audience discussed the process. City Attorney suggested the issue was up to the Council's discretion. c. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Scott, to change " the plan over to what the property owners are requesting on the back 1/3 of the property. Motion failed by 2-2 vote with Councilor Brian and Mayor Bishop voting NAY. o The Comprehensive Plan as adopted to remain in effect and it is up to the property owners to make an application. PAGE 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1983 -x� o Attorney Jordan requested Council to initiate the process so rp applicants will not have to wait until spring. d. Motion .by Councilor Brian, seconded by 'Mayor Bishop, that the time frame be waived for this application to allow the property owners to initiate the change if they wished. - Motion failed 2-2 with Councilors Scott and Scheckla voting NAY. { e. City Administrator clarified the issue as follows: The land use as adopted is in effect and it is up to the property owners: to initiate the change. 3. ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 16-83 Ed Lilly NPO #2 a. Public; Hearing Opened o Planning Director summarized his memo and recommended the City correct the error by amending ,the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and 'Interim Zoning Map from medium 'density A-12 to light industrial (M=4). o Ed Lilly, 11090 S.W. Allen Blvd., requested Council '`approval to correct the'error. b. Public Hearing Closed. c. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott, to approve CPA 16-83 ;by ' amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Interim 'Zoning Map from medium density A-12 to light industrial (M-4) at 11225 S.W. Greenburg Road. (Wash. Co. Tax Map ISI 35CA, Lot 700). Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 83-51 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND ZONING DISTRICT MAP (CPA 12-83 PCM) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Mayor Bishop, to adopt. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CPA 2-83 ADOPTION OF T.IGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. a. Public Hearing Opened o Planning Director explained items in packet noting staff was trying to make the code workable for the citizens. He reviewed the changes as previously discussed and contained in his memo of 11/1/83. Staff then discussed the memo of 11./4/83 noting the major revisions as made by staff. Council discussed recommendations and gave staff direction. o Bob Bledsoe, NPO r3 Chairman, referred to his letter sent to Council explaining his concerns. PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1983 a Wi o J.B. Bishop, Suite 303, 10505 S.W. Barbur Blvd. , Portland, testified s: regarding the landscaping issue in the CBD and urged the requirements be reduced. He also commented on other areas of concern. o Geraldine L. Ball, representing herself and DJB Inc. , objected to a s map showing her property as part of the wetlands. She addressed the issue of I-5 expressway storm water, which drains on her property and request city assistance. O' wm. Cox, representing Robert Randall Co., 9500 S.W. Barbur Blvd., noted a technical error in reference to parRing services; reference should be to .parking facilities. He requested _parking facilities be : added as::a conditional use under the Commercial designation, again requested R.V. parking facilities be allowea in the Commercial zone. , e ; o Staff responded to the issues raised in public testimony and received Council direction. b. Public Hearing Closed. c. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott, to adopt the Community Development Code as modified by staff recommendations. , M Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. air.. COUNCIL RECESS AT 10:37 P.M. , E RECONVENED AT 10:55 P.M. k 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RATIFICATION o Review for administrative and procedural clarification to all sections 1 of the Plan including: CPA 5-82 Citizens Involvement; CPA 10-82 Natural Features and Open Space; CPA 7-82 Air, Water and Land , Resources duality; CPA 8-82 Economy; CPA 12-82 HOUSING; CPA 9-82 ' Public Facilities & Services; CPA 11-82 Transportation; CPA 6-82 Energy; CPA 13-82 Urbanization; CPA 14-82 Findings, Policies and A 15-82 Comprehensive Plan Interim Implementation Strategies; and CPcf, Zoning Map; 1-83 Development Standard Area Map; 2-83 Community 3, Development Code. ; a. Public Hearing Opened a o Plashing Director noted his memo of 11/3/83, Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Document, and called attention to two issues and requested clarification on other mattars. Council gave direction ; regarding subsidized housing policy and the improvement of S.W. Dartmouth Street and allowed development in the triangle area. : o Jim Miller, 12918 S.W. 63rd P1. , Portland, stated ALPO #4's concern was } regarding development on the east side of 72nd and their desire to relieve traffic on 72nd Avenue. 9 PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER s, 1933` ,r o Council discussed the policies and gave direction regarding remaining . items of Planning Director's memo. Council questioned the transportation map and "nodes" regarding the alternate route for ; Murray Road. o BobBledsoe, NPO #3 Chairman, 11800 S.W. Walnut, summarized his recollection regarding the transportation issue, noting the Council ` had specified the route as a "minor collector" and Council wished to .. discourage the Murray Blvd. extension. o. Ned` Vaivoda, 215 N.W. Park, Portland, representing the Oak Hill Dev. rr` Co,, requested a line adjustment for property located at S.W. 78th, Pfaffle and 99W. He showed a .sketch of the proposed shopping center > and requested a 552 square-foot line adjustment and zone change into Commercial General. ' o: Councilor Brian disclosed he had purchased dirt from the site but felt ;' he had no conflict of interest. o Councilors Scott and Scheckla felt the developer should go through the established process of NPO, CCI and Planning Commission. o Discussion by ' Council regarding following the system and referring back to the appropriate bodies. 3� o Bill Cox testified he would waive any objections that might be raised. o Council continued to discuss the principal of the issues. Councilors Scott and Scheckla :stated they would support the request. b. Public Hearing ,Closed, c. ORDINANCE NO. 83-52 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE No. 82-77, C 82-78, 82-79, 82-81, 82-89, 83-04, 83-05, 83-07, 83-10, 83-24, AND RATIFYING THE TEXT AND MAPS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND DECLARING AN 6 EMERGENCY. R+a; �sr d. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott, to adapt withE` the changes as recommended by Staff, ' e. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott, to amend the C motion to amend the text on Transportation NPO #3, 4th paragraph to read "Rather than a "direct" connection to the City of Tigard has suggested a series of indirect minor collector connections between Murray Blvd. and Gaarde Street. Tnt se minor collector connections dt will link.,.,..,., , q. vote of Council resent. Motion approved by unanimous P f. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded. by Councilor Scott, to amend the ; xt to include language on Bob Bledsoe's transportation map and te letter keeping node 4 on map and specify as a minor collector. ; Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present_. K.. PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1983 o Mayor Bishop congratulated the NPO's for their work and commented all t` the 'staff and "public input should be recognized. He stated his concerns regarding the LCDC designated density requirements`. While his philosophy hadn't: changed, he stated hewouldvote for the plan because of state law requiring compliance. He felt the heavy; density requirements would not be beneficial for the community. o City Administrator clarified the 'discussion 'regarding the Urban Area Planning Agreement in effect with Washington County. This agreement will expire December 31, 1983 and consensus of Councilwas they did not want to extend it at this .time. Ordinance as amended approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. APPROVE TRANSMITTAL LETTERTOLCDC. a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckl.a, to approve letter. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. S. JADCO SENSITIVE LANDS DECISION REPORT. o Planning Director stated the Hearings' Officer's ` decision had been received and submitted to Council. Several conditions: were imposed and documentation will be forthcoming at a later date. r-` 9. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:05 A.M. City Recorder - City of ATTEST: 4- yyo�rr- - City of Tigard (DH:pm/1a57A) PAGE 5 COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1983 Y- fes+ i R � d TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal 7-6257 r„ P.O.BOX 370 (503)684-0360 Notice ' ' PHONE BEAVERTON,OREGON 9 075 = Legal Notice Advertising s � ❑ Tearsheet Notice NO V 10 1983 � City of TigardCITYOr TIGARD ® PO Box 23397 ® E3 Duplicate Affidavit IF 'i Tigard, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, )ss. �s COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) 'E I_ Susan Ptnkley being first duly Sworn. depose and say that Tigard Advertising Director,or his principal clerk,of the — , a newspaper of general circulaTigarddefined in ORS 193.010 the and 193.020; published at l 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-- 1 successive and consecutive in the following issues: Noveizsber 3 1983 4 Y, Sutiscr}oasd ar d s to before me this r. Notary Public for Oregon Mt -70 My Commission Expires: 3/16/87saY " F ��3 � VRki� NO a �sa�n, 014 1'r � ., ii tea as a�dEa (irT7 AFFIDAVIT Y s ��, t1.�� 17 "� A3iYt Avis�a1e 1") rdt'r 47x23:¢`ts3 r&2�5 ti 41 rl AUL'�.T:'.t'S��.�.a "3,tt'.f.1 - ir "a k fS.'4'Kr4i SQL" AL3,1:30-P e� " daiinftp � ' �� ltl4tt� x s? s ' 33bitb '�rd � ' 1 yi Sia i a tt M r ' Date 11/9/8 { I wish to testity before the Tigard City Council on the following items (Please print your name) Item Descriptions agenda i.ten l 2 CPA 16-83 Ed Lilly - NPO # 2 proponent (for) Opponent (against) :game, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation t Date 11/ /83 T wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on : the following item; (Please print your name) Item Description: AGENDA .ZTEivi �� 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CPA 2-83 Adoption of Community Development Code Opponent (against) .roponent (for) _ e, Address and Affiliation , lame, Address and Affiliation e ". 01, 1:;;7 s rn: x 3 e £� r x i �['az • WO �� a s • a i e �'r5. �� x - �t WA � 3 � 11 y" F t� S IR £ , .x 6 nlh 3 C 1 v 'filo.'... r +•' 'r. EWA, ',k +!✓-}-fA.2+ �`'' V* ' #^0`ntF`.r,, .#�,T..t..#Yt 9e 3rti,, 'x'v3.a?.� w1 .u.. ^ �'�" *.pFi `� `:s7.'. ss f - .. . s. -.. s tar G :s ,ar }, .,.i�- `"�«y; �'h' ram *�.� C. CE r. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY #: AGENDA OF: November 9 _1983 AGENDA ITEM r4 ' PREVIOUS ACTION: DATE SUBMITTED: November 4. 1983_ hlannin_ nmccin n ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: comprehensive Approved on October 4 1983 Plan Amendment CPA 16-83 Ed Lilly REQUESTED BY: Edward Li1iv/City of Tigara NPO # 2" . IA CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: -- _ . -___- _ -- -- '---- 1.s" INFORMATION SUMMARY During the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Map in early 1983,' a map amendment was 'approved for Ed Lilly to change land owned by him on SW , Greenburg Road from A-12 to light industrial. Staff omitted the change, however, r > in error on,the final map,. Upon notification of.the error, staff ran the change through the CCI and Planning Commission,which both recommended the change. �y r. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ` Accept or reject the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ; 1, ---- ---- -SUGGESTED ACTION x ° Staff recommends that the Council approve CPA 16-83 by amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Interim Zoning Map from medium density A-12 to light industrial (M-4) at 11225 SW Greenburg Road . x RIK k } . 9 F- tt o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to l recommend to the City Council that the. action ..they proposed be put into effect. 0 Commissioner Moen commented they had already dealt with not allowing residential uses in the Commercial Professional Zone. Also, he did not agree with opposinga possible extension; of Murray Blvd.: to 4 Gaarde St— He felt there was a need for a good clean connection and that Gaarde 'Street'would be the logical location. µ. _ a Motion failed with only Commissioner Vanderwood voting yes. 1 o Lengthy discussion ;followed regarding the Murray Blvd./Caarde Street connection. o Commission Moen moved and Commissioner Ed in seconded to submit NPU # 3's letter to the City : Council with Planning' Commission consensus being that it would be appropriate to look seriously at a connection between Gaarde and Murray Blvd. o Phil Pasteris, NPO # 6 Chairperson, commented that this would ''dump traffic at Elmers. on Pacific Highway, which; is not a controlled intersection, Commission Moen responded that just because it is not presently a' controlled intersection it should not preclude development of future roads further ,out. Lengthy discussion followed with general ' consensus being there is a need' for an extension of x Gaarde Road to Murray Blvd. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Vanderwood voting no. u Recess 9:00 P.M. President Tepedino left Reconvene 9:05 P.M. o Phil Pasteris, NPO # 6 Chairman stated there were .several PD designations which had been overlooked in their NPO area. o Assocation Planner Newton stated that because of the type of changes the NPO was requesting, they should be submitted as a application from the NPO, to give staff an opportunity to notify property owners. _. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 16-83 Ed Lilly NPO # 2 A request y e City o£ Tigard to amend the Compre ensive Plan Land Use Map and the Interim Zpning Map from medium density (A-12) to light industrial (PS-4) on approximately .89 acres located at 11225 SW , Greenburg Road. (Wash. Co. 1'ax Map 1S1 35CA lot 700) o Associate Planner Newton explained how a mapping error had occurred. o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Edin seconded to recommend to City Council an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and Interim y: Zoning Map for CPA 16-83 from medium density (A-12) to light industrial (M-4) Motion carried unanimously. ; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 4, 1983 Page 3 Ih.�r h slci/Nor LIi ties. .`c/u PC7. Box 2335 a Tigard, Or. 97223 r* i 35CA 700 � . S:anitilli 9 Langfus . P.O. 'Box 488 14ilwaukie, Wi. 53201 Lilly/Hogan ` 11090 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton,Or. 97005 800 t Mortgage Exchange Inca ; c/o;Mink Investment 2154 :NE Broadway S-214 Portland, ,Or. 97232 900 Rogers 11335 SW Greenburg Road ' Tigard, Or. 97223 2500 & 2600 & 1S1 35BC 1100 Robinson 1125 SW Greenburg Rd. --tigard, Or. 97223 ]S1 35 CA Ash Creek Park Cond. By F & V Development 4550 SW Lombard Beaverton, Or. 97005 ISI 35CB 100 National Safety Co. 17010 SW Weir Rd. Beaverton, Or. 97007 MR, TAK t o-r -7oc, JAN 51983 3—Y '""be--' 4 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNIMP DEF Y'. -- 10 a J APPROX. 290'EAST "r s OF'�' �B �, ` g +b�'. t `•j 1�t 9 . 3W COR.:.RtHAM.. `C O.L C. NO.52 , - 0452its e ° N99- 1 r tee, 700 1202 E2Ac C.S. NO.6163 d f 800 /60Ac. ®•=1/P'� B9• a�_E 31L ®!$EMAP a �5C iCS.N0.U9B7J �p% . 7.'9p N 3+t.24 m ell/��- l 1201 a®Y 4®Ac o , r; ry O 4 a: 900 ® �o .SSAc. � � •� �a � 4 % --6`T A, 1001 MIN 1 .y / meq. h .•t-`,. ,�_ ' • a ON R R a ' =Sa oINs �w ■r n ~ �� I Lo 4 F `' ��I'tNirt ��*ASA '•:• � '�4=sk r rnr F•, a. VIP �+ Oxy x �,�•rte € ;:r '�^S ws`t` ;. a _'.,t73. .s `. w- t,d:.i..,-:. CY`us...-< t a t,+ ,_ry , z ° . ._ .s`^' y�; ?;z:�.-��rrz ` _r7°.;=?'� sstx"= E ,zt' ¢a rP`# aT..a.s:`• i.;;`a*i '.. y 3RD'. '� , �."�`•'��r r�'�- s�'•� :�� •�' �.t'.w�`�_�.� y�y�,�,§, -��`.,`- �'�" per, h-S;rX� .� 'k#c f.:�,. ''7. ° �-`.•'.:#_, "�§-,� i�k t`'•' -K. nY �'��.� y�'�-ti�•xs.�a- r :�e�� °'r��'s�'�"--rh.—,��' 4""'sr a�'-:.fi`��'t� �".tea§��i��.?�. Mz`•!j+`��<�� r�i�sF s�-�.��: z; ..�;+��"-":�+��;�.:��"�`.��-::�'.;�: a- AGENDA ITEM 5.2 lT M E M 0 R N D M r TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING STAFF DATE: September 27 198: AGENDA ITEM: 5.2 City Council Hearing, the Council approved an 1983 E At the March 16, n from medium density (A-12) to light amendment to the Comprehensive Pian Map opRoad. This change; industrial (M-4) on Property located at 11225 W Greenburg however, was not reflected either on the Zoning Map or the Comprehensive Plan in Map adopted as exhibits to the ordinances. Co�anissaon recommender to to the record, the City staff is recommending that theplanningbe amended as requested. Council that the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Map from the applicant and interested Minutes from the City Council, letter parties, and map are attached for your information. dmj 0179P n TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ' a, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES = MARCH 16, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. t: .j z 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop, Councilors: Tom Brian, and ImaScott; City Staff: Associate Planner Jeremy Courso le, Finance Director/City ,Recorder Doris Hartig, City Administrator Bob Jean, Planning- Director Bill 'Monahan, Associate :Manner Liz Newton. 2. CALL TO STAFF, COUNCIL AND AUDIENCE FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA ; o None` ' 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN —Public Hearing Continued from March' 14, 1983 Meeting 3.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP ':; (a) Public Testimony: -, p (EDremy Coursolle, Associate Planner, spoke ;to letters received from property owners and noted letters from Brazil, Belanich, and Mobile Oil all addressed the same site, and requested the designation of ; Commercial Linear (C.L.) be retained. The petition concerning property on south side of Greenburg and letters from Dahl & Finley j were also regarding the same area, requesting Commercial Professional ie (C.P.). y o E.H. Schaaht, 11795 S.W. Greenburg, whose property adjoins Colonial office building requested that commercial professional zoning be extended to include his property. Consensus of Council was to allow C.P. o Staff noted that the Planning Commission responded to all requests by letter. The only two properties not adiusted were Schaaht and x Samuels. (b) Councilor Brian concurred with the staff recommendation and moved to L. change the 3 lots on Greenburg and Lincoln to C.P. , with medium high density as a permitted use and that the McKenzie Street property be C.L. Cour ciior Scott seconded the motion. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. t NPO #1 (a) Staff commented that most of letters received refer to one area, i.e. a the O'Mara triangle, which is designated for medium density and property directly east of that; the letters request retaining low r density. Staff also referred to a letter from Van Camp regarding the Air King Site and Attorney Bachelor regarding property across from ' City 'Hall on S.W. Burnham. Both letters express concern that their property will be non-conforming _since no industrial uses will be allowed in the downtown area. Staff reported no changes were made by the Planning Commission in NPO lil. PAGE 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - M R v E o Gary Ott NPO #1 referred to the , Central Business District South of Hall .Blvd. and suggested a P.D. overlay with the 'CBD South of Fanno Creek. o Gordon Martin, questioned the zoning for the Invest-A-Venture site. He stated that he preferred General Commercial for the area. The Invest-A-Venture representative responded they wanted C-5. o Staff reviewed the changes made by Council on the Comprehensive Map and suggested zoning ;to implement the plan. (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, 'seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt the map as amended and mark "exhibit A" on interim zoning map. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (c) ORDINANCE NO. 83-17 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE INTERIM ZONING MAP OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (d) Motion by Councilor Brian to amend section 2 to change the effective date to March 16, 1983, seconded by Councilor Scott. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (e) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt ' o ordinance 83-17-as amended. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. ZONE CHANCE ANNEXATIONS ZCA 3-82 (Durham Island) NPO #5/#6 ZCA 5-82 (Bechtold Annexation) NPO #3 ZCA 7-82 (North Dakota Annexation) NPO #1/#7 ZCA 17-82 (Randall) NPO #4 ZCA 16-82 (Cooper) NPO #4 ZCA 11-82 (Benny Larson) NPO #3 (a) Public Hearing Opened o Geraldine Ball, representing herself and DJB property Inc. 11515 SW 91st, Tigard, Oregon questioned the zoning, on the Cooper property. (b) Public Hearing Closed. (c) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve the zone changes being made per the interim zoning map just adopted. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. s PACE 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 16, 1983 o Jim Akin, 15705 S.W. Alderbrook representing the nine parcel involved with this change. Healso requested that two lots down Greenburg (Frahler Electric) also be changed to CP. : Staff concurred * Commissioner Speaker moved and Commissioner Bonn seconded to concur ' with staff recommendation to include area requested by Mr. "Akin- Motion carried unanimously by members present. 4. Letter from Mrs. Ed Lilly property located at 'Tiedeman and Greenburg and has 5 duplexes. staff had recommended residential, however 'since discussion this with NPO # 2 and the North Tigard Business Association,- staff felt a Commercial 'Professional zone might be appropriate. o Joseph 'Hogan, 11090 S.W. Allen Blvd, , partner of Ed Lilly requested - that the ..zoning ,be Industrial Park which is compatible with the surrounding, area. Also property was zoned Industrial with the County before annexation. o Associate Planner' Coursolle stated staff had mixed feelings, but: would support the Industrial Park designation. Their only concern' was buffering between residential and Industrial use.. o Director Monahan 'stated that the North Tigard Business Association supported the Industrial Park zone. * Commissioner Bonn' moved and Commissioner Owens seconded to concur with staff to designate the property Industrial Park. Motion carried' unanimously by members present. 5. Bruce Clark's letter requesting that the North Tigard Industrial area be retained as Industrial Park zoning designation. (Director Monahan stated that Mr. Clark's letter had requested that Mr. Lilly's property be CP, however, Mrs. Keski's letter dated two days after Mr. Clark's changes their position.) The North Tigard Business association voted that the entire area except the Toy R Us site be zoned as Industrial Park. Staff concurred. (Times Buildings in the County) * Commissioner Bonn moved and Commissioner Speaker seconded to concur with staff's recommendation for the entire area proposed to be Industrial Park. 6. 011ie Zimmerman letter is in the wrong place, it should be moved to NPO # 7 packets. 7. Associate Planner Coursolle recommended that the Toys R Us property be retained as Highway Commercial as approved by a previous Comprehensive Plan Revision, but was not reflected on this Comp. Plan Designation map. * Commissioner Bonn moved and Commissioner Moen seconded to concur with staff on the Toys R Us site. Motion carried by unanimous vote of members present x: L,I North Tigard Business Assn . Ila c/o F_O. BOX 23386 TIGARD. OREGON 97223 January 21, 1.983 City of Tigard elf 12755 S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 ur pE.p Attention: Mr . Bill Monahan Planning Director Dear Mr. Monahan: First let me thank you and Jeremy Goursolle for making_ a presentation on the Comprehensive Plan,Map and Zoning District t$ Revisions to our Business Association on January 12. = The information you presented to our group which includes ,.' two members of NPO #2 (Bruce Clark_'and_myself) was very helpful to us in reaching consensus as outlined below. _ The North Tigard Business Association recommends that (, , properties along Cascade Boulevard;be designated as industrial ' on the proposed plan map.' The same designation should be ,; t applied to the industrial area between Fanno Creek and the railroads along Tiedeman Street. . We further conclude, based upon the proposed zoning district permitted uses listing, that all of these subject properties would be best zoned as industrial park, rather than light industrial. It appears that all of the existing uses fit under , the proposed listing of permitted uses in the industrial park :, district. Thus, existing uses are protected, while a broad range of new development, with appropriate landscaping, can be accommodated in conformance with the City 's economic development fir, strategies. € In a separate issue, our group discussed Mr. Ed Lilly's property ' located at the south-westerly quandrant of the intersection of Greenburg Road and No. Dakota Street . Group consensus was that the property is not appropriate for residential use due to the proximity of high traffic volumes and the limited size of the parcel . Lt is our understanding that Mr . Lilly is seeking to have his property designated as industrial park . We see this �. as a usage compatible with the surroundinq area and give it . our support. very truly yours, Ma r a , P Vis, i k k G11Y �RNG pEP� January 18, 19B3 PLA�c• � Mr. Jeremy .Coursolle $� Associate Planner City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 57223 RE: Property located at intersection of Tiedeman and Greenburg Road Dear Mr. Coursolle: we wish to thank you for your cooperation in helping us establish the property designation on our property'. 14r. Hogan and I have viewed the documents which we received at an earlier meeting and wish to make the following request. �M We have covered the reasons for our request in the January 3, 1983. �. letter and have attached ,a copy to this letter. Upon reading the docu- mentation and ,speaking with the other industrial users in the area, we would like to change our property to industrial park. We u=:derstand �e that this would be a restricted zone with architectural review and other ` items to protect the surrounding property but feel that the site should be coordinated with the adjacent industrial property. our site is quite small and would probably be a one use building. We feel that the industrial park zone would allow us maximum flexibility to merge our uses in with the surrounding area. Industrial park zone would allow us to have a construction office with a small amount of storage or other uses of that type such as plumbing or electrician headquarters. The industrial park zone will allow a small business to be located on the site which is compatible and needed , by the adjacent industrial properties without any disruption or danger to the multi-family uses which now exist. '' After attending the industrial users' meeting on t•'ednesday, January 12th and hearing their thoughts, we believe that this type of zoning would fit into the overall plan they are trying to establish in the area. Mr. Bogan will be attending the meeting on January 22nd so if additional information :. is needed, please let us know. We will also be submitting our request to ` the industrial planning group for their approval. They maybe able to respond before the hearing date. Thank you very much for your cooperation. I look forward to working with you. Very truly yours, . Edward 13. TA 1 ly IiR L:rim � R,OGUI�I3I�.O®I� CORPORATION POA U v RTION JA,N J r D CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT, January 3, 1983 H Nir Jeremy.•t CQusolle sr ' Associate: Planner City of-Tigard ; 12755 Tigard, pregon 97223 �'� . p ! c KY RE ' jgropert'y�xlbcated at intersection of Tiedemanfanfd Greenburq iSts f, Q"'fr c y i 9 k`•fid X.,� �''T��,r�'� Tro.,e5'�a _ ,.Y'nt. } Dear Mr Cousolle .. "• .:>We are one of .the properties recently%a-n fixed;into;the !- City, of'Tigard "We wish to have our property`changed from medium ° densit a rtaaenfs .to ,light industrial while::the tlity of.,Tigard y pa _ is goinq..-through':the r General Plan Amendments anc::prepuration y fOF-F_ eieMion'to the.L.C.D,C. The property.esas previously toned 4 +' 19�gh indu�tri 3 the County. We have fives huildings housing .; �Ks4 ten .v x5 is�I,oca edF on *,!_-he-south.:side ;of.:the-oropezty° t ` Wa liave-mad many;attempts to impraia;the pr®yierty and • ' 4 a e� � improve osr 'ntel'Ire`to very little, availTe on reas 'for phis ' re gists 3 oux;property is a'triangul ar e;hape, ori h road. on !t coal �yailroad. The' industrial;uses are kocated rxlisng X theiU''EBt�"E9d,$A9 Rnorth'Qrn.boundaries ding;properties ,of.multi gamily are,either further rt notirea�htlipraperty iUaway orGveryeflatandat ru dproel velywhile the=apart mer�t� o�the 'south are 8 to 10 feet,above the road and have j.. ._ much more.:,iafa� utfery The traffic on Tzedeman is.noisy because of trucks;startinqup nt';the intersection, ''•: I wcul& l ke►to_visit with you about this change. 'We will be v; calling fo�rj�i>j appaintment in the near feature and :would like.to ,go to:t4ae property with'you. If there is anf' add' information you would like'to have, please call and I will immediately respond. Very truly yours, Edward B. Lilly EBL:nm CCI,MEETING MINUTES September 19, 1983 Tigard City Hall } Members Present: Chairman Frank Tepedino, Gareth Ott NPO #1, Bob Bledsoe NPO f. #3, Val Allen NPO #4, Debra -Naubert NPO #5; "Liz Newton, Associate Planner; and Bill Monahan, Director of Planning ` and Development The meeting was ;called to order at 6:35 P.M. Minutes of the August 24, 1983, ' meeting were reviewed and approved unanimously as written. Motion by Debra ' Naubert, seconded by Gary Ott. Bill Monahan asked for input concerning omissions and corrections of the Comprehensive Plan prior to ratification by the City ,Council. The following items were forwarded by the_CCI to the Planning Commission for consideration: 1. Property owned by -Ed Lilly on GreenburgRoad was designated M-2 by the Planning Commission and City Council however, the land use map and zoning map do not reflect this. 2. Clarification of the Garde Road extension in NPO` #3 - need for specific language concerning the connection to ' 132rd. 3. In CP 'areas, residential development will be allowed above the first ( floor of commercial development. Two areas,_ 1) in NPO #3 between Bull Mtn. Rd. and Beef Bend` Road` and 2) in NPO #4, Bob Bledsoe requested clarification' in the plan of the density, whether it is high density or medium. 4. Bob Bledsoe pointed out that the Interim Zoning Map provides zoning designations for areas outside of the City boundaries. The City - cannot designate the zoning for properties until it is coming into the City by annexation. Staff will review the map and present a corrected map tot he Planning Commission. 5. The CBD is divided into two districts, the major CBD zone and the special residential district. Gary Ott asked staff to be sure that the map reflects the intent of TURA which was to limit all development south of Fanno Creek to residential. The zoning map will be reviewed by staff. 6. Bill Monahan discussed a potential issue raised by Dayton Page of the Washington County Housing Authority concerning policies in Tigard's housing element. A dispersal policy for subsidized housing should be developed. Staff will present the potential problems and suggestions for modification of the element. 7. Bob Bledsoe stated that the 125% limit on density transfer was omitted, Staff will present these items to the Planning Commission for coordination. All omissions and corrections forwarded by the Commission to the City Council will be considered during the ratification of the comprehensive plan. PACE 1 - CCI MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 W r COWOFTIGAPOI F , WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: Memberofthe City Council = ' FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development x DATE: November 4, 1983 RE: Comprehensive Plan - Ratification There are many issues left to be resolved on the Comprehensive Plan.prior to ratification. To , assist in expediting the meeting, my ' staff and I have prepared the attached series of letters and memos'. I 'suggest that we conduct the meeting taking items in order following the conclusion of the Ed Lilly- Comprehensive Plan Amendment - ,CPA 16-83. Please refer to the following memos: Pf 1. Changes the Community Development Code A ;compilation of changes based on the City Council meeting of October 10, 1983. R 2. Community Development Code - A list of changes prepared by ;staff and the City Attorney's office to comply with recent legislative changes. Changes have also been made to make the implementation of the code provision smoother. 3. Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Document, Volume 2 Comprehensive Plan - a list of clarification changes. There are also two major issues left to be resolved by Council. ` A.) Subsidized Housing Policy - 6.1.2 B) Triangle Policy - 11.4.2 ' 4. Comprehensive Plan Elements - the plan has been reviewed for editorial changes and. updating. 5. Buildable land Inventory - the current city-wide density of buildable land is 8.8 units per acre without any credit for residential development in the CP and CBD zones. Staff feels we have the ability to reach 10 units per acre by claiming credit for residential uses in the CP and CBD zones plus implementation of the accessory structure provision of the Code. 6. Comprehensive Plan Maps - the maps have been slightly modified and could be modified further as a result of the November 7 and 9 h meetings. .t 12755 S.V'1.ASH P.Q.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 7. Citizen Involvement Endorsement -''copies of NPO endorsement letters (� are attached for review. 8. Urban" Planning Area Agreement I am recommending that we take steps to extend the -UPAA through June '1984, to allow us opportunity to resolve outstanding issues. =- 9. Ordinance repealing No. 83-2.4 and ratifying the Comprehensive Plan and Code. On Wednesday, November 9, 1983, l will also have a transmittal letter to LCDC which requires Council approval. ` 1WAM:dmj(0217P) -2- _ a ' a 1 0101 i _ MEMORANDUM * November 1, 1983CITY F5116MR0, ' WASHINGTON COUtdTY,OREGON TO; Members of the City Council .y�ry L f" !U FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning � Development , SUBJECT: Changes to the Community Development Code51, E#: Following is my list of changes made by the City Council to the Community Development Code at the Council. meeting on October 10, 1983: ` F? 1. Setbacks - the setbacks shown in the Code will be as written except Y Page 95, 18.60.050 (C)(1) change 1150" to 112011 (C)(2) change "50" to "20" ,V-, 2, Accessory Structure Height Limit 18.139.050 (C)(12) after "height" in line 2 add "except a TV receiving dish which may exceed 12 feet in height." 3, Satellite Dishes on Roof - add 18.139.050 (C)(15) - "No TV receiving dishes may be erected upon the roof of any structures." r. 4. 18.139.050 '(C)(3) line 3 change "3 feet" to "six (6) feet" to comply with the Uniform Building Code, C(4) line 3 change "3 feet" to "six (6)�, i= 5, Central Business District - the Council indicated its desire to exclude industrial uses from the CBD. In addition, at 18.66.040(J), Council eliminated subsections (1) and at the suggestion of NPO #1, (2). 6. Residential Use, in Commercial Zones - Council eliminated multiple dwellings as .-a permitted use in the C-G,, and C-N Districts. Multiple g dwellings will be allowed in the CP Distracts only in the Tigard Triangle end the CP District at Bull Mountain Road. 7. The density of multi family units in the CBD will be governed by R-40 development standards. 8. In CP Districts, participation sports and recreation, indoor, will be 3 allowed as conditional uses, 18.64.030(E)• oq 18.32.270 (B)(3), Decision of the Director on appeal will be subject to written and oral argument. 10. Street Trees 18.106.032 (C) is modified by deleting "street roadway surfaces" in line two and adding "13 feet above local streets, 15 t feet above collector streets and 18 feet above arterial street roadway surfaces.". 12755 S.W.ASH R.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 1 11. Definition of Street 'Trees' - in 18.106.032 (A), second line after "streets" add "with a minimum caliper of 3' inches at four feet in height." 12. ' Deadline on placement of -final asphalt lift, Pg. 320, 18.156.030 (Z)(4) add "unless _three . years have: elapsed since initiation of construction in the new development." 13. Setbacks for multi family uses located in the CBD will be those established for the R-40 and R-12; District. The dimensional requirements for these districts will be restated in 18.66.060 and 18.66.070. ' 14. The area of the CBD which will allow R-12 residential development will be defined in 18.66.030(C) as follows: "all lands bounded by` Fanno Creek, Hall Blvd., Omara, Ash Ave. and Hill Street within the CBD shall be designated R-12 PD, and shall be developed as planned developments in conformance with the R-12 district standards. t 15. Pg. 7, 18.24.010 (B); at end add; "the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standards, shall govern."' 16. Pg. 272 18.137.020 (C)(2) revise to say "Renewalpermits granted by the Planning Director10. �- 17. Pg 213 - Outdoor Advertising Signs - 18.118.090 A 4.(a) delete "US Highway 99W (Southwest Pacific Highway)" 18. Pg. 217 18.118.110(F) added to clarify the right which a nonconforming outdoor advertising sign has. Add "F. Outdoor advertising signs in existence on the effective date of A this Chapter which do not comply with the provisions of 18.118.090 ' AM(a) shall be permitted to remain along US Highway 99W only." 19. Handicapped parking spaces will be eighteen (18) feet long. Section 18.111.020 A(3) is revised to show 18 feet. ; 20. The requirement that a business tax will be paid .be stated in Section 18.120.060(D) under Site Development Review. It will state "the applicant shall assure that all occupants of the completed project, whether permanent or temporary, shall apply for and receive a City of .- Tigard Business Tax prior to initiating businesso1° i 21. Section 18.132.030 contains language arrived at by compromise with < the Robert Randall Co., concerning the nonconforming uses at Security Storage. In the draft version reviewed on October 10, 1983; portions fir' of the compromise were not included. They appear in the new version as Sections 18.132.030 D 2(c),(d) and (e), 3(a), (b) and (c) and 4. 22. At the suggestion of NPO A, Section 18.66.040 J Wholesale, Storage and Distribution, as conditional uses in the CBD, has been modified to delete: "1. Mini-Warehouse s 2. Light" 2 ME a X 23. At the suggestion of Bob Bledsoe, language has been added to 18.40 to , spell out the results of Residential Density Transition. A neww, 18.40.040 will read: 18.40.040 Residential Density Transition A. Regardless of the 'allowed housing densities stated in sections , 18.52 through 18.66, or in 13;80, 18.92 or 18.94, any property ; within one hundred (100) feet of an established area shall Lot be developed at a residential housing density greater than 125n of the allowed density in the adjacent established area(s). For " purposes of this limitation only, the allowed density is as specified in the comprehensive planland use designation, not as � in the zoning district. For example, the property within 100 ;` feet of an established low density residential area (1-5 dwellings per acre) shall not be developed at residential' ti densities greater than 6.25 dwellings per acre. (6.25 = 5 x . 1.25). f B. Subsection 18.04.040(A), above, shall not apply with regard to g~, established areas that are separated from the proposed housing z. development by a major collector road or by an arterial road. , 24. Section 18.52.050 A. new 22 states that the minimum lot area shall be 5,000 square feet for duplex units. 25. A definition of the City of Tigard has been added to 18.26.030 as e' "City ofTigard". °r 26. Section 18.88.020 AM is revised to read: f 19The parcel is vacant or not developed a-o urban levels and is not contiguous with an Established Area.11 27. Add definition for 11Residential Homes" as 18.42.020 AM on page 62. (WAM:pm/0214P) N Y 3 . z!; o r, 1 f" MEMO r C1 OF TWARD E WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON I TO; City Council 2s FROM Planning Department r DATE: November 4, 1983 � r SUBJECT: Community Development Code Over Eche last 5 weeks, the planning staff and the city attorney have been reviewing', the Community Development Code for procedural problems which arose due to recent legislative changes. During the review several minor revisions were made to correct numbering, grammatical and typographical errors. In Y addition, major revisions were made as follows: o Page 111-9 a n,:w definition was added for "alteration" i o Page 111-9 a-.new definition was added for "alteration, structural11 {_ _ o Page III-11 a reference to "Accessory Dwelling Unit" has been added o Page :I11-19 a definition has been added for "Story, Half" � o Page 111-21 the definition for "development district" has been deleted Y and moved to "zoning district" to reflect the nomenclature t used throughout the coded o page 1II-30 D.3. ordinances shall be signed by the Mayor within 3 days after Council adoption rather than 10 days after. o Page ZII-37 In all cases where public he procedures are referred to and following the specific section of the code will be referenced. o Page 111-39 A new section has been inserted for decisions by the K Director. The new section more clearly ' outlines the procedures to be followed. o page III-41 The notice of decision by the Director section has been changed to reflect the mailing of notice of a Director's decision after it has been made prior to the final effective date. In the past notice went out prior to the decision being made. o Page I1I-49 A new section has been inserted for the effective date of the decision. The changes reflect the shorter time span between the notice appearing in the newspaper and the final decision date; o Page III-56 18.32,370(A) - The approval authority shall act upon appeal or review within 33 days rather than 30 days of filing. o Page III-57 Section 18.32.390 has been added to ensure the City's right to revoke approval for specific reasons. ® page 111-62 A definition has been added for Residential Homes. In addition, Residential Homes have been added a permitted uses in all residential zones. p Page III-89 Section 18.56.050(A) New minimum lot size numbers have been inserted to accomodate various housing types. o Page 111-116 Section 18.80.015 - A new section to explain the Planned Development process has been inserted. — 12755 SV4!ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARiD,OREGON 97223 Phi:639-4171 a ti o Page 1II-118 Section 18.80.030 - The expiration of approval has been revised to reflect : the omission of major and minor modifications. In addition the sections addressing procedures for major and minor 'modifications to approved Planned Development have been deleted. b Page 1II-131 Section on City designation of a Planned Development and `-criteria fornullifyingthe Planned Development designation , The procedures are not necessary have been eliminated. ` because of the new Planned Development process. o Page IYI-133` Section 38.81.020 has been rewritten for clarity and to inappropriately located in this remove standards which were k section. o Page III-160 Section 18.106.015 has been added to explain the applicability of the`landscaping: and screening requirements and the approval process. ; not be trees e Page III-162 SectioQ. B feet states private driveways. Jthatl On page Planted close tha► _ III-163 (12) reads that Crees shall. not be planted within feet of any hard surface. This inconsistency should be a resolved: o Page III-168' Suction 18.100.130 .has been added to explain the buffer - �{ matrix. o Page III-170 Section 18.102.015 has been added to outline` the applicability of the visual clearance areas. o Page 1ZZ-173 See 18.106.015 has been added to outline the applicability of chapter 18.106. o Page III-178 The parking requirements- in residential uses have been t' modified to require at least one covered parking space for E each unit. Also, parking requirements for community' recreation will be as required by the facilities provided. (8) will be modified U Page 111-184 The chart in sy section 18.106.050 Cit reflect parking stall dimensions as approved by Y Council. i; o Page I1I-188 Section 18.108.020 Iles been .added to outline the � provisions of chapter 18.108. applicability and general l o Page I1I-191x Page 111-192 The charts for access requirements have been modified after � review with the Public Works Director. Page YII-246 Standards have been added for locating accessory dwelling units as conditional uses. o Page III-264 Section 18.136.020(A) has been expanded to require application for established or developing area designation with applcations for annexation. In addition, references to Established and Developing Areas have been added throughout Chapter 18.136. o Page 111-267 The Established and Developing Area sections of the Code have been combined into one section. The section has been Tewritten to outline the approval process more clearly. ® Page III-269 The Temporary Use Section has been rewritten to separate the three types of ,temporary uses and outline approval. processes and standards for each type individually. o Page III-275 The Home Occupation sectO4alhas process and revised to to more include clearly outline the app approval criteria. -2- o Page I1I-278 Section 18.144.020 and 18.144A30 have been rewritten for clarity. o Page; III-302 Chapter 18.162 has been modified to -include lot line adjustments. throughout the code, reference to specific code numbers will have to be changed to reflect the new numberswhich appear on the final draft. The reference numbers will all be corrected prior- to submission to LCDC. The figures which illustrate different aspects of code' sections will also be inserted, prior to LCDC submittal. EN°dmj(0216P) -3- i MEMORANDUMA. November 3, 1983 I TO Mayor & City Council WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON ' FROM: Planning Department l�wr t SUBJECT: Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Document, Volume 2 Comprehensive Plan The Planning Department ha3 completed the final Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies document to be adopted, by City Council and submitted u. to LCDC. The final document incorporates the changes to the draft document as approved by Council on March 2, 1983, and ratified on May 9, 1983. The i Planning Staff has corrected several typographical errors and made" other T changes for clarification purposes only. In addition, the staff has made u other changes and recommends further changes which should be brought to the - Council's attention. Those changes and proposed changes are as follows: o All references to "development districts" in the document have been changed to read "zoning district" to be consistent with nomenclature found in the Development Code. o All references to "linear commercial" have been changed to read ( "general commercial" to be consistent with Ordinance 83-24. o The floodplain policies adopted ..by Council: have been inserted on - pages I1-14 & II-15. Please note: The Council did not adopt Implementation Strategies for these policies. r'. 0 Policy 5.1.5 on page I1-30 has been changed to reflect Council's direction on residential uses in commercial zoning districts. In addition, Implementation Strategy #17 on page 1I-32 has been modified to be consistent with the new Policy 5.1.3. ' 0 The following policy was placed in the Housing Element after the City resolved the issue at S.W. Grant Court, This policy should be s re-evaluated. 6.1.2 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS SHALL CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. TO PREVENT THE GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF PUBLIC HOUSING AND INSURE A BALANCE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH ROUSING, THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS � LOCATED WITHIN ANY SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE FIVE x TIRES THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON ANY STREET IN THE DEVELOPMENT. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS POLICY, THE TERM "SUBSIDIZED HOUSING" SHALL MEAN ANY HOUSING DEVELOPED OR. CONSTRUCTED BY flHE WASHINGTON COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY) WITH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HODS ING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:539-4171 R MY! 121n; in 1983 the Legislature approved Senate Bill 406 (copy attached)' ;; dealing with the need to provide housing to various segments of the community. The following is an excerpt from "Land Care Planning and Coordination Action" concerning this Bill. ' "Needed housing has been defined in OARs 660-07, 660-08 and ORS 197.303. In the existing OARs, on and after the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged =; comprehensive plan, ;the definition of needed housing is expanded to include manufactured homes. This Bill further expands theME definition of needed housing to include government assisted _ housing. city and county charters are precluded from containing r ' prohibitions on specified kinds of housing. Government assisted ; housing means housing that is: 1. Financed in whole or in part by a federal or state housing agency, or ,"', 2. Financed by a local housing authority, or 3. Housing that is occupied by a tenant or tenants who benefit from rent supplements or housing vouchers. Amends portions of ORS 197." .y The Council: should discuss whether or not Policy 6.1.2 is in violation of Senate Bill 406. If it is, it should be deleted. :' o Implementation Strategy #8 on page I1-35 has been added at the suggestion of the Washington County Housing Authority and recommendation of the Planning Commission. KT- 0 The fourth Finding on page 11--39 has been added at the suggestion ofF the Washington County Housing Authority and recommendation of the Planning Commission. >. o Policy 7.4.4 on page 11-46 has been modified upon the recommendation of the Public Works Director and the approval of council. ' o All references to "conditional developmenti0 have been changed to read , "conditional use" to be consistent with the nomenclature used in the ' Development Code. o Policy 8.5.2 on page 11-61 has been eliminated. the reference to T.U.R.A. is no longer appropriate. TTT o The population figures on page II-65 have been updated. o The information on the Urban Planning Area agreement on page 11-66 has been updated to reflect recent changes in that document. Wiz; - 2Fn t 110 ,k;_f o The Finding relative to T.U.R.A. on page 11-71 has been eliminated. ' In addition,, the Implementation Strategies on pages 1I-71 and II-72 have been modified to reflect the elimination of T.U.R.A. o policies 11.4.1 and 11.4.2 have been added on;page II-75 for NPO #4. There are no Findings or Implementation Strategies for these policies` as none were recommended by NPO #4 or City Council. Policy 11.4.2 was designed by 'Council to restrict - commercial levelopment in the Tigard Triangle until provision was made for< construction of a major collector connecting Pacific Highway to the c Haines: Road Intersection. This policy has been in effect for almost w, eight months. Questions have been raised by property owners concerning the development ofindividual sites. Some property owners' feel that the 'policy is over restrictive pertaining to some properties which would not necessarily benefit from the roads proposed by; the policy. The ,policy reads as follows: 11.4.2 IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE DESCRIBED 1N POLICY 11.4.1, THOSE PARCELS DESIGNATED FOR ANY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT DEVELOP FOR SUCH USE, IF NOT ALREADY SO DEVELOPED, UNLESS A' ,. MAJOR COLLECTOR,: CONNECTING THE AREA ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY AT 4, APPROXIMATELY 78TH AVENUE AND THE WESTERLY PORTION OF HAINES ROAD INTERCHANGE AT INTERSTATE FREEWAY (AT APPROXIMATELY 69TH' }t AT DARTMOUTH) BE CONSTRUCTED, BE GUARANTEED WITHIN ONE YEAR FOR 'CONSTRUCTION BY A PUBLIC AGENCY, OR :BE APPROVED FOR "W CONSTRUCTION AS A PART OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AFTER THE REMONSTRANCE AND REVIEWPERIODHAVE EXPIRED. � a. THIS CONDITION HALL NOT APPLY To PARCELS HAVING DIRECT ACCESS TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY, OR THE INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY . ACCESS RAMPS UNLESS THE PORTION PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT IS GREATER THAN 1000' FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY OR INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE RAMPS. b. UNTIL NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED IN THE TRIANGLE UNDER THIS CONDITION, THE ONLY NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY OCCUR ON ANY PARCEL IN THE TRIANGLE IS A SINGLE ' FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. Attached is a letter from Dennis O'Neill of Norris, Beggs and Simpson requesting clarification of the policy. Mr. O'Neill feels that the property , owned by his client should be considered for exemption from the restriction : because it has direct access via SW Hampton to 72nd Avenue as well as via 68th to the Haines Road Interchange. W' z. Staff would like the Council to consider whether or not the policy should Fsu s�r remain in place, be revised, or be repealed. r The staff calls the above items to the Council's attention so that the Council q members will review them to ensure that the Council's intent has been met. if the Council concurs with the changes and resolves the issue of Policy 6.1.2, ¢ the document should be adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan which will be delivered to LCDC some time the week of November 14, 1983. (EAN:pm/0219P) - 3 - , ;r Alt R THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY P.O. Box 988— 560 S.E. Third Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123-0988 Phone:(503)648-8511 COMMISSIONERS WC—ED i�r_ _ D 11 Dal,-,Ct .r , � IN REPLY REFER SO T r E V—Cha-- July 29, 1983 L M Walla - W ) F,Il Palk / R P Hack] EXECUTIVE DIRECTORMr. Wi 1 1 i am Monahan AC��.y X ` D City City' Planner city of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 SAT SUBJECT: Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Monahan: On July 21 1983, you, Ed Sullivan, and i met for the purpose of discussing;the Housing Element of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan, with the intended purpos- being to resolve remaining Housing Authority objections. The plan had not been submitted to LCOC for final approval. again suggested the following changes be made to the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan t� 1 . Under Policy 6. 1 - Housing Needs, Findings, delete the last paragraph on page 2 since no supporting information for this statement is shown, which we believe is designed to isolate and restrict the development of subsidized housing. 2. Policy 6. 1.2 should also be removed in its entirety for similar reasons as stated above and also as stated in our tetter to Mayor Bishop dated April 27, 1983. Policy 6.1.1 which provides for all income groups. .. . "types at various prices and rent levels". We feel nothing more is needed. 3. On Policy 6. 1 . 1 , we suggest an implementing strategy number 8, which would read: "The City shall determine through census figures, surveys and organizational reports, such as the area Agency on aging, the extent of the city's eed and projected need in the area of low and moderate inccne housing, Senior housing and specialty housing. The City shall encourage, by incentives such as increased densities, reduced parking, tax abatement, and so forth; the development of such housing types to meet the identified and projected needs". 4. Under Section 6.5, Findings, it should be noted that the Housing Authority of Washington County: operates a Home Repair Program funded 5y the Federal Government to assist low and moderate income homeowners. The Housing Authority also operates a Multi-Family Rental Rehabilitation r o assist units occupied by Program funded by the Federal Government, low and moderate income tenants. Under implementing Strategies, the single most effective method of providing decent, safe and sanitary housing ,for future citizens of the City of Tigard, would be to add that "The City would work toward adopting a housing code11. -0n page 22, under Assisted Housing, the percentage figures seem not tob correct and should be checked. Also, check the figure on page 17, paragraph 7 of the Introduction, Housing Demands. ow income We discussed dispersal of Public Housing,units and l nt pol that bul tI cautioned housing units should be dispersed. : This is ou1ceffect,® astrict where low rr that-V' e term not be narrowly interpreted to, in income tenants could live. Lastly, it would be our hope that through effective;planning, that activities could be undertaken by all those who provide housing f r low neeand moand derathatthe income families, ,seniors and specialty ng 8 nps provision of decent, safe and sanitary housing can be met. Obviously, your undertaking to identify that need, and addressing that need is the first step in providing clear, concise direction for those who can accompish `the development. I look forward to working with you in the coming months. Sin ere] DAYTON AGE Execut ve Director DP/tp 62nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-1983 Regular Session HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO A-ENGROSSED SENATE BML 406 By COlvvMrlTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY July 14 Amended Summary [Provides that certain charter provisions be considered land use regulations, subject to land use planning laws. Estab sties review,appeal and invalidation procedures.]Includes government assisted housing,as defined, within definition of "needed housing"for purposes of certa-n planning laws. Prohibits city or county charter prohibilions on specified kinds of housing. Declares emergency,effective on passage. I On page 1 of the printed A-engrossed bill,line 2,after the second semicolon delete the rest of the line and 2 insert"amending ORS 197.295,197.303 and 197.307;and declaring an emergency.". 3 Delete lines 4 through 25 and page 2 and insert: 4 *1SEC`n0 11.ORS 197.295 is amended to read: 5 "197.295.As used in ORS[197.013,]197.303 and 197.307 and sections 5 and 6 of this 1983 Act: 6 "(1)`Buildable lands'means lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable,available and necessary "7 for residential uses. g "(2)`Government assisted housing'means housing that is financed in whrole,or para by either a federal or state 9 housing agency or a local housing authority as defined in O'ftS 456.E to 4-96.720,or housing that is occupied by a _.,. 10 tenant or tenants who benefit from rent supplements or housing vouchers provided by either a federal or state 11 housing agency or a local housing authority. 12 "[(2A(3)'Manufactured homes'means structures with a Department of Housing and Urban Development g i 13 (HUD)label certifying that the structure is constructed in accordance with the National Manufactured Housing a14 Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974(42 U.S.C. $K 5401 et seq.),as amended on August 22,1981. 15 "[(-?A (4) `Periodic review' means the review of an acknowledged comprehensive pian and land use 16 regulations by a local government in accordance with the schedule for plan review and revision adopted as part 17 of the acknowledged comprehensive plan. 18 11((4A (5) 'Urban growth boundary' means an urban growth boundary included or referenced in a 19 comprehensive plan. 20 °'SE.G"I ON 2.ORS 191.303 is amended to read: 21 "197.303. (1) As used in ORS 197.307, until the beginning of the first periodic review of a local i i 22 government's acknowledged comprehensive plan, 'rceded housing'means housing types determined to meet l 23 the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular pnce ranges and rent levels.On and I 24 after the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan, 's 4 25 needed housing'also means: . 26 "(a)Housing that includes,but is not limited to,attached and detached single-fancily housing and multiple 6 t 27 family housing for both owner and renter occupancy and manufactured homes; and [, as defined in t.'!RS 28 1*97.2Rf,located its AthermobilehosrepantsorsubdUp.sions.] j I "(h)Goverunent assisted housing rr'` 2 "(2)paragraph(a)of subsection(1)of this section shall not apply to: 3 "(a)A city with a population of less than 2,500. 4 "(b)A county with a population of less than 15,000. g "(3)Alocal government may take an exception to subsection(1)of this section in the same manner that an 6 exception may be taken under the goals. 7 "St AMON 3.(.IRS 197:3417 is amended to read: g "197.307.(1)The availability of affordgb e,decent,safe and sanitary housing opportunities for persons of 9 lower,middle and fixed income is a matter of state-wide concern. 10 "(2)Many persons of lower,middle and fixed income depend on government assisted housing as a source of 4 1l afiordahle decent,safe and sanitary housing. 12 "[(2F(3)When a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price 13 ranges and rent levels,needed housing shall be permitted in a zone or zones with sufficient buildable land to 14 satisfy that need. 15 "[(3}j (4) Subsection [(2A (3) of this section shall not be construed as an infringement on a local 16 government's prerogative to: 17 "(a)Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright; 18 "(b)Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal;or 19 -(c)Establish approval procedures. 20 "[(4A(5)Any approval standards,special conditions and the procedures for approval adopted by a local 21 government shall be clear and objective and shall not have the effect,either in themselves or cumulatively,of 22 discouraging needed housing through'-Unreasonable cost or delay. 23 -SECTION d.Sections S and 6 of this Act aro added to and made a part of ORS 197.005 to 197.430. ° 24 11S1F:L" ON 5.No city or county may by charter prohibit from all residential zones attached or detached 25 single-family hoasing,multiple-family housing for both owner and renter occupancy or manufactured homes. 26 No city or county may by charter prohibit government assisted housing or impose additional approval 27 standards on government assisted housing that are not applied to sivnilar but unassisted housing. 28 "SECTION 6.Nothing in section 5 of this 1933 Act or in the afnendnienis to©RS 197.295,197.303,137.307 29 by sections 1,2 and 3 of this 1983 Act shall be construed to require a city or county to contribute to the 30 financing,administration or sponsorship of government assisted housing. 31 "S 'L!'t42N 7.This Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,health and 32 safety,an emergency is declared to exist,and this Act takes effect on its passage.". 14A to A-Eng.SE 406 P 2 t !; . CS r, f NRITS, ]BEGGS a blv 720 S.W.WASHINGTON STREET,.PORTLAND 97203•(^iW U L"MARD PLANNING DEPT- ,, r October 19, 1983 • f, i, i Mr. Bill 'Monahan _ Director of Planning & Development City of Tigard p O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Farmers Insurance Group's Approximately 17 Acres of Land in the Southern Portion of the Tigard Triangle Dear Mr. Monahan: In follow up to our discussions concerning a major now re eivedhotel a Pu chase Agreemenon the Farmers �trf omt tAhe Would `like to inform you that we have o for some time. We will be hotel developer with whom we have been negotiating Farmers .insurance forwarding what we feel is a very reasonable offer to our clients, I would for their review and approval. Unless we encounter unforeseen problems, Group, November 1 and enter expect that the developer will obtain control of the property by into a contingency period to build a hotel as a conditional use within the oom hotel on the site. It is yCP designation thait will be t the development code showing ato has be has now been adopted. T ovalhe deasloper wen as Design Sien te iewatand s p eparedet abegin obtain Conditional Use app preparation of the required documenrafourteen to eighteen months undertion. Their goal is to be construction next thereafter spring with completion scheduled for ike to equest Due to the above time schedule and receipt of a bn afidethe offer, f f southern portion ould l of the rTigard clarification concerning development of property Triangle. It is my understandingthat withli the Triangle4.1ofthe within 1ensi £eelt oftheIg- ve devclopment of commercial property �o eeties that would directly 5 Interchange is intended to limit only the development of �� to construct the Dartmouth benefit and, in fact, be required to join in any LID necessary extension. From my discussionscanotcity e #onaffectr�he�ane at an NPO souther3y portion oetithe it is my belief .that this restriction was Tigard Triangle and more specifically, those properties with direct access to either the 72nd or Haines diRroad int ss vngeia SW s. 1Hamp Hampton would z #0 72nke to d Av�nuFut t and hat the FwillalsoeProperty direct currently access via 68th to the Haines Road interchange- of olicy I feel that there is currently some thele xterstanding of Caty Council the scope in light of thelv�y and ask that you seek clarification a DAN JOSE SACRAMENTO HONOLULU TACOMA L05 ANGELES PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO Mr. Bill Monahan October 19, 1983 Page Two � r ' strung possibility of a commercialhotel development of in excess of a $20,000,000 value at the southern portion of the Triangle, I would appreciate your assistance. On behalf of Farmers Insurance Group, I will be happy to present :any information necessary at the appropriate City Council meeting. Sincerely, NORRIS, BEGGS 8c SIMPSON Dennis O'Neill DO/Jm/aal cc: J. Clayton Hering r" CNWOFTWARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: November 3, 1983 RE: Comprehensive Plan - Elements The nine elements of the Comprehensive Plan were approved by the City Council -several months ago. As part of the ratification process, staff has conducted a review of these elements to make corrections where information was outdated. The documents which are 'contained in your packet donot involve r-- manor modification except: 1. The Natural Features and Open 'Space Element includes the ESEE document approved by the Council on October, 1983. 2. The Economy element was modified to delete references to TURA and the composition of an economic development committee (in light of a recent resolution creating a formal committee). WLM:dmj(0216P) 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 972?3 PH:839-4171 -----� - TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department, S. Hamid Pishvaie _U\, SUBJECT: Buildable Land Inventory An inventory of vacant buildable land is an essential step in preparation of the Comprehensive Plan for the future land use allocations within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Specifically, this inventory helps identify and address housing needs of the City. Land use designations included in the vacant-buildable land inventory are: low, medium, medium-high, and high density residential; different intensities of commercial and industrial land uses. The amount of acreage with slopes exceeding 25% was determined to be unbuildable and was deducted from the inventory (47.89 acres).' These lands fall into all designations including residential, commercial and industrial land uses. Land in the floodplain was not considered as buildable, in this inventory (93.97). New development is presumed to be outside the 100 year flood plain area. The methodology and criteria utilized by the staff included: parcel size, Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation, slopes greater than 25%, and floodplain area. This inventory was conducted on a tax lot, by tax lot basis, with each lot number recorded and researched individually. The data was recorded by Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO) as the major data recording unit and by tax map (section, quarter section). This process gives a total 1983 net buildable figure by zoning designation. Current land use patterns (for buildable land) within the City's UGB show the majority of land is designated for a committed to residential uses. Of approximately 1,800 acres of vacant land, 1,309 acres are designated for residential use; of this approximately 678.01 acres are designated low density and the remaining are designated medium, medium-high and high density residential. More than one half of the remaining 490.72 acres are; designated commercial. The land use classification found to have fewest designated acres is industrial with about 224 acres. For the purpose of calculating the number of new single family and multi-family development, the net acreage for each specific zone was multiplied by the density factor allowed in that zone. . ' The result of this calculation is 11,769 new single and multi-family units. The city-wide density will be 9 units per acre which is 1 unit less than the LCDC density requirement of 10 unit per acre. r � . The City can meet the LCDC requirement through: 1. Residential development in the CP and CBD zones, i.e., allocation of 25% of land :at a density of 40 units per acres for that purpose (31.49 acres). This would result in 1,260 additionalunits.' 2. Redevelopment' of certain areas in the CBD and Triangle area (as identified in the attached map), i.e. , 25% of these area to be developed at ,a density of 40 units per acre (9.5 acres). This 'would add 383 units to the housing stock. With these two alternatives the overall density can be raised to 9.7 units per acres. The additional .3 units per acre can be gained 'through development of accessory structures in the single family residential zones as permitted by -the Community Development Code. HP:dmj(0220P) t( E .. E CITY'OF ,TIGARD -g *� BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY M' LAND USE: Residential Net Acreage No. of Units R-1 >5.98 6 =R-2 54.23 108 R-3 63.50 191 R-4.5 444.37 2,018 ` R-4.5(PD) 105.93 477 R-7 79.09 554 R-7(PD 68.87 482 R-12 200.55 2,407 R-12(PD) 35.88 431 R-20 222.17 4,443 ; P.-20(PD) 11.32 226 R-40 10.68 427 Subtotal 1,306.57 73% 11,769 Couumercial Net Acreage . �w C-L7 4.00Y' C-G 76.38 _ C-G(PD) 63.67 Vim; CBD 5.44 �. CBD(PD) 11.84 �N C-P 108.68 Subtotal 270.01 15% . Industrial Net Acreage =: I-H 2.14 <. I-L 95.57 I-P 126.81 ' f Subtotal 224.52 12% - TOTAL 1,801.10 (0220P) AREAS WITH REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL LAND USE CBD TRIANGLE AREA Commercial 5.91 3.58 Residential 9.`56 19.22 Total Acreage 15.47 22.80 25% of tonal acreage for residential development 3.87 5.7 No. of housing units 155 228 { Total No. of Units 383 units e -2- T lME It NPO # 1 LAND USE: Residential Net Acres' R-10 .39 R-7 3.78 R-7(PD) 6.76 Single Family 69% A-12(PD) 4,82 Multi-Family 31% Commercial C-G 12.01 CBD 5.44 w CBD(PD) 11.$4 Subtotal: Residential 15.75 35% Commercial 29.29 65% TOTAL: 45.04 0220P } -3 r MOMM WAR= I I! NPO 2 LAND USE: Residential Net Acres R-7 16.05 A-12 17,57 Single Family 45% A-20 2.04 Multi-Family 55% Commercial C-G 6.31 C-P ;4.46 ; Industrial I-P 28.85 Subtotal: Residential 35.66 48% Commercial 10.77 14% Industrial 28.85 38% TOTAL: 75..28 0220P 4 7 - NPO 3 LAND USE: Residential Net Acres R-30 5.98 R-20 54.23 R-10 5.98 R-7 108.75 R-7(PD) 26.03 Single Family 100% Commercial C-G 9.94 10-95 q, �L Subtotal: Residential 272.97 93% Commercial 20.89 7% TOTAL: 293.86 (0220P) fir'_ MIM 4' man Y NPO ,f 4 i, LAND USE: i Residential Net Acres r 1.88 Single Family 100% it-10 Commercial 40.52 C—G 49.42 C-G(PD) 62.33 `ry C-P e Subtotal: Residential 1.88 Old Commercial 153.47 99/ s` TOTAL: 154.15 0220P' f —6_ 90 pip= y a _ NPO 5 LAND USE: Residential Net Acres F R-10 2.69 R-7 34.57 R-7(PD) 1.49 'R-5 41.75 �. G R-5(PD) 8.15 Single Family 58% A-12 65.37 Multi'-Family 42% Commercial C-G 6.94 C-P 20.51 Industrial I- 2.14 95.57 I-P 94.32 Subtotal Residential 154.02 41% Commercial 27.45 8% Industrial 192.03 51% TOTAL: 373.50 0220P -7- NPO 6 ( LAND USE: + Residential Net Acres` R-10 51.56 a R_7 132.01 �. R-7(PD) 30.49 R-5 15.60 3 ' R-5(PD) 28.86 A-12 ' 60.14 A-12(PD) 22.82 A-20 52.61 A-20(PD) 11.32_ Single Family 62% -'A-40 10.68 Multi-Family 38% 4L4 � P_. Commercial �y. 14.25 Subtotal: Residential 416.09 97% Commercial 14.25 3% 3vj �x TOTAL: 430.34 4 0220F �zs FMI �8- IBM NPO #,7 LAND USE: Residential Net Acres R-10 1.00 R-7 81.21 R-7(PD) 41.16 R-5 21.74 R-5(PD) 31.86 A-12 57.47 A-12(PD) 8.24 Single Family 43% A-20 167.52 Multi-Family `'57% Commercial C-N 4.00 C-P 6.08 Industrial 1. I-P 3.64 Subtotal: Residential 410.20 97% Comme ro is l 10.08 2% Industrial 3.64 1% TOTAL: 423.92 0220P m E 0 Q N N K R G7 fA tN m '+ 1 Irl a In h Lnq I"I Oh " 1" bintf O In in o In - o Y U q O N O �^� q W Q O : nl rn o�O �O COLI. ti 6 q N b N A ti T N UI .N. to rn b s n rn n rn U. Ip In Lo t 6¢ E O J iv, N N N W 6A p O W UC33agS° 8 O � •^N m t SLI W h .2[ 7 ! F' ¢ Z O U H�' .r N M q M W n $ 6 � N 4 �';M-m ME w mil I r' r; CIWOFTIOARD R_ WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON x: t Iµ, TO: Members of the City Council �t FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: November 3, '1983 RE: Comprehensive Plan-Maps =' x; As part of the ratification of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council . must approve four maps which are part of the plat. These maps have been ;, modified .to correct-ommissions as well as change zoning designations to be consistent with the Community Development code. k" The four maps are: 1. Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Transportation Map` ° 4. Development Standard Areas Map " The land use and zoning map have been modified to incorporate changes made from quasi-judicial proceedings during the past several months. You should also be aware that the change which may result from the Lilly proposal, also to be heard on November 9, 1983, may result in a map change. The change may be made at our meeting on the 9th prior to ratification. ' Two other possible map changes will be before the Council on the 7th. '` Appeals by Portland Chain/PCM Associates and Gallo's Vineyards/Herb , Morrisette, if approved by the Council, would require changes on the 9th. Staff recommends that the Council approve the four naps as part of the Ems- ratification process after considering the three postential map changes cited ?; above. Copies of the maps will be displayed at the City council meeting on ; November 9, 1983. WAM:dmj(0216P) " 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 g,ve �L d d e� °ice! - WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development ` DATE: November 3, 1983 RE Citizen Involvement Endorsement As the Council is aware, the Comprehensive Plan process in Tigard has been unique because of the level of citizen involvement which we have experienced, The seven A'PO's and the CCI have devoted countless hours of effort to make the plan meet the needs of the entire city= Now that the pian is ready for submittal to LCDC, the NPO`s have prepared letters of support which are to be included in our submittal package along with evaluations of our citizen involvement process. The idea of a letter of recommendation was suggested by Bob Bledsoe of NPO ; # 3 at a CCI meeting in August. The CCI felt that the idea was a good one and asked each NPO to prepare such a letter. Copies of those received to date are attached for your information. - I would also like to ask the City Council to take special note of the efforts during the past two years of the past and present members of the NpO's, CCI, Planning Commission, and Council who have assisted staff in preparing the product before you on November 9th. I feel that the product is one that we all can be proud of. WAM:dmj(0216P) 12755 S.W.ASH f.O.BOX 23397 T IGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 — G - .._�V1ZJ .` DRAFT 211983 21 1993 a For NPO#1 review and comments 1TY OF TIGARD h W r` October 13,"1983 Mr. Frank Tepedino, Chairman lk Tigard Planning Commission city of Tigard - P.O. Box 23397 Burnham & Ash Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear I&. Tepedino• Npo #1.would likes to lend its support to the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan :and thank theCity of Tigard for 'the opportunity to parficip to in as well as the other interested bodies, the planning process. We, anticipate approval of the plan by LCDC. F the process which .has led to the development of The NPO #1 fully supportsp ( I, Plaming C t►isiana, City councilb the Ccmprehensive Plan. The NFO, been and City staff review and 'input process although somewhatlengthy has effective in providingfor citizen input. We, feel that ,AIPi7 #.1 has been.actively involved in the process and has been able-to provide ffieanangful irgut to the playa, That active has'spm sane'four to have years and three or four chairpersons. aspect of plan is the inclusion of: the areas -of sp ial One uniqueP . basis 'to the I�FiD interest 'foracln:of the lb's."'This. -gives special emphasis concerns, We feel that the public has had more than ample opportunity to participate in the',planning effort, and we appreciated the input that we.-have had at many of oux. meetings. An example is the Omura triangle land use issue many fourlocal citizins were able to voice concern at all levels (NTO, CCity Council) of the punning hierarchy. Another Planningc�rnision, I the ion, special residential district, which provides a buffer example is between the he ?JRwn core and the existing residential neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan is now approaching adoption �ythe been modified cared it has gone through the public review process, adjusted based on sme very important input from the various interested bodies and we-feel xeflects a goad effort to meet the needs of the City and citizens within the constraints o£ the LCDC goals. Sincerely, �. Gareth S. Ott GSO:plb September 17, '1983 TO; Frank Tepedino, Chairman of Committee of citizen Involvement FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Number Three (NPO #3) SUBJECT: Tigard's Recently Adopted Comprehensive Plan We have participated in the consideration and review of the new ty development code from the beginning. Our comprehensive plan and communi NPO was reactivated shortly prior to these efforts. Although; we were well satisfied with the earlier adopted NPO #3 Plan, we are able to understand the City administration's desires for a single common plan for the whole City. In many ;instances we disagreed with the draft proposals of the planning staff, and we offered several explicit alternatives for most of the areas of consideration. Some of our suggestions have been incorporated into the plan and code, several have ;not. However, we .support the compromises reached in the adoption of the plan and code by the City Council. Our hope is that Tigard's Comprehensrre Plan will be accepted by the state LCDC in recognition of. the City's sincere attempt to meet the various guidelines, while also attempting to blend together the variety of des:re's and viewpoints of the citizens. Please forward this memorandum thruug.. the proper channels so that it will be considered in LCDC's review of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely,' Neighborhood Planning Organization Number Three t ei m f � y y. September 29, 1983 Chairman of Committee of Citizen Involvement To: Frank TePedino, c From: Neighborhood Planning Organization Number Five Re: Tigard's Recently Adopted Comprehensive Plan en actively The Neighborhood Planning Organization kno rehensive Plane have,through our involved in the formulation of Tigard's Comp meetings and those of the Citi into both heinvolvementen sp a mcdevelopment plan ittee, Planning ifolouron and the City Council, had input area and the general direction of the planning for the city of Tigard as a whole. ous agreement Recognizing that this is a difficult sults repprocess resent the besnd that t�iinterests of the s not aLways possible, we do fee the re The Staff of the City of Tigard actively various cross sections of our community. sought input from the citizens and asps to le opportunity ortu i their wa concernss given oandsseektanswers property.owners and business ensive n be We therefore,wish to recommend nd Development Commiat the Tigard ssion s sion as aplan accepted by the Land Conservation a attempting to meet the guidelines they have established; balanced with the interests and desires of the community. Sincerely, Debra Naubert, Chairperson N.P.O. 5 rr A,W- �j fit L4 ; 4 " OCTOBER 3, 1983 ' E e. ax TO: Frank. Tepedino, Chairman of Committee of Citizen Involvement FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Number Six (NPO # 6) SUBJECT: Tigard''s Recently Adopted Comprehensive Plan This letter is written in support for the Tigard Comprehensive Plan which will soon be submitted to you for approval. " The City of Tigard over the past year has established an exemplary 4 procedure by which an organization and the citizens of Tigard have shaped a workable comprehensive plan. Many members of our organization have attended numerous, long; and highly productive Committee for CitizenInvolvement (CCI), Planning Commission, City Council and countless special meetings to hammer out details we will all have to live with. In a vast majority of cases, these meetings were professionally conducted allowing meaningful interchange between all participants. Suring thecae meetings members of the city staff were knowledgeable and indispensible in resolving many key issues. Our organization is experiencing greater ease in resolving planning issues since we now can turn to a plan we worked 'on and with which we are familiar. We feel we have launched a plan that will work and we can support. There may be need for minor corrections, but the course is set for Tigard. ColyoF 71 RD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: November 3, 1983 RE'; Urban Planning Area Agreement A copy Of, the Urban Planning Area Agreement adopted by the .City Council and Washington County is attached for your review. As you will note, the agreement is scheduled to expire at the end of 1983 if certain issues are not resolved. These issues are those that we ,"agreed to disagree onf1. Due to the lack of pertinent information, we have been unable to resolve some of these issues. In order that we may submit our Comprehensive Plan to LCDC, I am recommending, and the County ;agrees, that we extend the current Agreement through June 30, 1984. The agreement reads as follows: "This agreement shall be effective until January 1, 1984. during this period, the parties shall resolve the following issues now outstanding between them: 1. Adoption by the CITY and COUNTY of a single comprehensive plan for the CITY and its Active Planning Area; and 2. Adoption of development standards for streets and storm drainage facilities; consistent with and adequate to carry out CITY'S Plan; and 3. Adoption of the attached Agreement, Exhibit "B", by the Board of Directors of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County. 4. Resolution of outstanding transportation issues between the parties, including. a, consistent street classification standards; b. the status of Durham Road; and C. the need and location of the Murray Boulevard Extension from Scholls Ferry Road to Highway 99W. Until resolution of these transportation issues, the parties shall alternative solutions to those issues. talcs no action to preclude -- 12755 SQA!ASN P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PI-1:639-4171 As of January '1, 1984, this Agreement shall lapse and the agreement currently in effect between the ;parties shall revive, unless: 1. The parties resolve the issues set forth above; and 2. The parties extend the time in which to reach'agreement. , The proposed extension would allow us to resolve these issues with the necessary data available. I believe that it is important to our potential for success in acknowledgement from LCDC that we have thisagreement in place with the County throughout our acknowledgement process. I recommend that the Council authorize staff to prepare a resolution for an extension of the agreement throught June 30, 1984, for Council approval. t WAM:dmj(0216P) WASHINGTON COUNTY i ADIv3INISTRATION BUILDING— 150 N.FIRST AVENUE Y 1 HILLSBORO,OREGON 97123 PLANNING"DEPARTMENT (503)648.8761 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WES MYLLENBECK.Chairman BONNIE L.HAYS,Vice Chairmen EVA M.<KiLLPACK 1OHN E.MEEK, LUCILLE WARREN JUL 1983 July 7, 1983 Bill Monahan, Planning Director City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 w Washington County Comprehensive At their meeting on Jure 28, 1983, the Washington County Board of Commissioners ¢ voted to approve Ordinance No. 263, the n Plan for the urban area. Agreement €®r the .City o7 Tigard was adopted as part of The Urban planning Area Ag of the agreement is enclosed for your files. Ordinance No. 263. A signed copy es new Chapter X of the Washington County Charter regaesaffec gp,da�safter�the gdate or amended comprehensive plans for the County ' nal adoption. However, the Board of County Commute and rocedurales that the provisions of an P and efficient planning Urban Planning nterArea overnmentaltcooperationoandsensuretorderly P to enhance l g affected areas, and the the new agldeResolutionda.nd OrderZNo. 83-1118te1y. in the policy To accomplish this, the Board adopted a directing that the Urban Planning area Agreement nt bnancelNo.�263,as an intergov , mental agreement ilrsnedl at,. y P i very the County during At this time I wish to thank you for your Pla ning g I look forward to r_ontinued coordination development and adoption o€ the new Urban Planning Area Agreement and the - Washington County Comprehensi-we Plan lanniing projects. between the City and county on future City and County p I Richard A. Daniels Planning Director RAD:KM:mbm c: Wilbur Bishop, Mayor Bob Jean, City Manager Q'IM 11 orrunit), emplo),er EXHIBIT "A" ' WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD` URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 19 by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, _ hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and CITY OF TIGARD, an incorporated ' municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY." WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into , agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that"a party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and .y: r= WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City, County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall a: be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and WHEREAS, The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to ;submit' an agreement setting forth the means by which ,land use coordination in the unincorporated areas within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and g. WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY,to ensure coordinated and consistent comprehensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish: r; 1. A site-specific Urban Planning,Area within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary within which both the 'COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest in comprehensive planning; ' {k" x_ 2. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; �a 3. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; and 4. A process for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement. £` NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Location of the Urban Planninq Area The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY , includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement. `. Fi. II. Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies 4 A. Active Planning Arear x 1. Definition ActivePlanning Area means the incorporated area and certain unincorporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the CITY conductscomprehensive planning and seeksto regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible. ` The CITY Active Planning Area within the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area A on Exhibit "A". 2. The CITY shall be 'responsible` for comprehensive planning within the Active Planning Area. - 3. The CITY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning for the provision of urban `services in the Active Planning Area. 4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in size, unless public sewer and water service are available to the property. 5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development proposal in the Active Planning Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevel- " opment -to urban densities consistent with CITY'S Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning, Area shall .be contingent upon provision of adequate 'urbanservices including sewer, water, storm drainage,' streets, and police and fire protection: 7. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the CITY'S Active Planning Area. B. Area of Interest 1. Definition Area of Interest or Primary Area of Interest means unincorpor- ated lands contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of interest within the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area B on Exhibit "A 2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development actions within the Area of Interest. 3. The COUNTY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning for the provision of urban services in the Area of Interest. _2_ t 4 The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to the following: a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for development. t: b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create 'islands unless the CITY, declares its intent to y. complete ,the island annexation. C. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or, other repre- ' sentative means for annexation in ,the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square, wi-thin the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the City reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowledges the rights or individuaiproperty owners to ` annex to the City pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes. d. Upon annexation of land within the area of Interest to the CITY', the CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY; plan designations which most closely approximate the k density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations. is Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this des7gnation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both gin. the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors `agree`_at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and should f" be amended before the one year period is over. e. Should any land within the Area of Interest be annexed to the CITY, the area 'shall-continue tobeconsidered as part of the COUNTY Urban Planning Area for the purpose of calcu- lating county-wide new dwelling unit mix and density as required by OAR 660-07-030 and 660-07.035. This provision shall apply until the CITY and COUNTY plans have been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. C. General Policies 1 . The CITY and COUNTY are in disagreement on at least two major transportation issues: (1) the classification and use of Durham Road between Pacific Highway and the Interstate 5 freeway; and (2) the need and location of the extension of Murray Boulevard to Pacific Highway. Despite this disagreement, the parties have agreed to a process for resolution of their conflicts and agree not to preclude potential transportation options or road system improvements proposed in their respective comprehensive plans, notwithstanding their disagreement -3- xWWI- 2. The CITY shallinclude all right-of-way within and adjacent to property in current and future annexation proposals, In addition, the CITY and the COUNTY shall reach agreement upon a schedule and process for,the surrender of;jurisdiction 'of those COUNTY roads currently within the city limits and those COUNTY roads that may be included in future annexations to the CITY if the COUNTY determines these roads are not `necessary as part of the COUNTY road system. Such an agreement shall be reached within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement'. 3. Annexations to the CITY outside the Urban Planning Area will not be supported by the COUNTY or the CITY. III. Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Regulation 1. Definitions Comprehensive Plan, as defined by OAR 660-18-010(5), means a generalized,: coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of.lands, :including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems,, transportation systems, educational facilities, . recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water I .. quality management programs. Implementing Regulation means any local government zoning ordinance, land division ordinance adopted'under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plana 2. Except as provided in subsection (B) below, the COUNTY shall provide the CITY with the appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with theS appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the City comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The following procedures � shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one another in the process to amend or adopt a ;. comprehensive plan or implementing regulation: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the f proposed action at the time such planning efforts are initiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the final hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of %. -4- f Understanding" negotiated and signed by the planning directors of the CITY and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which the responding agency ,shall participate in the adoption process. If, at the time of, being notified of a proposed action, the responding:agency determines it does not need to f. participate in the adoption process, it may waive the y requirement to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding." v b. The originating ,agency'shall transmit draft recommendations on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a;draft to submit comments orally or in writing. Lack of response f shall be considered "no objection" to the draft. IV c. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by the responding agency either by a) revising the final recommendations, or b) by letter to the responding agency explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final draft. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consid- eration as a part of the public record on the proposed - action. If after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of ,the responding agency, the $. responding agency may seek 'review of the action through the appropriate body and procedures. e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the orig- inating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance - to the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written documentation is available to properly inform the responding agency of the final actions taken. B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners 1. Definition Development Action Requiring Notice means an action by a local , government which requires notifying by mail the owners of . property which could potentially be affected (usually,specified as a distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action which directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be limited to small tract zoning or comprehensive plan map amendments, conditional or special use permits, individual subdivisions, partitionings or planned developments, variances, and other similar actions requiring a hearings process which is quasi-judicial in nature. 5- F 2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will ( provide the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed''development actions requiring notice within the CITY limits that may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated Urban Planning Area. 3. The following procedures shall be followed ;by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify one another of impending development actions: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal , hereinafter the `originating,agency,' shall send by first class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which identifies the proposed development action to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest ; opportunity, but no less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the scheduledpublic hearing. The failure of the responding agency to :receive a notice shall not invalidate an action if a 'good "faith attempt was 'made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency'. b.` The agency receiving the notice may respond at its dis- cretion. _ Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral 'response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal . c. The originating agency shall include or attach the comments tothewritten staff report or supplemental thereto, and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency ` in such report or orally at the hearing. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures C. Additional Coordination Requirements 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but are not subject to the notification and participation require- ments contained in subsections A and B above: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agendas which contain the proposed actions to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the origin- ating agency to notify the responding agency. -g- s: b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda ;may respond ` at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing: v c. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consideration as -a part of the public record on the proposed action. If the originating agency 'acts contrary to he ency, the responding agency may position of the responding ag seek review of the action through the appropriate body and ; procedures. IV, Special Policies. ° A. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive planning and development actions to their respective recognized Community Planning;Organizations (CPO) through the notice procedures , outlined in Section III of this Agreement. . B. At least one copy of any 000NTY ordinance which proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to the CITY days after its introduction. CIT, within five (5) C. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land 'within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall be marled to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. V. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area Boundary: 1 . The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the mit a formal request for amendment to the proposal , shall subf responding agency. 2. The formal request shall contain the following: a. A statement desciribing the amendment. b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed amendment is necessary. C. If the request is to 'amend the planning area boundary, a map which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding area. 3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received, _7_ e 4. The 'CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve .. requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review, the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the request, or make a` determinaton that the proposed amendment warrants w additional review. If it is determined that additional review is ,necessary, 'the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and COUNTY: a. If consistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved in the review process as outlined in Section IV (3), the CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. Such. a study shall commence within 30 days of the date it is determined that a proposed amendment creates an inconsis- tency, and shall be completed within 30 days of said date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct of s study shall 'be mutually agreed upon by the CITY the joint and the 'COUNTY prior to commencing the study. b:- Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the recommendations'drawn'from .it shall be included within the record of review. The agency considering the proposed amendment shall give careful consideration to the study prior to making ;a final decision. r B. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years, or more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary , amendments. The review process shall commence two (2) years from �. the date of execution and shall be completed within ,60 days. Both parties shall 'make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsist encies that may have developed since the previous review. If, after completion of the 60 day review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may terminate this Agreement. V'I. Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective until January 1 , 1984. During this period, the parties shall resolve the following issues now outstanding between them: 1. Adoption by the CITY and COUNTY of a single comprehensive plan for the CITY and its Active Planning Area; and 2. Adoption of development standards for streets and storm drainage facilities consistent with and adequate to carry out CITY`S Plan; and 3. Adoption of the attached Agreement, Exhibit"B", by the Board of Directors of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County. _ 4. Resolution of outstanding transportation issues between the parties, including: -8- w a. consistent street classification standards; b the status of Durham Road; and c. the need and location of the Murray Boulevard Extension from Scholls Ferry Road to Highway 99W. Until resolution of these transportation issues, the parties shall take no action to;preclude alternative solutions to those issues. As of Januray 1, 1984, this Agreement shall lapse and the agreement currently` in effect between the parties shall revive, unless: 1. The parties resolve the issues set forth above; and 2. The parties extend the time in which to reach agreement. This Agreement coninences on 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures. CITY OF TIGARD By c"� _ _ Date n n t 4 3 ' Mayor WASHINGTON COUNTY By Date Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Date _ Recording Secretary _gr _ �...•t a c'�- n �i�•x i • ��.�© � ��,,-J 1'�ln! �l'�,��-`fig i r- --�a.. . ,• ____ � F •llam°�� , �� + � i i � e. -!_ _ ..�' _ ��i _ ,. JL`��- •;,y, _� � � � �!_ -- 1 k � - +1 :.rte _ 46, �° Al7r; 71 l 10M i �� ,... •.��. ;' Rk uj WU tu to cc Z ix at ui xLU W ui ..` :2 u ca 0e '^ � in x a g;! �----�=.��._ .,h�m-�. � e+wvmn •.. ._.: 6�oa"tfw`evas�^kSd�-i!f. _ I` e EXHIBIT 8 6-9-83 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY, WASHINGTON COUNTY 'AND'CITY OF 'TIGARD AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered in this day of 1983, by and between;the UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, a County ;Service'District formed under ORS Chapter 451 , hereinafter called "AGENCY" and the CITY OF TIGARD,''a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "CITY". W T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have the authority to perform; and WHEREAS, State-wide Planning Goal No. 2 (Land Use Planning) requires that city, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties; ,and WHEREAS, ORS 197.185; provides a method for coordination of programs affecting land use;of special districts; and r{ WHEREAS, the parties are amenable to entering into an agreement under the t` terms and conditions set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows: 1 . AGENCY shall undertake its actions within CITY limits and CITY'S Active Planning Area in accordance with CITY'S Comprehensive Plan. 2. AGENCY shall prohibit the connection of new development within CITY'S Active Planning Area to its sewer system facilities unless CITY gives prior written approval . 3. CITY will cooperate with AGENCY in its functions of providing sanitary sewer facilities. 4. This Agreement shall continue until the parties mutually agree to terminate this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set under their signatures. CITY OF TIGARD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY, WASHINGTON COUNTY By By Mayor Chairman .. Attest City Recorder Recording Secretary Date Date (0596A) ryxE �x . ' V, RD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: Members of the City ;Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development w" t DATE: November 9, 1983 RE: CBD industrial Use, Discussion {A: ;. If the Council chooses to accept the recommendation of property owners on ^ 120' ofthe railroad tracks, Burnham to allow industrial uses within 115` - ' the Council may wish to make the following motion: Direct;staff to make appropriate changes to allow for industrial uses in g the CBD within 115.° to 120' south of the railroad tracks as shown on the � attached map;. Uses will be limited to: "Wholesale, Storage, Distribution 1, Wholesaling, storage and distribution: " Mini-warehouses tion Lightib i storage, and distribution 2. Wholesaling, " staff is directed to add these uses under 18.66,040 (J) as "conditional �. uses. Amend Policy 5.1.3 (Pg 11-30) to read: 5.1.3 THE CITY SHALL IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE PORTION OF THE CENTRAL ' BUSINESS DISTRICT AS THE FOCAL POINT FOR COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS, CIVIC AND i PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY CREATING A DIVERSIFIED AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE CORE AREA. Staff is directed to amend page 1-150 and I-151, the Economy element of the plan, to include industrial uses, as allowed by the conditional use process, in the CBD. A copy of the attached map should be inserted after page I-150 of the Plan. If the Council agrees in principal with the proposal, but wishes to have the proposal proceed through the process, it may wish to make the fallowing motion. Staff is directed to process .a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning change for the area shown on the attached map with a waiver of fee. s 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 0226P4 U1 - _ - � l n £ IT-2 DT", T 1 C J 3,_ t 1 h!l r r , r ` f f^ J 1 i 's I1L 1 n t E C C .{. �y. i.p J 7 T T .a 1�'j T c 4 :'R. to y x'i.....f it 1. t '1 - l T li t cLJ a g - , ti3� v ..-fir��v- ! �� r. h 1?g. 1 e t 4 a wCt02}P �� 1 CT,O C tn1C �I p. .L v-1 to V?D-.)O tan'.y On _v0 v(.CE� s t,o l l ':4. 1, ^>Ct,G ] e 7 h 7 17 AS Cll cry e �'. ,� hyr.)lOL0 c rCt1.� �... '`amu �,^ ? t t., c t r -'r n. o"""' '1�' t 1-. C};fin O C Y ' by tl r by t t.drawn it 'WE-c1)1r"`)i; s_ t O ve 1 T' ,1 info ,, a Le: It Nei"ls to they are : , h aI _1 ` _} S T-r i_' 1t`Y i nc-, t- c'-!es ni t�_..,_ 1 c t'-" L !ll '. r,C`It la ""�v .ti1u�.`. v i rc. til..,.c r ci�ecte'�-p,r,� )ro t,': _ ' +eo t _tin- . .11872 :i 30 P �G nr:7 - 02'1 t" :'O v tr" '�`ly `1 s x e �'It1 J cl O .Uri Cyt. 1,m ,n"tom :I s'�1P �'� f 01- p. aG�_ vrE ,:CfJ v�!t ._ tC ,t. ,.�.� 1{ _4, .. trey `cid, wlle_. e ] ,. file a suit. ivert, wl- :C Z i;0.'iui�i U�•.. P `'/ S ` .t �- r•i J 0.r Ca. t r'1_'t 0" 1 r e tile r from. ` Ta Lot ��..n s.} c '1 L FO""t "1 �v f .L `.t t C.. L' (� O:,tl `l' tt' - g r ti 1 t c1 !"' TIl ii v T .`C r".� r O:. v 7I. L ^. 1�,>.c-:,di t� Sr ,r 2 rF 11 >. i 1 rr�V._- now Z n.. e 1 .w.•LO F3. _.,A v.iVc tE... '�.... r7 tr'� Ctt�4'7 .: .. 0 g OYiYt�1E�{lO ;PTv��to r log oil flll d ar_ck dEE! In oto - _ -,r, Of z1- not a Cl.;-oinii""�,J _ ..v. .. y the sou'- o_ +2 r the after o,,�,rnlll_ ` 1. Ci n Ti _, a the 'Fast fit, �. is aa- ri f „` „p TIIr. �: te7' Y: 24i v0'7Ea f7"O. r i s .t}. E r : 1"l: _ a2�r a� � 1 lac bi since a c o ,c.<:i2 L, kc cl T JY v- t 7 „ 1' O1� i"r; ' v y e O f T C n.r 11 to � .'1,Llr lvd. :U—L E`2 f rvYl e2 1 _. m v yn is �.�O �.!1 t..,7 des i.a.0'y. �, f z .n,I e�v. c r r - p :g t ee t ft. : E t o + r �^q. i.T'_ �J. C'iC`" , t'..-.{e Q...T-.rC Of s. + n r, -2 t" t ri the E to , O a n r C r'v� do 7.. I i ' tj. -rn G' aL'''.. e p... l�� their C3eficleacy in plan.. -n.- f0' � F :Ti.r�� tY>. G� t rz1' c^llrr .'�:a ,.t Tbis S,fieOts lGS'1f aLL t.i]C t'10 to ,�,.,'LY1O C. � to F,3,mo water tC Red aoc.. reel- _s.2. . tL cn {'ILi I TT r' ?tea• U 7 �G e10 ';!f 7i C o J e h �a r i. rr. OtnYe City of Tl. .1"cl 7?Gc,'-)r: ;=iJ7Cl ta� Y s �. 156 xJ�tl*t—, c� �' 4 f` Dev�ro_�>>vG }r�r,�4 CL,4SSiFie� Tra�v 9-113—Flo-10-1 vV ®sc FF ® A . 'f Ce ii++ ''fir Gtd $s/' n, 4-``¢ r--e 14 r;s✓e r�8s, i5 /Gra f Ap"ea tsvl rC C(aSSi Td ed "0 ss i/Jtr'^DfPSS a i;. W 2fo'J,'SG�eI rem 1 S 2L+ de V e4,0,P s9dr� ¢©��" Vhf r 4e ��VlC top We"Imo f of g; Acj�e ve<c a,r-ea o ttirL,ic(n are y -- �Y _`- 3.1 /eve 15 A't" e 2 S �f 1 030 C 'Tt/er-,a or � e(ySivNo cam, 4,,i /z. t.L? l l t �tzly rloa4 d,� V� Lo c "•' �' i a wd wio'cw �t E$ ��iK �rv`ea S all be c /VSs i fr'ew a5t A f-e a ®r 05 a 'Ole rcl-a � st�Gair'SGfea/ �r-� a 4,. is c lass%- �r�� 5 b vile Qg Prav�'ot,d b U 30 6 b,low 14 re 4 ofc 7s5 �' } I.e5s ap, � acre ii 5;7,,-,) "mid CAA 6 6 0. 07 f .� "a a oe es .1$ r LFP fort r1n�J L at-,�_ �� 5.f re'€�c��s /0 ui/Gl ake 00 �� d am a� Ci ��a/! -beit�clu�>�'cp ��► 'evP �Jrco✓idrel �p $. � � U. OAU � , � aZ�jObf�'. •. be F7�+► 2 i"t� o C r Pfi U l�bt c✓5_ —�*N o 7� dale �cavul5 vwG`�'v- —fie{ �� V^ 07— �l -( . bpi U G&-v, 77-C c,pub cl 14 _. 4 U • I O' V I ��6/ I i 77I�L' � ��N� 0� I�� .U�� - At, 11 o 7c o � © 3r© ro vaf AVeeSS ® I;c ��' -fo' a ] a",/ ela,55 e fi'� 7�iyH S tial/ be a.del 12, d A#-.e a ( , s 1� Ple, r rcc�a soi'al�,f 5�a. a�J` Pie,, 7L r , i 18.138 ESTABLISHED AREA -DEVELOPING AREA CLASSIFICATION 18 -138.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide standards for the classification of land as it is annexed to the City. B. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is that land within the City will not be reclassified except as a part of the plan update process. 18.138.020 Definitions A. Established Area 1. An Established Area is an area where the land is not classified as buildable land under OAR 660-07-000. 2. An Established Area may include some small tracts of vacant a land (tracts less than an acre in size) provided the tracts are surrounded by land which is not classified as buildable land under DAR 660-07-000. B. Developing Area 1. A` Developing Area is an area which is included in the City's buildable land inventory under the provisions of OAR except as provided by 18.137.015(A)(2). 18.138.030 Criteria for inclusion A. All land which is annexed to the City shall be classified as an Established Area or as a Developing Area on the plan map and on the zoning map. B. The decision shall be based on definition of the areas as set forth in 18 138.040 Designations A. An Established Area or Developing Area designation shall be placed on the plan map and on the zoning map upon approval of the designation. 18.138.050 Administration and Approval Process A. The applicant for annexation to the City shall apply for a land classification concurrently with the annexation application. B. The application shall be processed in the same manner as a zone _. change--application under the provisions of Chapter.-IS.32. C. The applicant shall provide the City with the following information: III - 267 4 �a 1, Fifteen copies ;for review by Area Commissionthe map proposal and ;, "Established Area or Developing necessary data or narrative which explains how the � accessory use or structure proposal conforms to the standards a, Sheet size indicating the area of the proposed Established; or Developing Area map change plans) and shall be drawn on sheets not to .required drawings exceed 18" x 24"• and b. The scale of the site plan shall be 20, 50, 100 or' 200 K11 feet to the inch. who are property 2. A list of the names and addresses of all lication and g owners of record within 30 days before the app whose property is within 250 feet of the site. 3. The required fee. E g The necessary data or narrative shall indicate: 1, The number of acres to ,be included into the proposed Established or Developing Area; 2, The number of lots; 3. The units/acre'within the area; 4, The general character of the area; and 5, The location and dimensions of all existing streets. t' III — 268 November 9, 1983 ;i Members of `the Council City of Tigard i 12755 S.W. Ash h Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Comprehensive Plan Map Change Dear Council Persons: As the architect representing Oak Hill Development Corporation of Portland, I have' a reasonable, yet eleventh hour, request concerning the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map. Oak Hill Development Corporation owns and leases approximately 3 acres of commercial property bordered by Pacific Highway, S.W. 78th Street, and S.W. Pfaffle`Street. A retail commercial center of approximately 40,000 s.f. is planned for the site. This is proposed (and has been designed for) a CG zone. The property immediately to the west is in a / proposed CP zone and is "germain to our request. a . Following careful site planning evaluation, it was determined approximately p ( 20 feet of additional depth along a portion of Pacific Highway would greatly enhance the developability-of the site (see attached). Oak Hill , then approached the owner of the site to the west to.purchase approximately ft 550 s.f. of land. They have come to terms and are prepared to close. Our request, therefore, is that council grant a lot line adjustment to the Comprehensive Plan Map. That would follow the adjusted property line and designate the additional 552 s.f. as zone CG. Jim Sitzman at the LCDC office stated today that his office probably would not bother reviewing this type of change. I hope that you will agree that in granting this request, you will best fulfill the goals of your plan and support an orderly development project. I thank you for your time and consideration. _ Very Sincerely Yours, Edward Vaivoda, Jr. ATA EV/kb encl. t i^ Architects AIA •Architecture Urban Design Environmental Planning+Members: Hanson Dunahugh Vaivc hi Thompson Nicholson hclson Pc American Instituto of Architects•Russell K.Manson David LY,Dunahugh Edward Vaivnda,Jr.Robsrt L.Thompson Larry D.Nicholson NDVTN Architects AIA pc with offices at:215 Norlhvresl Parc Avenue Portland,ormgon 97209 +:Talophana:(542)224.0110 OZIt4 AA,Zso0 N \ N i Cj ee'V%Z o Op 66'64 �w 96 9' O � w ma 0 NZ r' N� 88 bS2 — 3,Z4oL:S U. iBZ s4 611 L? a 0� _CL � Ohs O O ti OlIq �}g8 R 4i 192 so•a6i `�9 T7.6.'l7 d. °� C 1 1 (i •M �i�n9 'ici 3.ZZoOS* 0 J;:) 5`48i Cj 0 co g o ° Gzt cr' �. 190.00 _ � �0 apb y � : 51'09£ —0 tO F—g 3 2Zo08 033 4fl �J t' ^® v �( � Om• _ r o� N 04) OLS 00 _1 PISWS � 8' yL,46s r t e, N f o' g• ±S MEMO,. .. November 7. 1983 hairman NPO #3 FROM: Bob Bledsoe, C TO. Tigard City Council >. 3 SUBJECT: Community Development Code please do but there is still a lot to consideie I have It's almost finish letter; discourage you from reading not let the length of the public hearings that have not yet arts: (1) Items we raised in (2) some objections to three P lus one;problem I noticed since then; Department; been decided, p memo from the Planning P recent changes noted in the November so I will and (3) recent changes which were not noted 'in the ma°nPIPOnmeeting'Nov. 1 or Nov. . Shortness of time prevents me from calling just offer my reaction to the recent change We have requested Part 1 18:32.340 B. o•o30E3, 18.32.050 B3 & C`' official advisory committees Pp. 23,33.56--18.3 applications and appeals by policy, and the waiver of fees for aPPP U to now this has been the City ears that I've the the City, including NPO s• provision. In a little over 2 Y b NPO #1 occasion that this provision 'was used was u there has been no abuse of this p that did zsot dedicate been naolved, the only an electric utility in appealing a decision concerning However, staff h s been relucissuent twasodiscussed at lands in the greenway. commi except policy of waiving fees for advisory ,s suggestion of 'waiver of,fees, on the advisory committee the CCI, and the CCI endorsed NPO #ested that people expensive. t fee. It was sugg since extensive staff time is for the transcriP to pay fees far apPlycations could volunteer to do the trans Grossibly Paving An We feel that the uncertainty articip ation by'the advisory committees•or the t e appeals would inhibit p in the Code noted abOVeyes the fee could be included on each page exemptionart o£ the resolution which ass��c ,a�Vresolution }„ exemption could be made p passed in June, schedule. Since that resolution was be needed at this time- would Requirements: The Single Family Residential Access Req is•a P. 191-_18.108.070 A. length for a 24 Instead paved access limitation of 100 the maximum leng required* astriction not contained in the previous code. Instead of an outright r over 100 feet, a conditional use should be but not prohibition s lengthsprohibition is proposed for 3-6s aces. The words: that this P commercial parking P It is interesting laced by "length of over 100 ft. for 20-49 apartment units, nor for oshould be rep t,(not to exceed 100 ft. ermitlen)th) requires conditional p Sign Exemptions. Certain 18.114.060 and 18.114.130. et they are PP• 204 and 21�ff wiring a permit in 18.114.060 1�, Y signs are exempted from req are not listed and those ecexcept because they permitted in a prohibited under 18.114.13�haracter) shall be p all say: "rid sagas (of any character) a does not achieve the intended result - de the following:P1 The present language se signs, Each sectior. in 18.114.130 ifiedninuSectionthe f ollowing of allowing the t from permit. The signs Specthis "Signs exempt restrictions imposed by subsection: Subject to any 18.114.060 A shall be allowed, Title." Page 2 f. 18.164.030 g 2--at the bottom of p. 311. The City staff has composed a good exceptions provision for street standards in established areas. They have provided a good priority for variances to the 'standards when needed in the established areas--a. through e. at the ;top of page 312. With the new version in the I3ovember draft of the Code, there are now no conditions indicating when the exceptions might take effect. I suggest the following: "In Established Areas improvements to streets shall be made according to adopted City standards, unless the Approval Authority determines that the u�blic benefit in a partice.lar case does not warrant imposing an expected severe, adverse impact on the existing development. Any p required variances to the standards shall be is the following priority w, order: PART 2 p. 89--18,56.050 A 3 Is there an error? 2 x 3050 -_6100�yet 5100 sq.ft. is specified for a duplex. (Also on p. 81 5000 sq.ft.is specified for a duplex in R-7: why not 3050 sq.ft. per 'unit as in R-12 and R-20 zones?) P.170--18.102.015 Applicability Section for Visual Clearance Areas is not inclusive enough. It applies only ;at the time of development, and 'plantings could be made later. Future and existing safety hazards should be included (except for buildings existing). t pp. 264 and 267-8. ' The new Established Area--Developing Area chapter and ' - 18;136.020 A of the Annexation Chapter provide for;designation of the Established Area--Developing Avea classification upon annexation to the City. This would be completely appropriate if Tigard had a City Limits Plan. But Tigard has an active plan, and we have already determined this classification for all land in the Tigard Urban Planning area--inside the city limits and outside. Requiring classification upon annexation negates the decision resulting from public hearings and is inappropriate without new public hearings. tNBut basically it is contrary to Tigard's active plan approach. Classification should be made upon annexation of land to the Tigard Urban Planning Area. They have the wrong boundary line. Ihave submitted a complete revised draft of the appropriate sections to staff for their consideration, and will bring it with me to Wednesday's meeting. I've not included it here because staff may likely accept my ideas, with some modifications. p. 279--18.144.040 A separation of 15 feet is required between an accessary structure and the primary build�. Is this requirement neccesary at all? Awaowabout applying i- just to structures ver 3 or 4 feet high? I know that ,� several people have (dog house�,�c1 seby their homes. Page '3 PART 3 p. 44--B 8 has been changed significantly. Instead of allowing; rebuttal by all parties, only parties in favor are allowed rebuttal. This is something l'V I oppose. At a minimum, the opposition should be allowed to offer reputtal i testimony and evidence in response to the rebuttal testimony and evidence � V offered by those in favor. p.45--18.32.160 D has been deleted (a provision to refer decision to Council) 's better to keep it. p.46--18.32.170 Ex Parte Communication B has been greatly enlarged--no objection. E & F have; been added--no,'objection. p.48--18.32.220 Participation in the Decision--Voting The former B is omitted (concerning challenges to the impartiality of a member of the Approval Authority). ,Some provision is needed, such as removal by unanimous vote of all other members.` The 'former D (2") is omitted--no objection, p.49--18.32.250 The Decision Process` A 1 a is changed to refer to the comp plan--I support this. R 2 is `-added -I support this. yp.50--still Decision Process C is added--the time period is too long; it should be 60 or 90 days. 04 E 4 is expanded--no objection. � / p.52--18.32.260 Form of Final Decision A 3 is expanded--no objection. C l is shortened--no objection. C 4 a is changed--no objection. P. 53 18.32.260 C 4 c is omitted--I don't know, 18.32.260 D is omitted--no objection, it seems redundant. 18.32.270 is new--no objection. 18.32.280 is expanded--no objection. 18.32.290 is changed--no objection exceJpt references. P-54--18.32-310 is expanded--no objection except references. P-55--18.32-320 B 1 is expanded--I support this. 18.32.330 is changed and expanded--I support it. p.56--18.32.370 C is changed significantly--I dislike, but do not object. pv57--18.32.380 is changed and shortened--no objection. P-58 Medium Density R-7 was supposed to be changed according to 'item #24 in the memo of Nov. 1, 1983: the /12 and /3,050 should be deleted. P-135--18.82.050 is rewritten--no comment. t p.140 at bottom D & E is typical of changed language concerning apPeal--I support. Page 4 p.142--18.84.040 former 5 & 8 have been omitted--no comment. p.144--18.84.050 e former596, & 7 have been omitted--no -comment. pp.149-150 18.92.030' A is changed--it is confusing. P-153--18.Q4.030 P 4 has been added--no objection. t ,154__1$,96,020 B 1 a The additional setback along Pacific Highway has p P 0 'feet. Why? Explanation is neededt been changed from 68 feet to 5 Y p.191 The minimum access requirement for 7+ SFR is omitted--Why? p.226-- 18.120.060 D "assume" should be "assure" p.289--18.`150.040 B is omitted--I support this. P.311--(bottom); The exceptions provision was changed--see my comments in Part 1 of the memorandum. t -Dy,�j August 4, 1983. FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Number Three TO: Tigard City Council SUBJECT: Omissions in the Comprehensive Plan--Transportation While preparing; for our letter to you dated July 18, 1983, concerning Tigardes 'testimony in the county transportation plan, I searched through our recently adopted comprehensive plan to find the strong language that youadoptedin opposition to 'a possible extension of Murray ;Blvd. to Caarde« I found narrative in the :transportation, plan about a series of indirect connections instead of a direct connection, and Policy '11.3.2, says that the extension of Murray to Pacific Highway should be west of Bull.Mountain. But the language limiting Tigard°s proposed collectors (Node #1 and Node #4 on the Map) is not in the plan. A Remembering that this language was proposed by 'Councilor Tom Brian as para c'� the ordinance adopting the transportation plan, I reviewed; the minutei of that` night, January 25, '1983. The printed minutes;(page; 4, attached) state: 1Motion by Councilor Brian to remove the tap node #1 from the map and specify that a connection to Murray Blvd. is not to be made and take action to 'encourage a westerly bypass, keep node #4 (on rasp) and specify as minor collectorand designed so as to discourage an other use." Not being satisfied, Ili.stened' to the tape recording of the session. On Tape #3, Bide #5, the motion by Councilor Tom Brian was as follows: At footage 390 of the tape: Remove the northerly node, the top node of #l, and (at footage 423) specify the remaining lower Node #1 as a minor collector. And at footage 400-428: "regarding Node #4, specify it as a minor collector designed to discourage its use as a major collector or arterial." At footage -453 of the tape, the Council directed that the legend of the map needed to be modified to reflect these changes. I amconfident that City Administrator Bob Jean and his staff, both in the Recorder's office and in the Planning Department, did not deliberately disregard the directions given by the Council -in the motion for Ordinance 84-04. Surely the severe time constraints and heavy work load caused these Items to be neglected by a staff whlch has producadi so much in so short a time. however, these important items have been omitted from the Comprehen- ®sive Plan, and surely the Council will wish to restore them, both in order to maintain its commivtment to the citizens and to establish its strong position on these'planning issues. 01 suggestion to thmt the legend of the transportation asap be modified _<__ to note these limitations, and that the limitations for Diode #4 be included , as a policy statement in 11.3--Special Concerns in NPO #3 area. Nodes ##1 and #4 should be included in the list of minor collectors in the transportation Page 2--NPO #3 to City Council re Transportation Camp Plan Omissions plane We suggest that the Council request corrections to be made by ordinance. We are requesting the City Administrator to place these items on the agenda for council consideration. Thank you for your consideration, M. Neighborhood Planning Orgainzation #3 Bob Bledsoe, Chairman cc. Bob Jean, Citi* Administrator Bill Monahan, Planning Director' Doris Hartig, City Recorder C� IN Approved by unanimous vote of Council present { o motion by Count.i l or Brian to remove tilt. top node #1 from the nuip and � specify that a connection to Murray ,Blvd. is not to be made and take i a action to encourage a westerly bypass, keep nide 04 (on 'map) ,'and s specify as minor collector and designed so as to discourage any other use. Motion seconded by Councilor Scott. i Motion carried by 3-1 majority vote Councilor Scheckla voting "nay". Councilor Brian clarified motion to state the map legend #I & 94 should be changed. o Council then discussed the issue of street standards for newly i developed properties and existing property; SW 'Durham Road and the designation as "a major collectorstreet. p o Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to add to bottom of page 13 "The City shall provide, as pert of its Development Code, for an exceptions process to the above standards, upon consideration of the Transportation Policies of this plan." } Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Intent of the motion is to allow less than standard widths under certain conditions and can minimize impact on certain neighborhoods. o Notion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Brian, to amend page 15 112.' Major Collectors:" deleted four lines referencing Durham Road. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Councilor Brian moved, Councilor Scott seconded, to add the following 5 items to page 23 regarding NPO's: "1. The City shall encourage the assumption of jurisdiction from Washington County of Durhane Road between Hall Blvd. and Hwy 49W. "2. Durham Road shall not be considered to be a major arterial route between the 1--5 Freeway and pacific highway. "3. Consideration of the use of Edy Road between I-5 and Pacific Highway shall be encouraged. "4. Durham Road shall be improved to 2 moving lanes of traffic with provision for left turn movements. "S. Through traffic on Durham Road in excess of 30,000 pounds grass vehicle weight shall be discouraged. / Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 25 1983 i 18. 30 - 010 l o 1 t ( Off-street parking and `laadng, Chapter 18 .60; (2} A s and egress, see Cha .e18.64; (3)` Lands g. A minimus' fifteen percent of the total lot area shall lan '" "Ped; in aArchitecturaldition, see CDesignte s 18.58, Site Development n and` 113.59, (; A`.'.. } Review; e wired,, see Section (4) Encl and screenin q 18.12.080; see �ec .12.070 . (Ord.(5} isances prohibited, , Ord. 70-32 75-29 (part) , 1975: Ord. 71-4 §7 (p 1970) . r; Chapter 18.30 �a MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-3M) �t Y E: 4= r: Sections• 18.30 .010 Permitted uses . , µ. 4: 18.30 .020 conditional uses. 18.30 .030 Lot requirements. 18.30 .040 Setback requirements . 18.30.050 Building height. 3 18.30 .060 Additional requirements. 3 18. 30.010 Permitted uses. (1) Civic use types: Cultural exhibits and library services Lodge, fraternal and civic assembly Parking services Postal services s : Public agency administrative services Public safety services Public support facilities. (2) Commercial use types Amusement enterprises Animal sales and services (a) Grooming (b) Veterinary (small animals) _. Automotive and equipment (a) Cleaning Business support services Convenient sales and personal services Eating and drinking establishments -Financial, insurance and real estate services - Food and beverage retail sales Funeral and interment services , cremating and under- taking Medical and dental services Participation sports and recreation (a) Indoor 269 (Tigard 4/83) 18. 30.020--18. 30. 060 Personal services, ; generai Professional and administrative services Repair services , consumer Retail sales, general Spectator sports and entertainment (a) Limited (part) , 19 82) . Transient habitation. (Ord.: 82-27 §2'{p 15. 30.020 Conditional uses. (See Chapters 18.72 and 18.84.) Automotive and equipment (a) Repairs, light equipment (b) Sales/rental, light equipment Fuel sales Heliports Hospitals Major impact services and utilities Minor impact utilities Religious assembly Spectator,sports and recreation art) , 1982) . (a) Other. (Ord. 82-27 §2'(p 18 30 030 Lot requirements . In the C-3M zone the lot requirements sha11 be as follows : (1) The minimum lot area shall be six thousand square i feet; (2) The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet; (3) No maximum lot, coverage shall be required. (Ord. 75-28 554 (part) , 1975) . 18.30.040 Setback requirements. Except as may other- .12.100, the setbacks for non- wise be provided in Section 18residential uses in the C-3M zone shall be as follows: (1) The minimum front yard shall be ten feet, land- scaped and maintained; (2) No side yard setback shall be required, except, when abutting a residential zone, a side yard of five feet shall be required; (3) No rear yard setback shall be required, except, when abutting a residential zone, a rear yard setback of twenty-five I feet shall be required. (Ord. 75-28 §4 (part) , 1975) . 18 30 050 Building height. Except as otherwise provided in Section 18.12 .110 , no building in the C-3M zone shall ex- ceed a height of three stories or thirty-five feet, whichever is less (Ord. 75-28 §4 (part) , 1975) 18.30 .060 Additional requirements. Additional require- ments applicable to the C-3M zone include but are not limited to the following: (1) off-street parking and loading, see Chapter 18 .60; 270 (Tigard 4/83) 18. 32.010--18. 32.020 t (2) Access and egress, see Chapter 18.64; (3) ',Enclosure and screening required, see Section t 18.12. 080; t (4) Signs, advertising signs and sign structures shall be subject to the conditions , ,limitations, prohibitions and x requirements of Title 16 , to which particular reference is made; (5) Nuisances prohibited, see Section 18.12 .070. (Ord. ,' 75-28 §4 (part) , 1975) . -t Chapter 18.32 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL_ ZONE4) 4 Sectio s: 18\-3 ermitted uses. 18onditional uses.,' 18ot<requirement :18etback requirements. 18uildingheigt18dditional rglquirements kt. 18. 32.010 PVmitted ,uses (1} Civic use types: ( f Cultural e bitsl�and library services Postal servi" es ;;f' ' Public agency administrative services Public safety rvices Public suppo cilities. (2) Commercia use pes: Convenient frsales a d personal services Financial,f insurance nd real estate services Food and/beverage re • tail sales Medicaand dental serve es Partic , ant sports and re reation (a Indoor Prof sional and administrat've services Rep r services , consumer. ( d. 82-27 §2 (part) , 1982) . .' a 18. 2.020 Conditional uses. (See C apters 18.72 and ` 18.84. ) , usement enterprises ating and drinking establishments Fuel sales * For sign regulations, see Chapters 16.36 \and6. 40 of , this code. % �s 271 (Tigard 4/83) : �F MURRAY BLVD. EXTENSION v We, the undersigned, urge the city ,of Tigard to continue its opposition to the proposed connection of Murray Blvd. to Walnut and/or Gaarde Street; instead f we urge he construction of the Murray Blvd. Extension to the west of Bull k Mountain, or on a route not through existing residential neighborhoods. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE kl"AD s� Q;flb n -73 � 4' w -� 1--4 1- )q ke 32 1 �3�• a Z:L,-�r3 -31 n� �,�..2zejn �w l=mit' t G 6,7 12-YYJ- 03 40:3 � -7 f 3 © sem' lam' a � 3 MURRAY BLVD. EXTENSION V} We, the undersigned, urge the City of Tigard to continue its opposition t® the proposed connection of Murray Blvd. to Walnut and/or Gaarde`Street; instead we urge the construction of the Murray Blvd.. Extension to the nest of Bull Mountain, or on a route not through existing residential neighborhoods. IGNATURE ADDRESS DATE 6®9 _ . ; r � 1 � G�1�� t� � ? CU� �O GJ Jr•(�' Lv ��K� 5 wa'L� vdera -716 6j r IOU Ld l //bb 1c,,71 mp 14040 ct ® 01 SE '� ' �� a,c,_.e�-%�.�� /fes %.��/ "/� ��✓�' s l0 A 9 MURRAY BLVD. EXTENSION We, the undersigned, urge the City of Tigard to continue its opposition to instead the proposedconnection of Murray Blvd. to Walnut and/or Gaarde Street; Blvd. extension to the west of Bull we urge the construction of the Murray or on a route not through existing residential neighborhoods. Mountain, 6 SIGNATURE ADDRESSDATE , 00, i7f�A�� //'�/ -5 5- ma P-d OR oro y p 35 S.�, `/ !Z fir- =��_ ,�� • �"-//-�'3 � yy Y.3 v�u sem/ i a&7 ,�tv - Xl6-axcl ®,ce Illae f 9713 q /914 U " � Ix- � , � � � Ate► �.� � ��, L 3 t� � ski WPM < r� ' IF N t :��,. ,.i_ s e......�v�k s*.r..,k rtl u.- "'�... -.zs .x. -�... 1'S,�c a =��. '�,�� .K ..,� �;-- zb, Y r�3 � �_..,•.c-'-z ;ra '� �^c' ysY :.r... ?'L�. �k-. �..,�. _ t''z^ ^n'� _^ �i��^.sia ,^ :.o,+' .»�'....,,c_ f� -�3� -�£'�•=<t:;�s. 'i.. �..�"��'�-"f� ..:_�. x.��sY�:•..:f..- +x'•-? �.a-.�.,a`rcn, ams`;.: `g "8h's.. :r�.. ..fi?� .*,�, "�r�4�, �w �T a�; t.�.+< 5�.5�S.._ ��-,�:r�4.r�Gn •'.'�.,� �"".r '�.,' X'�- -F t'P'�..h'�.�'i'.�Ca,�y MURRAY BLVD. EXTENSION We, the undersigned, urge the City of Tigard to continue its opposition to heed connection of Murray Blvd. to Walnut and/or Caarde Street; instead the proposed we urge the construction of the Murray Blvd. Extension to the west of Bull Mountain, or on a route_not through existing residential neighborhATE ods•. SIGNATURE ADDRESS 73 LlJ � R —.. ..d �r�� f�L/4lr L•4L.+.�J ___�—/—/—��__.—____-.— Yds,. 17 i 1A �, .'fir' f/�+�•%��,(r�c{!1¢�lC� �', �' �,.� -� u� Eon -- - PAGE 2 WJRRAY BLVD.. ......EXTENSION SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE 0,70 cti' v /A1 �,� n. Zd:u✓'�C l��r� • i1 V ,� 1'?tea I S � -i�2• �C•�C:�;c`s_. r f 2 a�� S YK ��,'� Al, S u. Or 1 ,rt t MURRAY BLVD. EXTENSION { We, the undersigned, urge, the City of Tigard to continue its opposition to the proposed connection of Murray Blvd. to Walnut and/or'aaarde Street; instead we urge the construction of the Murray Blvd. Extension to the west of Bull. Mountain, or on a route not through existing residential 'neighborhoods. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE ter PJ X15 f�� 1.--79 -- - - 1-17.2 a� a Nk LO N ll 1 1f y' ` �) `. �..� ;/` 4'3 �a LGA 7?:GA?/!Li Emil MORE f In k � ff f. � est- +��•x -;r°.zt.,, ;r�.,}�+t.�.3'%'v? .c"t� x.�,...szn,�..L P: r rix' 'i, s v'.^�' •-xFri' � `� y .r r"a"s.=r.�i*'x.3` _r:_. .?.. ,.^'S*^' a 'S moo i'' .,_. ."'��4' ' s,-.a , c "sr'?L.. „-�„y -. .:- '.�C -.:.'..- ,, -�"' r ',='a ; �sir.a � ..,>, '- .:P '"„w' "," ?s.�.,e .,+� �. r, r '?... .. a.a - #- �_ - -" -. - �-" "`�' .c. ... - .��d�--s`3°.�,� *-�is�*7 ��5.,,z. t ,z'�s�;N....� r `^^�-ter, �t .�, �'. '._�. i,�-�`�. `�,e'�y-.,� s-€ •,�i"� 7� � `�9a..� �,�E MURRAY BLVD. EXTENSION ' We, the undersignod, urge the City of Tigard to continue Its apposition to the proposed connection of Murray Blvd. to Walnut and/or Gaarde Street; instead we urge the construction of the Murray Blvd.. Extension to the west of Bull. Mountain, or on a route not through existing residential neighborhoods. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE 113 a � ��' P all�� , � a 2 a r-+ i k� M Kra im .q�A tnf. s v k' t� ccs� , i .sS `� aix��5ti L� � ,QTS )•. ,.� - n..��r�5-4?"'�-.��;`7�. Win,-..ti -'�� ::� R � }' _�;� ,•ss`� �=c?- � �`'s4^�;a�...fi n _ •'�.. � �s�r_.. °,,,.:�� y �v.u.�__ ,a�k�, '�:��,.�,�-�� "c r�� u:.�`"`=�� ,�;�� "�� ,nt. ��.�.? rte �t- 3". , p �,+, :-w�.* �� '-.�_ 5.�.��-wtf `�y�t:.,,�� +3 ,� , ,g .. ,..,� ,� y�^' x` 2"3- �'t�^,'„?'.`��4�^w'"us�` �� } z�b:� ti.. .,.�``•�? �y-:�` as '��"a' �:.s- "� ,�� i �-,. _. En+ L•F., : � �v, G� .......Y$ 9t;�a'#�..�.S `P�. a a'' -xt-`tit :: +`T. 'i vf�a'-�,t�Y.}t,. Sit 7x , ets � .��*a; MURRAY BLVD. EXTENSION to the undersigned, urge the city of Tigard to continue its opposition instead the proposed connection of Murray Blvd. to Walnut and/or Gaarde Street; ' we urge the construction Of the Hurray Blvd. Extension to the test of Bull Mountain, or on a route not through existing jesidential neighborhoods. ADDRESSDATE SIGNATURE L Iry 12- IOU MURRAY'BLVD. 'EXTENSIO:r We, the undersigned, urge the City of Tigard to continue its opposition to the proposed connection of Murrey Blvd. to Walnut and/or Gaarde Street; instead we urge the construction of the Murrey Blvd. Extension to the west of Bull Mountain, or on a route not through existing residential neighborhoods. DA SIGNATURE ADDRESS 's r �s r e" � � ? '7 � ' . lel` 4, 2 f MURRAY BLVD. EXTENSION ' ` We, the undersigned, urge the City of Tigard to continue its opposition to the :proposed connection of Murray Blvd. to Walnut and/or GaardeStreet; instead we urge the construction of the Murray Blvd. Extension to the gest of Bull Mountain, or on a route not through existing residential neighborhoods. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATA 4 /l I`IS d � . LO 13j, �r��CLLGtis2�-� `c.)�c � oJ�%C� `� �'�•r221 0 -��"� ,Pt eea- 5 s-rite �.�.. ► .. ---' � - !gyp" ti33 5-%3OL ��r �,,,�sem- - ' r