Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 04/08/1985
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an j REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate "a. w. APRIL 8, 1985, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, E+ FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start 15 WH 10365 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items r+ cn TIGARD, OREGON 97223 are asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less; longer E- W matters can be set for a future Agenda by con- tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator.. 7:30 1. REGULAR MEETING: ' 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff. and Council For Non-Agenda Items 7:35 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 3. STATE REVENUE SHARING ORDINANCE NO. 85- 0 5-o Finance Director 7:45 4. BANCROFT ASSUMPTION ORDINANCE NO. 85- 0 5-o Finance Director 7:50 5. SALE OF SURPLUS LAND/ALTERNATIVE METHOD o Asst. Finance Director 8:00 6. SOLAR ACCESS STUDY o Dept. of Energy 8: 15 7. ZOITE ORDINANCE ZOA 8-84 CITY OF TIGARD .A review of the Planning Commission's recommendations on Section 18.94 (Manufactured Homes), 18.26, and 18.98 (Flag Lots & Height Limits) fo the Community Development Code (Definitions). o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff o Public Testimony o Recommendation by Planning Staff o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council 8:45 8. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 1-85, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2-85 GENE AND VIVIAN DAVIS NPO #4. Review of a proposal to annex approximately 13 acres to the City of Tigard. The property is bonded by Hwy. 217, SW 95th, SW Oak and SW 89th. (WCTM 1S1 35AC, Tax Lots 101, 2800, 4500, 4600, 4700, and WC-_H 1S1 35AD, Tax Lots 1200, 1300, 1400, and 1500. o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff o Public Testimony o Recommendation by Planning Staff o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council o Resolution No. 85- COUNCIL.AGENDA - APRIL 8, 1985- -PAGE I 0.00 9. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 30-84 CITY OF TIGARD A review of the Planning Commission's recommendation on Policies 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.3, 3.4 and 3.4.1 of the Finding Policies and Implementation Strategies document. o Public Hearing Opened a Summation by Planning Staff o . Public Testimony o Recommendation by Planning Staff o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council o Ordinance No. 85 g: 1Q 10. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDEMENT ZOA 2-85 CITY OF TIGARD A review of the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of proposed changes to sections 18.68.030, Industrial Park Permitted Uses; SEction 18.70.030, Light Industrial Permitted Uses; Section 18.72.030, Heavy Industrial permitted Uses; 18.100.090, Setbacks for fences and walls. o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff a Public Testimony o Recommendation by Planning Staff o Public Hear!ng Closed o Consideration by Council o Ordinance No. 85- 9 5-9 '0 11. CIVIC CENTER PROJECT & CALL FOR BIDS o Committee & Architect - a 9:50 12. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 12.1 Approve Minutes of March 25, 1985 12.2 Approve Resolution No. 85-,rLZ_ Transferring Appropriation Authority 12.3 Approve Supplemental Agreement for Bancroft Delinquency 12.4 Receive and File Community Development Land Use Decisions o Director's Approval for SDR 1-85 and SDR 2-85 12.5 Approve Resolution No. 85- I q for Final Acceptance of Public Improvements (Ye Olde Windmill Subdivision) 12.6 Approve Resolution No. 85- go for Final Acceptance of Public Improvements (London Square Subdivision) 12.7 Authorize City to execute Subdivision Compliance Agreement for "Carnahan's Addition" 12.8 Approve Westside By-Pass Resolution No. 85--l/L 9:55 13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 10:00 14. ADJOURNMENT (pm/2606A) COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 8, 1985-. PAGE 2 _: - ._ T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES •- APRIL 8, 1985, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, Phil Edin, Jerry Edwards, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Jerri Widner, Finance Director. 1.1 CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. Addition to 12.4 consent agenda, JB Bishop planned development Tom Brian moved to discuss this issue on non-agenda. Jerry Edwards seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: Daniel Gott, 13230 SW Hill Ct spoke about JB Bishop's proposed development. Gloria Johnson passed out a letter requesting a hearing on the matter. Carolyn Eadon expressed NPO 1's concurrence with the action taken. Dave Atkinson of SW Century Oak Dr. relayed a message from the Tigard Neighborhood Watch Committee regarding vandalism in Summerfield. JB Bishop requested Council to allow Lhe Costco chief executive officer and Costco attorney to speak. 3. STATE REVENUE SHARING ORDINANCE 85-11, Tom Brian moved to adopt. Ima i seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. BANCROFT ASSUMPTION ORDINANCE 85-12. After discussion, Phil Edin moved to adopt the ordinance with the amendment. Toni Brian seconded. Vote 4/1 with Councilor Scott voting no. 5. SALE OF SURPLUS LAND/ALTERNATIVE METHOD. Tom Brian and general consensus by other members direct the Asst. Finance Director to mail the information to brokers on the West side. f 5. SOLAR ACCESS STUDY. Mike McKeever of the State Department of Energy discussed the proposed solar access project with the Council. Ima Scott was concerned with the staffing costs and Tom Brian was concerned with the property rights issue of solar access. Jerry Edwards felt he needed more information. Tim Ramis asked if private sector consultants would be hired and would the City have any control over the hiring. Mayor Cook asked Bill Monahan to come back on April 15, 1985 with more information for council. t 7. ZONE ORDINANCE ZOA 8-84 CITY OF TIGARD. Staff summation was presented by Bill Monahan. Tom Brian moved to have an ordinance written using the definition on page two of the staff report. Ima Scott seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Tom Brian moved to direct staff to notify legislators and the legislative committee handling S853 that the City is in opposition of the bill and also any other legislation which restricts local control. Jerry Edwards seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Flag lots. Staff summation by Bill Monahan. Phil Edin moved to have an ordinance written that would restrict additional flag lots in subdivisions that adjoin and also flag lots included in these rules. Tom Brian seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 1-85, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2-85 GENE AND VIVIAN DAVIS NPO ##4, Staff summation by Liz Newton. Petition r for annexation. Public testimony given by Proponents: Gene Davis, 10875 SW 89th for annexation to improve services. Other proponents speaking: Shirley Burns, Thomas Ashlot, 9200 SW Oak would like his lot annexed also, Judy Ashlot also, Brian Adamson, Joel Adamson would like his lot annexed also, Sharon Van Dan, Randy Jungworth, Andy Cox, Darrell Dunford Bertha Dunford and Shirley Melton are in favor. Opponents—Nancy Lou Tracy concerned about the special area designation and the wildlife, John Blom9en opposed to piecemeal annexation. Others opposed Alice June, Lucia Hansen, Judy Wood opposed to the piecemeal. John Everitt, 8900 SCJ Oak again concerned with the special lands and possible zone change. Staff recommends annexation. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Cook reminded the public that this was not an annexation hearing. Jerry Edwards stated that he would not vote on the issue due to a conflict of interest, but is a proponent. Phil Edin asked about the acreage that was advertised. Apparently, the notice did not include the total acreage to be annexed. Tim Ramis recommend readvertisement. Phil. Edin moved to readvertise and to enlarge the area to be annexed and include discussion of the legislative intent- of the Council before the public hearing. Ima Scott. seconded. Vote 4/0/1 abstention by Jerry Edwards. 9. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 30-84 CITY Of TIGARD. Summation by Liz Newton. JB Bishop of NFO 1 said they were not notified. Staff assured Council that all NPO chairman and the GCI were notified. This item was held off 2 months to allow input by the committees. Council discussion followed. Phil Edin moved to adopt. Tom Brian seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 10, ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 2-85 CITY OF TIGARD. Summation by Bill Monahan. Tom Brian moved to adopt. Jerry Edwards seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. it. CIVIC CENTER PROJECT & CALL FOR BIDS. Valerie Johnson and Norm Dull spoke about the project. Norm Dull pointed out four deductive alternates: 1. Delete asphalt in undetermined areas. 2. delete entry canopy, 3. delete the library quiet room. 4. delete portion of City Hall including the administrators office, a storage area and a conference room. A resolution requiring prequalification was presented. Jerry Edwards moved to pass Resolution 85-22. Tom Brian seconded Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Tom Brian moved to call for bids, to be opened on May 15, 1985, 3:00 p.m. at City Hall. Ima Scott seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 12. CONSENT AGENDA. Tom Brian moved to accept the consent agenda removing the JB Bishop item from 12.4. Phil Edin seconded. t. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Jerri Widner updated the Council on the WCCLS levy question. The City Managers and Library Boards have agreed to a three year fixed levy with the first year set at $2.4 million. Both Beaverton and Tualatin are in support. Tom Brian requested the JB Bishop proposal be set for review. Jeff Brotman, Chief Executive Officer of Costco spoke about their proposed project and council action is critical to their timelines. 14. Adjournment at 10:00 p.m. t F, ihance Director - City of Tigard ATTEST: y City of Tigardi(0882F') TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY ,R i �e 316 P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 f`1� V 1✓V Legal Notice Advertising CITY OF TIGARD City of Tigard 0 ❑ Tearsheet Notice P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 O ❑ Duplicate Affidavit a AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' i, Susan Pinkley _ being first duly sworn, depose and say th�_kit I am the Advertising Director,or his principal clerk, of the—Tigard Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in QRS 193.010 and 193.020; published at mrd_ in the afokesaid un a st to th f tine city ou ic�� Vee* Meeting 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: April 4, 1985 771 . ` S bscrlbed and wor o be are me this_—. Ap ri]. 5, 19 at` • . ,. otary Public for Oregon - ,, 9/2088 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT �5 p�N , z ELM 3� EV a sileaIZ Pit: AM 446 ue � �• �t g bt m o eqCC a,< � wCD o«a •' was rtQ aa,GLtom H JZ (� F+ 4. v9tes «� pp p CP F` CL oo ;ac�5t7 `; pita" Ew° N L? E-• iE. f ,zz,�p a '> �i 0 CIS 15 ro a a m m CIO cCID 0 CL s � A •� P`l�yya.. m 00 d.� z z �' c c m m z CR w Q > m °� I O 0 Q Q to y O 0 • • e m p n N vi Z c a m 1 .� O oq IO �� woaw � a �;, Lu Q - O iir O .c -ori m G? O N J J � x w M ami cu c c LuC 4)a a ti p t U m m m f1+ IL O > co 0 .-..-• 4i '- Z E co m b oo m N p. 0mcq « a m w b l` > O I�C7va� m C c CLo d m p Z y om m�� 01: 00 c m O O0) xH Do -.w x Q a. = CH O � i z , 0 CLcw� >. 00 // O W TJ OU. a -g` mOOU p 0 .m N mcd 14 0 N 4-3O h0 �- to .-. `0 m ®i U G� H CL dO m mp .!=m n3 • s o e w ®w m m v coo —.00 g et 1 - AGENDA ITEM # 2 — VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE April 8, 1985 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but time may require that we schedule your items for a future agenda. Please contact the City Administrator as to agenda scheduling. Thank you. NAVE, ADDRESS b AFFILIATION ITEM DESCRIPTION M,mEr-T- wti 17',9&FR 2-.5-0 s vJ t3uRdX19m e-T• � 2- nl��=� < � l-T I`�2 .� 5 rI1( r c7� 4tl&_bkjklNYaly log6o S.W. eeot� ieAN fiek 114, A�'/J/rt°�ih�,©,B",f uW/ 0 DATE April 8, 1985 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: #7• ZONE ORDINANCE ZOA 8-84 CITY OF TICARD ***##*##*********#**********#***#*#*##*##*#***##***********#*****#**#*#******## Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation DATE APRIL 8, 1985 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description 8 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA I-85, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2-85 (Gene & Vivian Davis) NPO #4 Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation ww Lam ittttu 1-7310 5+ -re'sr n t n-e tovv Al 77 g S w.8*t _ - ���,.�g r- ,-We-rlw L .`=� i �{f 'iii ! ; -c r r�'•� 93 �aef Ste/ 0'4.E w0sk., DATE April 8, 1985 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: #9. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 30-84 CITY OF TIGARD Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and/ Affiliation 4 t% `�.��i"i MA� ✓cI.�C' 3(J�. �I��QJ S(.v' r��h�? �lY� �.--Y��.4��• /J��� DATE April 8, 1985 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: #10. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 2-85 CITY OF TIGARD Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation -- �'�;1��.7�`!a.� __.,�,;% .��.�/c*It'.�f<+'/.-"1.�.:c �c`c-:✓i�>2�m./�G:Cc 9�x�9 P.- Oj -7 .24 C,4, -A---------- -74- Tigard, Oregon April 5, 1985 Mayor John Cook Tigard City Council Tigard, Oregon, 97223. Dear Mayor and City Council Members: As residents of the immediate area, we feel that our concerns and issues . presented to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 2, 1985, were not properly addressed due to the lack of time and the late hour. (We started to speak after 12: 15 AM) . Please refer to Mr. J. B. Bishops Main Street Development of a Shopping Center and request for zone change. Last item on the Planning Commission agenda. ' We are requesting a hearing so that these concerns may be 3 x properly discussed. Thank you. Sincerely yours, 'a r �r a / i ?q3 �n r 2.5-0 s_ irf- T CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: APRIL 8 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: 3 DATE SUBMITTED: March 20, 1985 PREVIOUS AC'i'ION, n/a ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ORDINANCE TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUE SHARING FUNDS PREPARED BY: J. Widner REQUESTED BY: Oregon Executive Dept. DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �_ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY The Executive Department of the State of Oregon requires that City's who wish to receive State Revenue Sharing funds, pass an ordinance electing to do so. Attached is an ordinance that serves that requirement. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a SUGGESTED ACTION I recommend the City Council pass this ordinance to receive State Revenue Sharing funds for fiscal year 1985-86. (0840Fpg2) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: APRIL 8 1985 AGENDA ITEM E DATE SUBMITTED: March 20, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ORDINANCE AND DIRECTION TO PREPARE ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC RE: ASSUMPTIONS OF PREPARED BY: J. Widner _ BANCROFT ACCOUNTS REQUESTED BY: City Council DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: LJLd _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Pursuant to your discussion and direction, attached is an ordinance that allows the assumption of Bancrofts, subject to the approved conditions. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Continue with present policy of no assumptions. �j 2. Pass the ordinance. SUGGESTED ACTION I recommend the passage of this ordinance. (0842F) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 857 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL. CODE CHAPTER 13.04.087 (Ord. 84-55). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to allow assumption of Bancroft accounts when property changes hands, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.04.087 Assessment balance due upon sale, the division of land or transfer of property from one owner to another- be amended to read as follows: Assessments against property are allowed to be paid in installments by the owner of the property at the time of the assessment (URS 223,210). Whenever the owner of property changes through the sale or transfer of land, or the division of land; the total assessment balance plus interest [becomes due and payable at once.) MMQe assumed subject to the following conditions: No assumption on any Bancroft less than $3,000.00. An assumption fee of $50,00 will be charged. Fees for recording the lien and the release of the lien will also be charged. There will be no assumption, if Bancroft is on vacant land that is being parceled for residential or commercial development, There will be no assumption, if there is a history of slow-payment* on other debt to the City by the buyer of the property. NSlow_payment as defined by Dun 6 Bradstreet to mean payment over 30 days delinquent. ASSUMPTION CRITERIA FOR BANCROFT ASSESSMENTS PRIOR. TO JANUARY 1, 1984 + Assumptions will be at current bond selling interest rate allowed by ORS 288.520 which is 136 unless no bidders then 14%. 13% would be the rate used, ASSUMPTION CRITERIA FOR BANCROFT ASSESSMENTS AFTER JA!'dUARY 1 1984 Assumptions will be at the rate charged to the owner of the property at time of .assessment, PASSE: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this _ day of 1985. Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: This day of , 1985. Mayor - City of Tigard i (0841F) ORDINANCE NO. 85- Page 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: /8/85 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: 4/4(85 PREVIOUS ACTION: Notice i_a Qrpgonian in- ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Sale of Surplus viting proposals for selection of broker Land - Status Report PREPARED BY: Doris Hartig REQUESTED BY: City Council DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _ Y I r CITY ADMINISTRATOR,. INFORMATION SUMMARY Notices requesting proposals for a real estate broker, were published in the Oregonian 3/17/85 and 3/24/85. To date we have received one proposal. Staff is requesting direction how to proceed. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Council discussion and direction. E SEAN ELM ff STAN WILEY INC.,REALTORS COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT DIVISION 9725 S.W.BEAVERTON HILLSDALE HWY SUITE 150 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97005 (503)626-7097 March 28, 1985 Assistant Finance Director City of Tigard P. O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Madam% Thank you for the opportunity to submit our proposal for marketing the property r belonging to the City of Tigard located at 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Oregon. f The Commercial Investment Division of Stan Wiley Inc., REALTORS, specializes in Commercial. and Investment Properties and Business Opportunities. We are separate from our various Residential offices. We direct our efforts toward the needs of the smaller and mid-sized properties. We would be pleased to analyze and professionally market your property as we do for our business clients and investors on an ongoing basis. We would first prepare a comparative market analysis to assist you in determining your pricing and terms strategies. After reviewing the growth patterns and comp- rehensive planning for that section of Tigard, we would develop our marketing plan keeping the current market conditions, competition, and your needs well in mind. Our advertising would be determined by accommodating your needs and desires within our commercial advertising budget. Our normal commission on a transaction such as this would be 8% of the selling price. This fee, however, may be adjusted in the event that your requirements would put additional or unusual demands upon our service. In any event, our fee as agreed upon in the Employment Contract which your authorized representative would sign, would govern. Should you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact my office. Very truly yours, /G len R. Fotre Sales Associate. CITY OF TIGARD REAL ESTATE BROKER PROPOSAL The City of Tigard is requesting written proposals for the selection of a real estate broker for the sale of City commerciai real property located at 12420 S.W. Main Street, Tigard, OR.' Washington County Tax Map 2S1 2AB, Tax Lot 4400. Proposals shall be submitted in writing by 3:00 P.M. , March 29, 1985 to Assistant Finance Director, PO Box 23397, .Tigard- OR 97223. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. Oregonian publish 3/17 and 3/24 14 41 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 8, 1985 AGENDA ITEM : DATE SUBMITTED: April 2, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Metropolitan Area Solar Access Proiect PREPARED BY: Keith Liden REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY The State Department of Energy is preparing a proposal for B.P.A. funding for a Metro-wide project to facilitate the use of solar eneri3y. The Department is encouraging all local jurisdictions in the area to participate in this program. If the funding is approved, a model solar access ordinance will be developed and each jurisdiction will by required to give serious consideration to adoption of such an ordinance. Although adoption of a solar access ordinance will be encouraged, it will not be required as a condition of participation. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the model resolution. 2. Adopt a modified resolution. 3. Decide not to participate. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the resolution submitted by the Department of Energy. 5` (1156P) g X98 Department of Energy VICTOR ATIYEH LABOR & INDUSTRIES BUILDING, ROOM 102,SALEM,OREGON 97310 PHONE 378-4040 GOVERNOw ' TOLL FREE 1-800-221-8035 DATE: March 21 , 1985 TO: Metropolitan-area solar access project FROM: John Kaufman�� i' SUBJECT: Sample resolution ' Attached is a sample resolution endorsing the proposed Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area solar access project. We need a resolution by April 20 if you wish to participate in the project, so it would be helpful if the sample were distributed to the responsible parites before or at our presentation of the project. It is intended only as a sample. Please feel free to modify it as you see fit. The resolution is in support of the proposal for funding. We do ask that you understand that this project involves more than a mere feasibility study. The only obligation is that you agree to participate in the proposed project and give solar access and the project recommendations } serious consideration. You are not obligated to adopt the i recommendations stemming from the project or any other solar access program. We hope the wording of the resolution, "to the extent feasible given local conditions," deals with this concern. ' A common concern has been the commitment of staff time and costs that will be involved. Every effort will be made to keep these commitments to a minimum and to cover any local costs incurred. That is the benefit of a joint project like this. The proposal will build in funds for a consultant and for technical assistance from the state energy offices to perform research and develop the recommendations, as well as funds to help•offset any staff time and costs on your part in terms of attending t workshops, reviewing drafts , and tailoring the work the your specific conditions. We also ask that you circulate the attached overview of the project at or before our presentation to your planning commission/city council , to give them an idea of what we'll be discussing. We've made several presentations now, and have received a few endorsements. All but two or three governments invited to participate in the project have scheduled us for a presentation on the project. Thank you for your interest and time. JK:jk 49731(FI ) f 3-21-85 The Oregon Department of Energy is an Equal Opportunity Employer SAMPLE RESOLUTION PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA SOLAR ACCESS PROJECT WHEREAS energy is important to our economic well—being; WHEREAS renewable resources and the efficient use of energy have a role to play in our energy future; WHEREAS solar energy is a local resource that can be used by homes and businesses to help meet local energy needs, WHEREAS solar access is a necessary condition to the use of solar energy; WHEREAS solar access is affected by shading from trees and buildings on neighboring lots; WHEREAS solar access is a land use issue that most effectively and equitably can be provided and protected by land development standards; WHEREAS surveys consistently show that over 70 percent of the public wants and supports solar access; WHEREAS the economic benefits of solar access can significantly exceed the costs; WHEREAS sola.r access sends a signal to homeowners and can encourage as well as protect use of the solar resource; WHEREAS solar access is enabled by state statute and helps implement Statewide Planning Goal 13; WHEREAS the Northwest Power Planning Council supports local government efforts to provide and protect solar access)' WHEREAS a joint project of local governments in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area offers economy of scale and other benefits to local governments and private sector developers; and WHEREAS the Oregon Department of Energy has offered assistance in coordinating efforts of local governments toward a joint project; THEREFORE WE RESOLVE to participate in and support efforts by the Oregon Dept. of Energy, Washington State Energy Office and local governments in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area to secure funding to undertake a joint project to provide and protect solar access to the extent feasible given local conditions. JK:jk 1891J(D1 ,Fl) 3-11-85 i` -v„ e; department of Energy 71�:fib d y.�' 4040 v:CTOA aTi EN LABOR&INDUSTRIES BUILDING, ROOM 102,SALEM, OREGOTOLL REE 1-800-221-8035 7310 GC�Ep!aGP OVERVIEW - PORTLANC METROPOLITAN-AREA SOLAR_ACCESS PROJECT The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is deveaiping a Local Government Innovative Energy Projects Grant Frog The program solicitation is expected to be released in early March, with bids due in mid-•May. Office The Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) and Washington State energy (WSEO) would like to work with local governme�areats nsoharPaccessdproje�tver area to develop a proposal f under 6PA' s program. Solar access is the provision and protection of an unobstructed ls and line-of-sight path of solarisdiaoiartaccesshcan lreduce roofs conventional Solar access has many benef systems home' s heating bills by as much as 20 percent. More solar ever y, preserves and guarantees the opportunity to instThissincludesrsolar water now or in the future to save even more energy• in from more heaters, photovoltaics (which convert sunlight directly into electricity) ' lndowsstave slar sunipaces�siSolar an of occess involves slight south-facing w modifications of existing tools, su cost t0 locach as zoning l governments, bdivision uilders standards. it can b and developers. The savings can far exceed the costs. A joint project of local governments in the Portland area eral smaller cues. offerrsla ny rge advantages. It offers economies of scale to BPA offers 6feconomies of scale project• rather than sev to ODOE and WSEO in providing technical assistance. It offers economies them hire a consultant to the local by enabl fundinggsourcettosjointly hare sources an information. It pit can and to help offset staff costs. Anddeveloperpranddrealtorsioperating stent set in standards for architects, builders, the metropolitan interstate area. With uncertainty about getting the project funded , ODOE and WSEO would bility in drafting the like to minimize local government lead and ex expense in getting the p off the ground. We offer rre, tions to local planning proposal . We also offer to make any p commissions and elected officials on solar access and the proposed project to enl-ist their support. is an Equal Opportunity Emptoyer The Oregon Department of Energy i _ rmwu r� arm��r+ri�,-��m�rvoamrnr CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL_AGENDA ITEM SUVHARY AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: April 3,,..19_8.5 — PREVIOUS ACTION' Planninq Commission. ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ZOA 8-84 Recommendation — March 5 1985 Community Development Code 5.1 a PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan _Manufactured Homes REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: PQLTCY ISSUE INFORMATION'SUMMARY The Planning Commission has reviewed the issue of whether manufactured homes should be allowed on individual lots throughout the City. The Commission recommends that manufactured homes be allowed as long as a good definition is created which properly limits the types of units. The Council should determine if 1) manufactured homes will be allowed individual lots, and 2) the definition of manufactured homes for application in the code. Staff has POpoged thea mand Commission, ae question in nd the manufactured attached,ials manufacturedhomes solicited input from , industry. gLTERhATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Determine that manufactured homes should be allowed on individual lots with restrictions specified within the definition of manufactured homes and code provisions. r 2. Keep the code as it presently is written, however, direct staff to develop a better definition of manufactured homes. f wSUCGESTED ACTION The Planning Commission recommends that manufactured homes be allowed as individual lots. A distinction should be drawn in the code between the definition of manufactured homes and mobile homes. The Council should direct staff to prepare the necessary definitions and code revisions for adoption at a later date. t (1163P) i MEMORANDUM r CITY OF TIGARD, OREC"J TO: Members of the City Council April 3, 1985 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ZOA 8-84, 5.1a Manufactured Homes During the past few months, the staff, Planning Commission, and NPO's have reviewed the adequacy of the present code provisions which relate to manufactured homes. T' : rr:view was prompted by a request by a property owner who desires to place a manufactured home on a single lot. Presently, this is prohibited by our Code which restricts such homes to mobile home parks and manufactured home subdivisions. To locate in a manufactured home subdivision, all homes in the subdivision must be of the manufactured off—site type. Our code does not provide for exceptions. All NPO's were provided with the information submitted to the Planning Commission to allow for review. Comments from NPO's 3, 5 and 6 were received. The Planning Commission consensus is that manufactured homes should be allowed on individual lots if the homes meet the building code standards applied to so called stick built homes. The Commission is concerned that criteria be developed for allowing these homes, and that a definition be developed for both manufactured homes and mobile homes. Senate ®ill 53 has been proposed for review by the Oregon Legislative Assembly in 1985. The bill, if adopted as written, would require that local plans allow certain manufactured homes on some lots. This bill has been included in the packet because of the definition which it includes for a manufactured home: "a. It is multi-sectional. b. It encloses a space of not less than 864 square feet. C. It has a pitched composition shingle or wood shake roof. d. It is set upon a foundation approved by the Department of Commerce, and if not placed at ground level, it has skirting which complements the structure. e. It has exterior siding in color, material and appearance similar to the exterior siding material commonly used on residential dwellings." Other suggested language has been provided by the Manufactured Home industry ` in the form of a model ordinance as follows on Page 2: S Page 1 A. PERMITTED PLACEMENT The establishment, location, and use of manufactured homes as scattered-site residences shall be permitted in any zone permitting installation of a dwelling unit subject to requirements and limitations applying generally to such residential use in district and provided such homes shall. meet the following requirements and limitations: 1. The home shall meet all requirements applicable to single-family dwellings and possess all necessary improvement location, building and occupancy permits and other certifications required by the code; 2. The home shall be larger than 950 square feet of occupied space 1 or meet the minimum square footage requirements for the appropriate zone; 2 3 . The home shall be attached and anchored to a permanent foundation in conformance with the regulations adopted by the Oregon Department of Commerce and with manufacturer's installation specifications; A. The home shall be covered with an exterior material customarily used on site built residential dwellings, and such material shall extend over the top of the foundation (or meet the community's site built residential dwelling home standards) . 3 5. The homes shall have a roof composed of a material customarily used on site built residential dwellings, such as asbestos, fiberglass, shake, asphalt or tile, which shall be installed onto a surface appropriately pitched for the materials used. NOTES: 1 This provision would allow certain single-section manufactured homes, since addition of an expando room could enlarge the size to over 950 square feet. Permitted placement by right, could be limited to double--section or larger manufactured homes by amending the zoning ordinance's definition of a dwelling unit to require that all homes, conventional and manufactured, "must be at least twenty-three (23) feet in width". t 2 Communities not wishing to prohibit all single-section manufactured homes could have a minimum square footage requirement applying equally to all single-family homes. s 3 The appropriateness of siding and roofing materials can be determined by the Planning Commission or their designated g administrator on a case-by-case basis, or an approved siding and (4 roofing materials list can be developed (see example at end of ordinance). Page 2 i i t t The Commission feels that a definition can be developed which will allow manufactured homes while maintaining the integrity of the surrounding area. The formal Commission action on March 5, 1985, requested that a distinction be drawn between manufactured homes and mobile homc3. I suggest the following definition for consideration: Manufactured Homes A factory fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code to be used by itself or incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site as a dwelling unit. The term is intended to apply to major assemblies and does not include buildings constructed at a site from prefabricated panels, trusses, and other prefabricated supplements. Such a home must comply with all. covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC and R's) applicable to the site in terms of building materials, building size, roof pitch, and other design details. The definitions shown above from SB 53 or the manufactured home industry suggestion could be modified to serve this purpose. Items a, c, d, and a are proper for use in our definition. Item b ` is a threshold limit which would apply only where no covenants, conditions and restrictions apply. Where they do apply, the minimum size would be greater in compliance with the C, C and R's. For your information, the staff checked with other jurisdictions to determine how they have handled this issue. Following are the results of our limited survey: Beaverton: Manufactured homes which comply with the UBC are allowed on individual lots. Mobile Homes are allowed only in parks and subdivisions. Beaverton also has a residential agricultural zone which allows one mobile home per lot. Gresham: FNA approved manufactured homes are allowed on individual lots. Milwaukie: Manufactured homes or mobile homes are allowed by either the Planning Commission or staff. The Planning Director determines which approved authority will decide. Oregon_ City Allow manufactured homes on individual lots if the home meets the UBC. Mobile Homes are allowed in parks or subdivisions. Lake Oswego Does not allow manufactured homes on individual lots. Tualatin: Does not allow manufactured homes on individual lots. Council Action: The Council should 1. Determine if any residential units built off site should be allowed on individual building lots throughout the City. If the Council determines that they should be allowed, the Council should direct the staff to prepare the necessary code revisions to include needed definitions and modify code language throughout the Development Code. Page 3 If the Council desires to allow manufactured homes on individual lots, it should: 2. Review the proposed definitions to determine if one is adequate or provide guidance concerning the elements which should be in Tigard's definition. (WAM:brl1163P) Page 4 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 1985 2. Staff report to Planning Commission, March 5, 1985, including Planning Commission minutes of January 8, 1985. 3. Short Form Model Ordinance Regulating Manufactured Housing. 4. January 11, 1985 memo to NPO's requesting input 5. Staff report to Planning Commission dated January 3, 1985 including applicable sections of the code. (1163P) Page 5 TIGARD PLANNING COPSMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 5, 1985 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting Was held at Fowler Junior High - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; commissioners Butler, Fyre, Owens, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Campbell. ABSENT: Commissioners Leverett and Peterson. STAFF: Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commission Bergmann seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Owens abstained. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Staff distributed copies of sections of Land Use Procedures and Practices in Oregon. Also, a letter from NPO # 3 was distributed regarding agenda item 5.1 (ZOA 8-84). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ^.ODE) (5.1 a.) Review Section 18.26, 18.94 (Manufactured Homes), (5.1 b.) 18.96 and 18.98 (Flag Lots and Height Limits). 5.1 a. Associate Planner Liden explained that the information on Manufactured Homes had been taken back through the NPO process. He reviewed NPO 3, 5, and 6's comments. The other NPOs had not responded. He requested that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council whether or not manufactured/mobile homes should be allowed on individual lots. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AS ACTION o Consensus of the Commissioners was that Manufactured Homes should be allowed if they met the standards as required by stick built homes and have criteria which they would have to meet to be allowed on individual lots. Also, they felt their was a need for a strong definition between manufactured homes and mobile homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1985 Page 1 * Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to ingle recommend to City Cou me t the same standail to allow rds uasdHomes on required forsstick Family Lots, that they built houses', that they meet the standards for subdivision and criterions be established to allow manufactured homes on individual lots. Also that a definition be made for Commissionmanufactured and mobile homes. Motion carried unanimously by 5.1 b. Assoc satetaffPl preferreanner d alternative number five.en reviewed the memo d information iLengthydiscussion that p followed. PUBLIC TESTIMONY presenting NPO 0 6, read the o Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, re y 25, 1985 minutes. They were NPO's recommendation from their Februar concerned about giving auchori.ty to the Director to decide this issue. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Vanderwood, Fyre, Bergmann, Butler, Owens and Campbell favored alternative number five. eommissionerlt it was Bergmann was is. not Lengthy sure why the code needed changing, he f discussion regarding the side yard setbacks. o President Moen stated his concerns for alternative five. He supported alternative number two, which would require that the Code provisions be applied only to flag lots which are not in subdivisions. * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to recommend alternative number 2, which reiterates their re o mm ation of May 8, 1984, to have the Code provisions only apply which are not in subdivisions. Also to add 10 ft. for side yard setbacks, also remove the word provided. Motion carried by oy vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Butler voting no. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 30-84 FINDINGS POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES DOCUMENT. Review Policies 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.3, 3.4, and 3.4.1. Associate Plan be forwarded reviewed City C.eustatus and requested that staff's recommendations PUBLIC TESTIMONY 0 Geraldine Ball, read her concerns into the record, she favored staff's recommendation. `r Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March S, 1985 i AGENDA ITEM _5.1 a PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 1985 ® ZOA 8-84 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON March 1, 1985 T0: Planning Commission { FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Manufactured Homes the Planning Staff 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, primary At the January regarding siting of manufactured/mobile homes. The on presented a memo reg the issue raised was whether or not manufactured mobile home t'tha� bsn ting, he individual lots in residential zones in he City. rected staff to review the issues with the NPO's. planning Commission dii available Since that time, l of the staff h8sha emade both the reviewed theni f rmat on.t The l consensus NPO's. NPO 0 5 and NPO f: �. of NPO , was to allow manufactured homes on indiDevelopment subject and certain standards set forth in the Cammuntty nts, Conditions, and Restrictions. enforceable through Covena lowing manufactured/mobile homes on individual lots idPO !! b does not support almmunity Development Code language. and recommends retaining the existing Co S STAFF RECOMMENDATION: d by the Manufactured Housing Association Review the attached standards propose , and forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding siting manufactured/mobile homes on individual lots. 3 1O53P dm j PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Fyre stated he was on NPO $ 3 during the Comprehensive Plan and their intent was not to allow manufactured homes on single family lots. o Commission Vanderwood stated it was her understanding that manufactured homes were not to be allowed on single family lots- 0 Commissioner Campbell stated she was not present during the Comprehensive Plan process, however, was concerned with treating manufactured homes as mobile homes. She felt that they should be considered dwelling units. o Commissioner Butler stated he was on NPO # 1 during the process and they determined it was discriminatory not to allow them, however, the intent of the plan was not to allow them on single family lots. i o Commissioner Peterson was not around during the Comprehensive Plan t process but felt they should be allowed in subdivision with convenants and on single family lots if standards were set. r o Vice President Owens recalled that it was NPO # 7 intent to allow 1 manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions. She felt there was a need for a definition and supported staff's recommendation. o Commissioner Leverett felt manufactured homes should be allowed as a matter of economics. If they meet the building code they shoul" be allowed as a dwelling unit. i o Commission Butler commented that he felt allowing manufactured homes would help meet the LCDC goal which requires providing a diverse type of needed housing. He felt minimum standards could be established. o Lengthy discussion following regarding allowing manufactured homes. o Frank Johnson, 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. commented that he t . � lived in a mobile home and that their is a big difference between manufactured and mobile homes. He added that LaGrand allows manufactured homes in a specific area. a Discussion followed on how to continue. Consensus was to go back through the NPO process. No action was taken. Director of Community Monahan reviewed his memo on flag lots and height limitations. He explained the difficulty of applying the restriction when flag lots are being developed. He then reviewed seven alternatives. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Ct., representing NPO / 6 suggested not allowing flag lots to abut existing established areas. She felt flag lot should only be allowed on R 3.5 lots or larger. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Geraldine Ball questioned the need for a field survey. Discussion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Vice President Owens moved and Comrissioner Butler seconded to set CPA 30-84 over to the February 5, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present. FINAL ORDERS FOR ITEMS 5.2 and 5.3. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the final order for PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, and V 15-84. * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to proposed by staff and authorize Vice adopt the final order as President Owens to sign the final order. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the final order for PD 6-84 and S 11-84. * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commission Butler seconded to adopt the final order as proposed by staff and authorize Vice President Owens to sign the final order. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. i r% 5.6 ZONE ORDINANCE' AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 CITY OF TIGARD Review section 18,26, 18.94, 18 96, 18.98, and 18.144 of the Community Development Code. Director of Community Development Monahan reviewed his memo regarding Manufactured/Mobile Homes. He requested that the Commission give him some direction as to whether manufactured homes should be allowed on single family lots. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Don Halbrook, 1109 Sierra Vista, Newberg, supported staff's recommendation for the definition of manufactured homes. He supported allowing manufactured homes on single family lots. Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, was concerned about the effect Manufactured homes would have on established homes if they were allowed on single family lots. i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 5 14-17 /-7/ 63rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-1985 Regular Session 3 Senate Bill 53 PRINTED PURSUANT TO ORS 171.130 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing rules. indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President(at the request of Joint Interim Committee on Land Use) SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of•thc measure and is not a pan of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly.It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Requires city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to allow the siting of certain manufactured homes on at least some lots zoned for single family dwellings. Requires local governments to designate lots on which manufactured homes will be allowed. I A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to manufactured homes. 3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 4 SECTION 1.Section 2 of this Act is added to and made a part of ORS 197.295 to 197.307. 5 SECTION 2.(1)Upon and after the first periodic review,city and county comprehensive plans and land use 6 regulations shall allow manufactured homes meeting the requirements of subsections(2)and(3)of this section to 7 be sited on at least some lots planned and zoned for single family dwellings.The comprehensive plan or land use 8 regulations shall designate the lot of lots planned and zoned for single family dwellings on which those 9 manufactured homes are allowed. 10 (2)A manufactured home qualifies under subsection(1)of this section if it meets all of the following criteria: 11 (a)It is multisectional. 12 (b)It encloses a space of not less than$64 square feeL 13 (c)It has a pitched composition shingle or wood shake roof 14 (d It is set upon a foundation approved by the Department of Commerce,and if not placed at ground level, 15 it has skirting which complements the structure. 16 (e)It has exterior siding in color,material and appearance similar to the exterior siding material commonly 17 used on residential dwellings. 18 (3)A city or county may subject a manufactured home sited under subsection(1)of this section and the lot 19 upon which it is sited to any development standard to which a conventional single family residential dwelling on 20 the same lot would be subject, except those development standards which would prevent all manufactured 21 homes from being sited on the lot.Development standards include,but are not limited to,building setbacks and 22 aesthetic and architectural requirements. 23 (4) Nothing in this section precludes a city or county from allowing mobile homes, as defined in ORS 24 446.003(19),and manufactured homes that do not meet the requirements of subsection(2)of this section on lots 25 planned and zoned for single family dwellings. 26 (5)City and county comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall adequately provide for the siting of 27 mobile homes.as defined in ORS 446.003(19).and manufactured homes not provided for in subsection(1)of 28 this section within areas planned and zoned for residential use. \ NOTE: Matter in bold flee in an amended section is new:matter Inahe and brarkc red)is existing law to be omitted. SB 53 1 ` SECTION 3.Subsections(1) to(4)of section 2 of this Act apply to a comprehensive plan and land use 2 regulations upon and after the first periodic review of that plan and regulations. 1 121 "r t sj. a r - �v Aft 4. 't 4 s S. 5 r2' as • � r- f t 5 ~ _ a 1• th - t �6. t � 1 ? F.e.��,'^ � .. - � � � ......��. .. .< 't''� , ;moi . . .. •� F_ ._. 'J��UL•L URD1:�:',:CL AN ORDINAN( L AUTHORIZING DE"ELOP"IEN7 OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN RESI )ENTIAL ZONES AN ORDINANCE regulating the placement of manufactured housing, amending the zoning ordinance, establishing permits , providing installation standards, and instituting penalties for violation. WHEREAS, the City of _ recognizes that manufactured homes built to the state or federal construction and safety standards can provide many residents with decent, safe and affordable housing; and WHEREAS, manufactured homes on permanent foundations with conventional siding and roofing materials built using state-of-the-art construction methods are virtually indistinguishable from other forms of housing, Vet can have a significant cost savings; and WHEREAS, the City Council of find that the standards contained herein can improve the public health, safety convenience, and welfare and aid in the future development of NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IHAI 0 I. INTENT It is the intent of this ordinance to encourage provisir,n of alternative modest income housing in general residential ureas be p.•rmitting the use of certain manufactured homes, as defined herein, in all districts in which similar dwellings constructed on site are permitted, subject to the requirements set forth herein to assure acceptable similarity in exterior appearance between such manufactured homes and dwellings that have been or might be constructed under these and other lawful rei!ulations on adjacent or nearby lots in the same district. , II. DEFINITIONS A. EXFANDO ROOM An expandable manufactured housing unit . B. MANUFACTURED HOME A dwelling unit fabricated on or after June 15, 1976, in an off-site manufacturing facility for installation or assembly at the building site, bearing a seal certifying that it is built in compliance with the federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safetv Standards Code. 1. While reference is made to "the City of 11, this ordinance can also be used by cities and counties. i C. ;L=.`;IF-+CTUREU HuUSitiG (IONS TRU(I'lON AN:; Y STANI)ARDS CODE Title 1%; of thl 1974 Housing and Communit, Development Act 142 U.S.C. 5401 et seq) , as amended ( previously known as the federal Iobile Home Construction and Safety Act), rules and regulations adopted thereunder, which include HUD approved information sipplied by the home manufac- turer, and regulations and interpretations of said code by the Orezon Department of Commerce. D. MOBILE HOME A transportable structure built prior to June 15, 1976, the effective date for the federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Act of 1974, larger than three hundred and twenty (320) square feet, and designed 1 to be used as a year-round residential dwelling. . e E. STATE BUILDING COBE The mandatory statewide building .ode adopted by the Director of the Oregon Department of Commerce. i 1 III. STANDARDS } A. PERMITTEL PLACFMFNT a The establishment . location, and us=- of manufactured homes as scattered-sit( residences shall be permitted in any zone permitting installation . f a dwelling unit subject to requirements and limira- t tions applying generally to such residential use in district arid pro- vided such homes shall meet the following requirements and limitations: 1 . the home shall meet all requirements applicable to sin--le-family dwellings and possess all necessary improvement lucatior., building and occupancy permits ane other certifications required by the code; 2. the home shall be larger than 950 square feet of occupied space` or meet the minimus, square footage requirements for the appro- priate zone;3 2. This provisior would allow certain single-section manufactured homes, since addition of ar expando room could enlarge the size to over 950 square feet. Per- mitted placement by right , could be limited to double-section or larger manufac- tured homes b) amending the zoning ordinance's definition of a dwelling unit to require that all homes, conventional and manufactured, "must be at least twenty- three (23) feet in width". 3. Communities nct wishing to prohibit all single-section manufactured homes could havea minimum square footage requirement applying equally to all single-family homes. 3_ the 11CM, 1 be Ut t .�ched and ant re t . pc rmat :'.nuatie :, in conformance with the regulation- adopted b,, the Oregot; Depart- ment of Commerce and with manufacturer' s installation specifica- tions; 4. the home shall be covered with an exterior material- customarilly used on site built residential dwellings, and such material shall extend over the top of the foundation (or meet the community's site built residential dwelling home standards).4 5. the home shall have a roof composer.' of a ma-c•rial customariI y used on site built residential dwellings, such as asbestos, fiber- glass, shake, asphalt or tile, which shall be installed onto a surface appropriately Bitched for the materials used. B. PLACEMENT WJ TH PERMIT Manufactured homes not meet in€ the terms of Section III , Paragraph A, and mobile homes, shall be permitted within the City of only after receiving a special exception permit from the body authoriz-A to grant special exception permits. C. STRUCTURAL ALTER-NTIONN Due to its integral design, ani structural alteration or modification of a manufactured or mobile homi after it is placed on the site must be approved by the authorized building administrator (or other desiznee) of the City of _ IV. TEMPORARY USE A. CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PERMIT ISSUAN: 1 Subject to conditions, fees and -tandards otherwise required in the zoning ordinance, a temporary use permit shall be issued: 1 . to an applicant in the process of building a site built dwelling to locate a manufactured or mobile home on a building lot during the course of construction of the dwelling; such permit shall not be issued until after a building permit for the dwelling has been issued; 2. to an applicant to use a manufactured or mobile home as a care- takers quarters or construction office at a job site; f` 4. The appropriateness of sideing and roofing materials can be determined by the plan \ commission or their designated administrator on a case by case basis, or an approved siding and roofing materials list can be developed (see example at end of ordinance) 5. These provisions are suggested. hvaItli or the h.aIth of o+ iot ` r nc•ee•ssi- tatc•s care, and where the facts show that an unneces!-ar- hard- ship would occur if not permitted to locate a manufactured home aJjaCent to she residence of ont who is able to provide such care or in need of such care. B. LENGTH OF PERMIT A temporary use permit may be issued, at the: discretion of the plan commission or its designated administrator, for a period not to exceed two (2) years. The temporary permit may be renewed for an additional one ( 1 ) year period upon showing of good cause and with permission to do so. However, at the discretion of the plan commission or its designated a,mirnistrator, a temporary use permit may be issued to an applicant fu- a health or age related circumstance for a period coterminous, air_l, the health or age related circumstance. C. PERMIT EXPIR)iTION At the time the temporary permit expires, the manufactured or mobile home and all appurternances shall bt removed from the property within ninety (90) •,ays. { D. UTILITY REQV_ REMENTS Manufactured or moilz homes uses for temporary uses shall have an approved water supply, sewage disposal system, and utility connections, where appropriate, and at the discretion of the plan commission or its designated acmini.strator. E. PERMIT FEF A temporary csc- permit shall be issued by the plan commission's designated acministrator. The fee shall be twenty five dollars ($25)r and is in adcition to all other required permits for utilities and sewage disposal systems. V. APPEAL An action to review any orjer, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official or board charged with enforcement of the zoning ordinance shall be pursuant to the appeal process set forth in this case. �,. 6. While twenty five dollars ($25) :s the customary permit fee, it is discretionary. A. FAILURE TO C•?MPLl Each day of non—compliance with the provisions of this ordinance con— e sticutes a separate and distinct ordinance violation. Jud�;nwnt of up to five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day may be entered fl-`r a viola— tion of this ordinance. B. SUBJECT TO REMOVAL A home, sited upon property in violat4oi; of this ordinance, shall be subject to removal frons such property. ilowever, the home owner must be given a reasonable opportunit,. to bring, the property into compliance before action for removal can be taken. If action finally is taken by the appropriate- authority r_e brim compliance, the expense involved may be made a lien against the property. C. REMOVAL METHOD The Plan commission or its designated administrat.:,r may institute a suit in an appropriate court for injunctive relief to Cans. such violation to be prevented, abated or removed. V11. SEVERABILITY '_1 -','LSE If any section, subsection. paragraph, sentence. clausc, or phrasr of this ordinance is for an`. reason held to bt- inv alid or unconstitutional , such invalidity or +.anconstitutiorality shall not affect the vaiidit-, or c<+nsti tutionality of the remaini:,r portions of this ordinance. It i< bc '.nt expressly declared that this :>rdinancc- and each section, subsec_ ic;_. paragraph, sentence, claus, and plrasc would have been adopted recardless of the fact that any one or iuc.re sections, subsections, paragraphs, senten— ces, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional ADOPTED: CITY COUNCIL OF: OREGON FLAYOR: 7. The ordinance violation procedure for manufactured homes should be consistent With the procedure used for other violations in the local ordinance. i i''t.:•\'}_; ti!1 \f; k 1 ,ti(, `iAIERIALS LIS'I lj The following sidinf! materials. are approved for usage on manufactured homes: a) residential horizonta: aluminum lap siding, b) residential horizontal rinpl la , siding, C ) cedar or other wood siding. d) wood grain, weathcrr resis[an[, press board siding, e) stucco siding:, ti brick or stone siding, g) J ) k ) 1 ) other approved sia,-- materials which are aestheticallx ccrrr,patible. 2j The following, roofing r+af.crials are approved for usage ciii manufacture:? homes: a) asbestos shingle's on a roof pitches according to the desi!n spci: ific<,tior!' / of the shinnies . < b fiberi,1as- shirn�if's or, a roof pitctied according, t the design Spec ificatic: r of the shingles . : ) shake shingles :>n roof pitched according to the design specifications of the shingles d1 asphalt shingle= on a roof pitched according to the desiE-r, specifications of the shingles. e ) tiie materials a roof pitched according to the. design specifications of the materials , f ) g) h) i ) j) k) 1 ) 8. This is an example of an administrative form which can be used to regulate approved siding and roofing materials. It is not a part of the ordinance. r f MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON January 11, 1985 TO: NPO and CCI Members f FROM; William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development b SUBJECT. Potential Community Development Code Changes f _ k Enclosed fur your reviow are copies of Lwo discussion topics inito distributee. Planning Commission on January 8, 1995. The Commission asked us to on these to the theNpoanning Commission pfollow g diwill. e PO's and CCI for scuss on atthe January r28,.yCCI agenda of meeting. e in Manufactured Homes — The Planning Commissionexpressed on individual We determining if manufactued homes should be al f need to better define manufactured homes and clarify in the Code where !� such units are allowed. r Flag Lots and Height Limits - The Planning Commission would appreciate your comments concerning how the CityMrs.should Mary regulate tone ofl g l iit 6 suSeveral options are presented in the memo two other altenatives. 1. That no flag lots be made abutting existing residential neighborhoods; or 2. That no house on a flag lot be built more than 1/2 story higher than buildings on abutting lots. . Please consider these alternatives as well as those spelled out in the memo. Enclosed are copies of the memos for ryconumoconsideration, staff will. prepare a recommendation after considering your dmj/0902P k AGENDA ITEM 5.6 January 8, 1985 r ZOA 6-84 (18.26 & 18.94 MEMO TO: Members of the Planning Commission ' FROM; William A Monahan, 'Director of Community Development DATE: January 3, 1985 RE: Manufactured Homes Recently a question arose concerning the standards within the Code which relate to Mobile Hames and Manufactured Homes. Section 18.94 presents the Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations and section 18".26.030 8.26.d "mobiles home definitions of "mobile home", "mthe obile home pa subdivision". The question which was posed is, what types of structuorrel are included in the definition and thus restricted so that they. may Y located within mobile home parks and subdivisions. Our Code does not allow manufactured/mobile homes on individual lots unless part of a subdivision which is 100% comprised of units of that type. It is not clear from the definition of "mobile home" if the intent was to include all dwelling units constructed off site and transported to the site for installation. The Planning Staff recalls that the intent of the Commission and Council during the Comprehensive Plan preparation process was to group all mobile homes and factory built homes under the general title of manufactured homes and restrict their placement. , Unfortunately, the definition section of the code only contains a definition of "mobile home" . which is not inclusive of all manufactured units. A separate definition of manufactured home is needed. Chapter 18.94 of tfie Code allows manufactured/mobile home subdivisions and parks. There is a grouping of terms here which adds to the confusion. It could be interpreted to mean that manufactured homes and mobile homes are separate. There are separate standards for subdivisions and parks. A review of the standards indicates that the purpose was to allow either manufactured or mobile homes in a subdivision while the park standards are set out specifically for the type of unit which is commonly referred to as a mobile home. The standards contained in Chapter 18.94 seem to support the argument that the intent of the Code is to restrict any factory built units. The following questions need to be resolved: 1. Is the intent of the Commission and Council to only allow units built off site and transported for installation on a property to be located subdivision and parks? in manufactured/mobile home f ti 2. If the Commission and Council feel that manufactured homes should be r allowed on any building lot in the City, are there any restrictions which are necessary such as 1) Minimum size of the units 2) building material restrictions 3) design of the structure 4) landscaping? Generally, convenants and restrictions prepared by the developer of a the standards which could be applied to a subdivision will specify manufactured unit if one were allowed on an individual lot. of course, not all city housing lots are governed by CC and R's, therefore if the Commission does wish to allow individual units, some standards will be necessary. For your review I have enclosed copies of some floor plans for manufactured units now available. They were provided to me by Mr. Pete Janzen who would like to place a unit for his home at the McDonald Acres Subdivision. I have advised him that my interpretation of the Code is that the units are not now allowed. If the Commission and Council find otherwise, we will need to prepare modifications to the Cod tand edefnitions for our review in February. If you agree with my P i east a definition of manufactured home is needed in the Code while some language revision may also be needed. A suggested definition of manufactured homes is: A factory fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code to be used by itself or incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site as a dwelling unit. The term is intended to apply to major assemblies and does of include buildings constructed at a site from prefabricated panels, trusses, and other prefabricated supplements. (0890P) eT "Dwelling unit" means a single unit, excluding mobile independent living facilities homes, providing complete, rovisions for for one or more persons including permanent p living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. See Mobile Home. "Mobile home" as used in this code, means a structure transportable in one or more sections, each built on a perma- nent chassis, which is designed to be used for permanent occu- pancy as a dwelling and which is constructed on a site other than its place of permanent use. "Mobile home park means any place where four or more mobile homes are located within five hundred feet of one another on a lot, tract or parcel of land under the same ownership, the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to anv person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space free in connection with securing the trade or patronage of such person. "Mobile home subdivision" means a subdivision designed and approved for the sale of lots for residential occupancy in mobile homes only . Chapter 18. 94 MANUFACTURED/ViOBILE HOME REGULATIONS Sections: 94 .010 Purpose. ' 18 .94 .020 Manufactured/mobile home subdivision standards . ark standards . 18 .94 .030 Manufactured/mobile home p 18 .94 .040 Nonconforming mobile hones. 18 94 010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria for the placement of manufacturments mobile homes in mobile home subdivisions and park developments within the city of Tigard. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . 18 .94 .020 Manufactured/mobile home subdivision standards. In addition to the standards of the zoning77district in which the project is located and other standards of this code, a manufactured/mobile home subdivision statesal stardall: and other (1) Comply with all applicable ter 18 .160) ; city standards for the subdivision (see Chapter 18 .1e zoning (2) Satisfy all the standards of the app district, and the provisions of Chapter 18 .92; and (3) Be limited to manufactured/mobile home housing types. All other types of residential units are not permitted. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . 314-11 (Tigard 4/84) 18-94 .030 _ 18.94.030 Manufactureosedbmobilemhomerparkashallsbe (a). The design of the prop submitted to the planning department for reviewin with Chapter 18.120 , site Developmeicablent iew, 18. 130, Conditional Use, where app (b) The design for licablenstateustandred ards eestablished shall conform to all apP by the state of Oregon, Department of Commerce mobile home park standards. ark shall: (c) The manufactured/mobile home p minlot gross area of one acre; (1) Have a m (2) Have a minimum frontage one ohundred fty rfiefeet; (3) Have a minimum depth (4) Have a front and rear yard setback of twenty- five feet; and setback of ten feet, except on (S) Have a side y five feet; a corner lot the side yards shall be square feet of outdoor (6) Have a minimum improvedtforgrecreational use, recreation area, suitably P air provided ed yards. Each for each unit exclusive of req recreation area shall have a minimum size of two thousand five hundred squarfeecaping equivalent to twenty percent (7) of the manufactured/mobile sC menpark area;om Public right-of- (8) $e partially � a combination of a way and adjacent residential area by or any combination sight-obscuring fence. vegetation, of the above as approved by the approval authority: except: that within the required front yard, any fence shall not exceed three feet in heig rovided that the park will be (d) Evidence shall be P state eligible for a certificate of sanitation required by law. q y spublic (e) Each site shall be adequately facilities such as water Supply, improved streets. (f) Each unit shall be provided with a water, sewer and electrical connection. The electrical connection shall pro- vide for 110 and 220 volt servac�'• building or other scruc- (g) No mobile home, accessory ture shall be closer than ten feet from another mobile home, accessory building or other structure. (h) No structure shall exceed twenty-five feepark height. (i) Each mobile home placed in a mobile home p subdivision shall meettheof llowingastandards and shall be inspected by the build-ng insignia indicating fic compliance with (1) A state insig Oregon state mobile home construction ng stacomplliancerds in eforct at the time of manufacture and including P reconstruction of equipment installation made after manufacture shall be displayed on each mobile home; .. ('Tigard 9/84) 314-12 -*x-.18 .9 4 .0 3 0 - (2) Each mobile home shall be in good repair, not- withstanding deterioration which may have occurred due to misuse, neglect, accident or other cause; (3) Each mobile home shall contain a water closet, lavatory, shower or tub, and a sink in a kitchen or other food preparation space; and (4) Each mobile home shall be installed under the provisions of the administrative rules adopted by the Director of Commerce and administered by the State Building Code Division. (j) Each vehicular way in a mobile home park shall be named and marked with signs which are similar in appearance to those used to identify public streets, and: (1) A map of the named vehicular ways shall be pro- vided to the applicable fire district, the police department and the public works department. (k) If a mobile home space or permanent structure in the park is more than five hundred feet from a public fire hydrant, the park shall provide: (1) Water supply lines designed with fire hydrants which shall be provided within five hundred feet of such space or structure; and (2) Each hydrant within the park shall be located i on a vehicular way and shall conform in design and capacity to city and the applicable water district standards. (1) Each manufactured/mobile home in a mobile home park or subdivision shall have a continuous perimeter skirting installed pursuant to state regulations, which shall be of the same material and finish as the exterior of the mobile home. (m) The wheels, tongue and traveling lights of each manufactured/mobile home in a mobile home park or subdivision ; shall be removed upon installation of unit. (n) There shall be no outdoor storage of furniture, tools, equipment, building materials or supplies belonging to the occupants or management of the park. (o) Accessways or driveways shall be lighted in accord- ance with city standards. (p) Primary access to the manufactured/mobile home park shall be from a public street and shall be in accordance with Chapter 18 .108, Access and Egress, and: (1) Where necessary, additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city to maintain adequate traffic circulation; (2) Access driveways connecting units to a public street shall have a width of not less than thirty-six feet, of which not less than twenty feet shall be paved; (3) Driveways shall be designed to provide for all maneuvering and parking of units without encroaching on a public street. 314-13 (Tigard 4/84) • 1ti.7y .U4U--1V .Jv .v..v mobile homes in (q) The maximum number of shall notaexceeduthe/amount calculated the park or subdivision 84-29 51(Exhibit A(part) ) , 1984; in Chapter 28.92• (Ord. 1983) . Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , Mobile home 18 .94 .040 Nonconforming mobilthehordinance) codified in parks existing at the adoption o_ this title not meeting the standards set forth in this title shall be considered nonconforming and are subject to the standards set forth in Section 18.home s2in4such. parks may be (b) Nonconforming the standards of replaced with like mobi�hehoa�� movedhat meet or destroyed. (Ord. Section 18.94 .030 whenY 83-52 •,-xhibit A(part) , 1983) . Chapter 18 .96 ADDITIONAL YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS Sections: 18.96.O10 Purpose' required. le-family residential 18 .96.020 Additional. setback from centerline s 18.96 .030 Distance between er structures site. structure and other structures on the site. erty 18 .96.040 No yard required Structure not on prop { line. 18.96.0'50 Exceptions to yard requirements. yard. 18 .96.060 Storage in front 18.96.070 Projections into required yards. 18.96.080 Lot area for flag lots. 18.96.090 Front yard determination. 18 .96 .010 Purpose . The purpose of this chapter is to permit or afford better light, air and vision clearance on more heavily traveled streets and on streets compatibletwidthrd width, to make the location of structures sby providing the need for the eventual k dicta to assure there is for additional yard setback distances, adequate distance between buildings on the site and to pro- vide standards for projections into yard areas. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . and to 18 .96,02d Additional ht air and sight distance,rline uan . (a) To assure improved light, and welfare, structures protect the public health, safety in any zoning district which abut certmIdistanceddllec- fromthe tor streets shall be se centerline of the street. 314-14 (Tigard 9%84) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 8, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: 17 DATE SUBMITTED: April 4, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ZOA 8-84 5.16- Recommendation of March 5, 1985 Flag Lots/Height Limits PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan REQUESTED BY: n „ DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: � 1 CITY ADMINISTRATOR: aarasmaacaaaanmammaamsa mamaaazsaaaa masaxaaaaaaamxcmzaamammaa aaasaasamammmaa as aama INFO&MATION SUMMARY The issue of flat lots and their impact on adjoining lots has been a discussion topic for the past several months. Following a staff survey, several alternate code revisions were presented to the Planning Commission for review. After NPO review, the Commission voted to recommend that Section 18.98.030 of the code be revised so that it applies only to lots outside of subdivisions with a reduction in the allowable height to two stories and thirty feet. A further requirement of a ten-foot side yard is also recommended. �� m ama masmaamsmmaaaaaamsa:amaaaa:aamasasaxxammaa commas mzssamxaxmammmaaa aaaamm ammmaszama ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Accept the Planning Commission recommended modifications to 1.8.98.030. 2. Modify Section .18.98.030 based on NPO #6 input. 3. Modify Section 18.98.030 based on other alternative language. 4. Take no action. mzasasaemsa:a:xaaaamaaaammaaRammaa�aeaamaasaaoaaaaamma,.ampmmaa.amaaamsaaaamesamaea mmauaamamaaaam SUGGESTED ACTION The Planning Commission recommends that the Council modify Section 18.98.030 of the code so that it applies only to flag lots not included in subdivsions with modifications to height limits and side yards. Council should direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinance for adoption at a later date. I r F (1164P) MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the City Council April 4, 1985 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Flag Lots/Height Limits During the past year, the City staff has reviewed Tigard's code provisions as they relate to flag lots and height limits. A survey was conducted in 1984 to evaluate how other communities deal with flag lots and the potential impact of flag lot development on adjoining properties. Following the survey, a report was made to the Planning Commission with the various options for governing flag lots. The Commission requested that NPO input be sought. Input from NPO #6, the location of earlier controversy concerning this code provision, was provided. On March 5, 1985, the Planning Commission reviewed the issue in a public hearing. Seven alternative approaches to dealing with flag lots were spelled out on pages 4 and 5 of the staff memo dated December 28, 1984. Although several Commission members favored alternative number five (5) which would have set up a new review procedure applicable to flag lots, the Commission voted to recommend alternative number two (2) which reads: "Carry out the Planning Commission recommendation of May 8, 1984 that the code provisions only be applied to flag lots which are not in subdivisions". E i That recommendation reads: "Commissioner Fyre moved to recommend to City Council that Section 18.98.030 be titled Building Heights and Flag Lots (Flag lots in subdivisions excluded), then under section A. change "may be 2-1/2 stories" to "must be 2 stories" and change "35 feet" to "30 feet". Also, under Section 18.52.050 Section E., change "35 feet" F to "30 ft." " P What this relates to is applying Section 18.98.030 of the code, found on page 2 of the December 28, 1984 staff memo, only in those situations where flag lots are not in a subdivision. This distinction recognizes that if a subdivision is created containing flag lots, how the subdivision develops is under the control of the owner. Therefore, any negative impacts created by the placement of structures on the flag lots will be a private development concern. Of course, if the flag lot is on the outskirts of a subdivision, placement of a structure on the flag lot would impact adjoining lots outside of the subdivision. t Page 1 ' The Commission's recommendation is that Section 18.98.030 be modified so that it only relates to lots outside of subdivisions with a maximum allowable height of 30 feet and two stories, with the following modifications: 1, A side yard set-back of ten feet be added to Section 18.98.030(x)(1) so that it reads: "(1) The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning district except that a ten-foot side yard setback will be maintained on the flag lot". 2. Delete the word "provided" at the end of 18.98.030(a) prior to item (a)(1). Council Action: The Council should indicate it's desire to: 1. Modify Section 18.98.030 of the Community Development Code either a) In agreement with the Planning Commission Recommendation. b) In agreement with the NPO #6 recommendation, or c) In another manner, or 2. Retain Section 18.98.030 as written. The Council then should request that staff prepare an ordinance for adoption. (WAM:br/1164P) Page 2 EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1. Planning Commission minutes of March 5, 1985 2» Staff Report of March 1, 1985 3. Memo to NPO's dated January 11, 1985 4. Planning Commission minutes of May 8, 1984 (1164P) Page 3 TIGARD PLANNING COtIHISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 5, 1985 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High - LGI Room - 10865 SFS Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Butler, Fyre, Owens, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Campbell. ABSENT: Commissioners Leverett and Peterson. STAFF: Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commission Bergmann seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Owens abstained. R 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Staff distributed copies of sections of Land Use Procedures and Practices in Oregon. Also, a letter from NPO # 3 was distributed i regarding agenda item 5.1 (ZOA 8-84). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) (5.1 a.) Review Section 18.26, 18.94 (Manufactured Homes), (5.1 b.) 18.96 and 18.98 (Flag Lots and Height Limits). 5.1 a. Associate Planner Liden explained that the information on Manufactured Homes had been taken back through the NPO process. He reviewed NPO 3, 5, and 6's comments. The other NPOs had not responded. He requested that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council whether or not manufactured/mobile homes should be allowed on individual lots. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AS ACTION a Consensus of the Commissioners was that Manufactured Homes should be allowed if they met the standards as required by stick built homes ( and have criteria which they would have to meet to be allowed on individual lots. Also, they felt their was a need for a strong definition between manufactured homes and mobile homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1985 Page 1 * Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to recommend to City Council to allow Manufactured Homes on Single Family Lots, that they meet the same standards as required for stick built houses', that they meet the standards for subdivision and criterions be established to allow manufactured 'homes on individual lots. Also that a definition be made for manufactured and mobile homes. Motion carried unanimously by Commission present. 5.1 b. Associate Planner redden reviewed the alternative number information i that staff prefer Lengthy discussion followed. ,4 PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Mary Clinton, 9865 SSI View Court, representing NPO # 6, read the NPO's recommendation from their February 25, 1985 minutes. They were s concerned about giving authority to the Director to decide this issue. PUBLIC HEAVING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION a Commissioner Vanderwood, Fyre, Bergmann, Burler, Owens and Campbell it I favored alternative number five. Commissioner Bergmann was not sure why the code needed changing, he felt it was adequate as is. Lengthy discussion regarding the side yard setbacks. o President Moen stated his concerns for alternative five. He supported alternative number two, which would require that the Code provisions ots which are not in subdivisions. be applied only to flag l * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to recommend alternative number 2, which reiterates their recommendation of May 8, 1984, to have the Code provisions only apply to flag lots which are not in subdivisions. Also to add 10 ft. for side yard setbacks, also remove the word provided. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Butler voting no. At '-5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CFA 30-84 FINDINGS POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES DOCUMENT. Review Policies 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.3, 3.4, and 3.4.1. Associate Planner Newton reviewed the status and requested that staff's recommendations be forwarded to City Council. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Geraldine Ball, read her concerns into the record, she favored staff's recommendation. 4 f S PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1985 Page 2 MEMORANDUM CITY OF fIGARD, OREGON F i t r January 11, 1985 T0: NPO and CGI Members s FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development D SUBJECT: Potential Community Development Code Changes ies of two discussiun topics initiated at the cu Cnclosed for your review are p Planning Commission on January 8, 1985. The Commission asked us to distribute these Lo the NPO' s and CCI for input. Both to wi].1 be on thea fe}the January 2 28,8CCI � agenda of the Planning Commission following discussion at meeting. Manufactured Homes - The Planning Commission expressed interest in determining if manufactued homes should be allowed on individual lots. We need to better define manufactured homes and clarify in the Code where such units are allowed. i�ht limits - The Planning Commission would appreciate Flamm Lots and F�e the your comments concerning how City should C 9 ntone ofNPO # b suggested options are presented in the memo. Mrs• Mary two other altenatives. 1. That no flag lots be made • abutting existing residential neighborhoods; or 2. That no house on a flag lot be built more than 1/2 story higher than buildings on abutting lots. Please consider these alternatives as well as those spelled out in the memo. of the memos for your consideration. Staff will Enclosed are copies after considering your comments. prepare a recommendation dmj/0902P f J- AGENDA ITEM 5.1 b PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 1985 '_OA 8-84 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON March 1. 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM; Planning Staff 49601 SUBJECT: Flag Lots,/Height Limits At the January 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Staff presented a memo outlining options for regulating development on flag lots, The Commission directed staff to send the issue back through the NPO process. During the months of January and February the staff made the information available to the d O's . NPO # nthis The mi u o evoi w de the issue,e however,eting ga of mgnutes issue are attache have been received by staff regarding this issue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The minutes of the Planning Commission and NPO are attached . In addition, the 28, 1984, from Bill Monahan outlining the alternatives he memo dated Dattached. The Commission should make a recommendation to the Council regarding Flag Lots and Height Limits. 1063P e; February 25, 1985 y !:P() #6 . inut es i'rom February 2 t,, I. `line meeting. was called to order by Phil Pasterie at 'l: 2. Roll was taken witi, Phil Paster•is, Suo Carver , ?ir;T Clinton, Eunice I>ay, Jane Filler and Connie Sadth pn-?soni.. �. The minutes of the previous ;r uin;- :•rt cr_ :pi�r��vc d. 4. Jeff Fish - Representative Cor tine "Street of Afi'ordable. Harr>s" and Brian and Michele Lessler - Bridon Hong: pre>sented their plan for the above function to be held starting Junr• 14 and continuing- on for 17 days. The hours will be 11 a.m. to 8 pan. durinrr, t.-h(--- weokdays and 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on the weekends. Admission will be $3 for adults and 1 for child- ren. This will be located on the coimer of Durham and Hall Blvd. There will be 15 builders building 18 diffen-aner. homes. This area is zoned R-7 (5,000 sq. ft. lots). The homes will range from 1,250 to 17,000 sq. ft. and range from $60,000 to .x,80,000. They have worked things out with the Tigard Police and City for maximum security. There will be parking available in the Tigard High Swim Center. They will be using volunteers from the Muscular Dystrophy and will inturn make a donation to the found- ation. 5• Vern Lentz was present representing Arlie Irene Mawhirter in a sub- division they are planning. This i located on the corner of McDonald and 97th. They have planned 6 lots, 4 of which are at least 7,500 sq. ft or better. There are 2 lots that are under the 7,500 sq. ft. lot mini Lin and he was asking for a variance for those 2 lots. A motion was made, seconded and passed to recommend to the Planning Commision of approval of this. 6. NPO #6 ,joined with NPO #5--to get some input on the Zone Change of an area 1 south of Ross St. and on Hall Blvd. The representative for this Zone " Change, Ryan O'Brien said they want to change the zone from R-7 to R-12. I I There is about 3.72 acres in this piece of property. They are planning multi-family dwellings, with 42 to 48 units. The traffice on Hall Blvd. was one of the bigger issues discussed in this matter. NPO #5 did not have a quorom, so they were unable to make any recommendations. 7. NPO #6 made a motion, which was seconded and passed, to recommend that the Flag Lots and Heights Limitation Code read as follows. (Combining # 3 and #6 of the Alternatives to Modifly the Code Provisions) Reduce the maximum height of homes on flag lots to either 30 or 25 feet. NPO #6 recomnended in May of 1984 that Section 18.98.030 be replaced by the following: } "The maximum height for a single-family, duples, attached or multiple family residential structure on a flag lot or a lot having sole access from an accessary private drive or easement shall be no higher than the talles house on an adjoining lot or twenty five (25) feet, whichever is less." `{ Continued on Page 2 r•7P0 #6 Minutes of February 25, 1985 7. Continued. And . . . Provide s� (pial screening requirements in addition to the current rode regulations. The screening could bt patterned after those used by the City of Eugene which prove an option to an abutting property owner L, request screening along the access drive or a five foot high sight obscuring fence or wall, or landscaping that will be five feet high and 75% sight-obscuring within five years. Eugene applies its regulations at the time of land division review. The City of Portland also has la screening ren ar raven . Portland requires screening along any lag lot and an abutting lot where the abutting lot is in different ownership than the lot being partitioned/subdivided to create the flag lot. Thus, the burden is totally on the flag lot property owner to provide a fence for screening regardless of whether the adjoining properties are dev- eloped first. Portland does provide for a waiver if all owners give written consent. And . Ardprohibiting Flag Lots in Zone R-4.5, R-7, R-12, R-20 and R-40. This information was to be passed on to the Planning Corrgnission. 8. Other business - Mary and Phill'were planning to go the grade school and the junior high to see what kind of support they could receive from them in making a bike path on Pinebrook. 9. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. k PUBLIC HEARING CLOSER ( ated he was on NPO # 3 during the Comprehensive o Commissioner Pyre st as not to allow manufactured homes on single Plan and their intent w family lots. o Commission Vanderwood stated it was her understanding that manufactured homes were not to be allowed on single family lots. t present during the 0 Commissioner Campbell stated she was no Comprehensive Plan process, however, was concerned with treating manufactured homes as mobile homes. She felt that they should be considered dwelling units. 0 Commissioner Butler stated he wast to allow them, howev on NPO # i during the process and they determined it was discriminatory llow them on single family lats.er, the intent of the plan was not to a 0 Commissioner Peterson was not around during the Comprehensive Plan process but felt they should be allowed in subdivision with convenants and on single family lots if standards were set. to allow 0 Vice President Owens recalled thatho me subdivisions. i She tfelt there manufacture homes in manufacturedorted staff's recommendation. was a need for a definition and supe owed 0 Commissioner Leverett felt ma nufeee the buildingred homes o codulde they l should s be matter of economics. If they m allowed as a dwelling unit. at he felt a ctured omes a Commission Butler commentehwhich requires providinguaa diversehtype would help meet the LCDC goal felt minimum standards could be established. of needed housing. He following regarding allowing manufactured homes. 0 Lengthy discussion o Frank Johnson, 25585 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. commented that he , • ference lived etween in a mobile home and that their added is a big thatifLaGr nd hallows ` manufactured and mobile homes manufactured homes in a specific area. 0 Discussion followed on how to continue. Consensus was to go bac t through the NPO process. No action was taken. f t *, and h ight ,. Director of Community Monahan reviewed his memollag ots rest ictionewhen limitations. He explained the difficulty of applying p. He then reviewed seven alternatives. flag lots are being developed. { f� PUBLIC TESTL40NY 6ested not i' 9855 SW View Ct., representing NPO # 6 Sugg 0 Mary Clinton, €t allowing flag lotas allowed n R 3.5 lot or largshed areas. She felt flag lot should only b PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 6 o Discussion followed. Consensus of the Commission was to send this item back through the NPO process. Commissioner Butler and Owens favored alternative number 5 and Commissioner Peterson favored alternative number 2. No action was taken. S OTHER BUSINESS o Director Monahan reviewed his memo regarding sign code exceptions for restaurants, motels, and gas stations. He asked the Commissioners for their input on whether these types of businesses should be allowed special exceptions. o Consensus of the Commission was for limitations and not to allow special exceptions. 7. ADJOURNMENT 11:08 P.M. pf q r/ Ot. Diane M. Jelder Secretary ATTEST: Vice-President Bonnie Owens 0903P dm3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 5.6 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION January 8, 1984 ZOA 8-84 (18.96 b 18.98) Members of the Planning Commission To: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development FROM: DATE: December 28, 1984 SUBJECT: Flag Lots and Height Limits plied on Tigard's Community Development Code contains a special section concerning height limits which are applied to flag lots. The section assessethepadequacy a few occasions with mixed results. In order that o may communities to of the code provisions, I conducted a survey lots which may better suit determine if there are °thsW�enttt°regulate fourgjurisdictions with fourteen our purposes. The survey _ Attached). Although the responding. (See Flag Lot Regulation Survey lots, some not apply any special standards to flag majority .finitions were provided to . I have of cities do vis interesting restrictions andand applythe alternative standards attempted to analyze our rthe code�trent rovislangu ions 9e to determine if any modification so that you may review should be made. Present Code La ua e lots. In addition, Section 18.96.080, 18.96.090, and 18.98.030 relate to flag flag lots is to a Flag Lot is defined in section 18.26.030 as "a lot creating flag which includes a private access!mot or-1 i part thereof". The estpuri lots with less frontage than allow for maxiMum utilization of land by creating reels which no required to accommodate an access corridor °quit d strlots on eet frontage. are located behind lots or parcels with normallyis that of The particular concern which Tresent dealing owith height. sete deals with backs fro privacy. Each t the special conditions ation of windows, and tree planting we re existing residential structures, rte! privacy on adjacent lots- It is established for the purpose of preserving P felt that a home on a flag lot has the potential to infringe on the privacy of lots since the house may face the private rear yard area of one or neighboring justifies the continuance ot more lots. Whether or ovisionssshould be conCevaluated. 3 The current language is of the present code P as follows, lot shall "18.96.080 Lot area for f'la lots. (a) The lot area for a flag comply with the lot area requirements of the applicable zoning district. ely in g site ea (b) The lot area shall be providudeenl irSection hl8 96.090 ). (Ord. 83-52 exclusive of any accessway (see fig Exhibit A (part), 1980 Csetback 18.96.090 Front and determination.the $front yard,nprovidedevnooside°yard aflag to may deternine the location of provided the requirements of Section area is less than he ten feet,and are lots, are satisfied. 18.98.030, building PageM -�r�-- 16 98 030 Building heights and flag_ lots. (a) The maximum height for a single-family, duplex, attached or multiple-family residential structure on a flag lot or a lot having sole access from an accessway, private drive or easement is ons and one-half stories e two waw yoneve feet.half storieshever is or thirtylfive except that the maximum height may b feet, whichever is less, provided: (1) The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning district; (2) A residential structure on any abutting lot either is located fifty feet or more from the nearest point of the subject dwelling. or the residential structure exceeds one and one-half stories or twenty-five feet in height on any abutting lot; and (3) Windows fifteen feet or more above grade shall novo fsal dwelling unit .windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal includes an agreement ±..) plant trees capable of mitigating direct views, or that such trees exist and will be preserved. (b) Where an agreement is made to plant trees capable v lmitigating direct views. the agreement shall be deemed a condition of apprd under the provisions of Section 18.32.250(f). (c) The tree planting agreement shall be a condition of Chapter 18.120. Site oevelopment Review, for three of more attached units or a multiple-family residential structure, or for single detached units, one duplex or two attached residential units, at the issuance of building permits." Specifically, Tigard's code provides for special height limits for flag lots unless the proposed house complies with the dimensional requirements of the zoning district, a house on any abutting lot is either 50 feet or more from greater than one and qne-half the proposed dwelling or that existing house is _ ndows of the house which face stories or twenty five feet in height, and wi adjacent dwelling unit windows and patios are not more than fifteen feet above grade unless tree planting to mitigate direct views is provided for. These conditions place all of the responsibility for preserving privacy on the developer of the flag lot, however, the conditions fail to meet their intended purpose if all surrounding lots are not developed prior to construction f the the home on the flag lot. In addition, the code does not appy properly flag lot is the initial lot to be developed in an area nor does it provide for the privacy of the residents of the flag lot when future development on adjoining lots take place. Purpose of Restrictior►s Ideally the code provisions will allow each flag lot to be developed without unduly adding to the cost of development while meeting the intent of the Code. But, why place special conditions on flag lots when similar restrictions are not 'placed on other single family structures which may similarly infringe on the privacy of others for any of a number of reasons? CExamples of conflicts which are not prevented by our Code on standard lots are: 1, The thirty five foot house in an R-7 zone surrounded by one or one and one-half story homes. Page 2 2. The house with second story windows which look out onto a neighbor's patio (regardless of whether the patio pre-existed the house). 3. Areas where only ten feet separate homes in an R-7 or R-4.5 zone could result in windows directly facing each other which limit privacy. 4. The orientation of a house on higher ground is such that even though it is only one story, windows face dwelling unit windows or look down on the patio if an adjoining lot. In terms of the preservation of privacy, it is difficult to anticipate the many circumstances which could occur where privacy will become an issue. In most of Tigard's subdivisions the development of an area is not completed in a so called planned format as all houses to be developed are not planned in advance. Normally a developer will subdivide an area, put in the publiq facilities, and then offer the lots for sale. As a result, the lots are bought and developed by builders either on contract to a buyer or built on speculation. Not knowing what type of home will be built on an adjoining lot can result in home orientation and window placement which cause a conflict when later development takes place or results in design modification by the later builder. Unless the City imposes special conditions on builders on standard lots the end result could be that the last home built is allowed only limited windows and restricted placement of the home. f Instances where Tiaard's Code May Not Accomplish the Intended Result Tigard's code provision is geared towards the flag lot being the last lot developed. When this occurs, if all homes surrounding it are one or one and one-half story in height and all are built less than fifty feet from the flag lot home, some continuity and privacy can be achieved which may be preferable to that which a two or two and one-half story home would allow. However, when the flag lot is developed early in the completion of a subdivision or if there is a difference in topography, the purpose of the code provision may not be achieved (or insured) or application of the code may not be needed to preserve privacy. 1. Development of the Flag Lot is early in the build out of the subdivision. If the flag lot is developed first, item 18.98.030 (2) cannot apply as no structure is 50 feet or more from the structure to be built on the lot. Also, 18.98.030(3) can not apply. As a result, the City must determine of the lot can be developed at two and one half stories or if it is restricted to only one and one half since item (2) can not be met. This issue needs to be clarified. 2. A difference in topography exists - the flag lot could be situated in a subdivision either above or below other lots in the subdivision or on adjoining lots. If a great difference in grade exists, the purpose of the code provisions may be deferred. For instance, if the flag lot is substantially below the grade of an existing home on an adjacent lot, even C_ if the existing home is of one story, section 18.98.030 (3) may not be applicable if the windows "face" the existing structure, but in fact are below them. This situation points out the problem in defining what "shall not face dwelling unit windows or patios" means. Page 3 f Alternatives to Modify the Code Provisions to Meet the Intent of Preserving { Privacy. There are several ways to preserve privacy in those instances where a flag lot is developed: 1. Maintain the existing regulations and apply them to all existing flag lots } as well as those which will be created in the future. 2. Carry out the Planning Commission recommendation of May 8, 1984 that the i flag lots which are not in subdivisions. Code provisions only be applied to 1 3. Reduce the maximum height of homes on flag lots to either 30 or 25 feet. NPO 06 recommended in May of 1984 that Section 18.98.030 be replaced by the following: "The maximum height for a single—family, duplex, attached or multiple family residential structure on a-flag—lot or a lot having sole access from an accessary private drive or easement shall be no higher than the tallest house on an adjoining lot or twenty five (25) feet, whichever is less." i r 4. utilize the height limits regulated by the standards of the underlying & zone. Each of the jurisdictions surveyed which allow flag lots allow the homes built on these lots to have a height equal to non flag lot homes. The City of Eugene, however, does requires that a structure to the rear of another be at least thirty (30) feet from the structures on the front lot. 5. Establish a procedure where development of a flag lot is a Director's Decision requiring notice, but no hearing. When a permit application is processed for a flag lot the permit would be subject to a review similar to that of Washington County which evaluates creation of a flag lot subject to: 1. Buildings on flag lots shall be oriented to provide the maximum privacy to surrounding existing and future residential structures. 2. Access and drainage are reviewed. 3. Landscaping and fencing to insure that privacy of existing residential structures is maintained. 4. The setbacks and minimum lot area requirements of the primary district shall be maintained. S. Washington County's procedure -soiaU be applied to existing ots f record in a modified site development review. Many Po tential problems could be avoid if at the time of parcelization or subdivision consideration is given to the building location as well as the access and circulation. C Page 4 i Provide special screening requirements in addition d afteruthose ent 6• The screening could be pa �- code regulations. an used by the City of Eugene which Provealong the option access driveutora owner to request screening that property fence ar wail, or landscaping five foot high sight obscuring within five years. will be five feet high and 75% sight-obscuring Eugene applies its regulations at the time of laquirementi review. The City of Portland al any has aline betwscreenieen a flag lot Portland requires screening along lot is in different and an abutting lot where the abutting than the lot being partitioned/subdivided to create h ownership on the flag lot Property flag lot. Thus, the burden is totally regardless owner to provide a feof whether the nce far screenngst• Portland does provide adjoining Properties are developed for a waiver if all owners give written consent. A final alternative requires drastic steps: took this step in 7• Prohibit the creation of flag lots. Coos Bay to tt�ia proposal ` requirements. partitioned, { 19e2, however. given Tigard'As land density is subdivided or would not apply properly• developers will particularly within the older sections of the City, find that it is necessary to create flag lots to wns►ke the highest use of the land. Recommendation r Commission review the various alternatives to I recommend that the Planning would better serve Tigard than the sdic ions ' - determine if any of those not now applied existing review strictly relates to the cue, I have not reviewed the �e or the surveyed concerning solar access or view rights. building height and window issue of privacy and how privacy is impacted by ears that Tigard places more restrictions on everyday placement. It app lots than ether jurisdictions. application of the Code flag for flexibility. Flexibility can be worked however. left out the opportunitylot development under a Director's t in if we require a special review of flag uses. Decision, similar to that applied to accessary advise me of your desire to look further ater date should theeCortanissific ion Please red for review at a resented language could be prepared wish to modify the code. Please note was heldin due boethe holiday to the CCI for NPO input as no meetil prior to any future schedule. Copies can be sento the NPO's for their input p Planning Commission discussion. (0872P) i Page 5 I s FLAG LOT REGULATIONS SURVEY No special building height regulations, regulated by Portland •� g provisions of underlying zone. Code places emphasis on access and impact rather than height. Tualatin No special height limits. Beaverton No special height limits. Eugene Have an ordinance which allows a modification to minimum lot standards. .. Height maximum is determined by zoning district of the development. Minimum of 10 foot placement between structures or a 5 i proper . ° foot setback on interior prop y linesro ert owner Screening requirement gives the abut t dng erive or a five tha option to request screening along foot high sight-obscuring fence or wall. Lake Oswego No special height requirement. Must have 25 foot frontage on street. 4 Wilsonville No provisions for regulating flag lots. Must comply with requirements of the zone in which they are located. Approval by PC since access does not conform to the code for minimum frontage. Troutdale Utilize same height standards for all types of lots. } MedfordNo special requirements other than a minimum` street � frontage of 20 feet. Lot range, setback, and height correspond to the underlying zoning. Gresham No difference in regulation than a standard lot configuration. Coos Bay Since 1982, do not allow creation of flag lots. Now require a 40 foot frontage on a publicly dedicated right-of-way. Roseburg No special regulation of flag lots. Salem No special height limits for flag lots. Height determined by underlying zoning district. Washington County Setbacks of the primary district are maintained. Require landscaping and fencing through Development Review to insure maintenance of privacy for existing residential structures. Forest Grove Do not impose more restructive height limits on flag lots. (0872P) 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 6-84 W.L. 6 Bertina Sawyer/CECIL BOONE PARK NPO # 5 • Associate Planner Newton explained that staff, the applicant, and the State Highway Division had met to discuss the road issue for this application and that more time was needed to prepare information. Staff recommended this item be continued to the June 5th hearing. • vice President Moen moved to table S 6-84 and continue to the June 5, 1984, public hearing. 'r Commissioner Peterson seconded. Motion carried unanimously by members present. 1 TIGARD WEST f • Staff commented that the application for Tigard West had been withdrawn from the agenda. Discussion followed on how many times this item could be set over. r 5.3 CPA 13-84 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS Director of Planning and Development Monahan reviewed problems which staff had been encountering with Section 1.8.98 of the Community Development Code. f NPO COMMENT - Phil Pasteris, NPO # 6 Chairman, reviewed the memo he had submitted to the Planning Commission. E PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, submitted and read into the record a letter recommending changes to section 18.98.030. • Morgan Bleek, Titan Properties, 2090 SW TV Hwy, explained he had just obtained a minor land partition which has two flag lots. He felt the Code was very restrictive and didn't address important issues. He recommended either throwing that section out or having flag lots brought before the Planning Commission. Lengthy discussion followed. r f CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL • Mary Clinton asked NPO # 6 Chairman, Phil Pasteris if City staff had input in his memo. He responded City staff had only typed the memo for him. She continued that she felt flag lots should be restrictive and that developers should be made aware of this fact. 0 Lengthy discussion followed between staff, Planning Commission, and public. • Associate Planner Newton explained that the Building Inspector would , prefer to see the section on flag lots eliminated and just have a height restriction. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 3 i F e Vice President Moen questioned if minor land icpo tion artitiwerere inn protect to apply to flag lots created by not to new subdivisions. Further discussion adjoining properties and r followed. stated she had a copy of the Uniform Building Code and Mrs. Clinton read how building heights are determined. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION a Commissioner Leverett favored the Building Inspectors and staff's recommendation. re commented that the problem would have been worse if Commissioner EY lot. He wanted to see the staff come ot back with a specific nrecommendation. ® commissioner Butler suggested contacting other jurisdictions to see what they have and have staff submit a written recommendation. a Commissioner Paterson did not support having flag lots more restrictive. He felt the issue of flag lots in a subdivision should be dealt With- concurred Commissioner Vanderwood concurred with Commissioner Eyre that subdivision flag lots should not be included under Building Heights and Flag Lots. supported staff working on wording, possibly with a Commissioner Owens suPP taking into consideration the Mary Clinton and other jurisdictions Building Inspectors recommendation. e Vice President Moen was concerned with the higher height limit in the R 4.S zoned. He felt the Code needed be made clearer that created by nor land restrictions for flag lots applied to flag lots partitions not subdivisions. ® Lengthy discussion followed. ity ® Commissioner Eyre moved to din recommend andF! Council l(Flat lots Section in 18,98.030 be titled Buil be 2 1/ subdivisions excluded'), then under sectionchangs change faete' ,to Y„30 feet"- stories” to "must be 2 stories" and ion EE.,., change "35 feet" to "30 ft-seAlso, under Section 18.52.050 Sect Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioner Leverett seconded. Commissioners Moen and Butler voting no. to rewrite® section Consensus of the Commission wnfor theata fa d resubmit to the 18,98.030 after contacting otherjurisdiction Planning Commission. C_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 4 w'� • .w .� . . _ . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 8, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: / DATE SUBMITTED: March 29, 1985 PRE`JIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 30-84 Amendments to Wetlands Policy PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton REQUESTED BY: Planning Staff DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: / CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY At the March 5, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to forward the amendments to policies 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.3, 3.4 and 3.4.1 as proposed by the Planning Staff to Council with a recommendation of approval. A copy of the minutes is attached. The Planning Staff proposed the changes to policies related to floodplains and wetlands to conform to the newly amended floodplain and wetlands policy. Attached is an ordinance for your review. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached ordinances. 2. Modify the proposed policies and direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance. 3. Retain the existing policies. SUGGESTED ACTION Adapt the attached ordinance. (EAN:pm/1146P) 5.2 CPA 30-84 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 4 TO: City Council March 29, 1985 FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Floodplain and 'Wetlands Policies At the January 8, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Staff proposed changes to policies 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.31 3 .4 and 3.4.1 relating to floodplains and wetlands. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to take tht-- proposed language changes to the CCI and the NPO's for review. Since the January Planning Commission Meeting, Stiff has scheduled a t presentation to the CCI and has made the information available to the NPO' s. The CCI was sched:a7ed to review the proposed changes on January 28, 1985, however, a quorum of members was not present so no action was taken. The February 25, 1985 NPO N`3 meeting agenda listed review of the proposed policy changes as a discussion item. The Planning Staff has not received ; minutes or a written response on the changes. NPO #4 scheduled a meeting for January 9, 1985 to review the proposed changes, however, a quorum was not present to review the language. NPO #5 reviewed the � language at their January 16, 1985 meeting and supported the changes recommended by staff. NPO #6 also reviewed the proposed changes on January 16, 1985 and supported the language suggested by staff. On March 5, 1985, the Planning Commission voted to forward the Planning f Staff's recommendation to City Council with a recommendation of approval. (EAN:pm/1061P) f. a r t k i i f TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION a REGULAR MEETING — MARCH 5, 1985 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High — LGI Room — 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Butler, Fyre, Owens, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Campbell. ' ABSENT: Commissioners Leverett and Peterson. STAFF: Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. a f s 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES # * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commission Bergmann seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Owens abstained. 3 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION s o Staff distributed copies of sections of Land Use Procedures and E Practices in Oregon. Also, a letter from NPO # 3 was distributed regarding agenda item 5.1 (ZOA 8-84). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) (5.1 a.) Review Section 18.26, 18.94 (Manufactured Homes), (5.1 b.) 18.96 and 18.98 (Flag Lots and Height Limits). 5.1 a. Associate Planner Liden explained that the information on Manufactured Homes had been taken back through the NPO process. He reviewed NPO 3, 5, and 6's comments. The other NPOs had not responded. He requested that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council whether or not manufactured/mobile homes should be allowed on individual lots. PUBLIC TESTIMONY. o No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AS ACTION o Consensus of the Commissioners was that Manufactured Homes should be allowed if they met the standards as required by stick built homes (� and have criteria which they would have to meet to be allowed on `- individual lots. Also, they felt their was a need for a strong definition between manufactured homes and mobile homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1965 Page 1 * Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to recommend to City Council to allow Manufactured Homes on Single Family Lots, that they meet the same standards as required for stick built houses, that they meet the standards for subdivision and criterions be established to allow manufactured homes on individual lots. Also that a definition be made for manufactured and mobile homes. Motion carried unanimously by Commission present. 5.1 b. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the memo and information stating that staff preferred alternative number five. Lengthy discussion followed. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Mary Clinton, 9865 SH View Court, representing NPO # 6, read the NPO's recommendation from their February 25, 1985 minutes. They were concerned about giving authority to the Director to decide this issue. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Vanderwood, Fyre, Bergmann, Butler, Owens and Campbell favored alternative number five. Commissioner Bergmann was not sure why the code needed changing, he felt it was adequate as is. Lengthy discussion regarding the side yard setbacks. i o President Moen stated his concerns for alternative five. He supported alternative number two, which would require that the Code provisions be applied only to flag lots which are not in subdivisions. Commissioner pyre moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to recommend alternative number 2, which reiterates their recommendation of May 8, 1984, to have the Code provisions only apply to flag lots which are not in subdivisions. Also to add 10 ft. for side yard setbacks, also remove the word provided. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Butler voting no. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 30-84 FINDINGS POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES DOCUMENT. Review Policies 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.3, 3.4, and 3.4.1. Associate Planner Newton reviewed the status and requested that staff's recommendations be forwarded to City Council. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Geraldine Ball, read her concerns into the record, she favored staff's recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. March 5, 1985 Page �2. L*o 3 Associate Planner addressed NPO # 's written concerns. Commissioner Pyre moved and Commissioner Owens seconded to forward staff's recommendation to City Council with a recommendation for approval. 5.3 SUBDIVISION S 1-85 EDITH CARNAHAN NPO # 7 Request to subdivide a 129,329 square foot parcel into 13 lots ranging from 7,500 to 8,400 square feet on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre). Located: 10985 SW North Dakota St. (WCTM 1S1 34BC lot 200). Associate Planner Liden noted corrections on the staff report and made staff's recommendation for approval with 10 conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION a i o Gordon Hobbs, President, OR-AK Corporation, 13050 SW Forest Meadow f Way, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, accepted staff's recommendation and asked the Commission for their approval. i PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Star. Smith, 10925 SW 108th, adjacent property owner, was concern i about the severe drainage problem they currently have, he did not t want to see this project develope if it would increase his existing s f problem. He also wanted to know what type of homes would be built. REBUTTAL o Gordon Hobbs stated that the City has drainage requirements and if there is any affect on the adjacent property it would decrease their water runoff. He was not sure of the types of homes, he would be selling off the lots to builders, but expected them to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. o Edith Carnahan, 10985 SW North Dakota, owner of the property, t objected to the fact that she was required to do half-street improvement in front of her house. She felt the improvement should only be required in front of the subdivision. { PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Discussion followed regarding the 25' easement strip, why Mrs. Carnahan was being required to improve in front of her house, road alignments and the turnaround. Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to approve S 1-85 adding condition number 9. Requiring a turnaround at the end of 109th which is acceptable by the City and Fire Department. Change Condition number 9. to 10. and condition number 10. to 11.; and modify condition number 1. to read PRIOR TO RECORDING OF FINAL PLAT instead of ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. Also, to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1985 Page 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4/8/85 AGENDA ITEM 0: �(J DATE SUBMITTED, 4/2/85 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ZOA 2-85 Amend— recommended approval on 3-5-85. ments to Sec. 18.68.030, 18.70.030,_ PREPARED BY: Planning Staff 18.72.030, 6 18.100.090 of EDC----- REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �! CITY ADMINISTRATOR: M --� POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY As a part of the recently adopted amendment to Section 18.144 of the Code, one subsection was to be transferred from this Chapter• to the "Permitted Uses" sections of the industrial zones. Also the Commission and staff recommence several modifications to Section 18.100.090 relating to fences. ---- Y~—_. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt ordinance as submitted. 2. Delay for further consideration. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt ordinance submitted. 1153P dmj TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION r REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 5, 1985 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Butler, Fyre, Owens, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Campbell. ABSENT: Commissioners Leverett and Peterson. STAFF: Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commission Bergmann seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Owens abstained. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Staff distributed copies of sections of Land Use Procedures and Practices in Oregon. Also, a letter from NPO # 3 was distributed regarding agenda item 5.1 (ZOA 8-84). t 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) (5.1 a.) Review Section 18.26, 18.94 (Manufactured Homes), (5.1 b.) 18.96 and 18.98 (Flag Lots and Height Limits). 5.1 a. Associate Planner Liden explained that the information on Manufactured Homes had been taken back through the NPO process. lie reviewed NPO 3, 5, and 6's comments. The other NPOs had not responded. He requested that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council whether or not manufactured/mobile homes should be allowed on individual lots. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AS ACTION o Consensus of the Commissioners was that Manufactured Homes should be allowed if they met the standards as required by stick built homes and have criteria Khich they would have to meet to be allowed on individual lots. Also, they felt their was a need for a strong definition between manufactured homes and mobile homes. PLANNING COMMISSION M[NUTES March 5, 1985 Page 1 f i * l moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to Commissioner Campbel approve SCE 1-85 pet staff's recommendation and to require staff to have President Moen sign off on that compose the final order and final order. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present. i 5.7 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 2-85 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Review Sections 18.68.030, Industrial Park Permitted Uses; Section 18.70.030, Light industrial Permitted Uses; Section 18.72.030, Heavy Industrial Permitted Uses. Also Section 18.100.090 Setbacks for fences or ! walls. the memo and made staff's recommendation Associate Planner Liden reviewed requesting the Commission forward recommendations to City Council with approval. i o Discussion followed regarding fence heights. * Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to forward staff's changes to City Council with recommendation for approval. Motion passed unanimously by Commissioners present. t 6. Other Business o There was no other business. 7. Adjournment - 11:45 P.M. rill') D ne M. Jeld , Secretary ATTEST: A. Donald Moen, President 1082P dmj PLANNNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1985 Page 7 e e. uke All ? .i `-�[ IT►�'�71F't• Pc to 93 00 tj t �jZ N . St AZ 95 . � '. ; • � ��{r �y� `-� i - ' •tet �j5 r N NO �... mpg F1 44, Ac Mu ' ..a U�� sic .� yv- WWRN :; tw q 3�� s► iy, rad.F �����k€ � "+� "�a, ",re4 s ,�.c Y,'.:� ;»,y��;,'•i ..,� _ •ice �r i'i �,�1�.,r,—,� .- . - Sim v " `,�Sl •Fut�'daw�.` ' - E L�. -;�,�_: '� 1� � i.•ori..► tvL 1. - ,r R•ttY 4K 44'6- s e�'s'' � µ , `e-� `til.•� �{) rr� c ti. tom' � i � �•� �/ ti:�; Y�•�� � '( �'� t i l r j I� Pr .% i ) •,.s�'� �r � `' `y + ��: � r,;,�•�c -'t.' f,�.:l�r.ili�� '-"��w�"�'. `gYQ� r. . e# q.y �n •YID i „MV R k~• ,"4�'++f •�'� ,i F R �-Fi'6[ e � 'q l �a . y t7 'J ��4 w `( �f � .. =.♦F'dt�� .•-.'ba t, ��� s �! ,fy�,�rR*`7 �Y .wi ��*�ti,.'�e �' •t. '` fi, -C{{-=c i<< W �' r -.-yr4� .. �i.y.s F �� 1( ' i -{•n.a4� '.�� � •i R NrS .Fr?E'• -"+�.`Z.'✓in:"., t�/I' fff777'"""a U_ �`3a �'r +7s .,r v y '. �f�'� Z 1 ifr `'r .''F� s �. -y'-'^' r P+ '� ���� c'�t� �`l` �r� T-•. ._ "'f: v'�Vi�:�lt�+r-o`1r` .w be .'�.t!: - �''. 'ti �ri'�J�j f�d �y�r�"•` � � 1"(�M �" �. ��i• ♦s: � fb ��' � - ( � r��•��fJ�.�.'f'=...�` _�r��i+ 'r t {`S�if-J+. i �[' ��r 5 � ����'$�l�t,�'�� to r . �►+#�1►Iai1gIN'riigtIII,fgl{,1riIgrilldIo p111!1111irririrlrFr rpfrp ti,pI�1Z��yrT lir tt, ril ifl li 1'i _ F 1 1" -1 ( ,". J i- I-_-� I ( 9 ( g 1 �iliir11ii111iIt hllri�tiigiii�tligli',�III�Irilttigtltllltltit'HIgFri y NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED .I. Z 3 4 ... _ $ 6_ _ 7 $ 9 Q 1-_ JZ .;. DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO _ THE QUALITY OF TFE ORIGINAL DRAWING. --- 0r£ 6Z 9Z ZZ 9Z 9Z-VZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ 6r Bi ei.__t'.__..fi o'._ e 1 - 8- 5 c _z ..-�I-�•"-' F 1Hllilllll8iltlllitlllltltillilllF „Igi _ I111R I - :- _ MA 199U . 11111111�- ► ���•� � ..•. � III-FIRE STATION 2TUDY AREA:. ..- ►�-.����..�•.�����■ METZGER PROGRESS � .; ,,. ■ ■ . eee ,' RECOMMENDED LAND USE ' ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ :�� r: ' • � .: :,', „'.' ..is-. —. .. :: ��� � ' ^. .., _ ..:, -. ,. :,� :. c . . � �� - � ! :Ili ■ �' ee TRANSPORTATION PLAN ® �`". ■I� LII ■JI �11�!��L� 1 - .■1,MENNEN uNovel `® �/11■■ �. ■111 ■■ . �� _�_. ' ■ - ... .r. ... .r. ... i` - F' ''w•;� .. `;.'•� ■■.-_�1 ■'. ■111 ■'1 WN ■ E !•--.. . _ --- _ � � ■1�1��■111':. ■' o � ;: ., ;t ., ... -' .')' .-'_ ` _ '� r — mss■ t�"ia', � .. ■[ ■■■ ■ 11 �u 1111. 11 . r ■111111111 ,, ■ ■ . y � .. ■■■. :111 ■11111 ■� \ ,... �� �� . F. J` ► ■ ■ � r■� _� �_ ■�e■■�� PAP_110 ME � X111111111: ■ �� _ y ■ _ .- 111 ► ® .� ■�i■■ 1_ ■C� `■ ':,w £ SIL■ ■I■■■ 1■1� ■r - - \�.���■���`■� . - _ _ , immi I� ■1u11 ■ ■■� y,i�u111► ;I 111■■■f , 1■111 �� ■ �: _ ■111. � , - �► I C ��(I!I�I I1 ■ !1111: I ■/ : - 1 �11■ ■PI■ ■■111 � ��1ne.� err rr��r��r� MINE' i1111111� % ` IL■• ■C ����� Ir� III ..111...■■ . ,NONE ,. ,,. � 1 / ■■ri :I�TIT !■1 11111■ ..1�!i X7111■ ■ ■1■ _ I . ®.. .lea � ■� ,, aII�IIIH(IIIL - a► y:■ice ■■■t_ SIL■ ■111_ -■1� ■ i- / FA 1 . :Illlr.: :v111�' 1: 11■■1 MON �1■ ■ -- ®�-- ... : 111 1MEE �1�111� �IIIn 1111. � lI�R raw' - ►�. ._ Illlflll I■ O. 1 .. �• _ _ . ■ now II■1 11111MA ■1■1� ■11111:■� - 1mo ®��_�� ®111! ®1® ■■111® 111■1 MINI A J_ r�.�•.' ■ o #� ---■�:I 111111 :1111 :111room 11■11 ■1■1■ ■� �1 ■■ ■ �+� -- _ _ a - - ■1111 ■■■ :III :I�1e: n C]� ■11:: ' MEE— MINN f' CENT.10 1121.92 pretem POLICY DISTRICT� -, ® "' .■ Cly .- .-.. _ ■ _1.1 Sheets 4 Neighborhood!Retall Comme,,Wl District book Hall pms � ... , I)en and Streets 6 Primary emproals,on bicycle, city Op.n ■��� �� ■ ■ ON jiv,,iiiiii Maio, 'pace land u,e,. as antill I. Colfte-Streel '..'a as a- .I for, d n the plod .-or.In lh.....rd.ha""'pp abll.had I. pan Pro_ en �Ilen Resial "the p an 'C .:-. . . . . .- . . . Commercial Owfty Policy Dltu,ict IrIjG A R D ♦�� f 1 ■■�■■ ���; �■ L� . . .... ........... . : 'uollwlad anon Cwseapui Is wapod a y,letups 0l I,D,,o aswu y'd ,e seuppal,al°m w+p,c '¢wap llsuwl 'UU.AAs :a UM16 Uq,emgeum wlm stall sde Ot lldp was U!Graus SOD OWNGD&atlpue'lawltompaw Damba losalAil"G In lets Nunm.,Orbe es,Weaul>Aal'6uglem:ewanpul lava,to..mw en,ewplly eusmidluapuelwfiaw!ussv 's OJOUDWO10)la,uupe l DWl wtOP w Pue i puv yoddns pit -uelsre nm al Paddles Geuve Val4mdualsulpuecugc 1 uvq+n Woslmwualnuo 6u,nll to sotlN luaplle Alenllelw toluowtlganap eoyllo luewtlolanep tate I Ibr I WI'Igvewwm,o d plo ugl saDmn101 palepl os Dla,,, gUpwenadolla1S utnolnOg Ile IIIm Reye zp Iq-0slD eBeulw 6u!,s,xoo b ne leu tl a uadMe Ya! eq P.Q.tupwOOlBnep pup seen Duel:g b,.o l Ileusveld IuewdolBut ,!leads alland 1lensnf ld WaAAga welSAs Ilium Dmll Due aDeu!erp aV,of lUl!n a¢le I I peoUavp?! H yym po,ueuW ds,!A n 0 Gal 6 Ilod 'u1W u!pp q ep se!III!>el,elemuygs punw5oe Vm W,Dwad I d eVl+ol¢pray'secnoD Aeruua opomam+lo uq,,gzlllln Vuol Intl saltlpw,tl pull admuo.° W Ilo4e¢alibi?e fid! tl opAPq° 5 5 lad 4 ,ol Palati ao les 941 m,up a apinw0 s,1 a G.IOd0wwl PtY1'Z Due 1110 oleo be pinour s,41 u! w 16 Poses !Pupa a se Wp!nwtl l y+v Igwn>o Aa, G4uueya weals alenydwwueuolwew ow wnsw alpmelsap s,W:ym ,o lmwyeda0 uoew0 lD e,tls ayl tum y,om ileus Neno3 u016uIVseM 'Z 'lueuutlgenep loaatlN lieu swapue,e bue,clle ABoouo Wllgelep 'Op Pus'sea+nma A6+oua opemeuar-uoN to uDI1vNOsuoo e,owad'l oq pinous 4a14m vwy leug6ey ssaBoyywenbg uol6ulysaM pwaplsum al Onto v U'l os,e.'a"',IG.Gi weals„y•3 'edu ead.1i UDIGIAIPMs 'vii gseq B4,so of Palliate oq lives=usurps adde,Up'boultum'IuewdoWASp 'Nlaedm mol Bot,g ueld luawtllanep.!1!mtle v,tloPv pue wooed Plnous 'AmabD We.,.as to l.nel 1 rav,pul in warlo tiellllaol up,ualep WIDUW W nw,UI pnomn .ewe ugluelep uloid p°old lentle puasleuu ail IwnmN-I ,o ushmi.w wo,anpa leu a cal ;,uowtlolw 'DWolanap are Swulte lwato pooll .oPaq Plnous°allll>ol uq,uo,op mom uuole Bgm.Nlunww A>,° sngoduoa ABdeve We uo!lwuosuaa Ae+ous Imaaltlm of Paut hiss prom mul Imi.5auap Nanqul Puv'sew.wezey peon Pue 'uollenuefLO 6wuueld,uneenlol Dw to san!Ivl,a Ido,pue nwlulwa aney Aaw,Aunol Um6wysvM PUB ssaemd/,a&ION -alp IanD. rel lenwtlde Io SUOGIPUG3 At Pamhn,ss'U""1-AG ampnithe,dun Paoaswd PUB pm,elulew as DlnoM spuu¢ya yaaA put J 9 d ;epnl>u, Dell Icela a PpsNo er dUm seem 5UIUOZ WO 6UIpluns Nul l:p Ap!pd su!vldpood loutOlwalem wewdge,weagm,euwDlVatl Aq sea,-oq veumo Ayedwdpel.,,.gllmug,el!nsumu!'Alun°D..,6wysvM :1 A.!!od to Stdied p°dtindouey,Out as uolsuedxa,,,powumAlud Alinl.11el oq 11.gmwaadrw sa ds dada pue saip,pl iarwap pun rU„uGlap UIa POgI 10.B lAs Ilnleu Ddlls,xe 441'nal w ImwspAs Uo pue-1 ADI malas luowm,e pau!au,vw m Ileus'IOW cal Ag pansse pq too weld Pool]yawl ysy 141WB'IOU:Uu Yl all We PI^oVs welsAs,uewaBauew oBeu!ap pre total WCll Dyl to el well weI.A.pulp Suboptimal Ilvya sluewonodwl.Wotlatl al a6awep Wall lelluWOd wnNllo ysN oyl.a 'eplsel ap4m pa,vfi!Ilw eq pinous PION WWII—aryl arnsul l Stands puvw,Ould P vo,suwd a41 PUD Due an!euDOWLIODt I SalypellDING4a ND-caw Pu a UWImWp JOIUM uviols q 1puymlugmmisuoolBudia ABmue 6ouaemtle eagnwtllln O4l,sv yans'em!uas ilsue„•e,gtl WVmtlns->!Ignd :a Appd sluawaw Oe NdrDumtoutuaaxa,alDUls jai lujimdrow a PetnlI BUD ! -0 u!auaw !'aapuGo a Al,aylne,,,P—!O,,,InoUS pillet” yowl ysylGudpul en!peµe pue lualasumiv4l os wasRe.Be ,also w S 6ullgxe p6u,emwe d 10 AWnwww pug'uolleln B!y ll!I!gedm roots Nodi slips Wnwwdw 1 q'e01s du BZIIIN o,Plowatlep llvVs s6ulPllnq 1 1 w :E AD!la 'Aumad 1 , µ FV'M6fi Au,,6,H 6u,ua s,VI'xw YSVUIUunslptUawaOeuew o0eu!wppueloww+poolll I,,, -Ula,wvw,s povmo Ala,Dal o4,to.,mwuUww,ol Pe pones ./Junin 1W l!'ogM-eav pue eeuw-6uolem pessappe Stan Swoumo spltvtlwm ponullube Bumble Oium Sualuent,AyvomelGu lawo,d Us lleafi'DIV wa)s>e Aem e! 1 ao'c:I oehas 'seism pue.ewe a,u4a,"I'm a¢,awed doral as u!DIDdp!ued NMIUe 6enmup le ,A un uo36Dl 6e m gnods'solllllqlsumsw p kGWOw1M,GpGVm,Imwavque utl:L b!pd er PI^Oys dost socotl,m 6uleea4+alert puv eaetls,I pelguwtl W ,!eVn s Igew le I,eumw e u Aymatl u°Idmxa'ewy tuluueld ssoBgd/,a6naW o4a u1411M Pamo11D Iseel lvpmNls,P 6u!xlem g,w,auenb am u!,I W y p, Pato I V 1 GO V M 'l .qwd o6BuaP WV cal of suarmlos'Nlunwwm Mwewd lie ssoo,msw ABU—. an 4 I pa n,d Gq ileus Se lenb quoog wPUG"awmBl sow,mD 4 1 I V pameua+0ulo plus RB+ouo,aps to.an:Z bine, pal's Wim ileus luewdolonaP edA tlws llvowwo>I!Iw mmetlxo,q maN'0 aq lleysSwowdgeneDleyuapsa Al!wol oltllllnwpue'srvsoulsnq Iensln anb un out Ua,ad q UO,Ion„uawiSeb aw4a5..y'3 /m6Wan w,ua o 1 an tela eu a pm 4,a,m,u s e6au ayuewa Nlunwwm•soonaea leaUolsly pue lanllna Iumwu5lS'V As loans leuaye uegm�eyu!',olaw a pp mlup,o-,awnsum'spylsn wUB3 °BSS ar pup ! V Il aloes R,p 4l o,panuo ssmasN I put onsuGIuI,qvl'quewdban shar sulul-uou,Ol PONDS SNOI1tlON3WW003H fiLoia,uuwvu,in—pinapwowdgDAGAOe MI106Ua IIW.d real Vsy eyl+ollwuMeauvw afi0uap We!alum Wollo we,6A9y•e umoAlp",BNDtaum Al.oN-1 ."!Il;jl!ll.l,vasa toed 1411eno leluatUUOJ1AU3 >ocw!m,°puaaLLZAo.46,H.41.,PelN....amv,G(ew,!eweney .so Uegm misu,ul to lenwtlde Put uo!p..1.41 u!Imul—eP -Ice po {aq,rey pue II!I. ll. ACI AIWXad Ileo-DIV 5--u-Id as adii aodwom6 cl{wl,plew to luowdbaw ,uWodw!us Be lle4=smw°s,Snw,lit ldnal ew Pue A!I!tlawa>y:C,Uyad le'ph"..wdu!,n rueld ul whud umiepol m pus SUNmai .Nlunwlrroa uw6w p+e4 l4pws a Me :X1 3A11D3PBO °° -s,0 aq timlabit DmouS Due ompsuas Aleluawuoanua as!M,aylO 1N3Wd013fl30 AlINOWW03 6N!pn!au!'ewy6wuueldeylu!w,mluewdgonep WeuO,umreluol:g bled dnwomp 01Sono!M,so as aeq,d awq aaanmNsm a mallear BUD Poen I, ygym,o'u!eld sip us eaDied a tall..a a!luv PUP to esn Ill VI,M sleaD wall„pulgp u,eltl poo Is,nlCu,,aril axe Ue ape aVl'8 uddlandnul+aao caulstoysuI pp poow empngsvos,auww WNOVa!Vm sluawtlgonop•Imwtlo!aneWlsnU pus esn mx!W:{bile, 'Nlunwuma la,,a as we41,lueU,tlgana par uAGale Sul WaatlwllOallSd 11 I to uo!„ sueyatlwm pue glewels.(s e w mo Da.aa oq pnoys luowp6euew Dual slaetlwl even p leap I Vi to Ned 'G IIIPI lu-.BBmW OBOUIOJP Put Ilium ideals 'slmwtlganop flauna puv pt apol—B o1 se GS'wws u mpGWOp, N Apel 114611 l uc se piwou Wul Alunm!Ao local oapnwd all pnoys mal all,aleudaddeu!wall all11-Is!H oasts aawes put allow uaaaaq lawny pool pambe 10 uo!ledwm ones,a sv os vwy 6u!uueld ay, "Due IWUOOMCU'avµ°m We Nqm;,ea aVOlpnd Ge Uelatl Ol'tl walsris uean pue Nal ssmas elalyw AaueB,aw°J°gavel wnupulw,6wmssa Aq n>!uetl'sluewanatlw!ml•ues to wewtlgen°D W!m mleulaamm lleys s146!I lasts uplaaaow!pw sm!n°p,sopa a!Na1'vn°wnl to WR!60t But III uoneugsic a Dawes aney Yg4m sawnosat plod 41UAA s¢win soy Pall4lywd Be JVWtDi Mawllep,awwm 9W slbewuwlNl 6udUI lDsed/J luapIAS AII,imoul°,uewdolonep°yup epin e 4 Vl'C sadDIOneP UWINpgns pue Numl ual6u!yseAr,usom,Da Pelm I PugIGJseBw lwlwP pull 45naw Famrdwl We mullwew aq wvlgug6s,eyl"Pum luidwaii lauowaaul Due'lots'ID Bu!se4d-a are•savlaelap.bl Pue uW,saped'UWWAS law,s,opolm pue o,rawowno!pas,.luawoOeueWauolslYDurlwnllm„alituo!pppea4l'y a U8W06aUB -ad'9mmornm,Aft ,ium{ouoll¢z!Iln w°pile Dua wewdol°n xe eq pinoYs sPuCq oouomDYm pue auawOw6e ANaweM:5 R.I,od 1 W aI]BUIBJO pue 10J3U0MJ pool] gno4s mtuas a!1 tetanal Due¢soil oaybesaH'lN IPnrID ww 'Niru,.um leuove eW senaew!NunoD uol6u!VseM,941 ewp ewes all ly 'uoldope Uad,D a GA Nun -Sp Dua smmosa A6oeue ap¢meuwuau p ublwuosum e6emoau3't A ono I PGDWmu6neu :PlOdad as wit Sq, y Ae Aq u0, s U !106 ss O Ub0a!4seAA ne Wgemvw se eullew ruddww d old.E 10 si a,ol md=e Wm Due u,lucab we Due 'wild 1 umey were wpull Ifrom a eW l V Bui midai Da luawtloianaO N,unwwo valet,se UeluawaaapaalUal ns IICYs'IW,nO;mueU!p nop!m-ew"uemso!I6iael tonal pool Wea6eu!apmgs 'IX 3AI103P60 eO.e S ton 3 s,4,01 suo!,!DDe,o(DUC sug5,na,W!m01p1 eyl '0 luawtlglana bunwwo v5° UO eNasUO Af)JBU wlo eMuodMs UmAvge huewtlgenep ANunwwl omni :E b!IDd to stere ogmudu a wq lua bi l muox puv'mid slot I OUG Som ueaaw Wd G,ad y waw wWm 0 3a4,IC 11 ala!Uy 10 pu0!saad o4l4,Mamewlae u,au,ew pue enadua'Uersuaagsawnoso lgaueul Oue,emotl Il � 3 meant eq lRys We'ew 6u!uue u!PUNDIBB uses leu a new Ddm mmislw U!Npased sm,edmoo awo Nary WZL libu DavuBpuomsBy Duelt"USUM oDUlam fuse oq ep,o day Deau NUWe ase penatlw 'slot xawl 40rnwVl Ill tpODWo Isd Y I H'Z eV,woo AI!1ua le6elvlouq,cuup opnpu pious SugNlos III Imus steals,epDlim Due leyeuy:Z Aa!lad TWO tat Wall 01,atm u!pampa,sr,Hata W u!sWals snouw, 'p°4slgaw a°Suglnlos ppm-Aum,maag pu'swepp d - 3A1103f'BO modwty IPL emery wOfi Ieug60d Spw6ay/aenb$u0lfiu,m¢M Ill U!VI,M,uewtlolenep,0yynd q 'says luso, ,O,DweO!Sum aq DI^aYs suds eNw Due e!W!I pe01 xaml la luewwgd 'C 'eac,o,usJ OwddOYS s,en1S uo16u,VseM aql lueue5emw ofiewaD Duo Iwlum Po011 Ssw6w 6 W lG enuC Uol6quse beret owl No-us,,a1¢M uyolr lluw 11111 IPS oOCwao,O GaurYaWmw ay, d1'0 49 '-' M ,owls swarepa3 luaLudolIBABO lelluaPlsay-UON DO Buwal PUB alw!M slaws,of'mnwdde Walwd lelSGpw Ja 'loom pue uglvalaWlem PD011,q alq,SuodSw eq lleVs pUdS!0041*PwW 1d1 UDlgmwlvxle6wnoam Welslsse gnoYs Auo0 uG16u!yseM:9 AD!lOd 'AAM pm LIZ suirmal Due'aeals,olew :at Aluepumes spew eq pinous quvwBnadw!lea,g zv'I www la'vos"W'sla,mgsal la ug„Wl a Se DII ne Ia lana)luw,m Ow GGIU!ew 01 se Gs matua0o 4nasp°OM lua.wa w!Alin{W tons'uad luawdolawp wSWS uDOUDISOM as to m bundle t 53u0wtlganm,a,uogsw sal item se yin -IIA 3411.73!80 •, Sul V„M Wappu!m DBleaa sem vs,! s l 4°S""i pm Pue Wpnwd er I1e45 sAemaPb!q We sylemogs wlM srewlfl 4 Aa!led arOw a!noa Will Wall alp Paill UUGWl,we mNeu!so ICUOGIPPV 'Z V--Z,agwnN Uul p.INDS loading•L M Ipel Noll Veil19 W 6uUlwd I uory6 aq pinous Uo mer,,vinomd 1691$INew !req palm!01--o,pnd w!ol B u°sroelad ImImoddw!teals wap meum w,qs Nwnwwm annewal¢10 ugtau...low,la. /� , Iy emery plc ninny 410¢ '"I1-11uIt Islas,Ica B,a a6,em imwdown°P Imol sa!eOImYDI AA:ow wap!la wow a!l!m mmwow s6uplm SItfSOdOlid NOIlOtl Pu SPOON wawe6guaw 1WU!ap pm!alum moll N,unwwm � o a Ad,m .tail,i as peoy Auad lei v,owls xv, wasRs IBuo'!ppe u°se sondums,inns Bwpi u.spmauaa ups!ne pnoys luno aw'wg!Ssoe,enaeuM,sluewaanadun as,,IJ p s,4„G algaRne a es, PrOput t sawa p l0 qs w B a,,Bud,nmo lou spa 6 le fi o' sear ! S ,f3m NunoD 0111IN Downs miaallp gnus, veum,Ayacatl AD ! q epa!nba us us P em,eq pinous ewe Gwa, I D W VS sa!yunmdd0 puesw!duwul 't Aeue Vfinwo msel,!n,Ue Nal J u4u OgO3 loganalfiwan,s!Dsid pupf5mina.suois swapatlButm, IBI pmol Deo O pnadgso!IwnuodeGleuquppe wan NunoOuwBud—M'wmw6Nean wlmit—Ow s,soa wawanwtlwl',ayea,o4l NunoD as,Aq peu!au!ewDue ppnatlw! wegrasu6sep pup sudspap esn Duel :9 A7!lod wopAs lewls,apalme Wawekua,Na^Ipeµetauop s.nb!u4md •q'Numl 1015.!q,,M Act paumn,mw We-01 p°legpap led ale 4awm 'uqd swatIG"ot.."I'w, ewel>a{o gnaw ay,sealso"Gold yowl VSV louppnpa Sl :C b!pd / y 'nanpNv,epsumllayss qn°g IIeH P¢ow 9cBi6u 1L°xe Oingls pue'sweWg,s AlyhmwPaawtlWllW ale mum slas,ls ideal Plnous 'NunoD doles,paliam 5 umnuawaldw!,Wyd'N,.a,p eve Iw01 as,UBde lou Mw asaVt 'Delplyad po,I,m N!>Bdm fiuDIW,olein u! y pw es,U ayOmJeu leans,pew 6416wnaew, PUB s.hP—d lueuddo.t,mw,s 5aWs I. luano ayl w:lt Aa'.pd >0 6 All uG,pe Due uo,le,ap!sum omit,Ol PaPuawwooa,ale swat Ou,mallo aVl 4;noylry'Swnpaawdeu!Iwado Nuhmu!saeueuawm'saueu!wo -mom lainuraU6e j -mpu!'ew 6utu !sap mem a le 1 Note Auadatl l.am vaumme us llew,Pin—Nuo'D N.1.Mau lit ugldopeoyt,a 6u,lslxa lD uo,Gnw wo two O,POW1W Puv—do.do'ubmadow agars wow p net,u,sewe PrexBV Ssaaaaplaus a alnaw m!ym Umatloq{B 1.6u!IIN:W6wnoa;,lp up PasmOlGo,INS opium No GaIliwewenatlw mad,sa!Iand:Z Aa!Igd 's1p,p,p ludo :SNOUA0 N0I.N1N3W31dW1 w¢w!VM mope lo,SuwRPUawwwo p lsI5uC3'sm1p0 ispau.walthul'3 Poo;Pus u!ad po°N UD paz!w,u,w m Gram wawdomnap uean :z fzfiod m lagc sleuuem w....a su11i:1.Iua SD pays Blau w 'uOUmaxa -mm seals PeumD 10IGNd to oomuauaw AUedwtllenpnIWI : Aa! -vans Nun 6 'swop o%0OUlmolneu'Iew,I es,emnrim,lhenDlpdganap apes lamps.Ni el ta�mrniau Aem L ned o7 us,wVseM uaM paSeq lena0tle,uewtl unwIP wD 6 b I 1lW,.G-uaubwnsati wu!wlsem qa-a wpaay N,,d t l al II NI 1. tl dv d YSy pue idols leyeye a41l mu,.I, lie ,o1Al.gmoepa pa ¢.n¢n0Y A¢w, 6n0 11¢dD,Ut OG!Ru,nom N s Ow a NI°Neta,Imam I O pw!nba eq INS sol Leel We SWINGS Vans u¢ /y,as,wwi pue°,6we6 P { 1 D V V V p 'N! l0 M-I .B sal - S lana” ys ewy leugbew sswfiad 'OP'spaw'sagauag'sAeMwedse vassal!ae aalp! put 6u tell.u!w peal out a pue ue!retlu•ooetls uatlo us se auOS of PUe ugyPuoo Iwmeu - uegm panulum /edits uolfiuwse µa 111 I bead uewsapad 1p Ms plram Nun o3 U.Itu!ri'm sac.mop Allaluo5$Rt¢N!DI,IawewmPln tw¢I �I - uo uo PNlsum'W!snOVN!ICnb Ouusuxa Guolea0w'uewtl Bu, x ul'wpavawalku!nmb w DINIGNU as of a n¢4 pirom susp,ps„n! W ,"paid kowl ysy pue _ >ew)oquawaelelggY aNlq!MWe uepeq,'aaedsuatla 'alDaRne louweym,o•epelRneaesal!Ipey presepNes uean woo yawmw sep!IaelNynwwmpeep Uwls y.a eye alowalny'1 I 1 olanap Ila ,pue Be, w 'I 9 se^6uINOs'ugl!pum,°ml°anew u,Rllgluasq^lUaleq lloys caws Nessmeu owavedwea m a Ol swnpmwd 6u,45,xa a Im grays NunoD ul5wyseM:Ol bIIGd 'ewy 6wuueld III uyum Uolwtlo1v411ngtensa Dudes CulDUCllapuwaDnpu,acyl slesgtlwtl ,adawmavu610Jazueu E asnnaq wired to Icug6at Bid asaw neat ysy Aa pelueswdw walois umume ! props ;j �` I rl I Jaw weymsals uo,nmDll¢45luew deyaau'N„ ddw rm I¢+nleu eyl'm^s cV'eay 6wuueld ns,6wdNo6zleW a4e Noll �i u,l�t III P-4 Pool-.4s n pes'15.0.1 p pue ullapo id yawl ysy:9 b,!od dOmop le:Ulcnau,m'Ig!wawwm•udsu!ppns Ie!ue!sal,ms papers..rues Pue It le aD IRVs plexal¢awes we uasgnsA Deau N,g,tl a se panaCw luBwtlalenaD611.nwdtle;a.toId6Ylpuedse Datl Pulsagpino so Igea.l st mnw¢wequippat-41,Bit Nld..."Bus uopeO P yy,entm,oO m.Nxlolanel¢le New But U,POu!elum ale VPym sOU,lagn6 u5Rap pueeunt,lualudBa-a -9 6u,uueltl aVl p sauepwog,,,puoi W mita AllGWm6,Ow,SO On!psueS Nlauition o SR PaagDuoa aq gr sta'sewe ';�I I i 0 N:ived -IVa,Nlm,!aed$oq qn eiwatlomall G a —ped Ae G 1 Ws alai clan,l a41w1 yaw!Imp-uoN 4 bad/m5eWN u. my Y Pue, low O41'H es Gash Ip a,6e puts sis!xewapwtl wall spmaaaV6eud>alad olsemAunwwm sum Past lonwdleoolb vis,pue quew Ow.no., 5tfui out DlnwdolgVga,Um WzeU DDglwealsdn We6uUolm snitl•u!ew Dooid yealysy:I b!, p ) fur qez uyywaq B, Hru¢an 1.sm D41.1 apVa, tl i preW.ls DwO tunuaww UO Pantool aq pinous subssaw ue saw b, m a5uowes W,uyu!w mal 'oil 'umea>ae eynswow ane p^ lea!meaeym's pa pa,Dls 'lkl!sey ad!llG Put cardsWDS peana a,Iew¢law spaau pue soaped V,!M lea°:suopepu4wwma9luawdo,aeD Awunwwol'9 ,ll Go anwum ss N Goes as,ww!m seat'wezeiJ R,nlefl to Ianl eyl of Wpw6tln aq bible sm,l!ae!Due sapNas uean fiuls!xB'B P Peo yawl 6 .lad Il.m.Slow Ian I UI{um Due riwww m msel em,lo! p1BOAa alta!i Saco a101!nw Rg paxuePaem as pl^OV5 Bae ssa6wd r ce pwagsul eq Deus sews wezeV Woll Dm su!atl maw :9 bila, d,en 'sweWets pu,gp el le,se WIeaU OD Ileus volaeue6"!Nwl,gew w pue'A!unwwco ayt of sa;na Hooey•0 Ay P'S eanS*Wood uo!Waap wasu!pans lmpp!DUllo pealsw wlSAs 'dg,maxa p.5i W a4,q pauonatl aq um swapwd pfieuwp Mau pup pen � � 'ueld qVh W!rm lmwlae u A!unwwa> mWalapu!e10p001t lwnleu Bu!Is!xa ay1l0 a0auupe aye of Dau0,5ap ,oJaR!suodsw NUa!p WpinoM AunG3 a41 w!VM+01 Du¢'Ndno3 -laser as Drop swa old efieu!B, Out 10;mUdon—POU pue tuaw]gaap Wm uml, v,6s,,sales-`'p"Imeoaym tetrad s!aaeds puna¢-wnl a eayfi,auueid°ytwypm vaweq aea,a,o'aex pue,eae,eValo suual N1 U¢uluta,deMm0 ugeuWSEMla Uwsuip asleeal bleu°!eaDaadu! p Dluauna teVloslmwtlganep arm uoleu 7!uo 5D.S.Se SU-401 1,I,mwdau¢4uem Nom 9s°p w,a In Dr,".".1 a3 lelgn I. 1 IOP , W aqm-Arynwwro e id ua!pnysum a 1 itVI,M ale WWm Peva uaA n ivw Newl¢u!pepnatl eq Ileus sm!uoo be o ll^sa net scop sMoli Pwal,gew p upisa6um 4 lou op swatsAS sill deyt wnsse!!eye Vlx N Dewe 6u!uu -!womesapul, t llaglleys ss!aI1°de6eu!aPPue Poo luau Bes,W¢p!npmuol!Wvaleml¢u Na.wausatupowageweglleys pue sal!IIGl uean a,s!n tl7 ugltlas! pill,ews,olewe 6uumld VSual DIV Ilii Hssa6 wad SaV,NUe Io{gpuO puC Ua, es,OVl Ugly:gesatlOM dna U l'd p,o'bevaye,o,Gp l0 a,nsbl'9 oy/v:enbg u016u45eMa 'sBV!ms;Munwwoa,aylo Du=wdFdnYp'swol,aidems pup Spow Oyy amen, I)•�, \ wBIdPooLH yeaOVMhxaumslwuWM'tae.unblS, .'..Due •SaowaS Pue SaQllloal ulit pauuadllGUS saq!unwwm,66aery Due na6wd ayl6u!ues oo!Nes a bel RVUI uaaeya 1 4 1PBNueltl 1. mg ngnsq!w,mluas,sum:A!mw ssa6wd/1001. 'Whale veumo N,adatlA-1-146D ;Duaswd at,a s,m,wmaUA1!sPueuewsapaoesedol smwl.lsepaw .asOU.111ea 1UOwdw1AGPpynse,,soparid,que° ma,sme,wapbpug ��@ Au! unea Waw to losw!w-OWJOrenwedea VsuwlslewWnatlw,' I!suwlantn wow', sail Pauvatlq!sawphao pious SlUmamrdwl,loans aPp u5sap ayl'u0imawua!Oml ml pamba Dome Bill our ualmas,i Aql!suodsa se I J gmaepgsu! P.M."Ba"B'S gela"U.PIP[wWe•sa>,nas IIIA 3AU.03PB0 wsg4 ugdeaenneersDasoOatlayly I 19 able”walsAs afiewwp pre mol{lue„m sswpoe I AuDV)ny T _-- �� �,�r !ll u mtlu,Dyne Pm spuepeM pue OWbe R,bl Dye dune/ of se m s.(emybV Pmlgaalseleuaye pineopdawu�l�elllconlouWomleu Daiwa, a41'saepuas lawls,opalll,m!w 011aa]$15mo1 l0luawana0wl-y on bu tat ale S0006aln saw Biu,PGdGw5 we gesmwd weal'b?Wdwd awl --- .r � _ Mees table 15ifix u!Ids Iwmeu yaw u sawmca Ienleu 'a—a 1 11.,Orew ale Pqui,m we•says pmgonapun fiuon sssa =aonom e s ea 'let' a -auawa!dw,lenpn,pw,as,hiblOV ol,awo u,vazzin Om pad a4l Dust Pea— Uu S!seq Opm • l PUB pun.'sa4atlad-q uolauawapw„CI Paso”'are'spurl AllnlasDNnd Neap aney asa41'uvltl a I!o Ixat a 1 w J uralSAs PIP spm-sae m uo g I Z �'� IMpol,dow,Pue Fnb!un p uoleuasad Peng,ul wnsstl:9 Aa,iod IeuaUe uo Aluo paemG ymw mupmnugj•l ue Non 1 4 y w w owl WeGd'u,w!m l.ner a,gowl,y 3 -alas Nl.od V 4 pau!aum a,v us,!'M sivaw �— I m am.4-Ile la algGi.11.visit.stela,too ouimIi.feunwwm OMD 6gmollo1 a41 's pue aulaal° NU UDID laauil Put uo,lauaw dw 1 n Swap ,vopwm D to,Ill..mtual w!4m wa6stl wrequawadw,wi rl` "two!p.0—n, 'seen lwomo w),°w ww{ -uas ueyn oil mnatluu,to,v/e IG_W6u loans 5Da uy.a AemUl'xy Due teals,oleo ww w 's,3111aa1510 fiu!punl al¢nutl Due a00nd pool as,se inns.,awls 'al0,ssod s¢sudU!pswl mal se 6u,nlonu,luewau,ew pre J p •�� -atl WG,G aupp,uawmm4m la^yin pue q+ws! qsw plod of v. {ea,q 6uuuew ssafiwd/+a6pery a ulaw m to wawmadwt.a',o{prdwwa a o lua 4'quawasea ale leges MG,aenoope Wm seae R3 'law we suappum bullas Ga tale pl^oys Sws,uelpaw uamp ay,AS Pa4!wag used Duey wa6euew'wewdo,.wFdopAz,b wo,grwGz,.PODW,Aueop'L I as 5uleom Sematic aeuewdee Umdope,of 6u!smad SmPsI No6uybeq Puv prenelnoBligH m Oulual'paemme 6u,mglb es,to IR UNM We SupanP Ail twentsu!mum Panwtlde 6s, aspu5ewolSAs uo9e6ads523 as,fiw!m opou,Blow eseeoyleat' ,aV10'tuawdolanap eu!nwdee Jo UGOPm,a uaWnwaa w,VmN!unwwda as,la spaau pue Gualgwtla41 YDM bupwP,g p4ta—drianap a1YB tl a d/aenbs cal V Maw wz!I,In Aq buapwtlap allow°; to FIGNEM 6uu!nbw put'(s,allrpup!O onwimakw Sao ovaugdayllounpune'minoselo N!xad oD,oada o55 w¢ew',woMa `, pm.lumI.M,m. ,!A.,..ae6uu!",a—,ggseq 11al us,.,M!O llaeww0l„aay eoadwat aN PUP u!Pam ogpnoys smlmen Wourg'gawp UP smolt allot awanpe wall -he 6upnm,to sueaw,pad pwo,dUw 2q Hemal"uss l!Ww ' to uglewa J 1 a H O e se BVI tax mita Sa,nS¢aw uDleluawaew!eir!1p!xa ID spew alp pious esn wubmid lout Rluawwano6 Aldanw to Nome Daed,admil alias lino,W!Vm :alpu!ploys suglnlos a6eu!ap put pool)a6uw bual'3 a -DD wdum 6Iue ump,n mauves,esus A ogm-Nunm ails -°I W Dials luewtlga.wp iavawwm p,oWGgygau maN'g ,e lenuepsa w,wd We,apw¢4>Paoaogy6,m aNxa,tl sig 1 D ,Suets SOW lutwOgwaP uean4l,m uogm!WOm u,A!unwwoaayl u! waBwtl leuo,6a e,o ap!M-Aunm¢,sola y6nayt paluawalew!aD o1 anPU OlnCns 'Nestles Mop,O Ndnuata++a,em Nay geuepun mpsum pinous Aural ub6u!VseAt:C blip, of sueaw a Be paegsum l p!norls slaaas to voUmen ayl:9 A>IIDd nMllem to luso aewp,Opalim lmuawanwdu!alewalsAs a4101van!Bap p!nDVs Auoud > D!3nlosaVlamaeVCnsul'uetl A,unwwmaVl{padmsaw DUGAapag Ago va,mlos ( 'semmure -um lB!aawwm se asnU We vel dgonap olwMIGAS Pug 5uump spm-ea¢6uumbe,tarot O,gowCne utas u!Down—leu a u,Units,prom Soopowd Nene to uananuWm quaas pup.v Bwpuel'sampwls aUbgy Plegwom AIRWIu!Pao m�s,p �u0NSa!POP pue IUOWGAwewl with Nuno as,'PaavawpBouan!seuada,anwaRwdawp N,x'adwaab4"""aq `1` d C of an,lewaNe algeu WelnlY4eeye se m6wnmua eq pinous 6u!yleM'D 'quawmwtlw!aenud am,ni eleuiwooa pup .,as awns ti'suo!lnlos of Pea Ol pau6!sap Dur W!VM sued ugtie Du¢aa5Ia15 aq,eam amuuem a6auwP Nem.Pao'woe weze4 DaoU'.aid an,eBl PUB sena gsll!uuoetloanO,un Ade 6u!z,l!n al!4m goy Peuuel Welmpatv>oll DpWsse,l,lpel le,vawwmamn^d'y :Z byod Bw lG A!Il!sumsa aooeualweweaw0.aq leas seam inns euleMpwwwda painvuldbapm6o psu6sap erg pinam mid Fit 14 w,MSwopwtlpuespuulnquap!aYl SaPIEW leVImId Minwdmawipuedwil Woln,a uaiews,,a I—cal,BVunl as,5u,yq!yad AD Poona.+ 6uuua,ssa6adPe5azl.w Jorepaega r leu WBlemYm vavoo Nwpa NIN"Wwo>B IS 'Bw¢PUlt uean Gl gaa45mpa6m6u "'a BsaGntl as, uml Nol5UvGPAA,a Pazu0i as PIn0U5eayleug6adssw5wdl'aanbS sr ww5"d volewawadw,,,I'ueld BUn Banda d GIIVm sudirl We spaau tuaw as rom immun.wdw,baead b a5ewe t moil pinioned to amu BVL-0 '=U=!4 es,.I.Net—oD II!m undoul nap anal,syn aney :Z Ap,pd J ^Dud'P ,b Baum°Avmwd wa6oy/,-"W Ad dwor esti s,Wwal vseq Nuoud dao Geownwwm 5,Fun11hs Buowe mum,WIGUlp uCl6u mean.4,IN..aid luawdbwat agpad5„a{G uoleredwd w,1 'E -dganap Nwnwwl N,3Deq at S!ww6wd Bu,uugd N,uniamo as,to sepal,au0 'agmy m!ngVan Dual Dlered.hmM In.as,Bu!Nas UmUD adwl Imdl a a dim'sem Nunm;05 to wnwpew lc u,mluawalew,aq Ileus sAemapb!D to wadsAs paylyn ales y'B 'Amdead We altlmd I aweu Isluwm a swas -A,lenb .-IS WIs!H!o vws!6aw . WtlH60Nd N0I1tl1N3W 1 WI Ida,DUG wauew at leTgl!P ale Awn ameaaD asteroid inn !a{o lana!lues cad as,u!euew an m be Nuol m16u y eM awr New scoea,is'Nunoaneaw Uo dii nwum u,NB.".6na eW pas 6w,yu!��oWau ue paDad Pubal'a sua4adwm y 7 e I'6U!pun{Iu!ol u,It Pinel p,now Nun 6u6y!mGA,:L A>!lod smwas,,-I pons dna Vni4,ABswllood 3 ,1 ISUMsompos,umuasp pse solei Dodo to mmpron lel-0 Aq pe6w^mua eq pinous Gol...doa V R,ml pre eg avV, U, .Jauas pu ss, y ,3 Wo,useaganep with!6u d SPoamott tarpons PUB GWGI man,.Uaq Puessaaa —.it..a tl no3spoom lueP!JJ3 :L/a!ICd an 'W° Ianal PUB sAeralana,Pat w6alU.lo y,—Bu lmwoumB pue wa.uonum vnd q+a e6wncoua pnoys Nuel a,6u.meM'sm,nca WMumeu!Womu•nuawtlbenep.a 6u yretlletms,oama Iublepawl All p,nawU!tuawtlgenapluanbaspns 6u laa„DI weld poall PUB vaumyP A.- Tu dime.naP 1. Nwnwwm Jo GUmw 5euetu,meq as,,I ap,natl I,awo u :L b! Bu! w, P of Nan, ]osteal pue la welsAs len,gu es,al seae leaol owl IWYN JaaM uuop nod 1pu!'eaun a low5od DRi;o ug{agysualu„a4und•q p,m.su�eu Sall,JO in jai aosatIm Go Pm m su po%ns 'ales a l°luawtlgora 6 aq ileus uo, p,e ldsuil � �� ' yodsueq aNenaag,sa!I,I,aayuawames w,ws Dwe,sys stale yyepem,o{Pegnatlsoulusus!p Wm•3uawtlolanap We sum �vu BadNa6peA as,l SSOme lulu o!msualemunndau!,Ipa51IS94 udmS Alscueld Palet 1 1 V t sin Dua u Aama Alien—as monad eq prom sou uscu !d gaol enlsuas-¢taloa Nanlela,u,Ayelduetl'sla�l 'N!unwwm sea -op•day Id Seo Duo UOI a OdgU6J1 i I :9 Ra!o swWqun erre lnlumey nal slBnq m,.0 luagwe u!eu!ew We eanpe fiery/al a p,h 6 t ape A a,upscl,a d'D m y,!m'ea,g as,awl.pleoo,Aliwlw>uq;as i!Suwd y'¢ dull I,su¢A IR,1V6,1'Aemmq a blip o1.Pew I ups,aaD eµ :9 bila, •IA 341103"90 Mu POLICIES 11 y1� 086E`OZ 4oJeW D.SNbilizatenof Residential Areas Atlfonng H,gherlwensity Development I Housing should be Pmweed tor,es rocessary,massure Natres4..of I .�,I�Y/��'4'r uoIsslwwo3 SuIuueld The MetgerlProgress Community Plan represents the culmination ofaPlanning program shah has been going on in line community roranumber THE FOLLOWING COMMUNITY PLAN OBJECTNES AND POLICIES WERE ADOPTED ON MARCH 20,1980, thavicnnount. elakenlialntion.a dtrisnomtlbe prrnettadtmman., ecommetzger,ase to, Pacenaandrea may mminmmreske will ere ut10 UO UI SB a N1Nry_v OI ears.ltisi rt...... ni"t first and foremosb this plan is the product ofcoumless hours of study,negaiation and decision making by BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. mer I,r Nndue sbereem en and—lo eroding-Gamcac ar new, M lor n a hand,caDPea ndieiomlp. 4 `.1 36 4 l 41 y f rot Lro9 at the citizens of the cormnuniry.The piansalso the proaaxl of crormnunity-sae”mon hall”rrreetngswnwe cit¢ens nod the opportunirymexpress OBJECTIVE I: OBJECTIVE 111' higmr,nsnsity Wgiven totantl clans,WGMGM Isighplar Dare antl Policy t:Amioson.le.alof so milouni Areapopulat'lon growth and and use i' �Q Pa3�Pb their ideasofwhat they thought the Metzger and Progress areas should be like,and how they should develop in the future.Lasty,His also aprodaxl acolen�em�lnuld begiven mane mmdace between neignbOmals erre anocasions have Been esadis,eemaccommOdwa regbnalpho �1�./ J ofthe pudic hearings whichwes,held by Ne Washington Counly Planning Commissen,andthe decisions made by;he Commission regarding the Use of Metzger/Progress Community Plan Community Character Of and non-residential uses tap asmpreserv¢ihe reskltial 9.700Pople,ah.P,M,M0h. 0,10.15Wpola0 plmMI ople. ryear 19906 1�V-l® gi bj pment policies and the land use and circulation plan proposed by the citizens.Now,as the finals the ptger grass Com1wMyPlan is composed of text and cbaely envirommenL ! - - Plannin P ectNes.tleveb tap iia prOCe55,and Use /Pro 9.7hs Pease,Intl enuald developments ets shmpla. I \ 6 w�/'�A,��9 /�, A 4T before the plan is adopted Be the official guide mthe fNure development Of the MetgenProgress Community,the Board of Courry,Commissioners related graphic matabels.To fully understand the cordite of this Ran.the 0.Metzgershall bemanrained as Predmmnarenlow densirysemi-aril,and E 0earlydeli ohne WDStamedgeof Merger Polity 2:HighsdensityShall resitlenfialdevebpmen6 should meet each of the A.LlCY11l/ WOO willalsol pudic hearingswhidl will provide an add'2ional opportunity fofcitrzBnsro make known their ideal whattrs community should be like les and graphic should Be used in wncen.Supportive hTcig.and math mooerwe density suburban area havnga Airy of housing Go:—and ,e ,l�'p�^�J redsamals°an integralpIrtafne,Planwh,ch havebeenpubl!she05aparate- opm,witias,with minimum levels of season services and radius. a y,¢lions:¢Ne future extent Gi nigh and minium density mllowng tilde: \� �3®iT9�rA1tltlVJ7d in the future. sal lD insure a sate ane heafthlui livor esttlenill and regionally-o seniatl commercial areas relative is low lie- °i�!'1 J nsiry resi0enlial neighbomoods.Entoroe am preserve these respective e.Be IGcatetl wthn one-quarter mile of public transportation � ly.Thew are Ne Merger/Progress Commonly,pan Background R. ^aces ry g environment. areas for land mes as adopled e,this Ran, services. �� Thal basic concepts contained in the Metzgenfaregress Community Plan,which has been recommended for adoption to the Washington County Wdand FNdingswhkhpl,demoreeaensiveinfomafonwdsupportng Th,0Id Metzger” ashouwmnlinuemserveasaneighbarhadtlhud Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission,originated with the Citizens of the community.After the abasrs arrived at a data on Ne Plan,R PropDRy,DevabpmeM within Metger/Progress Planning Area. b Ba lot'atetl Dn arterial ptreem and hghways.wiNow.ausamg / ¢Gns'm on the Centel ofthe an It was Med and Nenwide distribution throughout the MeterandP Poli 1:ThDM wil,l°mlly-orientetl neghborh°od uses and aarvities mncentraung In areal Service levels to be exceeded. W Pn 9 9 g Progress,homer held in the omm n ity ry ¢tour/Pmgregs Communes Plan shall hi the eCbme- Nis vinery. 1.PropaM tlevelopnem in Metzger/Progress is mtendedminclwe: C. theirplanproposalsfothe Washington County Planning Commission in Februarygf 1980 during public readies whichwere hetlintlae community ode community elan g"vaming decisbns by Washington County residential subdletion devnosment msdeneal inkling mrough land -Senear.Gradjacen;to mmmeroialand regeafionalfacifities. ® - .swell as in Hillsboro.Testimony an the vadous parts of the planeastakenfrom individualsand groups at that timte.Subsequently,revildanafDthe ming dewlap...t and redevelopment within the 6.Pmgre55 shall continue to be deMloem as a diversified and compact ® t proposed plan wale then made based on the decisions made by the Commission.On March 20,1980,the Planning Commission adopted the Merger/Pmposs Planning Area.Plans antl decis am by°mer regional activity contendincluds:Intensive light industrial.wholesale aro Pandarmg,conversion alvacant or agrioistwid antl to mleintensive J.Be near safe travel homes so Nose schools with sueiciare f governhim I agencies Should Be coordinated,where contlicl diantunion employment opmnuniWS,among others;plus high Gentry uses and mdevebpment Of pmperry to higher intensity land uses. wpaciry to amommocam professed attendance increases � MBtgeNProgress Community Plan with a recommendation that it be arwardetl t0 the Board of CAunry Commissioners for final adOptlOn. xis!wrip,Nis Plan. resbenfal.and 11PPPmM commercial foolidas and services. 2^ndiv coundovebpmld costpusposaeat ould wit.beeasignetlandevaJuetetl room devde pment The londeaument has been re dread as ado the Planning COmmissgn,and is again bei distibutedte residents and a owners of ' Poliry 2: Acli°n Pmposols conlainetl m this Pian Shall be: The Wasnin ogress gena P P Pied by g erg ng property elan Sgmre/Pr Re Area snag cdnunue so Be be comaxl ol.antl co0kinweconi Ne Imam eevimirg shall ll Poliry 3:manner Of polity potential atlopadmdelnnineacgn pamm the area The pudic hearing proceas will be repeated again when CltQeaa comment$antl recemmendations on the plan will be considered by the a Recommendations for implementation by Washington County deMbpetl es a regional agivlry am Wheremal coma,with related I d'm .Amon other consk"in I...thefdlown snail mannerMmlwlatin _ _ _ _ s gProperty 9g gpotendaltlwelllrg unismbebuilt on amp W2_ County W.�rrf mmweu...a _ _ ra the Co.-not!—a—' _.....,a,..w__.:.........:..�...:n,._.,.:_�:,,._ one ra a,:Wun:dd tor:assess a its properly,the a s,d enwi"n,ygem, dry:OMtm partally withm a fiaad plain. - A ® sf!rMIM Crum-'__"'MCC""'_"._5 M...y..^'..••,..,,y,^.."�,^,,,w„�,,,,,. „no�. GI consume qO Inks and facilities.Cmc„ional s Of retail nm, ,antluserelationships.lolpatems.Ilam emelt andanedevelopment poli 4:As reeevalq //''���( ® 1e�e b.Recommentlatio thew for mnsieeratbn by other governor mal memal,consumeronentetl Oupiness and proless!onnl services.uld be Of acommunily plan dronage system, Policy Gwent of pmperty,W,rs within the Metzger/ 1 �� ® ® ® , �A�WA 10 .1ICGROUBV® agencies where these agencies have legal pr[Wttbn.a tainmem,and medium and high density reskeniiai land uses should be Progress Planing Area,existing spam honing StDdx should be Poliry 3:The Metzger/Progress Community plan shall act as Ne moot Imwa i m this vicinity. 3.A s Gmh,which links Ne devebpmeht or impmvemem of collector Preserver,either,n-site or relocated m suitable locaikrewithin Pont n coordinating and formulating a coreiwem future outbok signi regional travel corridor.P and Simple antl a flood mrnhol and drainage management system m the Ne=dGety,a condisil of redevelopment approval. ® � Theremmmended community plan for Melzgerand Progress,indud- of the Panning Department on of=devebpment.The planning pro- I !tribe Metzger/Progress panningAreaby cookinatingNe Plan Highway217 is leans regress development oflndih the Metzger/Progress Morning Area shall be Poliry 5:An overlay disbkl wM relwed devebpnent courial tan°WtlWLWYAMF ® I ing Washingmn Square,was prepared through the Washington cessalsowazdesigned with enough flexibility to either accommodate w!NeMerpr/Proglias RaningAhcies,programs antl vi—nglon Square age—loom an important rgnarel desinalion and designed and implemented.Improvements should be based o I County Community Planning Program.This program began in 1973 w membere for the committee,or to allow the effective Waahni nC°un pr°Wsals involving applied when grentag approval of.net Cada¢,or handicapped i new IaafiCipd. I ,g;p y,reighmnngcit s,paMaltlislicl antl°trier Wined.node along Ne coni,°rwhiohpmukbeslre,gNenetlammain- unity-will taciaies nvantory.Systems evaluation.and febuU s homingfxciltim.wMh Drown low den ��r����p��;; as pad ofa comprehensive and sysfematCapproathrolantl use and of individuals who only wished to be involved on 5pedfc issued. governmental agenkes rained. dowlap rs.program. Me sly reexthe density,e areas^aTh, uVv,IJf1n= l tansportaton planning for Washington County at the local level.Its exceed,rba iaydbbiidureat damty(8.2 thes/grtoo Poyry<:The Planmaybeamenaeauce¢sillyewrwnereaneeacanbe OBJECTIVE IV' 4 Preservation d Home Occupations: sed urban iow-metllum density f8.2 units/grass acre I purpose s m prepare a Series of commmiry level phos which are The CPC Met weekly for a pedotl of over tvvo years while wanting ,",.I-.mndr -in single family Homes—M ire Metzger area B thrum),if: intended to Provide guidance bottle future devefom nt of the unin- toward a consensus on community development decisions."Town justified beta¢,upon the amei.rguitlellner: shall mnlnuembeallowed so thatpeopie may seekgantulempl0ymen[ os,Resaemal urine are tlesgnetl spxifimny for Me reeds of --_-. { coryoreted urban area of Washington County.A fundamental goal of Hall"meetings have been held periodiwny in order to brig other a.To mrett ergrs and°missions; Neighborhood Stability at they pace Gf hasAanm.auk,home o mwpnr shall be perrnred Re or handicapped people:and _ �f the progam is 10 provide the citizens within each of the Community citizens into Comsat with the community planning etoM imorm the i b.To marten:ne Paw•by keaphg t Wrtent with community onyesmntlrtona,uses-len multi,reviewado—diatlly,asprowdetl Planning Organizations(CPO's)with an effective means to make community of the status of the plan,and m pmvido an opportni for "Boas SliddGres' 0.Portrcal lnregny of Merger/Progress: b.Pea peopSa re iDhe nUmptio poky by am" id GDO alp U ty c.TO.Do.additional lopeol Iwnentp along with related Mama,the aohnital umry Gf Ne Metg,/Progress unity a for in Ne wasnag,Dn County communty Development orainanee. planning and development decisions forNeircommuN6es dein the pa libpaLon by other chaens who sem not directly involved in the b mum nrorma[n,finer comm s Pea people.wth the exc tion of WASHINGTON BULK RATE 9 a°k9 findings, a fives d tides. bounded !MNen"mah County„n..Neea4;TWy rs Fa,,R0od.Unit Home omummm must net exceed county standards govemi such l personal aides.anaswPort - i course of devek,ping the plan.Therefore,the program has laden planning process.The cooperative effort between the citizens and A.T°after ore g m sy po :Avenue and K.had 1 Flood 1°NB North;Hi hwa 217 and Sommer home mb onal uses. p9pp1e' I I~'_ COUNTY U.S.POSTAGE Sfax Peer the dete cane ies anf eeral.G cmnry,ftheplanning Plan. a°n 9 Y c.Am iia units are of Quality tlesina,tl construction,and lo- - PAID designed wlh the objective of maximizing the opportunities for the years has now brought the Plan t0 the toil where it e,TDacmmmotlaiechanges nfe0eral,state and local planning Pacific Railroadeo Newesh,am U.5.99W Bothe soul;with theacmibn Poliry 1: Exiting Ham,ciamativnp which are operating wmout an ap- ry g PLANNING oti snsro.ON. paNcipate in the decision makin process statin ready for adoption.Dari the course of deveb id the Ian s tat- Dtihoseareaspreviousl ltd the or veryneartosMpping d constries,n,and ler 9p 9 ^9 pig P lax.: yannaxred mar m.rfur,p,ia n.(See Plan Map pronzdmunryperrnit shall have 90 da fogPwn deeon Glen, rvces DEPARTMENT Hillsbom.Ore, with the initial drafts of fie plan antl goin thro h to its ado tan. ;!rude of issues and pradems have been discussed for which solu- Pan,to appy gal a se and Meds!snips. 9 ug P I.To deal with devebpmene proposals on an area-wide basis, , Ralvy 1:Mesmr/Progress community prefers its uninco err Ne necessary Wm,il allowing Burn we,or Permit No.53 j tions have been proposed antl a reed u on. ,mralm.latus. 9 D mtartmnsde-specif basis.w.t regar W,eighb th and - and should remain uninco rated unless a Plebiscite aepmves teas°oparztien. e.OmuOanryof reskentialunil by NeekMysmuld beassured Atlmn.Building 150 N.Fre',Ave. Work began on a new plan for Metzger/Progress as early as 1974. commuiry Impact. eider annera;ion as a unif�nm one of Ne surrounding cities,or when granting necessary Wilding and/or devebpndam permits : Hillsboro.Oregon 97123 I However,a more intensive planning effort began in 1977 when the The Metzge Trogress Community Plan has been prepared s,5 a Poliry 5:The Plan.hal be thoroughly reviewed once every five years any imamate on as an independent city.Farther ai m uSion by OBJECTIVE V: Mini aartdoppon by the sponsoring goiemme a housing { Planning Department was able to allocate additional resources;o Supplement to the broader Washington County Comprehensive the Washingron County Planning Dmarm eneand Ne Community Tigard or°Nersurroundingcit,BSMMughp,ecemeal annemtlom amnonry. I complete the planning program.Cammuniry-sae meetings and in. Framework Plan.The community plan is intended to relate the goals, Planning Ogerserpon. shall be opposed by the County,even lough city am Cowry Housing and Residential Development Policy 6:Ta insure a atlequate bean a of High Density Reskential antl fortnationsessions were held to determine area needs end problems. objedrves antl policies of Ne F amework Plan m local contlimn5.In The adopted Metzger/Progress Community Ran,including objectives the plate for ale area agree with regard m lam uses am polices A.Sueeiemheusing its plopment opportunities should be Pai to ac- Olfice Commercial lark apes,and¢°pmvd.tl a range q hots- ; andtosolicit local participation in the program.A Community Planning this mntext,the fOW5 Of the Community plan is on detailed land use pDlicies.i enforceable as law.The Pion shall be applied in public and shme, wiNin Metzger/Progress Planning Area, looms-the feesZm of prepared population growth and hemng Ing Styles and Opp dandles.Min ale Metzger/Progress cam. � Committee(CPC)was formed from the memtaership of CPOs to designators,local circulation systems antl communily devel0pm0nt decisions regarding future development and redevelopment of the demand in the Merger/Progress Planning Area,posed a,a proportional mun,ry:land desgnatatl High Dere,ry Residential in mrs Ran shall function as a core group of citrzens Who were to Work jointly with staff needs. Metzger/Progress Planning Area.The Pan shall be mnsint-Ity enbhom. Arnewbon of in,,ovasmOroWd land south of Schoilr Ferry allocation of tenure regional population growth distributed mrsegmYi •ast be grant=,conditional use Permits for Office Commeraal The Panshol,bepem dkaltyrevrewm,ain maybeamendedand,Bnoedas Road.Hihxay217md Panfic Highway by T,gard;wd annexa- Wa thingest Cowry. d,wWmem.Condesha y.bid designated Oise Cammercul changing reeds and condiruns require,a5 Prowletl by Stat°of Oregon n of Inge ramalning unincom°rated land north of Smalls Fatly shalibedisc°uragee from davvlopment for high density resben- . HEARINGS eyL statutes and Wachnglon County oranances. Road am weStOf SONehem Pacific ReIroad by Be,whonsmuk B.A variety of twig opmlm,Ws should be povi0m w,ihn neighbahoad tial uses. ! PUBLIC ,Y E,r A R I N GS be suppodetl by Ne County excapa where Here are urDsolve0 settings Whsurmgnexlbirym ChDicemr n°Na,g boom ns,types,de. OBJECTIVE i1:Metzger/Progress Bulletin—Between County and city plans. nsfi s and cost mrsismin with exising mmmuniy charecer. —_ _ ; Development Theme y Annexamn Proposals for areas where Cowry and city plan do Tfeextentand in oneryotfuture davobpmen—Almd,Mlop entwiNn the not agree.Or err which he by has m adopted plan,shall be alndNidmldmerem,pamGrgrlig^�athamppmykDare=agnizedand �;o --- �I' 1 Metzger/Progress Community Plan Public Hearings op posedWMeCounty andshoubnabeapphowo.Glesstieer- preserved n the flue with new development,seen¢¢n wncen with Metger/Progmss Planning Area shall: ¢wive,,and ale pet t on,ng riry's plan s amerce,as Ne local natural and human anvronmane _ ' IL, The Washington County Board of County Commissioners will hold the first public hearing on the A. ale mnpislm w m mmmunmy Dnalger antl Pan agedms. ^leer¢r A recommended Metz er/Pro Progress PI °BionofE D.Furore muSngtlevebprtentslukbelomldon saes besisuldlorihe � e g g Community art at: B. Occurnan anergy-consnom antl anergy mnsenng manner. / Spoke alto type of suchdavelopment.gvng mnskeber,forcwhaiena ''I'I C n 7:30 p.m.,Tuesday,September 23,1980 C. Reduce the reserve dependency on automo6lk use through de- "B,Conservation of Established Naghbphoms astenspou n Seneasane access,location of Schools and community _ vebpment and supportof alterrep a modes of travel Maintain the ken ly.geographic integrity,social slbiliry am Maliy of fac,tities,.its features,am negnlrhom character. D D- i ROOM 402 of the Metzger and Progress makential neighberhoms. Ilii I D. Na[prodr,ce air and wear polmbn and other emissions from E Reskaol should be a,d dNm hava,labie mwure.s.wherever a _ Washington County Administration Building sources withN me Paring Ama al rates in Dxrass of GW.am N9 postai- g `' g C.Incompatible Uses in whic[nil Areas Pis. m rpgrade housingmlions s°as to I the s reatl W bpi M �- �-• IDderal minimum pudic has lN standards: 150 N.First Ave.,Hillsboro,Oregon lmompapble attiwrep am and uses withn reskenpal neignlmmoms co oandc p g E Be commensurate w,th¢!ficial and til° delivery public shall be olim,nakd;or,neighbornam disruption am environmental it, antl negkea.whilemanbinng property va!uesand community liveabNiry. s r ^����•l The sehedute/or subsequent tubi/C hearings on the plan will be announced at the meeting. ,dwa.it leallbes; y rY of blit ser- gradaln,hazards,and nulsan=eta Duch as noise,dust,and potential fire a i'La.•7051) �'1 -1r11�;•_ - F Be compelda with the mpabiliy of Ne and and Onmm vt°nenlrexpl°siv°hazards amore Whom,shall be brought into mmpluds-with I accommodate additional development. county sancluca. i - .. _ _ - '111,11 til IIIII II I r I I I I I 1 1 1 I I III I I I I 1 II I 1 11 IfIll III I _ _..._. _. .. ._.�.�.,...__:. --� ,x. �y....-•a. y.. ,__,_.-____- _ ...•^�". ':.^."r.++:____ I I i III 1 11 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I i I I t I l I l l l r111i111llnhl I111PhI`IIhllllllllllllll111J111III'i1111A1,I,1111I'l'll Plf'Iylpll hl4ll llePI+IHIIO, � .-._._.._. - ..,...-�..- .. _ _ rat[: 1F T HICOBF—D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 B 0 11 12 D—A IS I CLEAR THIN ' THIS NOTICE.IT Is DUE TO ThE gIALITY OF TIE MIG1NRl oPAMING OE 62 g2 LZ 9Z SZ bIZ�,EIZ ZZ�'"����lz 02 611 �go.I LII 9'1''�I'go 1 III El ��Z1I IfII I DI 6 9 L 9 S b E 12''I 1 NI[111111111I1111lNnINNIIIIII1n1I1nILIIlI1111II111IIIlUNNYpµltllllllRytf:IrJIIlI11111BWLWIIIIIBLIBI,11W11WIt1I9p01JtttBBgi111I1111IIIlIIWtWBItllMN ul....INIII....IIn.Iln]...t ylll..t IINIInN�I11IIIl11iI111WIWIBBilill'24X L�- - - ___ - - - _ _.___ 1VIARCH I 7 .,1990 `„ `l `' � •ij .. i •circ ' [1 �• �•Sf�y/:�y;'.his'* ? / / ','/ tj it N tL tD to uj ID LL f/ NOM TO FILE: May 26, 1987 Agenda Item #11, Civic Center Project & Call For Bids, contained one large document entitled "Project Manual For Tigard Civic Center". This manual can be found in the central files in the category Y History". Bill Quillard Records Clerk TS;� i CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM #: i ";- AGENDA OF: April 8, 1985 DATE SUBMITTED: March 29, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Approval by City _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: RESOLUTION Council for Purchase of Equipment TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY PREPARED BY: J. Widner REQUESTED BY: B. Jean DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: a@asiaaa@iammaaaaataaiaRZa@aamaaa.aa@aaaaaaaaa a@aiaiii@ggaaaaaaCa@@aiia,Qaaaaisia INFORMATION SUMMARY In the supplemental budget adopted earlier, the City-wide Support Program included dollars in materials and services for the it purchase should f the be police g y olive n in communication equipment. The appropriation capital outlay of the Community� rvicesices budget Program. isaa•po tion of the cast of the support division materials and{ communication equipment and is to be transferred to capital outlay. This change in the budget document would like this: Community Services Program Police Support: (11,089) Materials & Services 56,089 Capital Outlay City-wide Support General Government: (45,000) Materials & Services -0- NET EFFECT A resolution making this change is attached for your review and adoption. @:ra cass@swsasssas.saos sssssaamss:msasas@:sas:ss@azaascaassa..maacasassasas:saa@s@aas ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a ssss■casassasssssasssaasasaassssss.sasaassssaaasecmffia.s ssraas aaaaaaass'zm@mmmaasasass SUGGESTED ACTION I recommend the adoption of this resolution. (0864F) MEMORANDUM 42.3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and City Council March 20, 1985 FROM: Jerri L. Widner, Finance Director SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR BANCROFT DELINQUENCY _ _.._._... ....._....__._....,......_._._.__... _. .__....._...._......_.._._._... __...... ..__ The supplemental agreements have been written so that the delinquency will be caught up within 12 months. Aase Otto has two assessments on her property (same as Mary Burnam). She has agreed to pay the City $350.00 per month. She and her husband moved to California to get jobs, so they could keep the property here in Tigard. ` When I computed out how much she owes to bring the account current, I realized that even paying the $350.00 per month she would not be able to do it within the twelve month stipulation. The purpose of this memo is to request your approval to allow her to continue paying $350.00 per month, without the stipulation of bringing the account current within twelve months. She has been paying consistently since January. (0842F) i P A Y H E 11 T S C H E D U L E �,. AGREEMENT E The Tigard City Council has declared the entire assessment balance s1S plus interest on the property described (at the time of assessment). L5701, 11645 SW Tiedeman, Tigard, Oregon, immediately due and payable b einfull 13 (Ord. No. 84- ), unless the as authorized by Tigard Hunic payment schedule agreement property owner enters into a formal binding acceptable to the City. The property owner(s) of said assessed property have not made complete installment payments. The outstanding balance through January 31, 1985 is de $5,037.95. In lieu of foreclosure as authorized by the Tigard ty°ofaTigard Chapter 13 and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS Chapter 223),ent schedule: and Gerald b Charlotte Anderson agree to the followingpayor The outstanding balance to bring twelve he account but norrent later sthan 6January 31g amount may be paid withinr 1986. Beginning February 15, 1985 pay monthly installments of $50.00. Failure to comply with the payment schedule of this agreement shall be a breach of this agreement. Upon a breach of this agreement, the City shall �._ proceed with collection by sale of the property as provided by Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13 and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS Chapter 223)' Signed and dated this ^3___, day of �Q1 �' 1985' t of Tigard Billing Address: 11645 SW Tiedeman Tigard Or 97223 (0745F) RECEIVEj) P A Y M E N T S C H E D U L E A G R E E M E N T �� OF rIGARD The Tigard City Council has declared the entire assessment balance plus interest on the property described (at the time of assessment), as 2S11DC L3703, 7185 SW Sandburg St, Tigard, Oregon, immediately due and payable in full as authorized by Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13 (Ord. No. 84-55), unless the property owner enters into a formal binding payment schedule agreement acceptable tn the City. The property owc.t.r(s) of said assessed property have not made complete installment payments. The outstanding balance through January 31, 1985 is $11,217.76. In lieu of foreclosure as authorized by the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13 and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS Chapter 223), the City of Tigard ,and Dan Segel, Art Lutz and Bill Vaughn agree to the following payment schedule: The outstanding balance to bring the account current is_ $3,881.00 This amount may be paid within twelve months, but no later than January 31, 1986. Beginning June 15., 1985 pay semi-annual installments as they become due. Failure to comply with the payment schedule of this agreement shall be a breach of this agreement. Upon a breach of this agreement, the City shall proceed with collection by sale of the property as provided by Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13 and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS Chapter 223). Signed and dated this 30 day of hjA-N--L► 1985. of Tigard 010 ✓_ Billing Address: 9775 SW 155th Beaverton Or 97007 (0745F) t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA I`T'EM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 8, 1985 AGENDA ITEM h: � . DATE SUBMITTED: March 26, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: hone ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Director's Approval for SDR 1-85 and SDR 2-85 REQUESTED BY: Community Development DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: ttaxaa«aaasac«aaa«aascasaasaaaasaeaaasaaaaaaeaaaaaaasaccseaco==caa-=.a..aaeascaa==aax c.. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is the Director's decision for SDR 1-85 for Truck Terminals, Inc. , and SDR 2-85 for Koll Company. r.. f F y2 n a aaia i0siirffiiiiaiffiffiaialt al[ailtiiaa!ffiaiiiiaiiaaaaas«««aaa«s sac«a«a«saSSGaaitaaaaa.a raasiii R ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Receiveand File. 2. Motion to remove from Consent Agenda and call up for Council review at a later meeting. a aaaa sc as ass saes sa s is a ra siaai:s a aaa a s sate a:at a s:«a a«c«a a=__=c«c a a.__-c a a s a a a=s a=c=a s c SUGGESTED ACTION Receive and file. E if CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 1-85 APPLICATION: Request by Truck Terminals, Inc. for Site Development Review approval to construct a 5,400 square foot commercial building and related facilities on property zoned C-G (Commercial General) and located at 13035 SW Pacific Hwy. (WCTM 2S1 2BD, Tax Lot 3000). DECISTON: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background No previous land use proposals have been reviewed by the City on this property. 2. Vicinity Information The properties to either side along Pacific Highway are also zoned C-G and are developed. The property to the north is zoned R-4.5 and is occupied by the Tigard School District. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The property is presently undeveloped and the applicant proposes to construct a two-story office building. The existing driveway serving the property to the east will be utilized for access and a joint parking area will be established for the subject property and the eastern parcel. Landscaping will be provided along the Pacific Highway frontage and the rear of the property. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. An 8 foot width concrete sidewalk should be installed along the Pacific Highway frontage. b. Provisions should be made to control stormwa ter runoff from the subject property to adjacent parcels. C. The existing landscaping, power pole, and sign post near the driveway interfere with visibility along Pacific Highway and they should be moved to a more desirable location. NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 1-85 - PAGE 1 The State Highway Division indicates that since no new driveways will be created a road approach permit will not be required. Any will require a "miscellaneous permit" from the such as the sidewalks, Highway Division. The Building Inspection Office has no or `ion to the proposal. Comments have not been received from NPO # 3 or Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed development meets City Code req irem its standardsfor ig, landscaping. setbacks, special landscaping, a for areas adjacent to residential zones, lot coverage, and access. C. DECISION The Planning Director approves SDR 1-85 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. f' 2. Half-street improvements including sidewalk installation mailbox raffic sign relocation, building utility service cluster and t installation, site ingress-egress, visibility improvements, and stormwater runoff controls shall be made along the SW Pacific Highway frontage. Said improvements shall be built to City and State Highway Division standards and conform to theof lignmthe ant Midas of existing adjacent improvements; namely, Muffler site. 3. Five (5) sets of plan profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, ailing all p roposed public impvemen shall be submited to he Engineering Section for approval. Thereafter, two se shall a e State submitted stto the State Highway Division for app ion Permit. 4. Sanitary sewer connection onnecfion the public improvement plans.nd domestic water details shall be provided as part a 5. Construction of proposed public improvement shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans and the State has issue a Construction permit. NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 1-85 - PAGE 2 6. Joint use and maintenance agreements shall be ex-cured and { recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. Said erenced on and become part of o agreements shall be refb the applicable parcel deeds. Said agreement shall be app Engineering Section. JOINT USE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FORMS ARE ENCLOSED. 7. The landscaping material shown on the approved site plan shall be installed prior to occupancy. 8. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX _ The applicant b owners XX Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON April 1, 1985 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3, Appeal. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 5:00 P.M. Aril 1, 1985. p 4, uestions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. 4?00'�111 wwlovso-4 _ 3-22-85 William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development DATE APPROVED Vv (KSL:dmj/1118P) LE CHAR . ``��:c r E TIGAR T' T l ELE . cc 11 NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 1-85 - PACE� 3 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SBR 2-85 APPLICATION: Request by Koll Company for Site Development Review approval to allow the development of a 22,770 square foot industrial/commercial building and related facilities on property zoned I-P (Industrial Park) and located on the southwest corner of SW Scholia Ferry Road and Nimbus Ave. (WCTM. 1S1 34AA, Tax Lot 1900 and 2000). DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background The Koll Business Center has been partially developed as the result of several City approvals (ZC 23-78, ZC 26-78, CU 33-78, and SDR 8-80). Twelve buildings have been constructed within Phase I of the project. Plans were approved for construction on the subject site, but nothing materialized. On 1984, a Sensitive Lands approval (SL 5-84) was granted to allow some regrading y within the 100 year flood plain of Fanno Creek. The area covered by this approval included the subject site. Site Development Review approval was also granted in 1984 (SDR 18-84) for Phase II of the project near the southeastern end of Nimbus Avenue. 2. Vicinity Information Phase I of Koll Business Center is on the east side of Nimbus Avenue and a separate tract intended for greenway purposes lies to the south and west between the subject property and Fanno Creek. Residences within Englewood Subdivision are south of the creek. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The property is presently undeveloped and the applicant proposes to construct a 22,770 square foot business/retail center. The building will range from 18 to 40 feet in height. Primary access is to be provided via Nimbus Avenue with a secondary driveway on Scholls Ferry Road. A future building site of approximately 3,000 square feet is shown adjacent to the Scholls Ferry/Nimbus intersection. NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 2-85 - PAGE 1 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division indicates that this development will be responsible for completing the remaining half street improvements along Nimbus Avenue. The development must comply with the conditions of approval for last year's Sensitive Lands approval (SL 5-84). The State Highway Division indicates that direct access to Scholls Ferry Road will not be allowed. When the Division acquired the right-of-way along this frontage between Fanno Creek and the Southern Pacific Railroad, access was restricted to the Nimbus Avenue intersection. The Building Inspection Office and Washington County Fire District No. 1 have no objection to the request. The District has discussed methods of fire protection with the applicant's architect. Written comments have not been received from NPO 2the and bui din 7 has the expressed concern relating to the location of a flood plain. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposal is basically consistent with the applicable provisions of the Community Development Code. However, several aspects of the development that warrant further discussion are noted below: 1. Street Access Because of the refusal of the Highway Division to allow direct access to Scholls Ferry Road, the site plan must be revised accordingly. The Code only requires one driveway access for a project of this size. 2. Parking The Code permits the area behind a wheel stop for a. parking space to contain low landscaping material. However, if this area is landscaped, it may not be used to satisfy any landscaping requirements since it functions as a portion of the parking space. The Code required that all landscaped areas within and on the perimeter of parking lots must by a minimum of three feet in width. After the parking space dimensions are accounted for, several landscaped areas do not meet the three foot standard. l NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 2-85 - PAGE 2 3. Landscaping Because all of the surrounding parcels are also zoned I-P, there are no specific buffering standards which apply to the periphery of the project. However, section 18.120.180(4) of the Code requires that screening be installed as necessary between different types of land uses. The back of the building will face Fanno Creek and the residences to the south and it will vary in height between 18 and 40 feet. The landscaping plan indicates the placement of English Ivy and four Douglas fir trees along the 382 foot length of the building. The landscaping plan should be amended to provide additions buffering along the rear of the structure. 4. Fanno Creek Flood Plain The building location includes a small amount of land which is presently within the 100 year flood plain of Fanno Creek. The Sensitive Lands approval (SL 5-84) noted above, allowed for regrading work to be done along the northeastern edge of the flood plain. This modification will fill some areas and excavate others . in a manner that will not cause the flood elevation to rise. The City Code provides that after the regrading is completed as approved, all land above the 100 year flood plain elevation can be developed in accordance with the applicable zone. The applicant intends to regrade the property as approved by the City and after this work is completed, the entire building site will be above the 100 year flood plain. C. DECISION The Planning Director approves SDR 2-85 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF 'BUILDING PERMITS. 2. Standard improvements including concrete sidewalks, wheelchair ramp, streetlight, driveway aprons, sign and utility relocation shall be completed along the SW Nimbus Avenue frontage. Said improvements along SW Nimbus Avenue shall be built to City standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements. 3. Four (4) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 2-85 - PAGE 3 ilililill III 111 110111 until 4, Construction proposed public improvement shall not commence until Section has issued approved p after the Engineering osting of a 1007 improvement plans. The Section will ermitire fee pared a streetlight Performance Bond, the payment of a F fee. Also, the execution of a street opening permit shall occur prior is or concurrently with the issuance of approved public THE ENCLOSED HAND GIVING MORE LADING AND AGREEMENTSSPECIFIC improvement plans. SEE INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES, �, revised site plan shall be submitted for Planning Director 5 ; approval with the following changes: a. The driveway on Scholls Ferry Road shall be eliminated. All landscaped areas in front of parking spaces shall be a b• excluding any landscaped areas minimum of 3 feet in width, designated for parking. €. C. The bicycle rack shown in front of the building shall S. The bicycle rack design contain a minimum of S space shall be submitted for approval. 6. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted for Planning n Director approval which incorporates additional buffering g the rear of the building- It twith Kis recommended happlicantat the prior subnissionof discuss this requirement the revised plan. 7. Landscaping improvements shown on the approved plan shall be installed prior to occupancy. 8. All conditions of Sensitive Lands approval SL 5-84 shall be met. went of the "future pad site" shown on the site plan will g. Develop approval. require a separate Site Development Review app 10. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City 1. Notice: Ball and mailed to: XX The applicant 6 owners -' XX Owners of record within the required distance gg _ The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies a NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 2-85 - PAGE 4 (� 2. Final Decision: ` THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON April 1, 1985 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 5:00 P.M. April 1, 1985 4. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. PIK - -- 3-2.2-85 William A. Monahan, Director of Planning Development DATE APPROVED (KSL:dmj/1119P) NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 2-85 - PAGE 5 Tigard, Oregon April 5, 1985 Mayor John Cook Tigard City Council Tigard, Oregon, 97223• Dear Mayor and City Council Members: As residents of the immediate area, we feel that our concerns and issues . presented to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 2, 1985, were not properly addressed due to the lack of time and the late hour. (We started to speak after 12: 15 AM) . Please refer to Mr. J. B. Bishops Main Sc,2eet Development of a Shopping Center and request for zone change. Last item on the Planning Commission agenda. We are .requesting a hearing so that these concerns may be properly discussed. Thank you. Sincerely yours , � i�'G�GI�G"''�,1�✓�'h �Q h� �t.J '1�v e O a:�. `7��r.L'2. a�i�-•"-P� clk- 13 21 /3 2.5-0 s. V1. 6u Kl' tf^•Ir t T CITY OF TIGARD FINAL ORDER NO. 85-_q PC A FINAL ORDER I APPROVALININGS(PD 1-85) CONCLUSIONS, ZONE WHICH CHANGE (ZCAPPROVES 5-8) REQUESTED FOR CONCEPTUAL PLAN LAN BY MAIN STREET LAND COPS. The Tigard Planning Commission received the above application at a public hearing on April 2, 1985• The Commission based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Planned Development PD 1-85 and Zone Change ZC 5-85 REQUEST: For Conceptual Plan approval for a 221,000 square foot retail center on a 20.3 acre property and for a Zone Change from R-12 (PD) Residential, 12 units/acre) to CBD (Central Business District) for a 3.19 acre parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONING DESIGNATION: CBD (Central Business District" and R developmenDt) (Residential, 12 units/acre, planned APPLICANT: Main Street Land Corp. OWNER: Same Suite 303, 10505. SW 8arbur Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97219 LOCATION: Southwest corner of Main Street and Pacific Highway (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2CC, Tax Lot 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 2200, 2300, 2301, 201 and 2S1 2DB, 300). 2. BBck round On April 26, 1982, the City Council granted Preliminary and General Plan approval as well as a Sensitive Lands Permit for the Main Street project (CPR 8-81, CPR 9-81, and M 2-81). The proposal included approximately 16 acres of land and 174,000 gross square feet of building area. The Planning Comwissi.on granted an extension for this approval on May 3, 1983. This extension has expired. 3. Vicinity, Information The property to the cast is designated as greenway in the Comprehensive Plan and is the site of the Downtown Fanno Creek Park. The properties to the southwest and south are zoned CBD, R-4.5, and R-12(PD) and are developed with single and multi-family residences. The properties along Main Street and Pacific Highway near the north end of the project are zoned CBD or C-G and are devoted to commercial uses. FINAL ORDER NO. 85- 07 PC - PD 1-85 b ZC 5-85 - PAGE 1 4. Site Information and Proposal Description This site is vacant except for two buildings which will be removed prior to development. Fanno Creek runs through the eastern section of the property and appraximately five acres of the site lie within the 100 year flood plain. The 1982 plan concept has been revised to include a parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street and one other small parcel for a total of 20.3 acres. The total gross floor space of this commercial project will be approximately 221,000 square feet. The project is to be completed in three phases with a large retail store (113,000 square feet) and the public improvements, including an extension of Ash Street through the project to Pacific Highway representing the first phase. A second access to Hain Street is also proposed. The parcel on the opposite side of Ash Street is intended to be rezoned from R--12 (PD) to CBD and developed as a parking lot. Since the project will involve some filling and excavation, a Sensitive Lands approval will be necessary. This aspect of the development will be reviewed at a public hearing with the Hearings Officer. 5. Agency and NPO (:o�en[s The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. The proposed access is in general conformance with the previously approved plan. b. The detailed plan should discourage or eliminate parking on the Ash Street extension and the street leading to Main Street. C. The Ash Street extension should be designed to discourage through traffic into the neighborhood. d. A 900 intersection should be provided for the dead end street that will eventually cross Fanno Creek and join Ash Street on the other side. e. The revised plan will require the approval of a Sensitive lands permit from the Hearings Officer. f. A landscaped buffer should be provided along tht street connecting Ash Street and Pacific Highway to screen the shopping center from Fanno Creek Park. The Building Inspection Office has no objection to the proposal. The State Highway Division approved the proposed access on Pacific Highway. Additional comments by the Division shall be available at the hearing. FINAL ORDER NO. 85- 0 PC - PD 1-85 5 ZC 5-85 - PACE 'l ,. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has the following comments: s. The barrier at Ash Street should be breakable to allow for emergency access. b. The driveway on Main Street should allow for inbound traffic. The Park Board has no objection to the proposal. Comments have not been received from NPO 1. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria for granting conceptual plan approval in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3• 3.4.2, 3.5.3, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 7.2.1, 8.1.3, 11.2.1, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3; and Community Development Code chapters 18.66, 18.80, 18.84, and 18.100. ission hat he oposal is ent ThPlanning alicablCommatewidec Planning oncludes [Goals[ and rGuidelines based [upon with theFP f ollot+ing f indings: 1. Goal f 1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements were met. 2. Goal # 2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City comprehensive plan Policies and Development code requirements to the app 3. Goals # 5 and Q 7 will be addressed during the Sensitive Land review of the project. 4. Goal / 8 is satisfied because the site plan is Park Board has revie ed compatible proposal Fanno Creek Park Plan. e and no objections were raised. 5. Goal # 9 is satisfied because the development will have a positive economic impact upon the.downtown area. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal, with several modifications, is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Poe3 32 s t sand ,2. 1 shall ( be reviewed as Part oftheSensitive Land permit proces FINAL ORDER NO. 85- 07 PC - PD 1-85 b 'GC 5-85 - PAGE 3 i 3. Plan Policies 5.1.1. and 5.1.3 are satisfied because this commercial center will have a positive affect upon the local job market and it will contribute towards establishing the downtown as the viable core area for the community. 4. Plan Policy 6.3.3 is not completely satisfied because the downtown is considered to be an "Established Area" and development occuring within the area is intended to preserve and enhance the character of these areas. The proposed site plan does not provide sufficient setbacks and/or buffering adjacent to some of the existing residential uses and therefore the project would have a detrimental impact upon these properties. 5. Plan Policy 6.6.1 is not satisfied because no buffering is shown on the site plan between some of the commercial structures and ngs. Modifications to correct this adjacent residential buildif deficiency are noted below. 6. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied during the detailed plan and constructed phases of the development. The public streets within the project will require a 50 foot wide right-of-way and a 32 foot wide roadway. 7. Plan Policies 11.2.1, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 are satisfied because the site plan includes the extension of Ash Street to the eastern boundary of the project and a temporary barricade will be installed near Hill Street. This obstruction will be removed in s accordance with Policy 11.2.3, noted, the The Planning is i s sthe relevanton that portions withthe the modifications proposal sa CommunityDevelopment Code based upon the findings listed below: i 1. Chapter 18.66 (CBD Zone) of the Code is satisfied because the standards relating to setbacks, lot proposal meets the minimum coverage, and building height. 2. Chapter 18.80 (Planned Development) of the Code is satisfied except for Section 18.80.110 (c)(3) and 18.80.120 (a)(3). The staff understands that extensive goandieng hal bte nbcensary on tthe site, but a generalized grading c p The grading proposed in the flood plain may be reviewed during the Sensitive Lands review. The land form alteration to be done on the remainder of the site is critical for conceptual review in order to determine the relationship between the new commercial buildings and the residences to the south and west. Section 18.80.120 (a) (3) is not satisfied because in some cases, no landscaping or visual buffering is shown between the commercial buildings and nearby residential uses. Of areas concern are visual impact and the noise from loadingreas and1 f k FINAL ORDER NO. E5— 07 PC — PD 1-85 & ZC 5-85 — PAGE 4 b z building ventilation st Additional information illustrate how these negative impacts will be submitted mitigated. contains several large fir trees and one significant The site cluster of trees on the western boundary of theP f the Code Pacific village Apartments. Section 18.80.120 (a) Ca) requires that trees with a six inch caliper or greater be saved whenever possible. The proposed site plan indicates that all existing trees will be removed. The plan should be revised to save as many of these larger trees as possible. This is particularly true of the trees along the western boundary of the project because of their usefulness as a landscaped buffer. Finally, the requirements for landscaping and screening will vary depending upon the decision that is wade regarding CPA 1-85/ZC 1-85 for Pacific village Apartments. 3. Chapter 18.84 (Sensitive Lands) of the Code will be satisfied during the Sensitive Lands review process with the Hearings Officer. It should be noted that it is possible that the site plan will need minor revision as a result of this review. 4. Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) of the Code is satisfied except for Section 18.100.130 which requires a 20 foot wide landscaped buffer when adjacent to an R-4.5 zone. The loading area for the Costco store practically abuts the residential property to the west. The relevant criteria for granting a Zone Change for the parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street are Statewide Planning Goals l and 2 and Section 18.66.030 of the Community Development Code. he proposal is ith The anning licableo StatewideisGion concludes that planning Goalstand Guidelines based consistent w the applicable upon apF the findings below: 1. Goal 1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications bNeighborhood quiremanningts reg nization (NPO)• In addition, all public notice t. 2• Goal 0 2 in set because the City applied all applicable Statewide ,Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development code requirements to the application. stent with The alarming Commissionstandards in in 1theesCpmmunity Developmentt the proposal Code abased upon the applicable st the following findings: FINAL ORDER NO. 85-_Q 7 PC - PD 1-85 b ZC 5-85 - PAGE 5 1. Section 18.66.030 of the Code indicates that the subject property as well as the other nearby parcels zoned R-12 (PD) shall be developed in accordance with the provisions of the R-12 zone. The R-12 zone does allow for parking facilities as a conditional use. 2. However, the Code does not allow grading to be done in the flood plain. By limiting the Commercial Use of the parcel to parking, the intent of the Code will not be compromised. A Sensitive Lands Permit must be issued prior to construction of the parking lot. C. DECISION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Commission grants Conceptual Plan approval of PD 1-85 subject to the following conditions: I. Sensitive Lands approval will be required for all grading and improvements within the 100 year flood plain. A Sensitive Lands approval shall be obtained before the Detailed Pian is submitted for review. 2. The grading of the entire site, including the area within the 100-year flood plain, shall be reviewed by the Park Board. The location of the pedestrian/bicycle path shall also be reviewed by the Park Board prior to final approval of a design. 3. It is the Commission's desire to review the Detailed Plan and the Sensitive Lands application. The Planning Director shall confirm whether or not the Code will allow this. 4. A Detailed Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director or Planning Commission (depending upon the Director's findings in condition 2 above) for approval that is in conformance with the requirements in 18.80 of the Code. In addition, said plan shall Include the following information or modifications: a. Buffering and screening consistent with Section 18.80.120 (a) (3) (B) and Chapter 18.100 of the Code. b. Identification and location of noise sources within the western portion of the project and a method for shielding adjoining residences from excessive noise impacts. C. The landscaping plan for the development shall preserve as many trees over six inch caliper on the site as practical. 5. Specific conditions relating to public improvements shall be applied upon Detailed Plan approval. 6. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date. FINAL ORDER NO. 85-_C) 2 PL - PD 1-85 b ZC 5-85 - PACE 6 - m7l Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Commission approves ZC 5-85 subject to the following condition: 4 1. A Deed Restriction shall be placed upon the parcel (1S1 2DB, TL 300) limiting the Commercial Use of the property to parking. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This S- 01 day of , 1985, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (1136P/dmj) L, FINAL ORDER NO. 85-07 PC - PD 1-85 b ZC 5-85 - PAGE 7 CITY OF TIGARU, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4-8-85 AGENDA ITEM #: �` S DATE SUBMI17ED: 3-26-85 PREVIOUS ACTION: Acceptance of ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final acceptance maintenance bond of public improvements constructed PREPARED BY: Randy S. Clarno within "Ye olde Windmill" Subdivision REQUESTED BY: Ennineering & Developer DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: % CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Ye Olde Windmill subdivision is located west of SW 121st Avenue at SW Katherine Street. All public improvements have been completed and deficiencies corrected. Engineering has made a final inspection of all public improvements and has determined that they are complete and acceptable. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Engineering recommends that Council pass this Resolution accepting the public improvements constructed within "Ye Olde Windmill" subdivision and authorize release of the Developers maintenance bond. 1123P dmj i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4-8-85 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: 3-26-85 PREVIOUS ACTION: Acceptance of ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final Acceptance Maintenance Bond of Public Improvements constructed PREPARED BY: Randy S. Clarno"London Square" subdivision REQUESTED BY: Engineering E. Develaper DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY London Square subdivision is located east of sw 98th Avenue just north of the railroad right-of-way. The developer had corrected all deficiencies and finished incompleted items with the public improvements during the one year maintenance period. Engineering has made a final inspection of all public ilaprovements and has determined that they are complete and acceptable, ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Engineering recommends that Council pass this resolution accepting the public improvements within "London Square" subdivision and authorize release of the Developers maintenance bond. 1124P dmj loss= CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 8 1985 AGENDA ITEM ft: DATE SUBMITTED: March 25, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Subdivision — Compliance Agreement - Carnahan's Addition - Authorize City PREPARED BY: John Hagman, (Ena.) Execution. REQUESTED BY: Development Services DEPARTMENT' HEAD OK j,�' ,�/ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ i INFORMATION SUMMARY 1. "Carnahan's Addition" is a thirteen lot subdivision, proposed to be constructed north of SW North Dakota Street and west of SW 106th Avenue (i.e, west of and next to Black Bull Subdivision). 2. The preliminary plat has been approved by the City; public improvement construction plans have been submitted by the developer and are approvable; all public improvement fees have been paid. 3. The developer is proposing to fully install all required public improvements and, then, record the. plat. This is an acceptable alternative to providing a performance bond. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to execute the Subdivision Compliance Agreement for "Carnahan's Addition", in behalf of the City, with the condition that the subdivision plat not be executed-recorded until such time as all public improvements are installed to the City's satisfaction. 1125P dmj SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated the Tt k day of r 19 85 between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipality of Oregon, hereinafter termed the "CITY", and OR-AK Corporation hereinafter termed "Petitioner". W I T N E S S E T H . WHEREAS, Petitioner has applied to the City for approval for filing in Washington County, a subdivision plat known as CARNAHAN'S ADDITION in -- Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the City has approved and adopted the standard specifications for Public Works construction by APWA Oregon Chapter and the Unified Sewerage specifications for the sanitary sewers prepared by professional engineers for subdivision development; and WHEREAS, the public improvements required to be constructed or placed in Petitioner's development are incomplete, but Petitioner has nonetheless requested the City to permit progressive occupancy and use of property in the subdivision, and the parties desire hereby to protect the public interest generally and prospective purchasers of lots in said subdivision by legally enforceable assurances that the public improvements will be installed as required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the Petitioner and its sureties, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) Petitioner shall proceed with the development, with the intent and purpose to complete all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees of said subdivision not later than two (2) years from the date of this agreement, and Petitioner is hereby bound to comply with all subdivision standards as set forth in said Subdivision Ordinance and the standard specification adopted by the City of tigard, or as may be otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and to use only such material and to follow, such designs as may be required to conform thereto. Petitioner shall provide certification of installation conformance, via a registered civil engineer, to the City prior to City inspection of petitioners improvement work for City tentative and final acceptance consideration. (2) To assure compliance with the City's requirements and the provisions hereof, Petitioner tenders herewith to the City a surety bond in form approved by the City, with liability in the amount of $86,343.00 a copy whereof hereto attached by this reference wade a part hereof; or petitioner shall complete all public improvements, to the City's Satisfaction, prior to the City allowing plat recording. (3) In the event that Petitioner shall fail, neglect or refuse to proceed with the work in an orderly and progressive manner to assure completion within the time limits, upon ten (10) days notice by the City to Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties, and- such default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work competed and „. 11 1 IS! 111111111 charge the costs hereof against Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties an the in the event same be not paid, to bring an action on the said bond amount thereof. In the event such action b in badd ght, to thePetitioner and Petitioner's sureties promise and agree to pay, m as the courtadjudge as accruing and allowable, such suboth inthe Trials Court and attorney's fees and costs incurred by theCiits option, bring proceedings to Appellate Court, if any, or the City may, a enforce against the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's sureties specific performance of the contract and compliance with the subdivision standards and ordinances of the City of Tigard, and in such event, in like manner, the City shall be entitled to recover such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as and for the City's attorney's fees and costs, both in the Trial Court and Appellate Court, if any. (4) Petitioner, concurrent the with execution_ hereof, has deposited with the City an amount estimated to equal rental and maintenance fees with respect to the street lighting facilities within the subdivision, according oarding to Portland General Electric Schedule X91, Option "B", g sum equal to the estimated cost of providing electrical energy to energize the street lighting facilities for a period of two (2) years from the date of initial energizing of said lights. Said amount being $ 413.76 (5) The City agrees to make and provide periodic and final inspections which in the City's est are desirable to assure compliance consideration whereof rewi ithe rPetitioner has paid prescribed inspection efeest*, in (6) The City agrees to install street identification and traffic signs within the said subdivision, in consideration of payment in the amount of $241.30 (7) At such time as all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees within the subdivision have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall submit a "certificate of installation conformance" to the City to notify the City of the readiness for acceptance consideration inspection and upon notification by the Department Of Public Works that the requirements of the City have been met, the Petitioner will submit to the City a good and sufficient maintenance bond if not already provided with the performance bond, form approved by the City, in the sum Of $ 17,268'.60 to provide for correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming apparent or arising within one (1) year after tentative acceptance of the public improvements by the City. Upon receipt of certification by the Department of Public Works, that all requirements have been met, and a One Year Maintenance Bond, the City Council agrees to tentatively accept the public improvement subject to the requirements for correction of deficiencies and maintenance for a period of one year an hereinabove set forth. (g) That in addition to or supplementary of the requirements of the Cityls Subdivision Petitioner binds itself toconform to Ordinance hereof,the following requirements, scheduling and p *Project Fee $ 2,744.00 Sewer Fee $710.00 (a) None of the lots of Petitioner's subdivision as described may be occupied for residential purposes until an occupancy permit is issued under authority of the City and no occupancy permit shall be issued prior to the the ling acceptance of the subdivision and to ed itoo ehooccupied, iswainstalled lk le plans the street for each developed lot p p part of the development; provided that all sidewalks as required by said subdivisiothe and subdivision code shall te afethistalled Subdivisionglmprovement Contract. not later than 3 years from the d (b) All landscaping trees on that portion of each lot between t in e public sidewalks and the curb (parking area) is required, shall be planted ermit f place prior to finor each such al inspection and issuance final inspection occupancy and applicant for lot in the subdivision. P n any do calendarhat from October to April of any occupancy permit occurs within any growing season. year, such plantings may be deferred until the next following A 8 In any event, all landscaping and trees in all areas shall be planted and in e subdivision within three (3) years from the date of place within the entir this subdivision improvement contract. (c) After tentative City acceptance of the public improvements, the Petitioner agrees to place a one (1) inch asphaltic concrete b@a8pproveobyrthe on all. roads within the development; placement scheduling to City. (d) Compliance with S�aChe Councill terms nand rthesPl eningions ,cified C°mraissio�nrofothe said subdivision development division City of Tigard. Oregon, ifiedaby the to vzone nces allowed from h use classificationand,ubalso, on ordinance, conditions spec, the approved plat(G) and plan(s). (e) Petitioner agrees to provide for correction of any defective work and/or maintenance becoming apparent or arising during the guarantee period as hereinabove set forth. in (9) At such time as all public improvements have been c[he Ci of accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall notify yDepartment of the readiness for final inspection and upon certificationChavbeen met, the Council Public Works that all requirements of the City operation and maintenance agrees to accept said improvements for responsibility, thereinregard, and release the Petitioner's guarantee bond. (10) The parties hereto hereby adopt the form of performance bond, COPY d bya part etiioner whereof is hereto attar veansaid rbond nce exec�ta s hereof, edandfiledwith and pthet City agrees Cause concurrently with the execution bthis City The speciPement at or prior to the time this agreement is executed on ehal£ of the specific requirements of Paragraph 9 hereof shall for all (ll) art of the obligation secured by the aforesaid purposes be included as a p City shall be entitled to recourse any with respect to any q Ourse thereto in the performance bond and the requirement event of default On the part of the Petitioner thereof. i Q 3 , {1 S z IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Petitioner acting by and through its duly authorized undersigned officers pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors has caused this agreement to be executed, and the City acting pursuant to resolution of tts Council adopted at a meeting thereof duly and regularly held on the day of � �,L.� } 19 �, , has caused this agreement to be executed by its Mayor and Recorder. OR-AK Corporation By: By: THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i By: r ,/ Mayor 6 By: Recorder z S' ' E OF OREGON ) ss. CORPORATE ACKNOWLED( NlENT County of_U)dSA1n4 6 On this.202� day of _A 19g_5, before me appeared �QCQ273__. -Llbb5 ' to me personally known, who bein dul. sworn , did say that he, the said is Lh e _Pr�•sident, a ��, fihF� ca;rl _ _ _1 --- --- ---of _—v'�=� - �0ZL----- the within named Corporation, and th"t , ; n rr��cr e - a o -0n, and that the said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and — acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said Corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set � hand and affixed my official seal the ray and yelast above written. �A'-- /�is2fZ /!'11 -- —- — Amary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires/I— __ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON _ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM 4d: AV DATE SUBMITTED: 4/4/85 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING WESTSIDE BYPASS PREPARED BY: DONNA CORBET REQUESTED BY: COUNCIL DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MAJOR ARTERIAL BYPASS ROADWAY BETWEEN ALOHA AND I-5. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attaci,ad is a rest stion supporting Westside Bypass. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGEST) ACTION Pass Resolution