The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 06/21/1986 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA June 21, 1986, 9:00 A.M. , 1986, TIGARD t,7`diC INTER 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97273 ier.9 aL'ive Time!. SPECIAL MEETING: 9:00 1. 1.1' Call To Order and Rall Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance' 1.3` Call To Staff and Council For Celan--Agenda Items: Motion to approve as amended. 9:05 .."Discussion 1, on thili, Planned Development ': Chapter of the Community Development Code 16.80. {Commercial/industrial as well as Residertial?) 9:45 '3: Density Calculation '•Chapter 110.40, and Transition Discussion,. Section 140.040 LU:45 4. Sign'Code-Exception Criteria, Section 18.114.145 11::30 5. NPO Fess Waiver'Procedures! 12:00 6. Lunch Break, Discussion Issues During Lunch: a�mmissjoner, Attendance, :Notic6 of Necessary`•Absence from :.rtleetings .b•., :. ,.. .. -:-Plaxnning vommissfon Monthly Meetings, one or two regularly scheduled.', `Meaning of;°'Neighborhood Input" and the weight it has. Plaiining .Comiiiission Jurisdiction and the use of the Hearings Officer: LCDC' Post'Acknowledgement Issues. 1:00- 7. Transportation Planning Issues, including: Street Classifications, Half-street. Improvements Street connections versus cut tie sacs. l:Ucs 8 Wetlands Issues. • ir5 �. }intro) L4'+,'L�} ..11. i.ra: U1.SCU4til2�t: :45 }'J. Dowt.t_wi. Ar*d h 1 ai. 3:00 11 ADJOURNMENT {2572P-1 v f:Ul11UCT 1 AC'VNI1A }unv 7 1 , 11a116 { TIGARD CITY COUNCI L NIORKSHOP WITH PLANNINGCOMMISSION JUNE 21, 1986 9:00 AM 1 ROLL CALL: Present: Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson, Jerry Edwards, and Tom Brian (arrived noon). Planning Commissioners: Will Newman, Bonnie Owens, Milt Vie, John Butler, Chris Vanderwood, Deane Leverett, and Dave Peterson. Staff. Bob Jean, City Administrator; William rm Monahan, Director of Community Development; Keith Liden, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Newton Senior Planner; Deborah Stuart, -Assistant Planner; Diane Jelderks, Office Assistant II 2. WORKSHOP WITH PLANNING COMMISSION The major points discussed during the session by topic were as follows: o Downtown Area Plan Discussion The area plan concept was discussed. Area 'dans may involve discussion on transportation, economics, recreation, possible development options, zone chafes, and special sign criteria. Area plans will' be done initially for the Tigard Triangle Downtown and scholls Ferry Road Area. it was stressed that the NPO involvement begin early in the process. It is hoped that the area plans will help to take the Council and Planning Commission out of the reactive mode. o Planned Development Discussion The majority of the discussion centered on the determination of when to allow developers to use the planned development versus subdivis :on criteria. Consen,3us was to clarify that the planned development densities be cal ulatpd on net not dross buildable acres not to exceed 25% of the net buildable. In addition, the key purpose of allowing for a planned development, to encourage a sup-mriar living arrangement, must be more clearly defined. The required dedication of land should not be credited in trade off for density calculations The Plannit staff will research and recommend changes in the planned davelop nt section of the Code b -age 1 - COUNCIL'MINUTES - 'JUNE 21, 1986 - t o Sign Code There was a question raised as to what constitutes the area of a t g sign. The criteria for freeway signs were discussed. Casstations were discussed and the special requirements that the industry,contends are necessary.; r The requirements for U.S. flags were discussed and it was' determined that the present sign code does not place limits on F F height or placement of the U.S. flag. sign Code exceptions which are granted outside of the Code one criteria wawa discussed. Questions were raised regarding ' not modifications should be made. The criteria andwhether or amortization- period for non-Goroachedg �tnwasa decidedthatand how enforcement should be approached. subcommittee'- of staff Council and Planning Commission members should' be formed to look into changes to the sign code Councilor Johnson and commissioner Owens volunteered to serve. O {iPo Input The role of the WPO was discussed in depth. the Npo in a proactive mode Consensus was to find ways to put � and prevent reactionary mode th ey seem to be in. o }lamming Commission Jurisdiction and use of the Hearings officer. K Consensus was to transfer jurisdiction straight subdivisions _ to, the Hearings officer. Planned developments anrSon¢ subdivisions With variances will still be considered e planningCommission. Following revisions to sign code exception ssion will consider whether or not criteria, the Planning Comssij to transfer exception requests to the hearings officer. o Planning commissioner Attendance Consensus was s if to contact. vice President Bonnie ow the Board Commissioner will not be male to attend, a meeting. ccmaaitted to having at least six members present at all Meetings, o Planning COYAMiusion nonthly Meetings Consensus ®f the Cos�misssoners pr was to hold two ese€�tion , per month: starting in August. The schedule will be scat ons year in advance:' Staff will make every effort not to schedule meetings for one item. p LCDC post Acknowledgement Staff informed Commissioners and Councilors that any wnendments to the Development or Comprehensive Flan Map requires 45 day 1 ` notice to,LCDC prior to Council final action. -.; also staff stated that any comprehensive plan charges which affect residential densities could impact the City's cdmPliance with the to Uri per acre ailinve LCOC, staff will insbuildable t backdaansiland as ndatsi by tittzt P 4 2 - C(YJ-1CIL �9Z11�I3YES JEFf�T 2I a 13$6 } F Nr {G Staffpointed out that the City must bear any transcript costs if the Council waives NPO feas. Council is to decide each fee waiver in relation to standards set forth in Ordinance 85-45. o Nome Occupation Discussion Staff outlined the approval criteria and potential problems with accommodating different uses as home occupations. Consensus was to address adult family care, eliminate the distinction between attached and detached garages, be "lenient on home day care and provide a clearer definitionof what a home occupation is. In addition, staff should address the possibility of various levels of home occupations with conditions. Staff will research the issues and present proposed changes. 0 Wetlands The concern was raised by Staff that there is no procedure outlined in the Code to protect wetlands. Consensus was that an inventory should be done. Staff agreed ;to prepare language for review'' including how to deal with 'tree cutting in wetlands areas. o Transportation Issues P Consensus was that the transportation 'snap should show future sheet connections and extensions. Discussion followed as to hoax n "timely" is defined when requiring street improvements. Staff intends to address the issue of timeliness' and half street standards. o Planning Cor-sissionlCouncil Relations Consensus was that the Planning Commission should have access to legal counsel. Staff will try to anticipate hearings where` legal counsel would be helpful and make arrangements. Two meetings a month will; enable the Planning Commission to take tentative action' and direct staff to prepare final orders for approval at the next meeting. This will be especially helpful when the Commission does not support staff's recommendation. Councilor Brian indicated that he wants the Planning Commission's best advice on issues. it was agreed that the workshop had been very beneficial and a future one would be scheduled for October. o meeting adjourned 2:00 PM Diane M.,J de , Planning Cormnission Secretary ATTEST: Mayor City of Tigard Page 3 COUNCIL MIS - JUNE 21, 1986 NY Legal 7-6746 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPA P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 I S Legal Notice Advertising i e City of Tigard 0 ❑ Tearsheet Notice P. O. Box 23397 ¢ ® Tigard, OR 97223 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit t f> ^c AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION � STATE OF OREGON,' ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. � ( Stephanie Neubauer being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising t Director,or his principal clerk,of the Tigard Times, e a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 t and 193.020;published at T;�a r in the aforesaid county and state;that the � City COunc i l' 4nPt i al MaP�i nrr a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the 1 successive and entire issue of said newspaper for t consecutive in the following issues: t t June i Subscribed an wo o before me this—June 12, 1 986 Notary Public for Oregon My Corc tWsaion Expires:- _.9/20/88 AFFIDAVIT F= Tie>cr1l e s 'cel p'p i? a for g�a1ur inge+.. on. f. ktsStzer t , of on ah'dluH a Bats to est led£Worn tine City . rd--WI f teva=di Tigard,Oregon X7223,or by calling t Orly COUNCIL SPECIAL I.IEETING � SA£[tAY,'JUNE 21,1966,9:00 A.M. iI AP.3:�Cy'�fVIC CENTER,T0%FN HA:..i.R60M 325 Sal gtcr Z BO �3.EVt�RS3,RaGt '�1,f�Err1L'rflN Code EicePtiod C'riterin dis3iism reWeetiatids i1q8i18zi ;J11Ucjjje occagatnrm di ste los� a ` 'Grd4?54 �i.'eAi i3,�f" X3€sC4 €' t i - , ' MEMORANDUM TO- Planning Commission City Council FROM. William A. Monahan, June 18, 1986 Director, Community Development SUBJECT: June 21 Meeting Here is your meeting packet. Please bring your development code with you as we will refer to it often. 1 tl'a a r L tauums Lura Luc a°ea ua}raw V1Aydvtn aeiF51°4 cats we�4 JgdgT The City of Durham will have to but that Durk MAY.W like it t�ause isf tts hlgli- pt' atti Jeo48;23 to know how'Much it will be eecost og bk-matin fos.police s�zvvi t e'Puelsl ° e,thi we hey to mar bout said eT1dlu t tin CiNowWWR�,-'o, aurin its:�ae0a0donday.. raidtaaa rtia3 rleMop ca-Psrt�;�: :�yt� `�� 1he-1 1 :»�� d gtld p �a a�r}f r�ace to etla co ' Stogy : r� e.rrmss t yioq ''Otodde TAMthat W �e89r ? �'�_H� lE�LY29br��1t5r9t9sdR''itE� 3J74 tQ� +, a g4tfionwouldgro «��t�� ` ` fixe t 9 f4F,#, - x{P fc f a iy. y e CH rdon tt+e o%'< lr l �a y td tlteie' § [t i :sa13 i s 3RD x A 93L 32 Ira ta0 %or 40 hours 0 gout - fZat t t313pt10 ' d dhis�' R hgmDdrini�oulsl ° �lEi f tY liist8 tlA laze. ue w s� ntie 7 M e �c oaf 'k tR r 3 9 � + � 7 e,a tt tis x, I L} •.S i2@`:�9 2% '� 'Y92tSnilSlot3S Y �1� tCr-t$L4. ,i lllTOveene:7'lfi."n•as tea:%1G69dWAY.fast of=:.pos �hFo .-. alptlo ire t it would tslid o%beers^� y.�rooA' Lanes Ap�rtns eats:sad o% the proposed x,. E °t ualtatts on' is viithoitt tidding enough revenue to 14i11.1tiI Szltsdivision ' # cote rlsiate_for the la r:of service-with e�per. ;The improvements would be widening of Nyberg toIInelw laae`to provide for two lanes of traffic and a shtsul tarrd oPdon to chua�e 73}arhanr hissed 'der'013[-,on'6,side m allow pedestrian traffic The a o¢, peygy;value.'1 ualatln residents will' lmprevements would also allow access from South y �,57, = $1,OOti o8 ed value for police west 57th Street 1 services # --PW 11 o0 O1 th+e assessed value of 110 improvements would be paid for by the Fox 367 Durhdr a's,total bill EM,M and-Bridgeport developments and the oda Dur Grope 3 2,?�7° ere of tax mots 700, 800, 801, goo acid 1°000,tYty forpc j6rvic69s t 57 cents.per 51,68lk.etould he :.51Lt.40T$oa,ttne y ,_[inder'this,oRtioo, Durham 'Engineer l ichaei fcl:illlg said the improvements wfauld receive the same level of police protection os -will:cost appso imtately$250,000 and and the cost i -. will b Split aapoa owner;of the lots available in 7 he tiaird cption i1.based on cost per capita for all of these developments and vacant lots �nol1 PaotecttCna 7'ualatln'stotal pollce-budget.for TJBcISiiliP'said the city wouldn't pay any of the i 4 1586`l7 is b9 C'r�us the$30,000 uP .improvemen_t*ts`because it lacks the revenue to �re�ou Mate�ighV9t�y�a alatin°s 10 350:"Population° do so. ed.trafffi ..90 2Vfsihday s cost and dlvi`ded lay: ? tsgpitipg}i ngsi e"er Road great© Road s amolasats to S6II 04 Pe'.capon °°Izle don't have enough mmney to make the tom-. ctspita fig+W �Y 'laurhsn�s 720 se dints. ssouid raltments to.pro" in these kinds'of projects°� 4feadOw.�reel� aparimen s 3 amount to S C at of:$41585 for year of full, McKilllp said SCtI€s1ls dei ry at that litter Stomal+acCO dit t0 2 prip".ectton YoY the city. �'a releted`nctton,the council postponed a ptib- t3radosF ' cor for ed to t Some raembQrs of the c Ainpit vaere:oPPOs. tic hey;lrag on;ayprelimivarY Plat approYaf %or t T ,ralue�optlon Councilman Rtcnard Dev- tsEllrat$ti�: Y tffiSaffis 4h tom'. would:su@psidize s!�rv- BridgepnrtSubdlloa to its July 14 safety Prate paio•.$a0,t3 3 Ila said he beliEv tie option; toil and the State Highway i for the signal. t;. ® a tieft : ._ -195. ni t s.meeting, 26 citizens for serving on city eom t S g Tic- eRD A hearing for lgcatt- Y At The .following rzsidtints t °lag a ]proposed residential siibdivi- ®.The council decided pot to re received key-to-the-city awards You Sion on neatly 20 aero of property .quire. Christ The iSing Lutheran .north of the Tualatin River,-along Chu lrnprove 5�1 114t4 Street Civic Center Advisory.Cormrnit- newo�B- � ` r 108th Avenue,will be continued,to before the church would be allowed tee — yalerfe 3ohnson,:Robot titans m�1 , std nr The rr the City Council dune 16 Meeting, to build a 4,500�quare-%oot addition Carolysn Eadon,'Craig SioP �gm am open ta°�F�w "` Pepe tyaistion to its existing building-at Pacific kin3;Edward Diuffield;Susan Melt-—146rt ut}n concerning agenda aema Tfso city'S'.Pionn$ng SAP- In Righ say and Bull fountain Road cr and Denzats Der=oy. as c�inai at td st' Q n+��U �.m FLprii denied Waymire' AP " ii %or, p%s ! o%, the- I1ae.council,determined that carr Cilie Center Dedication Cioraanit,- i,IMIIJI tSl)AY, ' plaazneal 8440i a, ba 1 the stgsidion of the.;church >Mdditiont ,:t^e.--Chrarlea S Muel'Mayor Sohn nsmo COUNCIL, s 3c PM_ t p;,li ra€ up wz}utd not 4arncican4atety sw Rrst Ave.,Poruaad 2'21.1640.' e =Ahat° detdSioa, !ag rovesizrwnt; tvltiC,h ro'�oai�l rlc;'LtFatterhlurYhall,�aterieJohn- ctairriing thePt ng,Cotmritls:,lOM-,street,:, , P oun�, fin+ lahapr :Floyd T Ar�To2a prstra Nes Anvlsf 3h TR1 vo Sufflcicnt reasaWas"! �114th StA�t to ttlt �rnl xn1L et oa�:'EdIoret aa8 dent o ; aanat,=t*Earac,Y;:S e.n Gesairt Da�ld v��,� i. °did not✓sot�1 - Ave,692-2900- -,W . fprtuied ail. ard7Ct ,Brigaa,lVancyCarmp iiy ! ,Street told 'e a1 PJioraa , Oe�A�t,'rar 16 ?�f lto.3�€4ada r�tglat meeting.Lee ` ` ton ftoi?ee,RezS Jolci, a el " n � ON COUNTY> C Qty that they were file street etasaltit•Caday;- M Noon, .,Hof �140;�';ann.?vezr ztt Th" v,clt9 sn ocf flay , a� }City CQui dl i;• yn Ea€lisn and Unary Fn s`' � `"��t ha�wa p�autasa�laerx<4ard s a✓sing icrzrion. to :denying the cttprralitrn alga tin _ �nt:stttttn to4"1'mlta Ron wyden : s=,abdtviaion�rq<iu `Idld not.do its-'-the churrSi.would o4 r°esponsible fOr kTransportation ition AdvL4oa�� f'of � ��Cr1me'raiA r sa Hero?" ce-SM f ,'asses ork gind.didn°t..give+hot.do itae strcd4Mprovernsteat'whera that : mitt ,;... -Plilborlilshopf� � ,h�her�t}ota/®GoFrom.Ianroa^�4� :ln$ L. to work suite;' according to improvement becomes necessary. 4 .; Fr®nomlc A?evelopment COM-+,:'.•TlaARD CITY IAIAPa rd t t.councilman Gerald Edwards. J ,yriSy� taactl + i4tt c� z* iA: �. �a a:;�, $:�mA<is4 +�a;A.4-bra"klfth�� '-ht'+fi9.ds1da3v ,.' MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON : 3 June 18, 1986 TO: Members of the planning Commission ' FROM: Keith Liden, :Seniar planner E" SUBJECT: Discussion Topics for June 21 Study Session ' development, density computation, density This memo pertains to the planned transition, sign code exception criteria, transportation and wetlands criteria contained in the Community Development Code. In the outline below, I have noted the sections of the Code where we have experienced difficulties because no conflicting provisions, lack of clarity, differing interpretations, etc. a � enn eralheadi headings and aprepare� toediscussrhowthese feel t This is intended to aid above d3 to this list under the g issues might be resolved'. 1, planned Development (Chapter 18.80) ing A. Section 18.80.0II0 provides that the lot sizeldamnsionGu zone do not height, and internal setback standards of the underlying apply except for garages and the perimeter of the project. D. Section 18,80.120 requires Common open space for multi-family development only 20% of the project must be landscaped Subsection (a)(3) calls for the preservation of natural features '.where possible" C. Section 18.80.170 requires a landscape plan for common areas and supposedly for single family lots. 2, Dens ty Computations (Chapter 18.92) Section 18.92.020 deducts flood plain, slopes over m dr•ainageways, park dedications, public right-of-way (single familily A. 20%, multi-family 15%), and private streets. Q. Section 18.92.030(a) only allows density transfer from flood plain, slopes over 25%, and drainage-ways with a maximum transfer of 25%. C. Section 18.80.030(a)(3) states that the total number of units on the site cannot exceed 125% of what is allowed by the Comprehensive plan designation on the gross acreage" 5 that the areas to be deducted to establish the net D, Staff suggestsis lacking. For i acreage, should be revised because consistency example, steep slopes and drainageways are to be deducted but can be example, with s sensitive lands approval, but flood plains cannot. ark dedications do not warrant a; 25% density transfer but Also, �. greenway dedications within a Mood plain do. (section 18.40.040) 3. Density Transition A. Requires 100 foot wide transition when higher density mprehensiveopment Plan abuts lower density areas as determined by within this strip cannot exceed 125% of � designation. The density ; the maximum allowable Comprehensive Plan density allowed on the i adjacent property. g, This provision makes the development of smaller parcels difficult. than ts c. This is a more stringent trial provision which abutrresidential . upon commercial and Indus properties. D. Different , methods to attain compatibility between uses (e•g landscaping) should be discussed. ' al, teria`(Section 18.114.445) Sign Code Exception cri A. Criteria c. needs to be clarified. " generic such as �. be modified to be more Perhaps the criteria should variance or conditional use. 3, Transportation Planning Issues- regarding The Cade does not contain any criteria extension of local Comprehensive Plan indacates several minor collector streets. The p _ streets when it appears that only a local street connection was desired. issue of street connections vs. cul.—de—sacs should be B. The € discussed. staff recommends the formulation of a Plan policy and €" corresponding Code criteria to clarify the City position. .:. C. Half-street improvements are required for most land use applications and this has created difficulties for small proposals such as } partitions. The criteria in section 18:16A.discu of the Co should be reviewed: Staff will be prepared to discuss examples and propose solutions. 6. Wetlands A. The ' the pr Comprehensive Plan calls for otc:rtion of wetlands. g, Inventory maps showing these areas must be updated. ` C. Correspond requirements are not in thc� Cc+cls>. and must be included. A sensitive lands procedure-� mzy he appr-t.ipr-i.al:ca. i br31 Page 2 COY LSF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Sri '1ARY �1 986AGENDA ITEM 0: e�l��iGA �F: 3une DATE SueMITTFO: 3dne 16 PREVIOUS ACTION* _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: WP0 Fe0 ., Waiver praceduras PREPARED 8Y: ElizaT•ethewtan . REQUESTED BY: Cita Coa�ncildPC I / OV{f CITY Y AQt�iI§LIYSTRATGR DEPAR i aET HEAD C �i!-� �- -- , POLICY 'ISSUE +; Should the City Council modify the WPO Fee waiver procedures? INFORMATION SU11MARY Attached is a noe aso which outlines the procedure to be used for waiver of fees for hedais or lard use ou lications filed by NPO's. please use the attached hed memo as "a basis for discussion as to how the Process is working. { ALTL E--NAT-IVES 0 SIDEREL 1.} Discuss, the NPO Fee &jai uer process and suggest changes to be initiated. z.} Discuss the NPO Fee Waiver process and retain the current PoTicies. SUGGESTED ACTION Discuss the NPO Fee Waiver process and direct staff as to any changes necessary. d�dz: WORKSHOP 6d21d86 - NpO Fee Waiver Discussion Page 1 y f MEMORANDUM CITY OF T'IGARD, OREGON TO: City Council Planning Commission June 15, 1984 FROM: Elizabeth Nrawton, Senior Planner SUBJECT: NPO Fee Waiver Procedures When the Community Development Code was adopted in November 1983, it contained a requirement that any; appeal or review application filed wits the City regarding land use actions kse accompanied by the required fee. 9l copy of Section 18.32.540 is attached. The City Council has had a Policy of considering a waiver`of fees for appeals filed by the HYPO°s that has, presented problems its the past. First, the individual NPO members are often not interested in fronting the filing fee to be refunded 'if Council supports a fee waiver. Secondly, if the NIPO members r wait to Pay the fee the ten 'day appeal deadline may have; expired before the .*` Council meets to decide on the waiver and then the NPOloses the w � opportunity to file the appeal. . In "addition, concerned citizens often convince the NPO 'to file an appeal .which the NPO Members may not strongly supportin :.order to avoid payment of the filing fee if the-bouncii allows a waiver. For the reasons stated above, and others the Council adopted Ordinance 85-45 on December 14, 1985. A copy is attached. Ordinance 85-45 allcaas for a waiver of the fee for an appeal filed by an NPO if certain conditions are ' met. The conditions outlined in the ordinance include the requirement that the 'appeal is supported by a majority vote meeting where a , quorum of repo members was present. 431sa a colay of the minutes of the sweeting where the appeal or land usg application wasintitiated east be submitted. An NPO representative must appear at 'a Council meeting to request a fee waiver and of the request is denied, the fee shall be paid within 3 days. Since adoption of ordinance 65-45 two appeals have been filed. The Council has waived the fee in bath cases. Ordinance 85--45 is intended to insure that appeals or land use decisions filed by the NPO are truly supported by the IPO members.' dj/21 x .e' tr7RKSHOP 6121/E8 — JPO dee Waiver Discussion Page 2 H 18,32.320 Type of Appeal or:Review hearing —.Limitations of Review (a) The appeal of a decision spade by the Director under Section 18.32090(a) and Section 18.32.113 of this Chapter shall be 'de novo and conducted as if brought under Section 18.32.090(b), or (c)• (b) The review of a decision by the Commission or Hearings Officer by the Council shall be: (1) Confined to the record of the proceedings as provided in Section 18.32.320 of this Code and each member of the _ Revie0ing Body shall be provided with a' transcript of the proceeding on Appeal; (2) Limited t9 the grounds relied upon in the Notice of: Review as pro,ided in Section18.32.340(x) of this ;Chapter, and conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.32.250, 18.32.260, and 18.32.160 through 18.32.230 and Se=ctions 18.`32.240 and 19.32.310 of this Code. (3) The subject of written and 'oral argument. Such written argument shall be submitted not less than 5 days prior to Council consideration. a (4) Reviews on the record by Council of Bearings Officer or Commission 'decision shall be completed 'within 40 days of when notice of review is filed. 18.32.330 Transcripts (a) Within 20 days after the filing of the notice of review, the city sheall' provide each Council member, the applicant and Lhe NPO (if requested), a, copy of the complete transcript of the hearing and a copy of the minutes; (b)' The appellant shall be responsible to satisfy all costs incurred for preparation of the transcript at a rate of 'actual costs up to x;500.00- and one—half costs for any amount incurred over $500.00. Payment shall be made in full at lQast 5 gays prior to the hearing. (c) Any other party requesting a copy of the transcript shall be charged the actual copy costs. 18.32.340 Notice of Appeal or Petition for Review (a) Fhe Notice of Appeal or Petition for Review shall contain: (1) A refert!nce to the application sought to be appealed c+s reviewed - (2) A statement as to how the petitioner qualifies as a party; r INS (3) The specific grounds for the,appeal or review; and (4) The date of the filing of the final decision on the action or in the case of a decision by ;the Director, the date the decision was filed, and the date notice of the final or proposed decision was given. (b) The ;appeal or review application shall be accompanied by the required fee. 16.32.350 Persons Entitled to Notice on Appeal or Review — Type of Notice Upon appeal or review; notice shall be given to parties entitled to notice under Section 18.32.130 of this Code. 18.32.360 Contents of Notice on Appeal or Review Notice shall include those matters provided by Section 18.32.140 of this Code. C' 18.32.370 Action on Appeal or Review - Time Limit and Authority to Change the decision p (a) The- Approval Authority shall affirm, reverse or modify the decision which is the subject ; of the appeal; however, Lhe decision shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.32.250 of this Code; or ' • '1 (b) Upon the written consent of all parties to extend the 120 day limit, the Approval Authority may remand the matter if it is satisfied that testimony or other evidence could not have been . presented or was not available at the time of t'!-ie hearing. In ' deciding to remand the malt,,ter, the Approval Authority shall consider and make findings and conclusions regarding: (1) The prejudice to parties; (2) The convenience or availability of evidence At ,the- time of the initial hearing; (3) The surprise to opposing parties;_ (4) The date notice was given to other parties as to an attempt to admit or (5) T"hF competency, relevancy and materiality of the pruposcd' r testimany or other evidence, 18.32..380 _ Final Action of the Approval Authority; Effective Date _ (a) i Action by the Approval Authority on appeal- ur review shalt be known as a "final order" which shall be effe(;tiva� on the dray of 1 C mailing notice of the final order. ;: T A 59 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 85-F1f E t . AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.32.340, 18.30°030 AND ADDING SECTION f � 18.32.345 OF THE COMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (ZOA a-85) k WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it nedessary to revise its Community Development Code 'periodicallyto improve the operation and implementation of the Cede; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has reviewed the Community Development Code r ' and has adopted the same; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposed changes on November 5, 1985; and v WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the proposed changes on November 25, 1985. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLUM: a Section 1: Section 18.30.030 (e)(3) of the 'Community Development Code to include the language underlined below: a (3) Be accompanied by the required fee except as allowed ander !. Section 18.32.345; and Section 2: Section 18.32°340 (b) of the Community Development Code shall be amended to include the language underlined below: (b) The appeal. or review application shall be accompanied by thi• .required fee• except as allowed under Section 18.3Z.345 below. ' a Section 3: A new Section 18.33.345 shall be added to the Community Development Code to read as underlined below. ; Section 18.32.345 Fee _Waiver Allowed for Neighborhuod 4>lartninc3 Organizations ' Fees for Land Use applications and app in for- appeal or review of a land_use_decisions shall be waived for applications filed by ,an NPO if all of the fol.lowin conditions arc- met_ - Via) The appeal or_land use application--must �havo been —_.— -- supported by a n cri vj of MPO member's apt a pubt i< _._ _ meeting where�a duorum"o� nlfs0 nu mbar was_pr c_sc nt. oRD(NAND:1 NO i3'i. ,- I'dgsi b) A copy of the minutes of the NPO meeting where the appeal or land use application was initiated must be submitted° with the appal or-land "use appl^ication. t �c 1he appeal or application will be considered valid when conditions a and :-b above are met and all other 'filing rerauiremerats.are met JAI The NPO chairperson or' designated` representative shall appear at the next available City Council r�eetino after ' the applgcataon or appeal as filed The dUP(l shall work dhroMg; the .PAanncx Dayssxo �nn to schedale the item on a Council ac:end�a. Should the Council deny the NPO request for a fee waiver, the NPO shall submit the re mired fee within three d3) working days of the 'denial` The fee shall be fal.ed by 3.OD P PS on tl e third (3rd) clay Section 4: In ,order that the Community Development Code may improve the operation and implementation of the code and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, an emergency is hereby declared to ,exist and this Ordinance shall becomeeffective upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: 8y fa sl ca vii�,�c, vote of all Council members prest after bsng read by number and title only, this i/G � of 1�ec. 1985. day Loreen R. Wilson, Deputy R order v APPROVED: This /G day' of DF1985. /n //.7 bh'n E. Cook, Mayor (EAN:bs/227-9p) OR01NANCI NUJ. Pagn 2 I. 4 • F[ / 1(( MEMORANDUM t a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON F i Mem of the City Council June 18, 1986 TO: Commission TO: Members of the Planning � FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, . Community Development SUBJECT: Study Session`— Lunch Discussion Issues . During the lunch period of the special study session, staff has selected a few 1 housekeeping :items. Although not technicalin considers he followingf the lisscs ues special significance. prior to Saturday, please and be prepared to state your opinion on whether the present system is adequate or a change is necessary. p, ; Notice of Necessary Absence for Meetings. A. planningCommission Attendance, mber Commission, five members In order to have a quorum of the nine me { issues, however, at least must be, present. For optimum consideration of seven members' should be present including the President fthefollv ice following can President Without almost all members present, any occur: 1 A quorum is not reached causing postponement (if less than five members attend) . 2. Rrocedural questions may not be raised if the members most familiar with this area do not attend. ay be lost if the composition of the membership in 3. Continuity m attendance is very different frau the Commission which may have taken prior action on an application. q The cotnmit-ment of the Commission may be questioned if full or near full attendance is rare. ,, Consistency in dealing with the application of a code section may be lacking Attendance of the Cammi,ssion has not been as much e a problem over the ¢s�a5t year ,as it wras shortly after- adoption of � PaFfanhlriaritysivp pwith 8ev< rtal new members hive been appointed and havt gained Ole z_ilnsystem. To av ,id` problems, for however-, the Cotmnssion may wish to inforinaIIY c.on li its . (tUi .c+ri.npressure na.sifLhecl muStF� cif fccf�Live}f mr.ons i.iof sc.h _.l al bc• avoiding g+rnlYlc n,y Ncri-i f icr+t iort tt, staff in adv�uic� would mal;u �t.>r,rnc i.at„1 S. Planning Commission Monthly Meetings. Presently the Commission 'me ets once a month, on the first Tuesday following a Monday each month. I strongly recommend that the Council and ; Commission consider regularly scheduling two ,monthly meetings. The second meeting could be held two weeks after the first. My reasons for suggesting this are: 1) To allow better scheduling of agenda items. Two meetings would allow staff to schedule discussion topics, such as code revisions, on a lighter agenda. Secondly, greater staff analysis and ,agency comment could be achieved if the staff did not feel compelled to rush a review and schedule a land use application because failure to do so would result in a delay of one month. For example; under the present system, if an application was :submitted on May 14, the staff had to review it and circulate plans for comments so that an item can be scheduled for the June 3 hearing. If the staff needed F more time, or if agency comments were late, the staff was forced to decide either to go ahead with the staff report and recommendation for June 3, or delay the hearing until July 0. 41 With two meetings per month, a delay to June 17 would have been possible. The staff wishes to spend more quality .time on an application before 'making a recommendation. This will avoid problems which could cause unnecessary appeals and delays. 2) The staff would like to prepare shorter agendas with less packet- items with a goal of making packets available ^ .e week in advance of each meeting. This would allow Commission members to review code provisions and compare them to applications. Also, questions of staff priortothe meeting would be possible. We could avoid staff being asked an engineering question at the hearing without an engineer pstreseynt In fact, if an issue warranted, staff could request that a aff engineering representative be present at the hearing. 3) To allow the Council. to send items to the Commission for comment without a Tong delay. often the Council is reluctanL to regrind to the Commission because of the long lead time needed. ; The staff feels that better coordination overall could be accomplished if two meeting nights are regularly scheduled. Like the hearings officer, if no--items are scheduled for an agenda, a x meeting;can be cancelled. C. Meaning of "Neighborhood Input" and the weight it has. M1 During land use hearings, the NPO, neighborhood groups, or individual neighbors are asked to comment on land use applications . Many t:.imos afteran - impassioned speech, an observer must wonder "now Lhat t:hu neighborhood group (or whoovor) gave that input, its all Over." 1"he Commission and Cuunc•i.l shi Auld di:.cuss uiv weight of input. by proponent •s Page? 2 and ,opponents. : The staff opinion is that the Plan and Code, in most ' cases, establish criteria which if met should determine if an approval should be granted. In such cases, input 'directly contrary should be discounted somewhat. For example', when the Plan indicates that a road is to be extended at the time of development and the developer presents a plan' proposing the extension, input from an adjacent neighborhood stating that the road shouldn't go through should be somewhat suspect. Obviously, the hearing body must decide if the plan should be upheld or modified. In many, instances, the staff feels our: hearing format, - particularly the NPO comment period, seem to give mixed signals. We certainly want issues presented by both sides, but, we ;don't want to give the impression that if a developer presents his proposal to the NPO and they buy off ,on it that the plan will be approved. Rather, NPO support is important,' but, the Plan and Code govern, unless the Council chooses to modify the rules. The NPO is a facilitator of neighborhood input, not a neighborhood planning commission. Developers are not asked to go to an NPO, ;work out a deal on development conditions that satisfy the NPO, then make a united presentation to Council. The same is true for organized neighborhoods and affected property owners. I raise these issues for discussion purposes'. Our plan is successful and reflective of the community because of citizen input. I don't propose that we stifle . it or prevent it. Rather, I propose that ` we clearly'' define„ it's place and it's weight. I want to avoid neighbors being; critical of the City because the Commission and Council_ "ignored the NP©` comments, and they know what is right!" D. Planning Commission Jurisdictiorr and the Use of the Hearings Officer. Presently the City uses a hearings officer, Attorney Beth Mason, to decide applications on conditional use, sensitive land, and historic overlay district amendments (see attached page 230) The staff feels that other land use decisions could be transferred to the hearings officer without sacrificing opportunities for citizen input. The hearings' officer is an impartial person who applies code criteria to the staff analysis and applicant's submittal. She takes evidence from both sides and reaches a decision. During the four years that we have used the hearings officer, we have received only favorable comments from hearing participants. They feel that -their concerns were heard and a just decision reached. I feel that additional land use applications should be transferred to the hearings officer. I suggest that we discuss: 1. Subdivision applications 2.. Sign Coda exceptions 3. Variances to subdivision standards . ( 4. Conceptual planned devielopmcint F Page' -i a C a i t C i` I would leave all comprehensive plan amendments code interpretations and p appeals with the Commission. t Copies of Pages 229 - 231, of the . Code are attached which list_ } jurisdiction. We may also wish to talk ablaut Section 18.32.100, Consolidate of Proceedings which occassionally becomes an issue. I would like to make this discretionary rather than mandatory. LCDC Post 'Acknowledgement Issues ; Lis Newton will introduce us to new regulations for Post' Acknowledgement, a- kr, i t .TMS.. e. i 6sago 4 t t v y i 3 18.32:080-=18.32.090 18.32.080 Additional information required, waiver of revuirements IT- The report required. (a} director may require znformatzon zn additzon to that required by a specific provision of this code, provided: 4 (1) The inferrnation is needed to properly evaluate the proposed development proposal; and (2) The ied on the basis of a need can be justif special or unforeseen circumstance. {b) The director may waive the submission of information for a specific requirement subject to the provisions of . subsection (c) of this section, provided: (1) ' The director finds that specific information is not necessary to properly evaluate the application; or (2) The director finds that a specific approval standard is not applicable to the application. (c) Where a requirement is found by the director to be inapplicable the director shall: (l) Prepare a memorandum to the record and to the applicant citing the grant of authority, the specific require- ments' waived and the reasons; ' t (2) Advise the applicant in writing that the waiver .� may be challenged on appeal or at the hearing on the matter and may be denied by the `approval authority; ;and _ (3') Cite in the staff report on the application, the specific requirements waived, the reasons for the waiver and the specific grant of authority. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . . 18.32.090 Approval authorit responsibilities. (a) The ; director nas the authority to approve, eny or approve with conditions the following applications: ' ( 1) Minor partitions, 'applications pursuant to Chapter 18.162; ( 2) Major partitions, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.162; - ( 3) Site development review, applications pursuant - to Chapter 18.120; 7 { 4) Temporary use, applications pursuant to Chapter 18. 140; {_5) Home occupations, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.142; (_ 6) Minor modification to approved planned develop- x ments; ( 7) variance, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.134; { 8} Accessory uses and structures , applications ' pursuant to Chapter 18. 144 ; {_ 9) Flexible setback standards for developed lots, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.146 ; s ( 229 (Tigard 4,184) ,U MEMORIES < 0 18.32.090 f (10) Zero lot line setback standards, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.1.48; (11) A detailed planned development proposal', under Chapters 18.80 and 18.120; (12) " Determination of parking requirements for un- listed uses, applications pursuantto Section 18.106.020(c) ; (13) Tree 'removal permits. (b) s The hearings officer shall conduct a public hearing in the manner prescribed by ,this chapter and has the authority to approve, deny or approve with conditions the following development applications: ( 1) Conditional use applications pursuant to Chapter 18.130; ( 2) Sensitive land permit, applications pursuant to Section 1884.015 (b) (1) and (b) (2) ; ( 3) Historic overlay district amendments, applica- tions pursuant to Chapter 18.82. (c) The planning cogu-ni:ssion shall conduct a public w hearing in the manner prescribed by this chapter and has the authority to approve, deny or approve ;with conditions the '> following development applications: ( 1) Subdivision applications', pursuant to Chapter 18.>160; ( 2) A quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment except: (A) The planningcommission' s function shall be limited to a recommendation to the 'counc'il, (B,) The planning commisssion may transmit` their recommendation in 'any form and a final order need not beorinally adopted, (C) The council hearing shall be a de novo hearing and a final order shall be formally adopted; ( 3) A quasi-judicial zoning map amendment pursuant to Chapter 18.130 except where the zone change application is being heard concurrent with a quasi-judicial plan amend- ment. In such a situation the zone change shall be decided in the same manner as a quasi-judicial plan amendment; { 4) A development application referred to the commission by the director; ( 5) An appeal of a decision made by the director j under Section 18. 32.310 and subsection (a) of this section; ( 6) A conceptual planned development proposal under Chapter 18. 80; (-7) Interpretations of. the Tigard comprehensive plan or the adopted community development code, if requested by the director or other interested persons; { 8) Any other matter not specifically assigned-,to - t the director, the hearings officer, or city council under this code; ( 9) The preliminary review of plan designations and formal imposition of zoning district designations made to lands annexed to the city; 2,3oI`i Jard' 4,'55) i 18. 32.100 i 1 (10) Appeal of sign permits, pursuant to Chapter 18.114; (11') Sign code exceptions, pursuant to Chapter 4 18.114; (12) f).114, (12) Variances to subdivision standards; (13) Recomm®ridations to the city council on annexations; (14) Quasi-judicial zoning designations on property t to be annexed. #tt) The city council shall conduct a public hearing ` in the manner prescribed ;by this chapter and has the authority to approve, : deny; or approve with conditions the following` development applications: ( 1) The formal imposition of plan designations made to IF --3 -, annexed to the city; ( 2, Aatters referred to the council by the planning ` commission or hearings officer for review under Section 18.32.310 (b) (3) ; ( 3) Review of decisions of the initial hearings ' beady, whether on the council's own motion or otherwise, as provided by Section 18.32.310 (b) (1) and (2) ; C ( 4) Quasi-judicial plan amendments; { 5) Resolutions to the boundarycommission for annexations'. (Ord. 84--69 'S1 (Exhibit' A(part) ) 1984`; Ord. ', 84-09 51, 1984; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . 18.32.100 Consolidation of proceedings. (a) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this 'section, whenever' an imii cant requests more than one approval and more than one approval authority is required to decide the applications, the proceed- ings rocee ings shall be consolidated so that one approval authority aecides k all applications in one proceeding. (b) In such cases as stated in subsection (a) of this section, the hearings shall be held by the approval authority ' having original jurisdiction over one of the applications under Section 18.,32.090, in the following order of preference: the council, the commission, the hearings officer or the director. (c) Plan map amendments are not subject to the one hundred twenty-day decisionmaking ,period prescribed by state law and (, such amendments may involve complex issues; therefore, the director is not required to consolidate" a plan map amendment " and a zone change or other permit applications requested unless the applicant requests the proceedings to be consolidated and signs' a waiver of the one hundred twenty-day time limit pre- scribed by state law for zone change and permit applications. (d) Where there is a consolidation of proceedings: (1) The notice shall identify each action to be taken; , (2) The decision on a- plan map amendment shall pre- cede the decision on the proposed zone change and other actions ,- and ctions ;and (3) Separate actions shall be taken on each applica- tion. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part), 1983) r 231 P ; CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 COUNCIL :1^uFWDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: Funs 21 19c 8-6 AGENDA ITEM H: DATE SUBMITTED: dune 16, 4996 PREVIOUSACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Home Occunation Discussion PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Plewton' REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: Lr CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE should the approval criteria for issuance of Home Occupation Permits be modified. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attacaed is` a memo which outlines most of the criteria for approval of a Home - pretation of the criteria and some situations occupation Per4nitr staff's inter which do not meet the criteria. Please use the attached memo as a basis for discussion to gi Q stavf some direction' regarding the Home Occupation Permit _ - approval process. ALTERMATIV"ES CONSIDERED �1) Discuss` the attached memo and initiate changes to the Home Occupation Permit approval criteria. (2) Discuss the attached memo and retain the current approval criteria for Home occupations. SUGGESTED ACTION Discuss the attached memo and direct staff regarding the interpretation of the Home Occupation criteria and any changes required. dj/2Q Workshop 6/21/06 — Home Occupation Discussion material Page 1 <t MEMORANDUM ( CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i s � i i TO: city Council June 16, 1986 i Planning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Newton, Senior Planner 14 L , SUBJECT: home Occupation Permits a Section 18.142 of the Tigard Municipal code regulates businesses that are conducted within a residence located in residential, commercial, and industrial zones. The stated purposes of the regulations are to ensure that the business: use is a secondary, lawful use to the primary residential use;of the premises and to ensure that the business is not disruptive' to the residential area. ' A copy of Section 18.142 is 'attached. There are several approval criteria contained in Section 18.142 which must be met In order for a business to obtain a< Home Occupation` Permit. For discussion purposes, x' will outline some of the approval criteria, the intended purpose for the requirement and some situations in which a particular criteria may not be met. (b,) The Nome Occupation shall be operated entirely within: (1.) The dwelling unit and the use and the storage of material and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the gross floor area. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the business is conducted entirely within the dwelling unit and that no outward appearance of a business acitivity is` visible to surrounding residents or tenants. Section 18.26 defines dwelling unit as "a single unit, excluding mobile homes, providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. The garage, if attached to the dwelling unit, for purposes of Home Occupation Permits has been considered by the Planning staff to be part of the dwelling unit. If a garage is not attached to the living quarters, it has not been considered to be part of the dwelling unit. The Building staff does not consider attached or detached garages as part of the dwelling unit. Home Occupation permits have been issued to individuals conducting businessess within their homes who wish to use a portion of their attached garage for storage-of supplies. In these cases, another portion of the living quarters is used for an office and the total square footage used for the business has not exceeded 25%. There. have been cases where individuals have wantedtouse a detatched' garage or other accessory structures on the premises to conduct their business. Generally these requests have been for repair or assembly type businesses. These request have been denied because the requirement that the business be operated' entirely within the dwelling unit can not be met. Workshop 6/21/86 Home Occupation Discussion materia] Page 2 s LW • _., a (c.) The use shall ase a secondary use to the primary use of the house as a dwelling; The intent of this requirement is to ensure that residences located in residential zones are not used solely for business purposes. This requirement 3s generally enforced ,by other requirements found in the approval criteria such as the 25% square foot limitation on businesses conducted within residences. (d.) There __hall be no exterior indication of the Home Occupation; no exterior signs sE�eall be used; 'no other on—site advertising visible from the exterior shall be used which informs the public of the use e Occupation may be displayed. except the address of the Mom This requirement is intended to protect the residential character of neighborhoa�iS. Obviously signs advertising businesses in residences which are located in ,Commercial or Industrial zones would not be disruptive to the surrounding area. Staff has had very few requests for ;signs in conjunction with Home t?ccupat:ions. ' The 'requests have been for signs related to service :repair , businesses such as saw sharpening and bicycle repair.. In addition signs have posted without staff's ' permission `for sales of agricultural products (ie. flowers and vegetables.) (e,� There shall be no outdoor storage vehicles, or products ge of materials. on the premises. Indoor' storage of material or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisiions of the Building: ` Fire, Health, and Housing;Codes. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure compliance ;with Cade provisions requiring outside storage in conjunction with a legal usr, yaermitting outside storage to be contained within an enclosed area or building. There are sone types of businesses which require some area for 'storage of materials. Examples of these are contractors and . product distributors. Generally, when these businesses are conducted from the home the volume is smolt. Staff has approved dome Occupations allowing storage of goads in an attached garage or a site obscurring enclosed area providing the storage,area and other areas of the residence used for the business do not exceed the 25% requirement. (f.) The use shall not include any retail sales other than telephone sales. . (g.) The use shall not involve direct sales or service from the property nessitating customer traffic to the residence. - The purpose of these requirements is to eliminate customer traffic that may be associated with businesses conducted within residences. _ In areas zoned for residential uses this requirement would help protect the residential character of the area. In areas zoned for commercial and industrial uses the customer' traffic should not be disruptive to the area. Workshop 6/21/E36 — Home Occupation Discussion material. rage 3 ,3' Certain businesses are`' prohibited` by this requirement if they are conducted from a residence. The staff has denied requests to operate beauty shops from residences because of the customer traffic. Technically babysitting services which are not approved under a conditional use permit Issued for a day care center violate this requirement. Agricultural sales (such as `lower or 3 vegetable stands) are also probhibited by this requirement. (h.), The Home occupation shall not produce any noise or obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, ; fumes, or °electrical interference detectable to normal sensory perceptionoutside the structure. The intent of this requirement is to protect abutting residential uses from any negative impacts the business may have on the quality of the residential character of an area. obviously, businesses located in a residence in a commercial or industrial area may not affect surroundings in the same way. The planning staff has received some complaints from abutting residents in conjunction with a few Home Occupation businesses. These businesses have been primarily repair or distribution businesses where the business operated at night. (i.) There shall be not other employees on the premises other than those who are permanent residents of the building. This requirement is intended to reduce the impact of the business in terms of -traffic generated. obviously, traffic generated by Home, occupation businesses in the Commercial and 'Industrial 'areas may not have much of an impact on the area. Employee has been defined by the staff and City Attorney as a paid employee not a volunteer. There have been situations where professionals such as attorneys have been interested in hiring secreterial, support to work in the home. This requirements prohibits that acitivity. �n addition, some home distribution businesses have indicated an interest in hiring employees which T is also prohibited by this requirement. (j .) The use shall not require any additional parking other than that - which is requiredfor the residence. This requirement in conjunction with the requirements prohibiting customers and employees- ensures. that there will be no exterior indication Gi the business and prevents the abutting public right—of way from serving as the parking arQa`for a Home occupation business. Problems have been evident in the past with craft bazaars and shops operated from the home and from trucking business where the owner wants to store a transport truck on a residential property. In addition babysitting services can cause traffic and parking problems when parents drop off and pick up children often all near the same time of day. ( dj/2C1 4 Workshop 6/21/86 — Hone occupation Discussion material Page 4 7 18.!42 HOME OCCUPATIONS 18.142.010 Purpose (a) It is the purpose of this Chapter to regulate home occupations in residential, commercial and industrial zones in a manner that will ensure that the use is: (1) A secondary, lawful use to the primary residential use of the premises upon which they are found, ,and (2) Not disruptive �q<the residential area. (b) The standards contained in this Chapter are intended to assure that home occupations will be compatible and consistent with the residential uses and will not have a detrimental effect 'on the neighboring properties. 18.142.020 Exemlitions Garage sales are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. 18.142.030 Administration and Approval Process (a) The applicant of a home occupation proposal shall be the occupant of the property. (b) A Pre--Application -Conference with :City : staff is required in accordance with Section18.32..040. (c) Due to possible changes in State statutes, or regional or local policy, information givers by staff to the applicant during the Pre-Application Conference is valid for not more than 6 months. (1) ' Anofher Pre—Application Conference is required if any variance application is submitted 6 months after the L Pre-Application. (2) Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this Chapter shall not -constitute ,a waiver of the standard, criteria or requirements of the application. (d) 1-he Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny any appli.cati.ori for a home occupation. The Director shall. apply the standards set Forth; in Secl:ion 18. 142.050 of this ChapLer when reviewing an application for a home occupation. (e) Notice of the Director's decision shall be yiv,�n ,As provided by 18.32.120. Me decision of the Director may bo appealed in accordance with Section 18.32 310 (a) i' III 2117 s w ,, i t8,142.040 Expiration of Approval - : ion of Time =i3evacaticon µ' (a) Approval of a hose occupation by the Director shall be effective for a one-year period. } (b) The director shall renew the permit upon: t (1} Application and payment of a fee by the applicant; (2) Finding that: i (A) All of the conditions of approval have been satisfied; (g) Theere has been no change in the original application approved by the Director; (c) There have been no changes in the fa;.:Ls or applicable I policies on which the approval was based; (o) the applicable approval ,criteria in 18.142.050 are: satisfied. notice of the renewal as 'provided by ` (c) The Director shall give no appealed as provided by 18.32.120 and the decision may be app 18.32.310(x). r The Director may revoke a F,ome occupation approval if the conditions are not satisfied as provided by Section 18.32-250(f). 18.142.050 Ap:)roval Criteria . c (a) The use shall be a lawful use which shall be carried on by the occupants of the dwellings; (b) The Home.Qccupation shall be operated entirely within: {1) Tfie dwelling unit and Che use and the stowage of material and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the gross floor arca. (c) The use shall be a secondary use to the primary use of the house as a dwelling; (d) There shall be no exterior indication of the home Occupation; nc, exterior signs shall be used; no other on--site advertisingexterfrom the exterior shall be used which informs the public visible of the use exr_ept of Lhe address of the home occupation ,day be displayed; (e) ThLre shall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or' products un Lhre premises: Indoor storage of material or products shall riot exceed th+a l.imi.taLi.ons imposed by the provisions of the Building, t=ire, S1tealth .and dousing cIodes. a a (f} The use shall not include any retail sales other Than telephone sales'. jc ( } The use shall not involve> direct sales or service from the property necessitating customer traffic to the residence. (h) The home Occupation shall not produce any noise or obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, :fumes, or electrical interference detectable to normal sensory perception'outside the structure; There shall be no other employees on the premises other than those who are permanent residents of the dwelling; (j} The use shall not require any additional parking other than that which is required for the residence. 10.142.060 RpEr•rrval and Compliance for a Business License No b6siness license will be issued fora home occupation until. the home occupation application is approved and Lhe applicant certifies that the home occupation will be 'operated in strict 'compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and the conditions of approval. 18.142.070 Time •t.imit and Revocation (a} The Dirs:ctor may approve a home occupation application ,subject ' to a specific time p perio:, at the termination of which there shall be a renewal application to determine if all. of the conditions and provisions of this Chapter Have been satisfied. k The permit shall be renewed if all of the conditions have been satisfied. (b) The Director may revoke a home occupation approval if the conditions are not satisfied as provided by Section 18 ,32.750 (f): 100142.080 Jliratiun Submission Requirements (a) An application shall be made on forms provided by Lhe Director and shall b(r &r c-ontpani.ed by (1) 'Three copic-s sof the necessary d..,i.ta ur narrative which explains ,how the proposal conforms to the standards in 18 142.0150. u (7.) A list of names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 100 feet of the site. (3) Tho required fee. C11 789 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDYiSE SSIflN AGENDA `? June 21, 1986, 9:00 A.M. , 1966, TIGARD (:It+°IC UNTLR 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97273 'Gimes SPECIAL MEETING: 9:00 1. 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call N 1.2 pledge of Allegiance 1.3" Call To Staff and Council For Non- Agenda Items: Motion to approve as amended 9:05 2, Discussion on .the Planned D€•velopment. Chapter of the Community Development Code 18.80: (Commercial/Irid ustrld1 as well a-, Residential?) 9:45 3. Density Calculation •Chapter- 18.40, and Transition Discussion, Section 18.40.040. 10:45 4 Sign 'Code Exception Criteria; Section 18. 114. 145 11.30 5. Np0 Fee Waiver Procedures t� -12;()c: 6. Lunch Break. Discussion Issues During Lunch: Planning Commissioner Attendance, Notice of Necessary Absence from meetings. - Planning Commission Monthly Meetings, one or two regularly scheduled? - Meaning of "Neighborhood Input" and the weight it has. — Planning,Commission Jurisdiction and the use of the Hearings Officer. 1._CDC Pest Acknowledgement Issues g 1:(;U 7. Transportation Planning Issues, includ'iru1: SLreat Class•Aficatlons 41alf-street Improvements Street connections versus (-ill de sacs. 2:00 8 Wetlands Issues 5 AD,li)URNMEN't - i sj 4 C(AINC:II AG1'ND0 June 21 1`aE}h • T Ulm i 15 IN : Y. v SIGN CODE EXCEPTION PREPARED. June 20, 1986 Diane M. Jelderks APPLICANT REQUEST APPROVED DENIED Sign Craft / Commerce Plaza For additional sign to identify Commerce SCE 1-83 7100 SW Hampton Plaza. Had 2 existing signs X Luminite Sign Co./Tigard Plaza Request for an additional sign on SW SCE 2--33 Hall'< Bld. behind Safeway X Security Sion/`Tayside Inn Request for an additional free-standing SCE 3=83 `11460 SW Pacific sign' 100 sq. ft per face &" 30' high. X Ramsey Sign/First Interstate Request to raise existing 6' r. 12' sign SCE 4-83 11760, SW Hall from 26 ft. to 34 or 36 ft. X Ramsey Sign/Chalet Rest. Request to aloow a 100 sq. ft. per face SCE,.5-83 11680 SW Pac: Hwy. free-standing, 24' 2" high X-modified Oak Hill Development Corp. Request for second free standing ,sign SCE 1-84 SW 78th & Pacific where one is permitted. X Richard Webb/Texaco Inc'. Request to allow 2 freestanding sign SCE 2-84__ 11835 SW Pacific which exceed max. height & 'area where X-modified one is permitted Westwood Corp. Request to allow 155 sq. ft. per; face NW corner of SW 78th/Pacific free standing sign where 70 sq. ft. is X SCE 3-84 permitted. Mark .Hemstreet/Shilo Inn To allow a 2nd free standing sign with SCE 4-84 10830 SW Greenburg 216 sq. ft. per side & 48' high, where X-modified one_sign 70 sq. ft. & 20 ft. hight is permitted. Martin Bros./Westwood Corp. For a 3rd free standing sign where one SCE 5-84 11705 SW Pacifc is permitted X CROW/SPEIKER/HOSFORD To-,allow a 2nd freestanding sign & to SCE 1-85 Park 217 modify a non-conforming sign. X Martin Bros./Joseph Danna To enlarge anon-conforming freestanding SCE 2-85 14055 SW Pac. Hwy. to 252 sq. ft./126 sq. ft. per side X Elmer's GEVURTZ FURNITURE To construct a 4' 8" tall 10 sq. ft. sign SCE 4-85 6600 SW Bonitawithin. Bonita Rd. sight-of-way X Tigard Arco/Dennis Thompson To raise existing sign to 30' where 20' is SCE 3-85 12475 SW Main permitted. & 110 sq. ft. where 72 sq. ft. X - '1 is permitted. ` Page -_ 1 SIGN CODE EXCEPTIONS PREQUESTAPPROVED DENIED APPLICANT Martin Bros,/Kaiser Permanente To construct a 21 sq. ft. free standing r where 15 s ft. is permitted ' X SCE 1-86 '7105 s�I Hampton q X Heath lvt�/l±ord Motor Co. To allow a 5th freestanding sign approx.: APPEALED SCE 2-86 12000 SW 66th 25` 1°!Y/ tall & 151 sq. ft. where one 20° X-existing sign tall .& 70 sq. ft. is permitted need to be brought into .,n f Orman ce Columbia Neon/Executive Centre To allow a 64 sq. ft. neon wall sign X SCE`-3-86 12725 SW 66th where a 30 sq. ft. wall sign is permitted: Patricia Sigler/ "iotor Sports To allow, 2 freestanding sign where one X SCE 4-86 12530 SW Hall Blvd. is permitted. . Tom Brian/Marilyn Hudson Fora 8 sq. ft. expansion to an existing X SCE' 5-86 12900 SW Pacific 88 sq. ft. sign (approx.) Equities NW/Burger Xing To allow 2 freestanding signs where one X v I SCE 6-86 10115 SW Nimbus is permitted Ram To modify an existing non-conforming sign X sey Signs/Levitz SCE 7-86` 9770 SW Soholls Fry ,- y Page - 2 -- . NEW! Fe r MEMORANDUM TO: TO: Planning Commission : City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, June 18, 19$6 *. a Director, Community Development 4 , SUBJECT: June 21 Meeting Stere is your meeting packet. Please bring your development code with you as we will refer to it often. ' pl NINE INIMERNIM k� jc r mom =I mp per cspscn option m19QVm tP`POW", ", oY tt>g did= TUAt WT Yd--The cid 0Y DnrlxaasaWill hAV* to blit thzlt Dtirb� 'asst llhe it b� wait until 23 to lmow:how muchtt wtit,l� charged.by Tualatisa 8pr ptsIlr � li `�tz11 "Tisa.thtatg we has to vPALgy attat bti f Baum sot;°dam tf drit S � A ,sr .q�` lao .d ter tit M �'ieav f:, aR �y'6 2. d. 1{is r2yry��edL �piy,od{ f�d�(( q� t �0 maQ� 5�"'. ,„ J .tjt r'1.'aa ! 0jp1G `£ ' A- AV tin would.pitoEwa � "� .Y' � 'i'�4E+F•p+�14��k�' 1� �,��s9rY�'Lkf'�u3� x � F,p,,fY,`�S'„��#�`�L'4;'F � � ',r3�_ aH+d3'7?1'. •T�.iseti',F3 k-Y 3L.F ' Dash 303" �;Y hotsYs a c tt lia +apd the �al t pQ py wE9l � 't}t11 � � �L+ 11rP, � � 3t1 - `YL �an t i 4T� ' ''� s�vuid�Y�0s'tlaetsi:Tli�%ares d�t'ed�0r. minae laves uY''aErVtd� ,: r;=; °'Ph'e"coundl"w� i±nanlmously-0pposoil #o this .lYng►mvemeast�s{s t$e.Y10adwa,Y .;o on- td svauId.tape ofilcc rs'&vW,from Lanes Apartmea ' , of,.tlae.F� ,p'�..•. > aalahn on calls without adding enou revenue t0, &lilt 1II subdlvt��ion A ' compensate for the Iola of service with extra per- The iraproveme11ts would be widening 0i Ply sonnei .. lane to provide%or tare Isn�ai tra%#Ic and a aitatal-:^ " The second'0p4toa was to chgrge D�arhaaz based 'der,on cane"s?de to alfoFs pedestrian traPtic s n rop"vslue."fualatin residents will improvements would also allow access from South- o p Vaflue%or police wrest 57th Street pay 57 cents per 51,000 of services in 1986-87. useeassed Value o% a Improve would be paid for b*tl�e ros 4 Durham-p pew'j$32.287,367,Durhaans,totalbill III and;Bridf goo, o,Bol, 900 ri d',I and.the'0tyat '- gor•babes oP vice at,57 casts per S1=000 would be ars of°°tax lots 700, 800, 801. 900 and= , . "418,400�for,the year. Under thisIoption,'Ihuhxun R�eer Adichael I14cWWP said the iniprtivements t, satect{onas would recetpe.the same levet 0%police P wiii split towners of We lots avallable In } _ ilaa,zitigs Thal third option fs based an east per capita for all of these developments and vacant lois lice proteCtltlO >` 'a ce'budget-far• McKul{p-said the city wouldn't pay any of the ' police is tectjo�3:w S30,000,Sta�uP, .improvement casts because it lacks the revenue to CPr� Y?:R ti Jo 'a'XO, populuon: do so. Ed.$raffle vtgtt cost and divided by �ultipge Per 1�oad, 3�rentaD 22oadlda an;Ounts to S66.09 peg pats "EVe don t have:enough money to make the con. sip{ is`T fi8T0S 72 agents: wt�uId amount g® 'oY$47. Yor a yew fl4 toil polls rniteents to proceed {n these kinds of Psaje ,}: ea9w a +: t McK llip said s protectiQaa f0;thety „ y dr tltid - were oI►P to. In a related action,the council ptpolsed bb' , tT` SOmrah rsaerrabei of tkie unichAa$Dev. 1{c hearing off;a Prelim{nary MCA " p t tlsl�aedg optlai Ilrialgepart subdivision to Its July 14 meeting 1Csz tlf Ci t liar id'he bel€ vas the caput :sere- _. 5hfetg!pro Yl d 4$,130 ,.z .. toil and the ate$Igia y for the signal. i iii . est . ounca •� 26 citizens for serving on city eom y TIGARD h� for lacat.nlghPs meeting: . 'mittees. 'The .following residlsnts• : �: Ing a proposed residential:sub ivi ® The council decided.not to received hey-to•the-city awards ,. t slon on nearly 20 acres 0$property wire, Chs{si.`The Ding Lutheran civic Center Advisory commit ; organ north a% the I ualatin Riverp 81011$ Church to impfove SW 114th Street civic Valerie Johnson,=ltobxrt continued to Avenue will before the church would be allowed t 7 ria 108th• hues tw.xL. has., and naxd the City Council's JuuelB saseeti - to build a 4,6�e-foot addition t'am, C€srolyu Eadosa, Craig Roe gra.: ° lsu9tt�i�llsa ®n.:toD its r buliding•at.Pacf%{c gdwasd Du4f{e1d,Susan Muefl � at�+s s 5 e'ctty s Pi m Ca i .Rim Y and,'Blill MOuntalm.Road. .e d Dennis'Derby.: in Ill denied oft,V s PP'. r sea AP ":aY th¢; The.,couucfi determined that con- a Civic Cea4ex%}edlcatlon Corsbtx►id�k the y �� ,, .plitxati Yog P eiE�p ; �1at .a! thn' $ 0t they chuxcla edaRtttoa .--Coles sAmue9:A�Ar`�ohn 4: =—0 , planned 8410th ,pot tsd ? t a} Set Flr�Ave. appp�f s ap filaaTl.d X1111 Dull Wit+i�laltg8 iViu11b822p'V erlc XO�m. x311 - cla{aYa tEa4&�lil Jingo 14 +. pan., til °'�ish0p. gOQyd..g}e as A7� pa�� A�v7so� did not not vee si fti ng r sin , ��biait�y,tstimle:, Ge 7.P�,i ll lsa �, 4a @ ] 0rdttatl dedtaiat Y3an Ava;s,9�2006a1 gs. ONPAT�JUNE,W: fQr� 4i/ xa kri+ Y'� rt d ® � ° Y y n x CO L tetin€ age6awta fid y , f m+Citi' �n +bit r iP$ i3 CrurY i�C+ �` h ur t pernard's 13�aoa b ns den Ifo spga, p �a dd n$ltale YOf �- on Js Ron,9tyd;s a g on, O .. k Woad - siac ",aid 131WaieufeIIt ..orrtew6rAt ldn Sive tYa F `t gid, � aahelt'ihn t , ubar BLs>zsPt �- quaahecio l?coen tssrrua",fie a tb in to word.�ritn, :acdard{n ` imiargvClrieat bacostle a 4 Y. ,: 0natiilc IYreoprnealt Corsa-y " taA rCU acn,'�z n oa;C CouncUm Gezhld LadcsArd$ e a :. zr ®{ envAmp d MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREG0N �- TO: Members of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 FROM- Keith Liden, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Discussion Topics for June 21 Study Session This memo pertains to the planned development, density cccnputation, density transition, sign code exception criteria, transportation and wetlands criteria contained in the Community Development Core. In the outline below, T have k, Hated the sections of the Code wherewe have experienced difficulties because of conflicting provisions', lack of clarity, differing interpretations', etc. This is intended to aid in directing our discussion. Please Feel free to add to this list under the above general headings and prepare to`discuss hot- these � issues might be resolved. 1. Planned Development (Chapter 18.80) A. Section 18.80.080 provides that the lot size/dimension, building ' height, and internal setback standards of the underlying' zone do not _ apply except for- garages and the perimeter of the project. ` E. B. Section 18.80.120 requires - Common open space for multi—Family development only . 20% of the project must be landscaped — Subsection (a)(3) calls for• the preservation of natural -features , °°where possible' C. Section 18.80.170 requires a landscape plan for common areas and , supposedly for single family lots. 2. Density Computations (Chapter 18.92) A. Section 18.92.020 deducts flood plain, slopes over 25%, p , drains ewa sark dedications, public right—of-way (single family S y 20%, multi—family 15%), and private' streets. D. Section 18.92,030(a) only allows density transfer from flood plain, slopes over 25%, and drainageways with a maximum transfer of 25%. C. Section 10,80.330(a)(3) state, that the total number of units on the site cannot exceed 125% of what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan designation on the gross acreage. { Page 1 mig _ _ _ D. Staff suggests that the 'areas to be deducted to establish the net acreage should be revised because consistency is lacking. For example,: steep slopes and drainageways are to be deducted but can be developed with a sensitive lands approval, but flood ;plains cannot. Also, 'park dedications do not warrant a 25% density transfer but gr•eenway dedications within a flood plain do. 3. Density Transition (Section 18.40.040) A Requires 100 foot wide 'transition when higher density development abuts lower density areas as determined by Comprehensive Pian designation. The density within this strip cannot exceed 125` of the maximum 'allowable Comprehensive Plan density allowed on the adjacent property. ' B. This prevision stakes the development of smaller parcels difficult, 1 cI� C. This is` a more stringent provision than the requirements imposed upon commercial and industrial developments which abut residential i properties. ,• D. Different methods to attain compatibility between uses (e.g. , landscaping) should be discussed. 4. Sign Code Exception criteria (Section 18.114.145) A. Criteria c, needs to be clarified. S. Perhaps the criteria should be modified to be more generic such as variance or conditional use. 5. Transportation Planning Issues. A. The Code does not contain any criteria regarding extension of local streets. The Comprehensive Plan indicates several minor collector streets when it appears that only a local street connection was desired. F r B. The issue of street connections vs. cul-de—sacs should be discussed. Staff recommends the formulation of a Plan policy and corresponding Code,criteria to clarify -the City position. C. half-street improvements a.re required for most land use applications and this Inas created difficulties for small proposals such as partitions. The criteria in Section 18.164.030(a) of the Code ' should be reviewed. Staff will be prepared to discuss examples and propose solutions. 6. Wetlands s=m A. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the protection of wetlands �3 S. Inventory maps showing these areas must be updated. C. Corresponding requirements are not in the Code and must be included. A sensitive lands procedure may be appropriate. br31 Page 2 i CITY OF TIGARD O�N COUNCIL AGENDA IT_ LLEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEth 0: AGENDA OF: June' 21 985 _--� -'- -- DATE SUSr"tI i-i ED: J__ une 15 1986 t--- " PREVIOUS ACTION: - ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: NPO Fee . PREPARED SY: _E3 iza aeth i ewton_--------- i�aiver' Procedures Cit Council/PC REQUESTED E3Y: g n ' CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT NERD 0,C• _ __ —= -"" ----= POLICY :ISSUE Should` the City Council nodify the NPO Fee waiver` procedures? --- - INF__.•ORS'EA E�3OiS: SU�'a_�'a�`RARY outlines the procedure to .be used far waiver .t fees Attached is, a memo whichNPO's. Please use the attached for appeals or Land use applications filed by is working• memo as a basis for discussion as to how the p ALTERNATIVES .CONSIDERED w � est changes to be initiated. 1,) Discuss the1lPO Fee Waiver process and , . 2.) Discuss the NPO Fee Waiver process and retain the current policies SUGGESTED ACTION Discuss the NPO Fee Waiver process and direct staff as to any changes necessary. dj/21 WORKSHOP 5I2i/S5 _ NPO Fee Waiver Discussion Page 1 y MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i TO: city Council Planning Commission .June 16, 1966 FPOM: Elizabeth Newton, Senior Planner (V SUBJECT: NPO Fee Waiver Procedures When the Community Development Code was adopted in November 1983, it contained a Irequirement that any appeal or review application filed with the City regarding , land use actions be accompanied by the required fee. A copy of Section 16.32.340 is attached. The City, Council has had a policy of considering a waiver of fees for appeals filed by the NPO°s that has presented problems in the Past. First, the individual NPO members are often not interested in fronting the filing fee to be refunded if Council supports a fee waiver. Secondly, if the NPO members wait to pay the fee the ten daffy appeal deadline may have expired before the Council meets to decide on the waiver and then the NPO loses the opportunity t> file the appeals In addition, concerned citizens 'often convince the NPO to file ars appeal which the MPO members may not strongly support in order to avoid payment of the filing fee if the Council allows a waiver. For the reasons stated above, and others the Council adopted Ordinance 85--45 on December 16, 1985. A copy is 'attached. Ordinance 65-45 allows for a waiver of the fee for an appeal filed by . an MPO if certain conditions are met. The conditions outlined in the ordinance include the requirement that the appeal is supported by a majority vote meeting where a quorum of NPO rss�mbers' was present. Also a copy of the minutes of the meeting where the appeal or land use application was intitiated must be submitted. An NPO irepresentative must appear at a Council meeting to request,a fee waiver and if the request is denied, the fee shall be paid within 3 days.; Since adoration of Ordinance 65-45 two appeals have been filed. The Council has waived the fee in both cases. Ordinance 85--45 is intended to insure that appeals or land use decisions filed by the NPO are truly supported by the NPO members. djf2E _ (r ,y WORKSHOP 6/21!66 -- NPO Fee Waiver Discussion Page 2 4 NONE ' 4A }k A � 18.32.320 Tease of Appeal or Review Hearincl_- Li��itations of Review (a)' The appeal of a decision :made by the Director under- Section 18.32.090(a) and Section 18.32.110 of this Chapter shall be de novo and conducted as if brought under;, Section 18:32.090(b), or (c) (b) The review of a decision by the Commission or Hearings' Officer by she Council shall be: (1) Confined to the record of the proceedings as provided ;in Section 19 32.320 of this Coda_ and each memour of the Reviet�ing ;Body shall be provided with a transcript of the proceeding on Appeal; (2) Limited tri the grounds relied upon in the Notice of Review as provided in Section 18.32.340,(a) of this Chapter, and conducted in accordance with the pruvi.sions of Sections 18.32.250, 18.32.250, and 18.32.150 through 18.32.230 and Sections 18.32.240 and 18.32.310 of this Code. (3) The subject of written and oralargument. - Such written argument shall be submitted not less than 5 days prior to Council consideration, (4) Reviews on she record by Council of Hearings Officer or Commission decision shall be completed within 40 days of when notice of review is filed. 19.32.330 Transcripts (as) Within 2.0 days after the filing of the notice of review, the City shall. provide each Council member, the applicant and the WPO (if requested), a copy of the complete transcript of the hearing and a copy of the minutes; (b) The appellant shall be responsible to satisfy all costs incurred for preparation of the transcript at a rate of actual costs up to $500.00 and one—half costs for any amount incurred over $500.00. Payirent shall be made in full at If-east 5 days prior to the hearing. (c) Any other party requesting a copy of the transcript shall be charged the actual copy costs 18.32.340 Notice of Ap„peaL_�arY.Petition^for Review (a) 'The Notice of Appeal or Petition for Review shall contain: (1) A reference to the application sought to be apperaled or- reviewed; (2) A statement as to haw the petitioner qualifies as a party; la1 58 r (3) The specific grounds for the appeal or review; and 't (4) The date of the filing of the final decision on the action or in the case of a 'decision by the:Director, the date the decision was filed, ,and the date notice of the final or proposed decision was given. (b) The appeal or review application shall be accompanied by , the required fee. 18.32.350 Persons Entitled to Notice on Appeal or Review — Type of Notice Upon appeal or review, notice shall be given Lo parties entitled to notice under Section 18.32.130 of this Code. 18.32 360 Contents of Notice on Appeal or Review Notice shall include those matters provided by Section18.32. 140 of this Code. " 18.32.370 Action on.Aepeal or Review`— Time Limit and Authority to Change the Decision (a) T'he-.. Approval Authority shall affirm, reverse or modify the decision which' is the subject of the appeal; however, ,,the decision .shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.32.250 of this rode; or (b) Upon the written consent of all parties to extend the 120 day limit, the Approval Authority may ,remand the matter if it is satisfied that testimony or other evidence could not have been presented or was not available at the time of Lhe hearing. In deciding to remand the matter, the Approval Authority shall consider and make findings and conclusions regarding: (1) The prejudice to parti:es; , (2) The convenience or availability of evidence at the time of the initial hearing, (3) The surprise to opposing parties; (9) The date notice was given to other parties as to an attempt to admit: or '<. . (5) The competency, relevancy and materiality of the proposed testimony or other evidence 18,37..380 Final Action of theApproval Authority Effective gate .' (a) Action by L'-ie Approval Authority on appeal' or review shall be known as a "final order" which shall be effecti.vt� on the dray of Trailing notice of the final order. 59 ' 4' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON: ' ORDINANCE NO. 85-%,r.5" l AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.32.340, 18.30.030 AND ADDING SECTION 18.32.345 OF THE COM iUNITY DEVELOPMENT; CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (ZOA r; 8-85) WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise its Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and _ WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has reviewed the Community Development Code and has adopted the same; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission held public hearings on the u r proposed changes on November 5, 1985; and y( , WHEREAS,, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the proposed changes : on November 25, 2985. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 2: Section 18.30.030 (e)(3) of the Community Development Code to include the language underlined below: a (3) Be accompanied by the required fee except as allowed 'under Section 18.32.345; and Section 2: Section 18.32,340 (b) of the Community Development Code shall be amended to include the language underlined below: (b) The appeal or review application: shall: be accompaniedby the requires fee except as allowed under Section 18.32.345 below, Section 3: A new Section 18.33.345 shall be added to the Community Development Code to read as underlined below. SectiUn 18.32,345 Fee Waiver Allowed for Neighborhood--P_l,Anning 'Org_aniza.tions Fees for Land Use applications and aappicati.on for aeew of a land use decisions shall by waived for raap llicatians £iled�r an NPO if all of the Pol.lowin conditions are met. ___ __- �a rhe• a}apeal or __land use application must hava.� boon su rartecf b+�_.a maw oritj_. vote` of rNPO members t. a�.put,l i to meet,in Ahe�p ou a_gurm'of NPO members was—present. � e ORDINANCE N), 05._ 4� Page A. s 8 A copy of the minutes of the Nilo meeting where the aF��eal or land use awlcati3n____,__._was__initiated must be submitted with the appeal car land use application. The a eal or a lication will be"considered valid when conditior,s_'a and b above are met and all other filing re uirements `are met. The NPO chairperson or deli nested representative shall. afar-,at the next available City_Councii meeting after the appliedtion or appeal is_filed. The NPO shall work thi'4u '1P Planning Division t0 schedule the item on Council a ends. Should< the Council den khet�O re uest for a fee waiver the fuPO shall 'submit the re uirs�d fee within threet3) workin_ days of the denial. The fee shall °be 'filed b 3:00 P.M. on the third qday. Section �D: In order that the Community ' Development Code may improve the nd this operation and implementation of the , code and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, an 'emergency is hereby declared Councilexiyaredaapproval Ordinance shall. become effective upon its passage by by the Mayor. vote of all Council members pa^ese after PASSED: By �tL—L s�C i da 'bei;9 read by number and title' only, this _�� of __may— --• 1985. Loreen R. 'Milson, Deputy R7order �-�:. APPROVED: This IL day=oF 1985. ohin E. Cook, Mayor (EAN:bs/2229P) i ORDIPJANCF NO page 2 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON { TO: Members of the City Council TO: Members of the Planning Commission June 18, 1986 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director-, Community Development su6JCCT: Study Session - Lunch Discussion Issues During the lunch period of the special= study; session, staff has selected a few housekeeping items. Although not technical" in nature,: each of the topics has special significance. Prior to Saturday, please consider the following issues' and be prepared to state your opinion on whether the present system is r . adequate or a change is necessary. A. Planning Commission Attendance, Notice of Necessary; Absence for Meetings. In order, to have a, quorum of the nine member Commission, five members must be present. For optimum consideration of issues, however, at least sevenmembers should` be present including- the ' President 'and/or, slice President. Without almost all members' present, any of the following can occur: 1. A quorum is not reached causing postponement (if Tess than five members attend). 2. Procedural questions may not be raised if the members most familiars with this area do not attend. 3. Continuity may be lost if the composition of the membership in attendance is very different from the Commission which may have taken prior action on an application. A. The commitment of the Commission may be questioned if full or near full attendance is rare. 5. Consistency in dealing with the application of a code section may be lacking. Attendance of the Commission has not been as much of a problem over the past year as it was shortly after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Several new members have been appointed and have gained familiarity with the system. To avoid problems, however, the Commission may wish to s informally establish guidelines for notifying each other of meeting' scheduling conflicts. Peer pressure' is the most effective means of avoiding problems. Notification to staff in advance would also be appreciated, page'l � t i Planning Commission Monthly meetings. Presently the Commission meets once ar month, on the first Tuesday following a ,Monday each month. I strongly recommend that the Council :and Commission consider- regularly scheduling two monthly meetings. The second meeting could be held two weeks after the first. My reasons for suggesting this are: 1) To allow better scheduling of agenda items. Two meetings would allow staff to schedule discussion topics, such as code revisions, on a lighter agenda. Secondly, greater• staff analysis and agency comment could be achieved if the staff 'did not feel compelled to rush a review and schedule a land use application because failure to do $o would result in a delay of one month`. For example, under the present system, if an application was submitted on May 14, the staff had to review it and circulate plans for comments so that an item can be scheduled for the June 3 hearing. If the staff needed more time, or if agency comments were late, 'the staff was forced to decide either to goahead with the staff report and recommendation for June 3, or delay the hearing until July 8. with two meetings per month, a delay to June 17 would have been possible. The ,staFf wishes to spend more quality time on an application before making ,a" recommendation. This will avoid problems which could cause unnecessary appeals and delays. 2) The staff would 'like to prepare shorter agendas with less packet items with a goal of making packets available one week in advance of each meeting. This would allow Commission members to review code provisions and compare them to applications. Also, questions of staff prior to the meeting would be possible. Ude could avoid' staff being asked an engineering question at the hearing without an engineer present. In fact, if an issue warranted, staff ,could request that a staff engineering representative be present at the hearing. 3) To allow the Council to send items to the Commission for comment without a long delay. Often the Council is reluctant to remand to the Commission because of the long lead time needed. The staff feels that better coordination overall could be accomplished if two meeting nights are regularly scheduled. Like the hearings officer, if no items are scheduled for an agenda, a meeting can be cancelled. C. meaning of "Neighborhood Input" and the weight it has. During land use hearings, the NPO, neighborhood groups, or individual neighbors are asked to comment on land use ,applications. Many times after an impassioned speech, an observermust wonder "now that the neighborhood group (or whoever) gave that input, its all over." The Commission and Council should discuss the weight of input by proponents Pane 2 and opponents. The staff opinion is that the Plan and Code, in most �'- Lases, , establish criteria which if met should determineif an approval should be ,granted. In such cases, input directly contrary should` be discounted somewhat:. For example, when the Plan indicates that a road is to be extended at the time of development and I the developer presents a plan proposing the extension, input from an adjacent neighborhood stating that the road shouldn't go through should be somewhat suspect. ust decide if the plan should be upheld or Obviously, the hearing body m modified. In many instances, the staff feels our hearing format, particularly the Neo comment period, seem to give mixed signals. we certainly want issues presented by; both: sides, but, we don't want to give the impression that if a developer presents his proposal to the NPO and they buy off on it that the plan will be approved. Rather, Neo support is important, but, the Plan and Code govern, unless the Council chooses to modify the rules. The NPO'' is a facilitator of neighborhood input, not a neighborhood planning commission. Developers are not asked to, go to an "NPO, work out a deal on development conditions that satisfy the KtFO, then make a united presentation to Council. The same is true for organized neighborhoods and affected property owners. I raise these issues for discussion purposes. Our plan is successful and reflective of the community because of citizen input. I don't propose that we stifle it or prevent it,, Rather, I propose that we clearly define it's place and it's weight. I want to avoid neighbors being critical of the City because the Commission and Council "ignored the NPO comments, and they know what is right!" D. Planning Commission Jurisdiction and the use of the Hearings Officer. Presently the City uses a hearings officer, Attorney Beth Mason, to decide applications on conditional use, sensitive land, and historic overlay district amendments (see attached page 230). The staff feels that other land use decisions could be transferred to the hearings officer without sacrificing opportunities for citizen input. The hearings officer is an impartial perzon who applies code criteria to the staff analysis and applicant's submittal. she takes evidence from both sides and reaches a decision. During the four years that we have used the hearings officer, we have received only favorable comments from hearing, participants. They feel that their concerns were heard and a just decision reached. I feel that additional- land use applications should be transferred to the hearings officer. I suggest that we discuss: z 1. Subdivision applications 2.. Sign_Code exceptions 3. 'variances to subdivision standards. 4. Conceptual planned development e Page 3 054 R Mt I would leaveall comprehensive plan amendments code interpretations and ., appeals with the Commission. Copies of Paces 229 — 231' of the Code are attached which list jurisdiction. �Je 'may also wish to talk about Section 15.32.140, Consolidate of Procepdings which occassionally becomes an issue. I would like to make this discretionary' rather than mandatory. E'. €CDC Post Acknowledgement Issues Lis Mewton will introduce u:s to naw regulations for Post Acknowledgement. Page 4 ? 18.32.080--18.32.090 t F6F ` k t 18.32.080 Additional information required, waiver of requirements and report required. (a) The director may require information in addition to that required by a specific provision of this code, provided: (1) The information is needed to properly evaluate the proposed development proposal; and , (2) The need can be justified on the basis of a special or unforeseen' circumstance. (b) The director may waive the submission of :information z for a specific requirement subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, provided (1) ' The director finds that specific information is not necessary to properly evaluate the application; or (2) The director finds that a specific approval standard isnot applicable to the application. (,c) Where a requirement is found by; the director to be inapplicable the director shall: (1); Prepare a memorandum to the record and to the applicant citing the grant of authority, the specific require- ments waived and the reasons; (2) Advise the applicant in writing that the waiver may be;,challenged on appeal or at the hearing on the matter and may be denied by the approval authority; and (3) ; Cite in the staff report on the application, the specific requirements' waived, the reasons for the waiver and the specific grant of: authority. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . 18.32.09royal authority responsibilities. (a) The airec or as e au t r-, y o approve, eny or approve with conditions the following applications: ( 1) Minor partitions, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.162;: { 2) Major partitions, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.162; ( 3) Site development review, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.1.20; ( 4) Temporary use, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.140; ( 5) Home occupations, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.142; { 6) Minor modification to approved planned develop- R ments; z ( 7) Variance, applications pursuant to Chapter s' 18.134; ,y ( 8) Accessory uses and structures, applications' pursuant to Chapter 18.144; ; . ( 9) Flexible setback standards for developed lots, applications pursuant to Chapter 18.146; 229 (Tigard 4/84) e a 18.32.090 i i r (10) Zero lot line setback standards, applications #, pursuant to Chapter 18_148; (11) A detailed planned development proposal, under T Chapters 18.80 and 18.120; (12) ' Determination of parking requirements for uc) listed uses, applications pursuant to Section 18.106,020 (c) ; (13) ` Treeremoval permits. €€ (b) The hearings officer shall conduct a public hearing in .the manner prescribed by this chapter and has the `authority t to approve, deny or approve with conditions tl_ following development applications: ( 1) Conditional use applications pursuant to Chapter t 18.130; t. (' 2) Sensitive land permit, applications pursuant g to Section 18.84.015 (b) (1) and (b) (2) ; lica- ( 3) Historic overlay district amendments, applica- tions pp tions pursuant to Chapter 18.82. ` {c}' _The pl:annina °commission shall conduct a public hearing in the manner =pre scribed by this chapter and has the authority to approve, deny or approve with conditions the fallowing development applications: ( 1) ' Subdivision applications pursuant to Chapter 18.160; ( 2) ' A quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment except: (A) The planning commission' s function shall be limited to a recommendation to the council, ; (g) The planning commisssion may transmit their recommendation in •any form and a final order need e not be formally adopted, { (C) The council hearing shall be a de novo hearing and a final order shall be formally adopted; _ ( 3) A quasi-judicial zoning map amendment pursuant to Chapter 18.130 except where the zone change application is being heard concurrent with a quasi-judicial plan amend ment. In such a situation the zone change shall be decided , inthesame manner as a quasi-judicial plan amendment; ( 4) A development application referred to the commission by the director; ( 5) An appeal of a decision made by the director under Section 18.32. 310 and subsection (a) of this section; . ( 6) A conceptual planned development proposal under Chapter 18.80; ` { 7) interpretations of the Tigard comprehensive plan or the adopted community development code, if requested by the director or other interested persons; ( 8) Any other matter not specifically assigned to the director, the hearings 'officer, or city council under this code; ( 9) The preliminary review of plan designations and formal imposition of zoning district designations made .; to lands annexed to the city; f 230 (Tigard 4/85) c 18.32.100 ( (10) Appeal of sign permits, pursuant to Chapter 18.114 (11) Sign code exceptions, pursuant to Chapter 18.114; (12) Variances tosubdivisionstandards; (13) Recommendations to the city council on annexations; (14) Quasi-judicial zoning designations on property to be annexed. (d) The city council shall; conduct a public hearing in the manner prescribed by this chapter and has the authority to approve, deny or approve with; conditions the following, development applications: ( 1) The formal imposition of plan designations' made to lands annexed to the city; ( 2) Matters referred to the council by the planning commission or hearings officer for review:under Section 18.j2.310 (b) (3) ; ( 3), Review of decisions of the initial hearings body, whether on the council's own motion or otherwise, _ as provided by Section 18.32.310 (b) (1) and (2) ( 4) Quasi-judicial plan amendments; ( 5) Resolutions to the boundary commission for annexations. ' (Ord. 84-69 §1 (Exhibit A(part) ) , '1984; Ord.r. 84-09 §1, 1984; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . 18.32.100 Consolidation of proceedings. (a) Except as i provided uni ss bsection (d) of this section, whenever an appli- cant-rectuests more than one approval and more than one approval authority is required to decide the applications, t e prodeec�= Ings shall be consolidated so that one approval authority ecides all alications in one proceeding. (b) In such.cases as stated in subsection (a) of this section, the hearings shall be held by the approval authority t having original jurisdiction over one of the applications under Section 18. 32.090, in the following order of preference: the council, the commission, the hearings officer or the director. (c) Plan map amendments are not subject to the one hundred twenty-day decisionmaking period prescribed by state law and such amendments may involve complex issues; therefore, the director is not required to consolidate a plan map amendment and a zone change or;other permit applications requested unless the applicant requests the proceedings to be consolidated and signs a waiver of the one hundred twenty-day time limit pre- scribed by state law for zone change and permit applications. (d) Where there is a consolidation of proceedings: (1) The notice shall identify each action to be taken; (2) The decision on a plan map amendment shall pre- cede the decision on the proposed zone change and other actions; and (3) Separate actions shall be on each applica- tion.' (Ord. 33-52 Exhibit A(part) ; 1983) 231 (Tigard 4/85) k a. CITY of TIGARD� OREGON! COUNCIL AGENDA 'ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 7une 29,z, 1986 AGENDA ITEM H DATE SUBMITTED: June16. 1986 PREVIOUS;ACTION: None ISSUEfAGENDA TITLE: None occupation Discussion PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton REQUESTED BY: EPARTME D %rr HEAD Oi{: \�A✓ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: �z POLICY 'ISSUE Should the approval criteria for issuance of Home occupation Permits be modified INFORMATION SUMMARY c , e 'Attached is a memo which outlines most o, the, criteria for approval .c.f a Fiam accugaation Prsite` staifi' int tation of the criteria and some situations whack do not meet the criteria. please use the attached memo as a 'basis for, discussiono gave stiff some direction regarding the Mlot�e occupation Permit approval process. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (1) Discuss the attached memo and initiate changes to the Home Occupation -:' Permit approval criteria. (2) Discuss the :attached memo and retain the current approval criteria for Home occupations. SUGGESTED ACTION Discuss the attached memo and direct staff regarding the interpretation of the i Nome occupation `criteria and any changes required. dj x'20 w �P. Workshop 6/21/86 - Norge occupation 'Discussion material Page 1 MEMORANDUM A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON t e 9 City Council Planning Commission June 16, 1986 FROM: Elizabeth Newton, Senior Planner 't7� SUBJECT: HomeOccupation Permits Section 1$.142 of the Tigard Municipal Code regulates businesses that are- conducted reconducted within a residence located in residential, commercial, and industrial zones. The stated purposes of the regulations are to ensure that the business use is a secondary, lawful use to the primary residential use of the premises and to ensure that thebusinessis not disruptive to the residential area. A copy of Section 18.142 is attached. There are several approval criteria contained in Section 18.142 which must be met in order for a 'business to obtain a Home Occupation Permit. For discussion purposes, I will outline some of the approval criteria, the intended purpose for the requirement and some situations in which a particular criteria may not be met. {= (b.) The Home Occupation shall be operated entirely within: (1.) The dwelling unit and the use and the star-age of material and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the gross floor area. The intent of this requirement: is to ensure that the business is conducted entirely within the dwelling unit and that no outward appearance of a business acitivity_ is visible to surrounding residents or tenants. Section 18.26 defines dwelling unit as °a single unit, excluding mobile homes, providing h complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation." The garage, if attached to the dwelling unit, for purposes of Home Occupation Permits has been considered by the Planning staff to be part of the dwelling . unit. If a garage is not attached to the living quarters, it has not been : considered to be part of, the dwelling unit. The Building staff does not consider attached or detached garages as part of the dwelling unit. Home Occupation permits have been issued to individuals conducting businessess within their homes who wish to use a portion of their attached garage for Y , storage of supplies. In these cases, another portion of the living quarters is used for an office and the total square footage used for the business has not exceeded 25%. There have been cases where individuals have wanted to use a detatched garage or other accessory structures on the premises to conduct' . their business. Generally these requests have been for repair or assembly type businesses. These request have been denied because the requirement that the business be operated entirely within the dwelling limit can not be met. �l Workshop 6/21/86 Home Occupation Discussion material Page ?. E I t: (c.) to the primary use of the house as a The use shall be, a secondary use dwelling; The intent of this require ment is to ensure that residences located in t. residential zones are not used solely for business purposes. This requirement is generally enforced by other requirements found it the11 approval criteria such as the 25% square fait limitation an businesses conducted within residences. (d.) There shall be no exterior indication of the Nome occupation; no exterior ;signs shall be used; , no other on—site advertising visible € from the exterior shall be used:which informs the public of the use s except the address of the Nome occupation may be displayed. This requirement is intended to protect the residential character of neighborhoods. obviously signs advertising businesses in residences which are located in Commercial ;or Industrial zones would not be disruptive to the surrounding area. Staff has had very few requests for signs ,in conjunction with dame occupations. The requests have- been for signs related to service g ` as saw sharpening and bicycle repair. In , addition repair businesses such signs have been_ posted without staff's permission for sales of agricultural products (i.e. flowers and vegetables.) a t (e`.) outdoor storage of materials, vehicles, or products There shall be no auf g on the premises. t door' storage of or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisiions of the Building, Fire, Health, and Housing Codes. r ; is to ensure compliance with Code provisions The purpose of this requirement requiring outside storage in conjunction with a legal use permitting outside storage to be contained within an enclosed area or building. There are some types of businesses which require some area for storage of materials. Examples of these are contractors and product distributors. Generally, when these businesses are conducted from the home the volume is ' small. Staff has approved Nome occupations allowing storage of goods in an attached garage or a site obscurring enclosed area providing the storage area and other areas of the residence used for the business do not exceed the 25% requirement. (f.) The use shall not include any retail sales other than telephone sales. (g.) The use shall not involve direct sales or service from the property nessitating customer traffic to the residence. The purpose of these requirements is to eliminate customer traffic that may be associated with businesses conducted within residences. In areas' zoned for residential uses this requirement would help protect the residential character of the area. In areas zoned for commercial and industrial uses the customer ' traffic should not be disruptive to the area. Workshop 6/21/86 — Nome occupatien Discussion material page 3 t Certain businesses are prohibited by this requirement if they are conducted from a residence. The staff has denied requests to operate beauty shops from ` residences because of the customer traffic. Technically babysitting services which are not approved under a' conditional use permit issued for a day care center violate this requirement. Agricultural sales (such as flower or vegetable stands) are also probhibited by this requirement. (h.) The Home Occupation shall not produce any noise or obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, fumes, or electrical interference detectable to normal sensor perception y p peon outside the structure. The intent of this 'requirement is to protect abutting residential uses from any negative impacts thebusiness may have on the quality of the residential character of an area. Obviously, .businesses located in a residence in a commercial or industrial area may not;affect surroundings in the same way. The Planning staff has received some complaints from abutting residents in conjunction with a fees Home Occupation businesses. These businesses have been primarily repair or distribution businesses where the business operated at night. (i.) There shall be not other- employees on the. premises other than those who are permanent residents of the building. This requirement is intended to reduce the impact of the business in terms of 'traffic generated. Obviously, traffic generated by Home Occupation businesses in the Commercial and Industrial areas may not have much of: an impact on the area. Employee has been defined by the staff and City Attorney as a paid employee not a volunteer. There have been situations where professionals such as attorneys have been interested in hiring secretarial support to work in the home. This requirements prohibits that acitivity. in addition, ;some home distribution businesses have indicated an interest in hiring employees which is also prohibited by this requirement. (j .) The use shall not require any additional parking other than that which is required for the residence. This requirement in conjunction with the requirements prohibiting customers and employees ensures that there will be no exterior indication of the business and prevents the abutting public right—of-way from serving as the parking area for a Home`Occupation business. Problems have been evident in the past with craft bazaars and shops operated from the home and from trucking business where the owner wants to store a transport true on a residential property. In addition babysitting services can cause traffic and parsing problems when parents drop off and pick up children often all near the same time of day, dj✓2O t " - " c Workshop 6/21/86 - Home Occupation Discussion material Page 4 18.142 HOME OCCUPATIONS 18.142.01.0 Purpose (a} It is the purpose of this Chapter to regulate home occupations in residential, commercial`and 'industrial zones in a manner that will ensure that the use is: (1)- A secondary, lawfu use to t-he primary residential use of the premises upon which they are found, and (2) Not disruptive rW the residential area. (b) l"he'stand«rds contained in this Chapter are intended to assure that hafne' occupations will be compatible and consistent with the residential uses and will 'not have a detrimental effect on the neighboring properties. 18. 142.020 Exemritions Garage sales are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. 18.142.030 Administration and Approval Process (a} The applicant of a home Occupation proposal shall be the occupant of the property. (b) A Pre-Appli.cati.on Conference with City staff i.s requi.red in accordance with Section 18.32.040. (c) Due to possible changes in State statutes, or regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the Pre'-Application Conference is valid for not more than 6 months. (1) Another Pre.-Application Conference is required if any variance application is submitted 6 months after the w. Pre Application. (2) failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this Chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standard, criteria or requirements of the application. (ti) The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny any app]i.cati.on for a home occupation. The Director shall apply the standards set forth in Section 18°142.050 of this Chapter when reviewing an application for a home occupation. s (e) NOtico of the Director's decision shall be gi.va-.n as provided by { 18.32.120, The decision of the Director may be appealed in accordance with Section 18.32.310 (a). ,F 111 -- 287 18._142.040 Expiration of (approval '— Extension of Time Revocation (a) Approval of a home occupation by the Director shall be effective ' for a one-year period. (b): The Director shall renew the permit upon: (1) Application and payment of a fee by; the applicant; (2) Finding that: (A) All of the conditions of- approval have been satisfied; (0) There has been no change in the original application approved by the Director; (C) Thore have been no changes in Lhe facts or applicable policies on which the approval was based;' (D) The applicable approval criteria in 18.142.050 are satisfied. (c)` The Director shall give notice of the renewal as provided by 18.32.120 and the decision may be 'appealed as provided by 18.32`.310{a) . (d), The Director may revoke a< horse occupation approval if the conditions are not satisfied as provided by Section 18.32°.250(f). 18.1.42.050 Approval Cr-iteria (a) The use shall be a lawful use which shall be carried on by the occupants of the dwellings; (b)' The Home, Occupation shall be operated enti.rely within: (1) Tie dwelling unit: and the use and the stun age of material and products shall. not occupy more than 25% of the gross floor area. {r_) The use shall be a secondary use to the primary use of the house as a dwelling; (d) There shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation; no exterior signs shall be used; no_ other on--site advertising visible: from the exterior shall be used which informs the public of the use except of the address of the home occupation may be displayed, (e) There shall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products on Lhe premises. Indoor storage of material or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire, Health and !lousing Codes. s I ME F t 2. t F7 (f) The use sFrll not include any retail sales other ttI�+n telephone seise. (�) The use shall riot involve direct sales or service from the stomer traffic to the residence. property necessitating cu (h) The Home Occupation shall not produce ,any noise or obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, fumes, or electrical interference detectable to normal. sensory perception outside the structure; (i) There shall. be no other employees on the premises other than those;who are permanent residents of the dwelling; (j) The use shall not require any additional parking other than that which is required for the residence. f 18.l2.Ob0 Ap�r�� al and Com_Ziance, for a Susines�License No business license will, be issued for a hone occupation until the home occupation application is approved and the applicant `certifies that the home Occupation will be operated in strict compliance with the provisions of this ; Chapter, and the conditions :of approval'. 142.070 Time.'Limit end Rc*vocatiOn (a) The Director' may approve a home ;occupation application subject to a specific time period at the termination of which there ' shall. be 'a reneu€al. ,application' to determine if all.; of the conditions` and provisions of this Chapter have been - avbbeee satisfied. The permit shall be renewed if all of the condi:tians have n satisfied. (b) The _Director may revoke a home occue pation approval if th conditiois are not satisfied as provided by Section 18.32:750 irenentsRpplicatian2:0801$814ssion Re u Via)' An applir_at.ian sf°�a11 be made or, forms provided by the Director and shall be accomparded by s (!) Thr{ze copies of the necessary ,data or narrative which explains how the proposal conforms to the. standards in 18.142.050. (2) k l.i.st of names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 100 feet of the site. „i (3) The required fee. 5 ti t1I 289 "C