Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 12/20/1989
4 f i i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item should sign on the appropriate C DECEMBER 20, 1989 12:30 PM sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, TIGARD CIVIC CENTER ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's TIGARD, OREGON 972223 Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. 1. BUSINESS MEETING (12:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to order - City Council and Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bid of Construction Contract for Senior Center Alterations and Additions 3.2 Contingency Appropriation - Senior Center - Resolution No. 89- 3.3 Authorize Signing of Supplemental Agreement (Oregon Department of Transportation) for Roadway Improvements at Intersection of Pacific Highway and 78th Avenue - Resolution No. 89- . 3.4 Approval of City Administrator Employment Agreement - Resolution 9-No. 8=! 4. CONSIDER FORMATION OF LINCOT-N SPREE AND LOCUST STREET LID - ORDINANCE NO. 89- 3 o Community Development Staff 5. NON AGENDA ITEMS: Fran Council and Staff 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 7. ADJOURNMENT cca1218 Tece m ben aD COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBE W6, 1989 - Page 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL M Ma-1W NIINEYM - DECEMBER 20, 1989 o Meeting was called to order at 12:31 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. Roll, CALL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Chuck Corrigan, Legal Counsel; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. VISITIOR I S ACS : o Mayor Edwards read into the record a letter received by City Council during their December 11, 1989, meeting from Mr. Wilbur Bishop. The letter concerns a manufactured home which was moved onto a lot on Cook Lane; Mr. Bishop disagrees with the Director's interpretation which allowed the placement of the home at this location. The letter is on file with Council meeting material. o Martha Bishop, 10590 S.W. Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon, read her letter dated December 20, 1989, into the record. Mrs. Bishop expressed concern over citizen participation at all levels of City government. The letter is on file with council meeting material. Note: Several other persons were signed up to testify during the Visitor's Agenda. Mayor Edwards advised that those persons who wished to address items which were on the agenda would be given an opportunity to comment during the meeting. 3. C IONSENTr AGEtM: 3.1 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bid of Construction Contract for Senior Center Alterations and Additions. Item was removed F Consent Agexx1a. 3.2 Contingency Appropriation - Senior Center - Resolution No. 89- Item was removed from Consent Agenda. 3.3 Authorize Signing of Supplemental Agreement (Oregon Department of Transportation) for Roadway Improvements at Intersection of Pacific Highway and 78th Avenue - Resolution No. 89-93 3.4 Approval of City Administrator Employment Agreement - Resolution No. 89-94 Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the Consent Agenda, minus Items 3.1 and 3.2. The Consent Agenda was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. CITY COUNCIL MEETING NaN1W - DECEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 1 4. DIScussiam OF SENIOR CENTER BID AVMM TM IZEMCDEGING a. Mayor noted Consent Agenda Item 3. 1, Bid Award for Construction Contract for Senior Center Alterations and Additions was removed from the Consent Agenda because of concerns expressed by several citizens relative to the scope of the project. He was apprised that the effectiveness of the Center may have been considerably decreased because of recoimnended deletions to the overall project. Mayor advised the Senior Citizens of the community represented an important segment of the population and he was reconmiending Council review this issue closely to assure that Tigard's seniors had an adequate facility to meet their needs. b. Cmm-comity Development Director reviewed the history of the project noting this was the second time the project had been released for bid. The first time, only one bid was received in an amount close to $300,000 for a project which was estimated to cost significantly less. At that time, the Council decided to reject the one bid and go out for bid again. The second time, two bids were received. Approximately $200,000 was budgeted; the low bid received was $240,000. I Community Development Director reviewed some of the reasons why the bids received were higher than estimated. These reasons included: j o Time allowed to prepare the bid may not have been ! sufficient. o Drawings may have been confusing. (In order to save expense, drawings prepared by another architect for the first request for bids were reused with amendments noted.) i o The use of Block Grant money added to the expense i (requirement to pay Davis-Bacon wages plus additional paperwork would be necessary). i o It had been assumed contractors would not be as busy at this time of year which would result in competitive bidding; this was not the case. Community Development Director reviewed pros and Cons of bid award versus going out for bid once again. He advised the low bidder was a good contractor and it may be possible, through change orders, to reduce costs for the project. t C. Mr. Paul Hunt, noted he was on the Senior Advisory Board at one time; however, he noted he was not speaking officially for the Senior Center. Mr. Hunt's concerns included the following: - The project was taking a long time to get started. E Noted Concerns with the agreement that $3,000 per year for three years was being deducted from the Leaves and Fishes CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 2 N ( operation; he said he doesn't know how they will continue to operate without this money. Bids were high, according to architect, because not enough time was allowed for bid preparation and the drawings were unclear. This situation should be reviewed. In response to a question by councilor Schwartz, Mr. Hunt advised the Loaves and Fishes Committee did not form a consensus as to whether they thought the project should proceed or if requests for bids should be reissued. d. Walt Munhall noted that he was involved with the original project. He urged Council to start all over again. He listed all of the projects which he felt were necessary for the Center. He reported that the major problems at the Senior Center included lack of storage space and poor air circulation. He referred to the solar heating system which has not worked properly since it was installed. Due to a series of construction problems when the Center was originally built, there were conditions which required correction. Mr. Munhall noted a group of dedicated people have worked to make the center usable over the years; they needed the City's support. He advised the seniors in the community deserved a nice facility, especially when compared to dollars which have been spent elsewhere in the City. Mr. Munhall urged support of the original project and said the whole community would endorse this decision. e. Community Development Director clarified the process. He said that once Council rejected the first bid another architect was selected. His job was to go back to determine which items could be done and which items should be deleted in order to come up with a less expensive package, yet retain the most important elements. Staff asked the Senior Board to appoint or elect people from their membership to serve on an informal task force for this project. Three persons from the Senior Center, the project manager, and architect met on a regular basis. As a final check, the staff met with the board and they agreed with what was being sent out for bid. He said that some of the items which Mr. Munhall said were deleted were, in fact, still in the package. f. Mayor acknowledged that Tigard has the largest senior population in Washii~ton County and expressed concern that an adequate job be done. One improvement deleted was the sprinkler system; he said he thought this was an essential item for the building. Mayor said he was not prepared to award a bid at this time without further discussion and consideration. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MWUI'F5 - DECEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 3 g. In response to a question from Councilor Schwartz, community Development Director advised Council could delay a decision until the January 8, 1990 meeting and still be within the time frame required for a bid award. There would be no jeopardy to the HUD grant by delaying bid award or if the project was rebid. h. Consensus of Council was to delay a decision until their meeting on January 8, 1990. (Workshop session to begin at 5:30 p.m.) i. There was discussion on the project and problems encountered. The workshop on January 8th will be utilized to review scope of project, original intent of project, and to determine how the Block Grant dollars may be utilized. It may be possible that an expanded project would be eligible for additional Block Grant funds. 5. CCNSIDER FUIOU TIC N OF LINCOLN SHUM AND IOCUSP SIRM ' IOCAL DISSMCT (LED) a. Canmtunity Development Director advised that passage of the proposed ordinance would result in formation of a local improvement district to improve a street between locust and Oak. The street would be approximately 280' long and would be a two-thirds street improvement and would include necessary utilities. Also, a traffic signal at the intersection of Locust Street and Greenburg Road would be installed. Formation of the LID would be done primarily to fulfill the obligations placed upon the Trammell Corporation for their Lincoln V development. The public hearing for formation of the LID was waived because consent by 100% of the property owners has been given. Once built, a final assessment hearing would be required. Community Development Director advised that staff's recommendation was for passage of the proposed ordinance forming the local improvement district. b. Mr. David Blake of Trammell Craw Corporation advised that the reason for the LID formation stems from the fact that Lincoln V was being built with requirenents that certain off-site improvements be made. C. Dr. Gene Davis addressed Council. Dr. Davis submitted a December 15, 1989 letter to Council; said letter has been filed with Council meeting material. Dr. Davis asked to delay formation of the LID in order to allow him more time to gain cooperation for a larger improvement area. He noted his previous attempts to form an LID to benefit his property. His property requires access improvements and he said it was very important that he be able to build by next stammer's construction season. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIK] 'FS - DECEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 4 d. CariMunity Development Director reviewed prior council action which changed the Comprehensive Plan so that ultimately a street would go through to Oak Street. The alignment was changed; it would not be _y a straight street. Additionally, some land was vacated which would have been a portion of 92nd Avenue. He advised there was a public interest in having the road built and the traffic signal installed; however, the proposed LID would not completely fulfill the Comprehensive Plan design. This proposal would not preclude eventual improvements extending to Oak. Community Development Director explained that the Council had before them a 100% consent Local Improvement District which requires no public hearing. Without 100% nonremonstrance for the LID, then a public hearing would be required which would take time for process. Trammell Crow has indicated they do not want to take the time; they would rather go with the 100% participation they have now rather than go through the entire public hearing process. e. Legal Counsel Corrigan asked for clarification from Mr. Blake concerning the waiver agreement signed by the participants in the LID. Mr. Corrigan noted the agreement states waiver of the right to remonstrate and for a public hearing. Mr. Blake indicated that it was the intent of the agreement that participants were also waiving their right to a court challenge of the LID. f. Community Development Director recommended that if the LID formation was ratified by council that formation be subject to receipt and approval by City Legal Counsel of a storm drainage document which provides that the public storm drainage flows into a private line and that Trammell Crow agrees to accept liability stenmiing from this. g. Mayor Edwards advised he was having a restaurant built in the Lincoln Center complex. He made the declaration that his business activity would not preclude his ability to reach an impartial conclusion on this issue. h. ORDINANCE NO. 89-31. AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE LINCOLN STREET AND LOCUST STREET LOCAL IMP1UVEMIENT DISTRICT, ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT, DIRD-=G BID PROPOSALS BE REQUESTED, SETTING FORTH THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT AND METHOD OF FINANCING, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Mayor added that approval of the ordinance would be contingent on the review and approval of the storm sewer issue by the City Attorney Staff. Councilor Johnson asked for clarification on timing issues for this project. ConnMity Development Director explained that additional permits would not be issued for the project until street improvements have been guaranteed. Such guarantee could be in the CITY COUNCIL MEETING KWJTES - DECEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 5 form of a performance bond, construction of the streets, or t formation of a Local Improvement District. There was discussion on LID formation. Mr. Blake acknowledged that Trammell crow was participating in the LID because of the conditions of development. He advised the process was begun last April with several drafts for proposed LID's; the proposal before Council was a product of negotiation among the participants. Mayor, in response to a request from Dr. Davis, advised this was not a public hearing; rather, Council was considering formation of LSD which had 100% participation from affected property owners. Councilor Schwartz noted he would appreciate the opportunity to hear Dr. Davis' testimony due to the fact that the Comprehensive Plan called for extension of the road at some time in the future and he would not want to miss any information to assist in making a prudent decision at this time. Discussion followed. Legal Counsel advised it would be appropriate to give Dr. Davis an opportunity to speak to satisfy Councilor Schwartz' concerns. Dr. Davis' attorney, Robert Greaves, addressed Council. He advised that his reading of the Code indicates that the Council has the authority to form its own LID under Title 13. The council has the authority to direct staff to work on or terminate any proposed district improvement. Also Council has the authority to direct staff to include alternatives in the preliminary engineer's report. Mr. Greaves suggested the current proposal may not be coat effective; the street is a two-thirds improvement, not a full improvement. He suggested council should be looking at developing the entire Comprehensive Plan alignment in an expeditious manner that benefit's the city and the circulation pattern at one time. Mr. Greaves advised the Code says council has the discretion to not proceed with the formation of any LID if it was not in the best interest of the City. He suggested there was a strong possibility this would not be in the best interest of the city because there were other duplicative processes which would go on. Major property owners at each end were agreeable; ultimately, the other property owners would fall in line. He asked Council to exercise their discretion in not approving the LID as presented, but instead, direct staff to examine the alternatives and create an LSD which would reflect what was identified in the comprehensive Plan. This would avoid piecemeal improvement. Dr. Davis has a developer ready to go if the City helps to put through the LID. In response to a question by Councilor Schwartz, Community Development Director advised the developer was required to put in a two-thirds street improvement only. The side of the street not improved would be next to the school; it was felt this property would develop further or the school would finish the obligation. This was not an atypical requirement of the developer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MEWTI'ESS - DECEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 6 Dr. Davis, in response to a question by Mayor, advised that passage 4 of the proposed LID would not force the major property owners (Trammell Crow and Dr. Davis) to work together for LID formation for a larger LID area. He commented that Trammell Crow would not put forth their best efforts and participate in the next section of the LID. Councilor Johnson noted that Dr. Davis would have the controlling interest in formation of an LID to provide access to his property. Staff added that an agreement has not been reached by a majority of the property owners; attempts to reach agreement have been underway since last February to form the LID to Ash Creek. Discussion followed. David Blake of Trammell Crow described their efforts in reaching an agreement; he asked for Council approval of the proposed LID. Councilor Schwartz suggested more time be given in order for Dr. Davis to reach agreement with Trammel Crow and others in the area for a larger LID area. Community Development Director reviewed Dr. Davis' earlier attempt to form an LID. Council had given Dr. Davis a six-month extension for his original proposal; but he was unable to put together a package for Council consideration. Staff advised they would not go to Council unless a clear majority of the property owners were in favor; since that time, efforts were underway to get that majority agreement. Mayor Edwards noted the proposal before council was agreed to by 100% of the affected property owners. He said he would support formation of the LID. Councilor Kasten noted he was sensitive to Dr. Davis' comments and concerns. He said he was equally sensitive to the compelling nature of 100% participation in the proposed LID. To deny the proposal would send an inappropriate signal to the people in favor of the project. He said he would support the LID. In response to a question by Councilor Johnson, Community Development Director advised it may be possible to enlarge the LID. Another LID would supersede this project if it was formed before this project goes to bid. Trammell Crow has a future obligation to participate in an LID which would extend the street to Dr. Davis' property. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to adopt Ordinance No. 89-31 contingent upon approval of the storm sewer document by the City Attorney's office. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of council present. Council meeting was recessed; Council moved from the Town Hall to the Town Hall CITY COUNCIL MEETING NIINUI'ES - DECEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 7 Conference Room to continue the meeting. 6. NW-AGENM ITEMS: a. Director's Interpretation M 89-20 - Manufactured Home on Cook Dane. Mayor advised Council has reviewed material from the Planning Commission hearing as well as material from staff. He noted two persons had signed up to testify on the Visitor's Agenda. Council would be deciding whether to call up the decision for a public hearing. - Mike Schmierer, 10645 S.W. Fairhaven Street, Tigard, Oregon, noted his major concern with the manufactured home was that it was his understanding that this home would have to follow the Uniform Building Code (UBC). However, because the home was constructed off-site, it would be up to another governing body to determine whether construction was acceptable. This appears to be inconsistent. He said the home should be required to meet UBC standards. - Dennis Moonier, 10634 S. W. Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon, advised that his property was adjacent to the lot occupied by the home in question. He noted he had prepared a document listing objections to the placement of the home on the property. He said he believed his research disproved all justifications offered by staff for their decision to allow the harm. Mr. Moonier sunmerized his objections to the interpretation. (Note: Mr. Moonier's letter dated July 5, 1989, is contained in the packet material submitted to council for review.) Council discussion followed concerning the Development Code section on manufactured homes which was adopted in 1985. Consensus of Council was to schedule the issue for a public hearing on January 22, 1990. Staff was directed to provide information as follows: o Differences between what was required for site-built homes and manufactured homes. o The 1985 record of council action with regard to the Development Code for manufactured homes. o What does State law specify; i.e., what change was made at the last Legislative Session? o Attorney review was requested with regard to Code CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 8 v t regU rements for footings, permanent foundation, and i. attachment of the structure. i o Definition: What is the difference between a manufactured f home and a mobile home. E.. 7. EXFrU1IVE SESSION: Cancelled. t j'. 7. 2:32 p.m. f: i therine Wheatley, City Recorder ATTEST: j'. a d R. , Mayor ccm.1 20 R' i e i f i x CITY COUNCIL NEErING MINUT'E'S - DECEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 9 v j ? F CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed t- r 1i,~a,i- i! Urdl: Aak?ce 110. STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) }}F l I, being first duly sworn, on ,oath, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated )a av copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the ,29" day of i JQ-~4_Y,Apr, 198 ~ , 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. 2. U.S. National Bank, Corner of Main and Scof-fins, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and S.W. Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon 7 Sul-scribed and sworn to before me this t,1yZ9 day of A~~ z~d 198p t .Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: PROPOSED LINCOLN L.I.D. December 8, 1989 A parcel of land in the north one-half of Section 35, T.1S., RAW., W.M., Washington County, Oregon, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Block 6, "Town of Metzger"; thence southerly 300 feet to the southwest corner of said Block 6; thence southerly 50 feet to the northwest corner of Block 17, "Town of Metzger"; thence southwesterly along the arc of a 1000 foot radius nontangent curve left to the southwest corner of Block 16, "Town of Metzger"; thence southerly along the southerly extension of the west line of said Block 16 to the southerly line of the plat of said "Town of Metzger"; thence westerly 50 feet to the intersection of said southerly line with the southerly extension of the easterly line of Block 15, "Town of Metzger"; thence southerly and westerly tracing the easterly and southerly lines of that parcel recorded as Fee Number 87063789, Washington County Deed Records, to the southwest corner thereof; thence westerly tracing the southerly lines of those parcels recorded as Fee Number 81-14690, Fee Number 81-14953 and Fee Number 81-18711, Washington County Deed Records to the intersection of the northerly line of S.W. Oak Street with the easterly line of S.W. Greenburg Road; thence southwesterly to the intersection of the westerly line of said S.W. Greenburg Road with the northerly line of F Highway 217; thence northerly tracing said westerly line to the intersection of said westerly line with northerly line extended westerly of S.W. Locust Street; thence continuing northerly along said westerly line to a point which is 320 feet northerly of the intersection of the northerly line extended westerly of said S.W. Locust Street with the centerline of said S.W. Greenburg Road, as measured along said centerline; thence easterly at right angles to said centerline to the easterly line of said S.W. Greenburg Road; thence southerly tracing said easterly line to the northerly line of said S.W. Locust Street; thence easterly tracing said northerly line to southwest corner of Lot 2, Block C, "Lehman Acre Tracts"; thence northerly, easterly and southerly along the boundaries of said Lot 2, Block C, to the southeast corner thereof; thence southerly at right angles to the centerline of said S.W. Locust Street to the southerly line thereof; thence easterly along said southerly line to the Point of Beginning. LESS that parcel described in Fee Number 87-33598, Washington County Deed Records. r \2525 ( AGENDA ITEM k 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE 12/20/89 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME & ADOVESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED -Ple se Pr to S Ce~ter z'od.3o s w CeOAVIi' Cah fir. ~ a /06 5~s S, u.J. ty-i ~ ~ . 1 ,G/fi~ ~bnc~• TSSh~ ' ~__i~~~..~-N/ s ./~f t ~ l~ ~r-~' 3 ~ Sc^j ~Ge ~ 6' ~gof,~cc~ G~.•~'_ .S~ar~ I\ SY X~'-1/ J-A -,-e 5-27z iffon-, Iw G 41 r- 10 nP- ~1 NGC~ E.r~ Sl-, LA L r `-Read 7 r14 o r oco rd by ftl"L)r EdwaAds yr <s Ci=~wdet- 0;1 1.2/ao /61:r. bZ WILBUR BISHOP 10590 S.W. COOK LANE • TIGARD, OREGON 97223 ! PHONE 1503)AMINIIIIIIIIIIIIIN 639.1052 ~o T~.P e December 5, 19B9 City of Tigard ' _g - alrmmnn And l .C G1411 1 VV Ll iJ~ You have in front of you Ins. Dennis Moonier's letter for appeal of Community Development Director, BA1,Iurphy's interpretation of the reasons for the approval of a manufactured/mobile home sited on a residential lot at 10675 S.W. Cook Lane in Tigard. I have gone over 1~r. I:oonier's letter a number of times and find it completely factual and correct in every respect. In carefully reviewing the problem, I have also gone over Ed Murphy's letter to I4oonier dated October 10, 1989 and find that it has at least one glarinC error in numbered item (5) contained in Mr. Murphy's letter. '.,then the manufactured/mobile home was transported in on wheels in two parts and parked on the lot, I was there observirg. Later when the two sections on wheels were maneuvered over a couple of pre poured concrete slabs that were level vith the ground into position to join the two sections of the mobile home together I was there observing the action. Blocks of wood were placed under the two sections and then they were. jacked up so that the vih- eels could be removed from the travel frame which remains wider the two sectional structure.• The two sections were then lowered to rest on tiie i blocks of wood. There was no elevated foundation around the perimeter of the house or any concrete blocks or foundation for the anchoring down of the home as required in the Unified Building Code (enc.) in Iloonier's appeal or as shown in the ::la.inu_fact- ured home's directions. To my knowledge this home is not anchored to nor rests on any permanent, found- ation as required in the Uniform Building Code. It has no outside perimeter found- ation and is completely open underneath except for a thin plywood skirt that sur- rounds the home and is painted to loot: like concrete. It serves no purpose for anchoring or holding up the home. The front porch is a 4'x4' frame that can be removed at any time. There is no overhang over the porch for the protection of incoming visitors. Now for a little firsthand history on the subject of manufactured/mobile homes. In the Fall of 1983 when the Tigard City Council was struggling to get its Compre- hensive Plan finished and delivered to the State L.C.D.C. It was a time when the L.C.D.C. was holding a Can to the heads of the Iiayor and Councilors demanding that they include 10 units per acre for the City of Tigard's Plan to provide for afford- able housing for all people OR have a building moratorium placed on all City building. Z was there at the time and forced to comply with their demands. Ianufactured/mobile homes were mentioned in the text of the Plan but only with a the intention of fine tuning their conditions for placement in mobile parks within the city to be designated at a later date. There was no agreement that they could be placed on any lot in the city. WILBUR BISHOP 10590 S.W. COOK LANE • TIGARD. OREGON 97223 PHONE 1503) 620-5399 or 639-1052 Mr. I=phy's interpretation allows manufactured/mobile homes to be placed on any lot in the city even next to your home if a lot is available. This manufact- ured/mobile home has been placed on a lo' within 2 lot: from a beautiful stone home assessed at ;959000.00 and 3 lots from a home assessed at 08110,000.00. So now a $20,000.00/3309000.00 manufactured/mobile home can be rolled in on a lot next to your home or any other home in the City? Is this what the Tigard Planning Commission and City of Tigard ~::u_ncil wishes? Sincerely yours, Wilbur A. Bishop I-IAB/meb Dec. 20, 1989 Dear Mayor Jerry Edwards and Councilmen: This is my third appearance before City Council addressing citizen participation which is Goe1.1 -ef LCDC. 'Whether the issues are varied discussing holding ponds and drainage on the Hudson site or the mobile home sited on Cook Lane it has been an NPO 3 neighborhood concern. The neighbors came out in force 86 signing petitions to insure a hearing with over 45 confounded by finding the City Hall doors locked having to go t hru the police department entrance and again another locked door to the proposed meeting place. The Conference room selected for 12 was changed to the Council Conf. area suitable for 21 having staff notified of a 1pxge neighborhood attendance. At all NPO, Planning or Council meetings following this initial heaxing,neighbors told me they would not be back as it was frustrating to stand out in the hallways and not able to hear nor participate fully in the meeting room. Staff reports have always told of Council, Planning Commission and !PO's being appraised of the above issues yet having lis+ened to tapes found no reference of public discussions with the elected officials City biA46sd-06up. Feb. 27 Council meeting~to evaluate the adoption of Title 18 changes, creating mobile home siting stated no public signup. At no time was there a discussion by Council but Development birector Ed Murphy garbled the word mobile as being inclusive in a blanket request by City staff to accept an update of Title 18 changes. Planner Liz Newton in response to my inquiry told me "representatives from staff went to Salem LCDC to update language to coincide with LCDC goals into the City of Tigard Development Code Book. These recommendations were passed unanimously by the Council. For over 10 years statewide lobbying groups (OSTA) have formed PACS thru the legislative process to site mobile homes on any statewide residential lot. City of Tigard sited a mobile home early March by giving a permit, to a mobile home without permanent foundation nor anchored down,which is the requirement for statewide Uniform Building Code. Gov. Neil Goldschmidt signed into law a mobile Bill at the end of July, 1989 with modifications. Neighbors on Cook Lane) contiguous to -the sited homey were uat notified by the City of Tigard as to t he mobile structure nor did NPO 3 Chairman Bob Bledsoe or the lot seller Dave Nicoli fully inform adjacent owners, that this home would not have a permanent anchored foundation as required by the State of Oregon Uniform; Code. NPO 3 past records on meetingsffiled with the City of Tigard library lacked clarity and also legal minutes of xoll call, attendance of Board members lacked legal quorums making this particular NPO 3 illegally represented to act on motions except to represent an action. IYIonths went by without regularly scheduled meetings noting same representation for over 9 years. NPO should be able to review residential and commercial filed Plans showing the original si%eia-ReFer any other future altered designs indicating engineering modifications of str ets agee buildings and ilventory of natuxa~ resqurces• Planner Keith Liden verbally waive removal o trees o make space for oca ing more buildings, parking, changes in traffic ingress and egress on residential and commercial land. Old growth trees and natural forest ground cover h.-Ve been bulldozed in a clear cutting pattern without regard to retaining established old growth. Commercial buildings along Hwy. 99 are sited within l0/to 20' on public right of ,,rays, and often block views of established businesses. Only 6 people attended last 0ouncil meeting when Wilbur Bishop was denied his right to read a page letter addressing the'Wobile home issue by acting Council President Valeria Johnson. The 2 minute oral Councilnagenda has been a public tool and recognized by Council as a valid verbal communication tool for the public. Citizen participation has become almost non existent oxcept if an issue involves a certain neighborhood. Passing published legal notification ordinances without public testimony has become a norm in the City of Tigard. Selected areas given heExings such as current transportation Plan those who would be affected by the decisions are asking why they weren't kept informed after learning of these sessions. Tigard Times is the City of Tigard's official newspaper and in the last issue reports of the City staff were their personal version given to the Times reporter rather than the reporter being assigned to Council and Planning Commission regular meetings. NPO's were established throughout City of Tigard$'hembers are those who live in various districts throughout Tigard. Citizen participation should be addressed Co it and encouraged. ~ r Ddar Neighbor: Saturday Dec. 16, 1989 Dec. 20, 12:30 p.m., City Council meets at the Conference room City Ha11,to decide the mobile home siting which allows mobile homes on residential lots without permanent anchored foundations against the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code. Only four neighbors attended the last Council meeting where this issue was brought up under oral 2 min. communication. Wilbur Bishop responding to the Planning Commission vote 4 to 2 asked to read into record a letter and was refused by.Council his constitutional right by acting president Valerie Johnson. Feel our neighborhood has been updated on the issues and should be mindful that our entire area has been zoned 4.5 ipeaning anyone with acre', 1/2 acre can subdivide their residential properties. I1so with the Council's ruling mobile homes are acceptable on any residential 10,000 sq. ft. lot. on Feb. 27 City Council gave blanket approval on the request of staff to update the Development Code revisions. Gov. Goldschmi.dt on July, end of month, signed a Bill allowing mobile homes sited on residential lots with our legislators rodificatiors. The home sited on Cook T,ane was sited in March and given a permit to do so by the City of Tigard. Our area was described during these Planning and Council sessions by City of Tigard staff and Dave INicoli as being 'unkept, broken concrete driveways etc.' Nost of us came here because of the larger lot sizes and have maintained our properties to the fullest paying the highest assessed values and feel our area is now in jeopardy by the "landmark decision" being "first" to have a mobile home without permanent anchored foundation given a permit by City of Tigard. Your interest will be appreciated as no one but Dennis Iloonier has made a personal effort to detail the intent of building code violations. Your ?Neighbor `Those on septic tanks once subdividing must go on sewer. datkins traffic projected to 800 cars per day with Hudson Dev. Mrs. Richard Chang has a petition for City of Tigard to upgrade walking and bike paths for our ea. School children walking along Park, Watkins naed our attenVon. +l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA OF: December 20, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: December 14, 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Award of + PREVIOUS ACTION: construction contract for Senior. Center alterations and additions'l-; PREPARED BY: Greci N. Berry '"J2. DEPT HEAD ORIJ~LA -!CITY ADMIN OI(//..,' REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Award of construction contract for alterations and additions to Tigard Senior Center. INFORMATION SUMMARY The project was previously advertised for April 26, 1989. City Council elected to reject the bid and retain an architect to reduce the scope of the project to within available funding. Bids were opened on December 11, 1989 as follows: A. C. Schommer & Sons, Inc. Portland, Or. $ 294,750.00 Tenant Construction Services, Inc. Portland, Or. $ 240,503.00 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Reject all bids. 2. Reject all bids and advertise for bids again 3. Award the contract to the lowest bidder, Tenant Construction Services. FISCAL IMPACT The project has a current fiscal year budget of $200,00 including construction and architect's fees. Of that amount, $86,213 is H.U.D. Block Grant fund, and the remainder is City funds. It is anticipated that the total cost of the project, including architects fees, construction, and a contingency will be $263,004. In addition, the City paid Ralph Appleman $7750 for architectural work previously done on the senior center parking this fiscal year, and charged the amount to the senior center account. In order to cover the cost of construction, fees, and contingency, an addition $70,754 should be allocated from the contingency account to the senior center capital account. A resolution accomplishing that has been prepared as a separate agenda item. SUGGESTED ACTION Aar Award the contract to Tenant Construction Services, Inc. dj/ss-sca&a.GB CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 20, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: December 13, 1989 _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: _Contingency PREVIOUS ACTION: Appropriation - Senior Center % /PREPARED BY: Wayne Lowry, Fin. Dir. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK 4~• / -REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, C.D. Dir. "POLICY ISSUE Shall the City council authorize the appropriation of contingency in the General Fund to provide funding for the Senior Center remodel? INFORMATION SUMMARY The Adopted 1989/90 Budget included $200,000 in appropriation for the remodel of the Senior Center. Bids have been received for the project. The total cost of the project is estimated as follows: Architect - Appleman 7,750 Architect - Ragland 7,501 Low Bid 240,503 Contingency & Misc. 15,000 Total projected cost: $ 270,754 The difference between the current appropriation and the projected cost is $70,754. This amount must be appropriated before the project can begin. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1: -Approve contingency appropriations, proceed with project. 2. Do not approve. FISCAL IMPACT 1. Reduces General Fund contingency by $70,754 ($100,000 was adopted). The Supplemental Budget adjustments for General Fund grant revenue and beginning fund balance will replace an estimated $30,000 in this appropriation. 2. N/A SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Staff recommends contingency appropriation now with later adjustments to recoup $30,000 of this appropriation. DKCSENRE. i . t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ~D AGENDA OF: December B, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorize PREVIOUS ACTION: signing of supplemental agreement for roadwa im rovements at inter- % - section of P ific Hwy. & 78th A PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: r POLICY ISSUE } Shall the City Council authorize the signing of a supplemental agreement for roadway improvements at the intersection of Pacific Highway and SW 78th Avenue? I INFORMATION SUMMARY Previously, the City Council has authorized agreements with the Oregon Department of Transportation for certain roadway and traffic signal j improvements at the intersection of Pacific Highway and SW 78th Avenue. The improvements are needed to provide for connection of a new roadway from the Tigard Triangle. The new roadway is currently proposed to be constructed by j the Dartmouth LID. Currently, the agreement provides that roadway improvements will be constructed by the City and traffic signal improvements will be constructed by the State. However, both City and State staffs feel that construction coordination will be greatly improved if both roadway and signal improvements are constructed under e one contract. f The attached supplement agreement provides for both roadway and signal improvements to be constructed under one contract to be advertised by the City. =====o==v====cc=====c=-c=c=c======-==cco==cc=c=cccc=====----=====v=====__=====c 1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution authorizing the signing of the supplemental agreement. t 2. Reject the supplemental agreement. FISCAL IMPACT All costs of the intersection improvement are to be paid by the City.' Currently funds for this improvement are budgeted in the Streets CIP. Approval of the supplemental agreement may provide some cost savings by improving construction coordination. t: SUGGESTED ACTION The staff recommends approval of the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor E and City Recorder to sign the supplemental agreement. dj/ss-ph78a.RW Approved: OSHD Staff EDM November 16, 1989 Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 9101 City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: Supplement Agreement Pacific Hwy. West @ S.W. 78th Ave. Gentlemen and Ladies: The Oregon State Highway Division (State) and City of Tigard (City) entered into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement dated April 8,1988 concerning the roadway improvements and existing traffic signal modification at Pacific Hwy. West at S.W. 78th Ave., "Project". State and City have now determined that the aforementioned agreement, although remaining in full force and effect, should be supplemented by this agreement in order to change the advertising and awarding of the contract responsibilities. Any further reference to said agreement shall include the following: STATE OBLIGATION: Paragraph No. 1 reads... 1. State shall, at City expense, conduct the necessary field surveys and traffic investigations, identify and obtain or issue the required permits, arrange for relocation or adjustment of any conflicting utility facilities, perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce plans, specifications and estimates, advertise for bid proposals, award all contracts and furnish all construction engineering, material testing, technical inspection and project manager services for the traffic signal portion of the project. The traffic signal installation may be accomplished by the use of State forces, by contract, or by any combination of these methods, as State shall elect. Shall be changed to read... 1. State shall, at City expense, conduct the necessary field surveys and traffic investigations, identify and obtain or issue the required permits, arrange for relocation or adjustment of any conflicting utility facilities', perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce plans, specifications and estimates, and furnish material testing, technical inspection and certain project manager services for the traffic signal portion of the project. B1189002 City of Tigard October 30, 1989 Page 2 STATE OBLIGATIONS: Paragraph No. 5 reads... 5. State shall compile accurate cost accounting records and furnish City with an itemized statement of actual costs to date for the traffic signal portion of the project. When the actual total cost of the project has been computed, State shall furnish City with an itemized statement of said final costs, including preliminary and construction engineering, contractor payments and all contingency items attributable to the project. Shall be changed to read... 5. State shall compile accurate cost accounting records and furnish the City with an itemized statement of actual cost to date at the end of each month. When the actual total engineering cost of the project has been computed, the State will furnish the City with an itemized statement of such final costs, including any contingency items attributable to the project. CITY OBLIGATIONS: Paragraph No. 5 reads... 5. City shall, prior to the State advertising for bids, forward to the State an advance deposit equal to 100 percent of the estimated total cost of the traffic signal portion of the project. No bid advertising shall occur until said deposit has been received by State. In the event that cost overruns are identified during the course of the project, the State may request additional deposits. Shall be changed to read... 5. City shall, prior to advertising for bid proposals, forward to the State an advance deposit in an amount equal to 100 percent of the estimated total cost of the material testing technical inspection, and certain project manager services to be performed by the State for the traffic signal portion of the project. No work shall commence until said advance deposit has been received by State.. Paragraph No. 12 shall be added... 12. City shall advertise for bid proposals and award all contracts and be responsible for contractor payments. B1189002 ,r City of Tigard October 30, 1989 Page 3 City shall enter into and execute this agreement during a duly authorized session of its City Council. In WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals of the day and year hereinafter written. This project was approved by the State Highway Engineer on August 15, 1988 under delegated authority from the Oregon Transportation Commission. The Oregon Transportation Commission, by a duly adopted delegation order, authorized the State Highway Engineer to sign this agreement for and on behalf of the Commission. Said authority is set forth in the Minutes of the Oregon Transportation Commission. APPROVAL CO E E STATE'OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division By c?~ egion Engineer By State Highway Engineer APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Date By Asst. Attorney General CITY I , ,~b~I~---and through it! Y ty Officials Date B ay By Ly City Recorder Date B1189002 3 - ~l CITY OF TIGARD, ORBSON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGFIQDA OF: December 20, 1989 SUBMI=: December 13, 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Amroyal *0: IOUS ACTIN: City Administrator Employment ARED BY: Patrick Reilly DEPP FRAD OK CITY ADMII1 ESTID BY: Mayor Edwards LI ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Pursuant to prior Council performance evaluation of City Administrator, attached is a proposed resolution updating the Administrator's Employment Agreement. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the attached resolution. cw.pragree CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 18. 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: December 8. 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Lincoln Street PREVIOUS ACTION: and Locust Street LID PREPARED BY: Ed Murphy DEPT BEAD CITY ADMIN OK/ r REQUESTED BY: P LICY ISSUE Shall the Council approve the formation of the Lincoln Street and Locust Street LID? INFORMATION SUMMARY Petitions have been received requesting formation of a local improvement district to complete the following improvements: (1) construction of Lincoln Street along the east side of Lincoln Center: from Locust Street to the end of the existing right-of-way (approximately 280 feet north of Oak Street); (2) completion of street improvements along the north side of Locust Street west of 93rd Avenue; and (3) installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Locust Street and Greenburg Road. A preliminary engineer's report is attached. Based on the preliminary engineering report, it appears that the proposed LID is feasible and should be formed. Section 2.2 of the City's LID Manual identifies priorities for LID projects. The proposed project qualifies as a first priority project, as it is in a developed area, is intended to upgrade services to the surrounding area, and includes the construction Of streets, sidewalks, and storm drains. The Finance Director has indicated that the City's current bonding capacity is adequate to cover the proposed LID. All property owners within the LID are represented on petitions which request formation of the LID and waive the owners' right to remonstrate. Due to the 100% support and waiver of remonstrance, the Council is not required to hold a hearing or give public notice prior to formation of the LID. The owners have waived the right to a hearing and requested that the LID be formed as quickly as possible. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached ordinance forming the local improvement district. 2. Reject the request for formation of an LID. FISCAL IMPACT All costs will be paid by the LID. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. br/o-Lincoln.rrw I ~ L _.-i _ ~i ? i t ~ IL g 'J f ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 E al i f{ it Y,~ m,m.... ~ ~ _ ~ r'1 > 1 T 1 I~ 1 1 ip ril i{I 1 1 111 1 i T I I7jf ~ I~1Ti~I1 t I i7 1 ri)11 i{i lei ~Tf i{i Ii! rll rirJil rh iii lil Pit 1{l ill tlt i{I Iii qt t{i tpl ~ ~ I{ i i I i!. a ~ a~ i 1~ i i t~ !'R►'~'3`;'a'i'1 I.. ~tm1 i a.!-~'1 a!~~►~ I 1 i!~~ 0 1 ~ r I i! i I f ~ ~ E I ~ { 2 3 4 _ _ 5 _ 6- _ 8 9 ~0 Ji J2' ' NOiE: IF THIS NICADFIIMED , INWRPIG IS LESS CIEAR 1HAH ~ nlzs wDnce, Ir Is ouE m llti DUALITY OF riE ORIGL4AL ~ ~ ' DRNUNG' ; ; OFE 62 8Z tZ 82 SZ 4Z tiZ 2Z 12 OZ 61 81 EI 91 Sf' ~I EI 21 II 01 6 8 ( 8 S 4 E t I°""' I ►,il ' 'dlillilllll111tI4aiN1111 _ . - ~ ~ e - ~ ~ . ,1 ~ 1t, ~ _ , z - ~..m~n __t,, ~ - _ - - . r.: . r"" ,,'°n CF ~~Ci s ~ - _ y'fi i_ zJit3 ~~~r r J , ? F r , 50.E ' ~ s ~ "ems ~ ,],.:dfi 'CJ L'~j s aaer* i - 3fR~ C rk L 3.`,rir'..fi _ 0.19 ~--,~sxCr xar~`! j/ ,~v ~~~i s. .Y°.'K9 _ ~ er 1 ,iSRC S:raO 'tittl'YQ ,~JIC FQ~ Q^~~ ~ Q t7~ f I ~ { .~C a2t~ F'. ~ na ; l !ot J5AC28G0. r /N~U~fO FG? ~CNTJIC~L PUAr"CSfS rJN[ Z~, 4 pl;^c~udes ony tar ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~'3 I i ~ ~ t iii I ~ • ,~C I ~ 11:.~ 1 ~ q ~ !i'_I ! dIC,W :,.I 3 ::.1 ~ / t • y >s+~ ~ , I awEV,uaa,tss~rns \ _ m~ s~ oxeerr i • _ _ ~._I .scan ~sw ~ - r zoN~ zz mcaxxMfr I 9~ AVENUE L,I.D. , 93rd , H/BlT A 9~ y%y~,, ~ A} O ~ _ do ` o$g ~ ?)J • • ~ _ \ I ~y . F n y j :,ATM.. ,...m. ...x.,:~ , . i.-. ~ ....,;~.x.r e-„.: y..rm. ,.n.S.;; ' +7*, _ Iw.,.m-.._: .rcvms '~ti`r~ ~C+' ~ w ma-~w'~Y .,.,y.:., ,wao.. ,..ter, ..,ter ....d.. ~~lll~!t111tIr!(I)IIIITiIiIIr T giI~11 lr!'ill[IIII lYtljlljt ~rll+llltllTa~lrllllla!Ililrllglgltlltpt~r,lt I~I~lii Illal~i ~o jlj►~ilP~t~i~mT~► i, ~ I ~ j ~ P ►11 jli i ! ► ~ i I►+! j t j t ' i 1 ! a 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7 B 9 0 ~ I 12 ' ~ ~ MJTE: If THlS MICROFILMED DRANING !S LESS CLEAR THAN '~i 'I - 1HSS NOTSCE, IT SS [kIE TO - THE QUALITY OF TFE ORIGINAL I~ . - -....._-.V._ - 0RAX1~• ; OE 6Z 8Zv 12 8a SZ 4z Cz az la Oa si 81 ZI 91 Si ~ bi EI it If~- OI B 8- ! 8 S - ti.._ 6 " z 1'"+A' ~ a ~~dU1144~IIII~UC~IB1~N111HNKK!f~t!f1p51{.~ I . _ _ ~ 11 ~ ' ~ ' al'n ~ a a ' Vmle~ Per Gene Davis, DVM 4550 S. W. Lombard Avenue, Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Ph. 646-6101 ta~_. r 15 19~~ December 15, 1989 Mr. Edward Murphy & City Council Civic Center City of Tigard p.O.Box 23397 Tigard, OF 97223 Dear Ed Murphy and City Council; I stand opposed to 93rd (Lincoln St) Lid because it doesn't include its completion to Ash Creel;. Trammell Crow and I both signed an agreement assuring payment of preliminary engineering costs to the city on August 14, 1989. That application was a result of David Blake signing an agreement dated July 10th, quoting from paragraph two, "Crow and Davis shall use their best efforts and aggressively pursue the completion of the Lincoln Street Lid." We've had many meetings and would have solved all objections from the major players, had Blake not attempted to purchase the right of way for the southern portion, after Joel Adamson himself had prepared a sales agreement with me. I'm asking the city to delay the current Lid proposal until the entire Lid is in place. David Blake is sabotaging the completion of Lid while pretending to put forth his best efforts as he agreed. A delay at this time is small consideration, in comparison to me giving up my appeal right with L.U.B.A. on the 93rd street vacation and realignment and the city's desire to meet the public transportation needs for that part of Tigard. it i i i Enclosed are copies of the purchase agreement Joel Adamson prepared and the hand written one David wrote out over lunch with him and Tom Ashlock on December 5, 1989, putting forth his best effort to prevent the Lid, The exact opposite of his agreement. Don't you agree the partial Lid is inferior for the City of Tigard in its over all transportation plan? David, himself, told me last Wednesday over lunch, "My best efforts have ended", in furthering the Lid. Isn't it time to take the stand we've all committed ourselves too? Any cost to Trammell Crow for the delay is minimal compared to the negative impact to myself and the community in not going forward at this time with the complete street. Sincerer Dr. Gene Davis GD/jb Enclosure - f'r o s w act ~f Or -1 e it -'A' G A G R E E M E N T WHEREAS: The City of Tigard, Oregon is considering an LID which would extend SW 93rd St from SW Locust St to a point just north of Ash Creek; and r WHEREAS: Said street (Ext) would cross Tax Lot 1 S 1 AC 3800 (lot 3800) which is owned by DATA Corp (DATA) by virtue of a land sale contract with Darrell and and Bertha Dunford (Dunfords); and WHEREAS: Dr Eugene Davis (Gene) desires to purchase the right of way (ROW) needed from DATA for the Ext and donate said ROW to the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS: JATA is willing to sell (subject to any necessary approval by the b" Dunfords) such ROW to Gene;: NOW THEREFORE: Gene and DATA agree as follows: 1. Gene will purchase the ROW (currently planned to be 60 feet wide) for $5.00 per square foot. On the date of this agreement Gene will pay DATA $1,000.00 as non- 1 a. refundable earnest moneyfor this purchase. Gene will pay the balance of the purchase price on the date of closing. 2. The City of Tigard shall determine the number of square feet in the ROW. 3. Closing shall take place at the earliest occurence of any of the following events: A. One year from the date of this agreement. B. The sale of Tax Lot 1 S 1 35 AC 2800 or any portion thereof. C. The beginning of construction of the Ext across lot 3800. If closing does not occur at the earliest of the foregoing events, then this agreement becomes nul and void and JATA shall keep the earnest money. 4. If any construction costs are allocated to JATA for the portion of the Ext which crosses lot 3800, Gene will pay those costs. AGREED TO THIS DAY OF DECEMBER, 1989. JATA CORP (DATA) By Joel Adamson, President Dr. Eugene Davis (Gene) MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner RE: Director's interpretation M 89-20 Manufactured home DATE: December 14, 1989 The Director issued a Code interpretation related to manufactured homes. The interpretation finds that a manufactured home at 10676 S.W. Cook Lane was appropriately sited on the property in conformity with the Community Development Code. This issue was appealed to the Planning Commission and the Director's interpretation was upheld. The neighbors contend that the residence is a mobile home which is not permitted on an individual lot. S Included in your packet is a copy of 1) the Planning Commission minutes, 2) the relevant Community Development Code sections, and 3) a packet of information from NPO 3 including a letter from Dennis Moonier summarizing the reasons for the appeal of the City's approval of the residence and the subsequent Director's interpretation supporting the action. A copy of the Commission's final order is not signed, but it will be available for the Council meeting. Section 18.32.310 of the Code allows the Council to review a Commission decision by voice vote within 10 days of the sending of the notice of final decision. M89-20/kl TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 1. Vice President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Fyre; Commissioners Barber, Castile, Fessler, Leverett, Rosborough, and Saporta. Absent: Commissioners Moen and Peterson. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden; Building Official Brad Roast (left 9:00 p.m.); Planning Secretary Diane M. Selderks. 3. APPROVAL OF ICENUTES Commissioner Rosborough moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Leverett and Saporta abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Senior Planner Liden reviewed sites that Tri-Met is considering for 4 locating a park and ride. 5. PUBLIC BEARINGS 5.1 MISCELLANEOUS M 89-20 MANUFACTURED SOME AT SW COOK LANE NPO #3 A request for review of the Director's interpretation of Chapters 18.26 and 18.94 of the Community Development Code pertaining to manufactured and mobile homes. Senior Planner Liden reviewed information enclosed in the Commission's packet and the sequence of events resulting in the issuance of permits. The main issue is, does the manufactured home comply with the Community Development Code (CDC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). After reviewing the issue the Director determined that permitting the manufactured home was consistent with the CDC and the UBC. Discussion followrd between Senior Planner Liden, Building Official Brad Roast, and the Planning Commission regarding the definition for mobil and manufactured homes, the standards and requirements in the CDC, UBC, & HUD (Housing and Urban Development), the ability to move the manufactured home, tie down requirements for mobil/manufactured homes, and the different types of foundations which could be used. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 1 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Herman Porter, Chairperson for NPO # 3, speaking for Don Moonier, who was Y' r.. unable to attend, stated that the manufactured home does not meet the UBC., Also, he had been a member of NPO 3 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and it was not the understanding of the NPO that manufactured/mobile homes' would be permitted on single family lots. The NPO would have opposed if they knew this was the intent of the code. He felt the Planning 3 Department had made a mistake and if mobile/manufacturing homes are. permitted on single family lots then the Code needed to be changed. He did not feel that Mr. Johnson's foundation meets the requirement for manufactured homes. t I PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Wilbur Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, had staff read his r letter supporting Mr. Moonier's position regarding the manufactured home. He added that the concrete foundation for the garage is well done, the i driveway has been paved, and Mr. Johnson has done a nice job on the lawn. He disagreed with Senior Planner Liden regarding the intent of the Code. i. He stated that in 1983/84 it was the intent of the Code to accommodate mobile/manufactured homes in mobile home parks not on single family lots. } o Mr. Clyde Johnson, 10675 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, owner of the manufactured home stated that the salesman had not placed the ordered as ! requested which is why the porch is like it is. He will be installing a porch roof when the weather is nicer. He described the type of foundation used and explained that the manufactured home does not need to be tied down. t o David Nicoli, 14180 SW 141st Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that he had sold the property to Mr. Johnson and is here to support him. He added that any house can be moved and the-sewer is connected like any other home. The manufactured home is well kept and is as nice as any other home on that street. Some of those homes do not have paved driveways. REBUTTAL o Herman Porter stated he had nothing further to add. The main issue is the interpretation of the meaning of the law. He requested that the Commission find that the Planning Department made an error in its interpretation. o Discussion followed regarding restrictions/covenants in the neighborhood, whether the UBC allowed for alternative designs, and whether there was an oversight in the code. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioners Leverett, Castile, Barber, Rosborough, and Saporta favored upholding the Director's interpretation. They did feel the Code needed to be looked at as it is ambiguous in terms of manufactured and mobile homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 2 o Commissioner Fessler felt the definition for manufactured/mobile homes needed to be refined. She supported the appeal. o Vice President Fyre had also been a member of the NPO and stated it was not the intent of the Code to allow manufactured/mobile homes on single family lots. He felt since the home had been placed on the site, Mr. Johnson needed to be made whole or be compensated for removing the home. * Commissioner Leverett moved and Commissioner Rosborough seconded to uphold the Director's interpretation of tile 18.26 and 18.94, file number M 89-20 and for staff to prepare the final order for Vice President Fyre to sign. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Fyre and Fessler voting no. 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the construction of a general retail sales facility, A-boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 conditions. The decision included approval of a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main St. (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) o Senior Planner Liden reviewed the issues regarding the application and the amendments to the proposed conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o John Dolan, 4025 SE Brooklyn St., Portland, OR, stated that they had worked out most of their concerns with staff except for the dedication of the land. He stated he would not dedicate land to the City for nothing. He would prefer to be paid money, however, he would be willing to accept eliminating the requirement for landscaping. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to testify. o Discussion followed regarding area to be dedicated, area to be landscaped, and the percentage of landscaping credit that the City would give A-Boy. REBUTTAL o Mr. Dolan stated that he would earn more money if he sold the land to the City and used the money to landscape his site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o The majority of Commissioners supported staff's recommendation and conditions. Commissioner Leverett felt the application should be tabled to allow the applicant and City to work out the landscaping issue. * Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDR 89-13 and V 89-13 per staff's recommendation and amended conditions; and for staff to prepare the final order for Vice President Fyre to sign. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.3 SUBDIVISION S 89-10 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 89-03 STEPHENSON/BEACON HOMES NPO #6 A request for approval of an 18 lot subdivision planned development on a 3.18 acre site. The lots will vary in size from approximately 5,280 to 11,330 square feet. Also requested is a variance to allow three of the lots to be created to have lot depth to width ratios of 4:1 whereas the Code permits a maximum depth to width ratio of 2.5:1. ZONE: R-7 (PD) (Residential, 7 units/acre, Planned Development) LOCATION: southeast corner of SW 98th Avenue and SW Sattler Street (WCTM 2S1 11CA, tax lot 300). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for approval with 20 conditions. Discussion followed regarding street frontages and size of lots. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Don Fournier, Alpha Engineering, 1750 SW Skyline # 19, Portland, 97221, agreed with staff's recommendation and conditions. o Kurt Dalbey, Beacon Homes, PO Box 1368, Beaverton, OR 97005, explained that the lot depth ratio was designed to have the smaller lots abutting Summerfield keeping in characteristic with the area. o Pete Kusyk, President, Mariner Homes, stated that they already have two people interested in purchasing the smaller lots and both parties are over 55 years old. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Howard Graham, 9410 SW Lakeside Drive, a member of the Summerfield Board, representing citizens in the area (approximately 25) were opposed to the lots accessing onto Lakeside Drive. He felt the lots should be annexed to Summerfield so they would have to abide by Summerfield's rules; however, that would take a 75 percent vote and he doubted if they could get it at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1089 PAGE 4 F t~ i o Keith Phelps, 9450 SW Lakeside Drive, Tigard, also representing the neighborhood group, opposed the addition of three new lots accesses onto Lakeside Drive. Currently, the street is congested with heavy vehicle and golf cart traffic as well as residents walking and jogging. o Dick Lawrence, 9500 SW Lakeside Drive, Tigard, agreed with Mr. Phelps regarding the traffic congestion and felt it would be unsafe to allow three more driveway to access onto Lakeside Drive. He suggested that the subdivision be designed to access onto Sattler Road. i 1 REBUTTAL o Kurt Dalbey, stated that they have looked at alternative designs and there is not another way to access these lots. He stated that Lakeside Drive is a public- street and they are not asking for anything unusual. He added that they had requested annexation into Summerfield, but Summerfield had rejected these lots. Discussion followed on why Summerfield had rejected 1 these lots. i PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED E { i o Consensus of the Commission was for approval of the subdivision. Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Saporta seconded to approve * ~ PD 89-03, S 89-10, and V 89-30 subject to staff's conditions; and for staff € to prepare the final order for Vice President Fyre to sign. Motion rY carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.4 SUBDIVISION S 89-12 VARIANCE V 89-29 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 89-05 E ZONE CHANGE ZC 89-09 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M 89-21 PYRE NPO # 3 A request for approval of an application to subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 18 lots. A zone change is requested to apply the planned development overlay zone to the property. A lot line adjustment approval is requested to adjust the boundaries of the site on which the subdivision will be located. Several variances to Code standards are also requested: 1) to allow a 28 foot wide public street where 34 feet is required; 2) to allow a ) 42 foot wide right-of-way where 50 feet is required; 3) to allow a 1000 foot long cul-de-sac whereas 400 feet is the maximum allowed; 4) to permit a hammerhead turnaround where a circular turnaround is required; 5) to allow sidewalk on one aide of a street only whereas both sides are normally required to have sidewalks; and 6) to allow a 75 foot curve radius where a 100 foot radius is required. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: SW 121st Avenue at Tippitt Place (WCTM 2S1 3BC, tax lots 1100, 1300, & 6100) THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 19TH Ad& ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 5 6. OTHER BUSINESS o There was no other business. 7. ADJOURNMENT - 10:30 PH Diane M. Jelde s Secretary ATTEST: Milton Pyre, Vice President dj/pcml2-5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 6 Chapter 18.48 R-3.5: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (10,000 SQUARE FEET) Sections: 18.48.010 Purpose 18.48.020 Procedures and Approval Process 18.48.030 Permitted Uses 18.48.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130) 18.48.050 Dimensional Requirements 18.48.060 Additional Requirements 18.48.010 Purpose A. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district is to establish large urban residential home sites. (Ord. 89-06; Ord: 83-52) 18.48.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A use permitted outright, Section 18.48.030, is a use which requires no approval under the provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a use permitted outright, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. B. A conditional use, Section 18.48.040, is a use the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use. If a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.48.030 Permitted Uses A. Permitted uses in the R-3.5 district are as follows: 1. Single-family detached; 2. Public support facilities; 3. Residential care facilities; 4. Farming; and 5. Manufactured Homes. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-15; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 83-52) Revised 02/27/89 Page 102 . 18.48.040 Conditional US j (See Chapter 18.130) A. Conditional uses in the R-3.5 district are as follows: 1. Children's day care; 2. Community recreation including structures; 3. Group care residential; 4. Cultural exhibits and library services; 5. Duplex residential units; 6. Funeral and internment services: interning and cemeteries; 7. Hospitals; 8. Utilities; 9. Mobile home parks and subdivisions, Chapter 18.94; 10. Public safety facilities; 11. Religious assembly; 12. Schools and related facilities; and 13. Accessory dwelling units (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.48.050 Dimensional Requirements A. Dimensional requirements in the R-3.5 district are as follows: 1. The minimum lot area shall not be less than 10,000 square feet; 2. The average minimum lot width shall not be less than 65 feet; 3. The average minimum lot width for duplexes shall be not less than 90 feet; 4. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.96 and Section 18.100.130, the minimum setback requirements are as follows: a. The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet; { b. On corner and through lots, the minimum setback for each side facing a street shall be a minimum of 20 feet; however, the provisions of 18.102 must also be satisfied; C. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of five feet; Revised 02/27/89 Page 103 2. Access L veways connecting units to public street shall have a width of not less than 36 feet, of which not less than 20 feet shall be paved; and 3. Driveways shall be designed to provide for all maneuvering and parking of units without encroaching on a public street. Q. The maximum number of manufactured/mobile homes in the park or subdivision shall not exceed the amount calculated in Chapter 18.92. R. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include _portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/ bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) 18.94.040 Manufactured Homes on individual Building Lots A. The establishment, location, and use of manufactured homes as scattered site residences shall be permitted in the absence of covenants, conditions and restrictions in any zone permitting installation of a dwelling unit subject to requirements and limitations applying generally to such residential uses in the district, and provided such homes shall meet the following ( requirements and limitations: 1. The home shall meet all requirements applicable to single-family dwellings and possess all necessary improvement, location, building, and occupancy permits and other certifications required by the title; 2. The home shall be larger than 950 square feet of occupied space or meet the minimum square footage requirements for the appropriate zone; 3. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the base flood elevation and shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system in accordance with the regulations adopted by the Oregon Department of Commerce, and with the manufacturer's installation specifications; 4. The home shall be covered with an exterior material customarily used on site built residential dwellings, and such material shall extend over the top of the foundation (or meet the community's site built residential home standards); and Revised 02/27/89 Page 204 5. The home: ;hall have a roof composed of material customarily used on site built residential dwellings such as asbestos, fiberglass, shake, asphalt, or tile, which shall be installed onto a surface appropriately pitched for the materials used. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 85-15) 18.94.050 Nonconforming Mobile Homes A. Mobile home parks existing at the adoption of the ordinance codified in this title not meeting the standards set forth in this title shall be considered nonconforming and are subject to the standards set forth in Subsection 18.132.040.B. B. Nonconforming mobile homes _in such parks may be replaced with like mobile homes that meet the standards of Section 18.94.030 when they are moved'or destroyed. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-15) r. Y k Revised 02/27/89 Page 205 6. Group Cai Residential: Refers to services provided in facilities authorized, certified L,,I or licensed by the state to provide board, room, and care to six or more physically disabled, mentally disordered, mentally 4Z.02_0 retarded, handicapped persons, dependents or neglected children, but excluding those uses classified under hospitals. A, Typical uses include intermediate care facilities and institutions for the mentally retarded and physically handicapped; 7. Residential Care Facility: A residence of five or fewer mentally or physically handicapped with staff (need not be related); 8. Children's Day Care: Refers to services or facilities authorized, certified or licensed by the state for children's day care of 12 or more children at any one time for a period not to exceed 12 hours per day with or without compensation. See Subsection 11 of this section; 9. Mobile Home: Refers to a structure transportable in one or more sections, each built on a permanent chassis and which is designed to be used for permanent occupancy as a residential dwelling; 10. Manufactured Home: Refers to a factory-fabricated transportable building which meets the Uniform Building Code which is incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site and used as a dwelling unit; 11. Babysitting Service: Refers to day care services for children if the compensation therefor is paid directly by the parent or legal guardian or if the service is provided without any compensation in either the home of the parent or guardian or the home of the babysitter. A babysitting service provides for care for not more than six children for eight or more hours in a 24-hour period and the service may be provided for not more than four other (part-time) children for not more than three consecutive hours in a 24-hour period. No more than a total of 10 children including the babysitter's children can be present at any one time. Variation from the above constitutes a day care facility. See Subsection 8 of this section; Revised 02/27/89 Page 81 J40V 27 DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION, APPEAL OF THE 10,1989 OCTOBER The Mobile Home On Cook Lane #yyi~:. 1 i/2v/BY Chairman, Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr Chairman, BACKGROUND In the Spring of 1989, Mr. Clyde Johnson bought the vacant residential lot adjacent to my home on Cook Ln. He immediately began site preparation for what the rest of the neighborhood assumed would be the construction of a new home. I must admit that very early in the site prep process we had warnings of the impending problem we now have. On two occasions, I was informed that Mr. Johnson was putting a manufactured home on this site; once by David Nicoli, previous owner of the site, who told me Mr. Johnson had a custom designed $60,000 modular home, and once by Bob Bledsoe, NPO #3 member. who stopped by one day to express suprise that I was not upset with the development next door. I bring these two occasions to light, because they illustrate my complete suprise, and apparent ignorance of our land use processes, that in the City of Tigard a mobile home can be defined as a manufactured home and then placed on a residential lot. With clear disregard to the plain meaning of every applicable code on residential structures and with complete disdain for the citizens of this communuty, City employees are willing to allow the placement - without notice or consultation - of a non-permitted structure in our neighborhood; and then, upon objections from the existing residents, feel the need to bluff, bully, and obfuscate the issue. THE ISSUE Let's be clear: the issue before us is whether the City Municipal Code allows mobile homes - not meeting the Uniform Building Code(UBC) and not meeting the zoning code - are allowed in residential neighborhoods. The issue is not whether or not the neighbors like the appearance of a home that "substantially meets the intent of the Tigard Municipal Code." I was utterly astonished the day the mobile home was delivered to Mr. Johnson's property. It arrived in two pieces, visquene covering the openings in each side. You have all seen them rolling down HWY 99 - first the right side, then the left - two trucks pulling two trailors, each with its own tongue, chassis, and wheels. The only positive thing I can say about that sight was that, at least, I then understood all the unorthodox site work and the conversations with Mr. Nicoli and Mr. Bledsoe that, heretofor, had been quite a mystery to me. Maybe I am naive, or even stupid, but who among us here tonight would have thought, or now does not believe, that according to the Director's October 10 z Interpretation, Attachment #1, a mobile home can be placed in any residential neighborhood in the City. Immediatly upon seeing the mobile home parts sitting next to .ny house, I called the City Building Department. I talked with Mr. Brad Roast initially and, in susequent conversations the following week, talked with other city employees. The results of these conversations precipitated my initial protest letter dated July 5, 1989, Attachment #2. The importance of these conversations is that the employees with responsibility for the permit issuance and inspection were thoroughly confused on what authority the Johnson permit was issued under. Illustrative statements are: 1. Mr. Roast stated, the only applicable code to this structure was the Department of Housing and Urban. Development(HUD) regulations. If the mobile home had a HUD sticker affixed, it was approved. 2. A female employee, name unkown, stated, recently passed State legislation concerning manufactured/mobile home required the City to allow the structure's placement. 3. Both employees stated, the structure did not have to meet the UBC. The facts relating to these statements are: 1. The HUD regulations are clearly intended to concern mobile homes as defined by Tigard's Municipal Code, not manufactured homes. 2. The State legislation referred to, House Bill 2863, was not-even signed into law until July 27,1989 - a full two months after the permits were issued - and it does not mandate mobile/manufactured home sitings as the building department stated. 3. Manufactured homes clearly have to meet the UBC to be allowable structures under the Tigard Municipal Code. The point of this discussion is to illustrate the confusion and misunderstandings of the City Staff during the initial permitting of this structure. They did not seem to know what they were permitting or why they were permitting it. However, contrary to the Director's later assertions, they clearly stated to me that the UBC had nothing to do with it. APPLICABLE CODES AND DEFINITIONS The following are specific municipal codes, regulations, and definitions applicable to this appeal ( some are synopsized and some are only recited by reference): A. Tigard Municipal Code 18.08(c) - " Where the Code imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regulations, the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standard shall apply." 18.26.030 - Manufactured Home A factory fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code Y " Mobile Home - A structure transportable in one or more sections, each built on a permanent chassis 18.30 thru 18.32 - All sections concerning public notice and appeal 18.94.040(a) (1) - " The home shall meet all requirements applicable to single family dwellings and posess all permits and certifications required by the Code." (2) - " The home shall be attached and anchored to a permanent foundation in conformance with the Oregon Department of Commerce regulations and the manufacturer's specifications." B. HUD Regulations ANSI A225.1 , Attachment #3 - This is the regulation referred to on the HUD sticker affixed to the mobile home. Section 1-2.1, Types of Structures Covered, refers the reader to 24 CFR 3280 for a definition of the manufactured homes covered by the regulation. 24 CFR 3280.2 Definitions, Attachment #4 - (16) " Manufactured Home means a structure transportable in one or more sections which is built on a permanent chasis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation note: please compare this to the definition of a mobile home in the Tigard Municipal Code Manufactured Homes For Title II Mortgage Insurance, Attachment #5 - This states in part, " This Department offers FHA Insurance on manufactured homes(mobile homes)", and under General Eligability Criteria: (6) " A permanent foundation and perimeter footing and wall is required." C. Uniform Building Code(UBC) 'Specifically Section 2517 concerning foundations. Attachment #6 is two illustrations which depict the UBC requirements for foundations. FINDINGS From the previous listed codes and definitions, several statements can be made: 1. The Tigard Municipal Code makes a clear distinction between mobile and manufactured homes. The HUD regulations seem to use the terms interchangably; e.g., manufactured homes(mobile homes). 2. The Tigard code defines mobile homes as structures on a chassis. The HUD regulations define manufactured homes(mobile homes) as structures on a chassis. 3..Both the HUD and Tigard codes require permanent footing and wall f perimeter foundations with the structure firmly anchored thereto. The HUD codes at least implies that an FHA mortgage cannot be acquired unless the { foundation is in place. In any case, the Tigard code requires the most restrictive code to apply. It should be noted that the UBC does allow alternative foundations if the proper design and structural certifications show they meet or exceed the perimeter foundation. 4. The Tigard code requires that the manufactured home placement meet all other municipal code and UBC requirements. , Please note. I have not listed in the previous section the Oregon Department of Commerce regulations referred to in the Director's October 10 Interpretation. That is because there are no such regulations* The Department deleted, and { ceased all activities regarding, regulations of manufactured homes over two years ago. f DISCUSSION The photograph attached to the front of this letter is a picture of the E structure in question. As described earlier, it was delivered in two pieces, each with its own chassis. The wheels and tongue have been removed from the s chassis. Some other pertinent aspects in the picture are: { 1. The grey strip along the bottom of the structure is painted plywood skirting. At-the highest point, it extends approximately 24" below ground level. i 2. The front porch is a stand alone platform. It is not attached to the f home,.nor is it anchored to the ground. , 3. The garage, to the right side of the picture, is attached to the house i by a 2x4 (barely visible on the photo). There is a covered porch (similiar construction to the front porch) in the rear of the house. The 2x4 nailed to the garage is the support for the cover. As can be seen, this structure looks like a mobile home. As defined by the HUD and Tigard codes it is a mobile home. And, based on the apparent temporary placement on an unanchored foundation, and with porches and a garage that simply lift off, the owner appears to be treating it as a mobile home. The City, in the issuance of permits and in the subsequent defense of their actions, admit the structure does not meet the Municipal Code or the UBC. They also state the foundation requirements are found, not in the UBC, but in the Department of Commerce regulations and the manufacturer's instructions. I must say that it is incomprehensible that cognizant City Officials will admit they have allowed a sub-code structure within the community and then try to justify it based on the fact that you cannot see the problems. By this statement in the OctoberlO letter, the Director is admitting that they are treating this structure differently than stick-built homes. They are, therefor, willing to have different standards for different lots within the same neighborhood. The issue of the foundation is even more paramount in this appeal. In reading the Tigard Municipal Code, the HUD regulations, and the Uniform Building Code, there can be no interpretation other than the structure is required to be anchored on a permanent, wall and footing, perimeter foundation. As -stated earlier, there are no Department of Commerce regulations so they certainly do not justify the City's position. The only other defense the City has is the manufacturer's instructions. Attachment #7 is the manufacturer's design as submitted for the building permit. What do these instructions show: 1. They show a wall and footing perimeter foundation. 2. They show concrete block mortered together and filled with concrete. 3. They show iron reinforced footing and walls. 4. They show the structure firmly anchored to the foundation. 5. They also show, and I quote from the title block, " The exterior walls must be solidly supported by the foundation wall. This system was not designed to have MOBILE HOME (emphasis added) frame supporting the exterior wall load. Marlette Homes assumes no responsibility except for the method of support shown on this detail." CONCLUSION What more can be said? This mobile home should never have received a building permit; however, City personnel were confused on the issue. The City is now defending the permit and its subsequent approval of sub-municipal code, HUD/FHA requirements, and the manufacturer's design - why? The residents of this neighborhood were entitled to timely notice that a non-conforming.structure was being proposed for placement on Cook Lane. Present and future landowners are entitled to knoQ they are buying standard housing; not just housing, that appears to be standard. Most importantly, citizens of this communuty are entitled to thorough and honest code enforcement. Sincerely, Dennis Moonier 10634 SW Cook Ln Tigard, OR 97223 CITYOI: TIGAItD OLEGON October 10, 1989 Mr. Dennis Moonier 10634 SW Cook Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Directors Interpretation Manufactured home at 10676 SW Cook Ln. Dear Mr. Hoonier: After reviewing the issues surrounding the placement of a manufactured home at the above referenced address, I have decided to allow the structure to remain as it is. In my opinion, the Community Development Code' as it is now written allows for the placement of a manufactured home on a single family lot, and this building as placed meets the intent of the code. The justification for i this decision is as follows: 1. The municipal code allows placement of a manufactured home on a single family lot. The building is a manufactured home. By the City Development Code, a "manufactured home" is similar to a "mobile home", except that it meets both the National Urban and Housing Development standards, and the Uniform Building Code. 2. The municipal code defines a "manufactured home" as a factory fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code. in -my opinion the home complies with the intent of the municipal code. There are some differences in the construction of the building from the Uniform Building Code'(such as the insulation and plumbing), but those differences are not outwardly visible, and are suitable for this type of structure. Changing those items to meet the Uniform Building Code would not change the appearance of the building, or provide any real benefit to either the owner or the neighbors. The -structural frame of the building 'is the same as a site built home (2x6 wood stud walls, manufactured roof trusses, 2x6 wood floor joists). 3. The municipal code requires a manufactured home conform with all zoning regulations applicable to a site built home, including minimum lot size, building set-backs, building height, utility availability, off- street parking, and other applicable standards. The home complies with these regulations. 13125'8W Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 4-, 4. The municipal code requires that the home is larger than 950 square feet. The home complies, it is 1,280 square feet.. 5. The municipal code requires that the home is placed on a permanent, elevated foundation and anchored in accordance with the regulations adopted by the Oregon Department of Commerce and the manufacturer's installation specifications. r , The home complies. Please•note that the regulations do. not require any< anchorage of the building to the foundation. 6. The municipal code requires that the exterior walls and roof of the home e' be covered with materials customarily used on site built homes. ' The home complies. The building is covered with hardboard panel siding, which is typical material used in site built homes. The roof covering is fiberglass composition, a typical roof covering used in site built construction.° i' My staff, the City Attorney, and myself have researched this issue thoroughly,y, including calling the manufacturer of the house in question, and have come to the conclusion that the structure meets the definition of a manufactured home is the Community Development Code. This decision is being issued pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code 18.12.010 as a Director's Interpretation. Any party may appeal this interpretation in accordance with sections 18.32.290(A), 18.32.310(A) and 18.32.348 of the Community Development Code. n The appeal must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($55.00•) and include the t' following information: 1) a description of the interpretation being appealed,' 2) the appellant's qualifications as a party, 3) the specific grounds for appeal; 4) the scheduled date the interpretation is to be final (see below), 5) the date the interpretation was given, and 6) the signature(s) of those appealing the interpretation.,.. This interpretation will be final on October 24, 1989 unless an appeal is filed.? E4" The deadline for filing.an appeal is October 24, 1989 ! Since ely, ~i lµ Ed Murphy) A Community Development Director MIN JUL 10'1989 Mr. Ed Murphy Community Development Director City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 July 5. 1989 Dear Mr. Murphy I am writing this letter to you as a protest to several recent actions and decisions made by the Tigard Building and Planning Departments. As I am sure you know. a mobile home was recently placed on a lot on Cook Lane. This is property immediately adjacent to my home at 10634 S.W. Cook Lane. To say the least, I was taken by surprise the day the mobile arrived on the property. I was completely unaware that the Tigard Community Development plan had been amended to allow mobile homes in traditional low and medium density zonings. However, the most distressing aspect of my complaint is the seeming lack of enforcement of the city's building code or; possibly.more correctly, the disparity between the code that this particular mobile home is being allowed to conform to and the city's code for traditional houses. There are two basic issues I will address in this letter: 1. Mobile Home/Manufactured Home building code requirements,and 2. Mobile Home/Manufactured Home zoning requirements. I am writing to you on this matter rather than the Planning Director because it is the. building code requirements, or lack thereof, which illustrate so clearly the zoning incompatability of mobile homes interspersed with traditional stick built homes. I think it is incumbent upon your staff to recognize this situation and bring it to the proper attention. Building Code Requirements Subsequent to the placement of the mobile home on Cook Lane. I have had several telephone conversations with inspectors at the Building Department. I made each of these calls to question compliance with code requirements. Each call resulted in your compliance officers explaining to me the difference between the mobile home/ manufactured Home code and the uniform building code for stick houses. The compliance officer also promised that an inspection would be. made to check for compliance with the applicable code. Based on the fact that nothing has resulted in altering the "construction" of the mobile home, I must assume that:(1) either the mobile meets manufactured home building requirements and these requirements are substantially below the requirements for stick homes. or (2) the City Building Department is allowing substantial non-compliance with the applicable code. I believe these specific violations are existing at the mobile home placement on Cook Lane. 1. Foundation -The alledged foundation under the mobile home is a series of five 6 inch concrete strips running east-west, attached at the east end by another strip of 6 inch concrete. These strips have no footing; i.e. there is no subsurface concrete. Neither do these strips form a perimeter enclosure. -On top of the 6 inch concrete strips are unsecured concrete blocks stacked 3 high. The mobile home is placed on these. In no way. that I am aware of, is the structure secured to the ground. 2. Skirting -To skirt the approximately 24 inch space between the mobile home and the cement strip, the owner has attached plywood. Dirt is pushed directly up to, and is in direct contact with, this skirting. 3. Occupation Permit. -Has an occupation permit been granted? The owners are occupying the mobile home. However, the structure does not have permanent porches, front or back, no permanent walkways are installed, the driveway is not complete.- etc. Work to complete the.installation on this site has slowed to a snail's pace since occupation took place. 4. Garage -The garage is a stand alone structure. In no way is it attached to the mobile home, nor can it be accept in a totally artificial manner. In addition to these above violations, I also believe that two other problems may be discovered: 1. The side setbacks measured from the east eve of the house to the west eve of the garage does not visually seem to comply with the code. I have not actually attempted to measure this. 2. The owner obviously has two front yard driveways planned. The presumed use of the second driveway is the large recreational vehicle now parked in the adjacent lot. Zoning Requirements As recenta.y as February 1989 changes have occurred in the Community Development code making the placement of mobile homes more permissive in Tigard. The February change simply deleted the word manufactured from the previously used "manufactured/mobile home" phrase previously used in the code (18.94.020). This change, I am told, legitimized the mobile home placement on Cook Lane. I do not believe this was the change that was. intended. I believe the City Council, under the advice of the building department staff, assumed there was a difference between a manufactured home and a mobile home. The structure on Cook Lane is•a mobile home! Drive by and look at it, you will know it when you see it. Imagine it next to your home. It appears that under our current definitions the only difference between a mobile home and a manufactured home is that the mobile has wheels and a tongue attached. Was the intent of the code change to. allow mobile homes in residential neighborhoods? As stated earier, this structure is not attatched to the ground. It can be moved at any time simply by reattatching the wheels and the tongue. One of the goals of our zoning regulations and building codes is to provide assurance to residents and businesses that development will be consistent, compatable, and meet certain standards. The result of this change in the code has hardly accomplished that. Again, drive by and look; this structure sticks out like a sore thumb. There are two vacant lots adjacent to this structure. Will mobile homes be-placed on these? I am afraid of that eventuality and the resultant further degradation of the neighborhood and our property values. In conclusion, I request that you review the zoning code's allowance of mobile home structures like this one in the same neighborhood with traditionally constructed. homes. Mixing manufactured structures in with traditional structures, when they do not comply with the same standards-is effectively interspersing, lot by lot, two disparate zoning and building codes. All homes within the same defined zoning area, whether manufactured or stick built, must be held to the same standard. What sense does-it make to have two different building standards? Where two standards exist, the lowest commoh'dehominator will always prevail because no one wants to build a stick home, held to a higher standard, next to a mobile home, which is held to a lower standard. This is not an acceptable outcome of the Community Development 'Code. Sincerely, Dennis Moonier 10634 S.W. Cook Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 cc: Mr. Keith Lyden Planning Director City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Mr. Herman Porter Chairman, NPO #3 City of Tigard P. O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 ji~~ ! ,s`; ~1 "11 +1,4 { ► *51 i• ".11,4 .?4 i1,t `ry!t{;1 1Tr ~k i i ar .'%~,c1~"~rA: ~yy+' ,a 1~ `r ry, 1 ,j~~ .r :,1!„ .~~~~,,qq /1; f'a rJf'„ +~Jyji`f ' FI: ..Zi , t.1 r• .I + .►~'',W'l{I~yy~~,~r ! .1•, r ~ ~ . • '►''a•: r r=am. /Ht..l' ./tJ~. i' 'fir •i J'• y' (i)~ 'Q ~ 1 ~ •lf V. ! ~ • }rttk•' 'rj► • .'•.'rS.; ~i. A.• +Y ~ ~11 ,k J' :y3 , 1,• ,a T {I' •l :t! \;,R" 1 t •1. 'i. 1 t. ~V~ l,l,.~. •i •1! j•~ • ,1' • ' ,;~t{j ~•R~n, ~I. 1 a.. ~ a~ ot, ~ .a~~' t11. rt.~ .r.,.., ~•ar.•,,.. .~":R ~ •i. • 1 (~~+'J r ;.II►: a• J.i ••r. t'1~1 ,•'`~d ~a C•, ~•T'd 1. i_ ' '1/rq S~I~ ~~~'•!.'1 JJw ha j'.Yr. , S •t:. 1 .'a .V~~t..~l) ~''t1 .NIT S,r'1 rS': • Li~'d .,i ® : (`t~ '~S wF ~ !r R, i:' Sr J ~1.a. '~~rJ 'r . ~ 1 !'•rM; 1 ',Y,1i. t;\ ,1: ~,~i%. }r, t3: '1dlt t`t~.• . y7'.n y ''1~P. ~'N/, L-v„ r. ?k.t. A _ . r~ •►r~ • ~a ! • lyk'; fi,l 1;~rlr/' 1 tl~f'•y10 .!ti 1~ ~s~LX •T 1! .~~~"1 '~(1••t..:i ' ~ !Y''"'''~~~~0°~O~•~~ ~i tr oty' '•'•~7~n,'1 )4•'• A ~ `•`1' • ••1.'~ •l i • Y.f~t• v 1 ' i~ ~,,r • 4 :r. ; `j ~ ~ 1~ I,a `ll• © ~ti._'~C.':il• dy i•. r .J~~• • ~ a~iJl• J.✓ ••~I'\' ~J~ • r 11 • `I'~• y, j .1 ~Y 't : ~ i ; ' 1' 11 r'„•7 sS ! ' i . t.,tla 1. +t Ir AAq a 11, ♦ !1 ur}y~; f►. ~r, •r• :ii {,.'f ITT A I~,S . ~ 1 ~ ~ rI ~i ' .j i.~ . i • }I 1 :V 1~ . f'•, ' • , 1 11 ~r.•, ' ..,1 i11. l ' ) ® 1Vol. • , t'.~;w, .1.,. I `lt•,•r>.1:'°{'f iiO~ `:1 ~•,i: •J '•r1 ~il•~„✓~ S`t• r~ .?I,t W1,r w► ~ t}~ r S;1y rl '1' I'°pn1 •fl I It 1: ~.q~ Y,~i1• .Y►`'}~ta•,. Y~~~.r •;t i a•~.t dye '1 • ► }11' rylya.j•4•~.I, '•.1 1 N: '{i~~ ~S ~~''~y 1• C+fi:. 1 ' '1 Jr il,,,l ~/'Ja ~ x"rF~""t~ ~ ~ V~,• •F~ w:~ '~•t •'Y ►4 •:1<a,~• ,f s, ,f(~~~~'4. •rIC Q.M r Y ' lj jh tI,' •f+ `1~ • }'I ~I „ 7}w•. E>' f'~ `.ill, r/•/•~i•'~ :V,~IY ti~~••' r(J .j~L), 1 ~f`• r(,~~~ • ♦ ►7,, t 7•(`: • ~r~+Q• I.y:;.r p , ~,t y ti; t t~''!t, lWal~ y., is a,~,~~a i • '`'~.~'11J. k ~~Jh• 1 f .1 t' v i 'JJ `j:~.••Sr. 1'1 V ,t.( SL4, •,Itt' r1• t1 it s'A!1' Y►: 1' SA• j• r 1 1 • r .t•; h .+i. .A ~ ~:1~ 1b K~•. Mr . or t ,..tl ! 1~'.~~,...'y~; l.••;!t!. ~ i ~ ~•i `j ,.1' ,.';.;':N,•~ ~~}rJ•~•tI"`• ''•~j~',x'~r rY•ll 4.'V !'!4.':~~i' t'• ''Y'Y `•i~,ll~!!:r i,?• 1s1( '~i;~f' ~ a:.r.' ~ t, ' 7 J ~.f , ►T.t~' t r. ! ~"•L`~ ♦1':~'..•.~ 't "f~'i'' .f~,,~ i.•'{?'li;~+• f`~.~~~y !i• ~ .1' :1i j '`1 ! ' ;.~•7 q~;y~i ~-.'.l .rrat.~ ,`a• .'t,Y,~>; FL~~.'j'.;t A'• j • • IICi~"; ••'a.}~~ `~'t'•r~.J r '.T, 1 S ,.J ,~1. •:rl (jt1:~.~ ~1±: .t'••~ ~'C~~7-~1:~''/ 1'~ ~ rf 1•, 7•, Y' 1~!'.f • ! + VIE •qM E'''• , r p'..~.~J f 1 +r' Cj•ra . ; t.1 ; I• t~' ► 1 •<< .¢~,ay".1 jt~•{ .~;j i ~lr POt fit'. 1! J S't~; 1! ~'I• .J•' {rl., rt'« ► ~I '.i Lt ~•,r,/j. ••I,~r ••.l~• y~V y! ,11~~ j.",• ' f;• ~N'/i I,f `r~'N'•! V' J •v '''P r J / •w' t,l•! ':1 r• '.t Yi .P•9, 'Z• A , ♦t`,p 1 1 „ t' 1 k ( . • r• !r•,Y ! t r..' :.ri1 :t• ••'••J'i7~lt, ;r ~~'i•'•. ~t: Sir # r ~':rr s t: • y 1rM t f ~4 r .~,...r 1,' 1 ~ ~ K!: :C{l~t^ i'~{1 . .yy.~M t~;•.ta +1 r ~ } to •i + r•1't••• 'f•i'~•t 3l il.} 1~4•~': • `st1) y' i}' :s' %J~+•:• J 1;'L ~ 7 ,1,1 ~~sl ~ ~!•'1•!~ . ~,nt.. ~ ✓,~•.-s K:•+1. ~ti • 1 J•• "(r7t:'1~ ate 1 ~ J`+t.,~ 1 • ~,'7 ~ r,:, a ~ f~ ~ ~ s•!'' }y ~ ~ ~L'/~ • 1r4>., 1 ♦ ,•~,J~. }I •CS] * 1• Y•..4~, t, ,S ~i, rli • ~ t►:'.tr~ _ ' •;~rr'!'r '(Qt:.•.,•i •'l:~r~,i' .:!fj:•. ~~'+v aa✓%~ ••Irt.,{' i,~~.?y;;~;~' i.~~~~~ .,f11(~i' ~.~v~'•l: ~~:y f'••.r~: /.•L ! L r ;t l` , 1 C•.1, !"~i:./ 1 • u•:a.• Y;f; c G y1: : y s'1.:~•t ` ~t► f.: :l;• itt'••~~ iL'•(:*7 .,r• •t► '7.at"~•+•5 ~{:4•'L+ 1' ' tt~l t 1- .Jlii i x ;IS 1, ' `r h:~la.~ w, 'r. l' ~SS a, If i:~}P~/~' >7 a.'.`'d' ; ~j'•• •I r+. 1 \t~• r~I~ •~/I.)~•1' r + l~, T•' ~•p .1, _j. r . j ~ ~I•t}i.r l:. j . +a), ~.•f.;;'Y,~ ~l a }~{~.'Y• .t! J :l r••TTi • IYr ~i• a' 1•• .•a:•. •~t`[,• ' s:+,?,' :h.'' i 'ra ~~•Z~ 't 1 . • ;.4'! ff• r•t.. py , ,Lj; ` J L"1'. r" '.\i Am !f .t1•~ ,r ,a t j.. y L:ti•j. J,•~'i^1t ~•i~•'.. ~.k :Y••' •'it1 ('i•::.,.tN ~ .•1•!~~,!Il1 ~•;:f' 1~, I~f. ^Y t r n, '.a, . r~.'a ;'!1. ~i'i~j' i-7.11 ,1 }a~.. 1„ " ••k,~'`M• it•] 1 .1 4 Ar!i' ( •I .J ~ • :!1! t~. • r ,I M, t,.r a 1•~h /1•, ,':0'. ' a•:~' .J 1 , ~ r M, ♦1: 1 .~•,•1 •'.l. ~S"; . ~ i't~..-i •It~•y!~ ;fir' •t•%~t il;+~ .!1'~ ':J~ M.,• , 1 1 a, t. / .•:r :1 : J.,. ,1 'K•7 t r~~j y .SS/tJ ,r. w • "•.a ' .r ,~,t, ~ r.P S •S:' L'••a,`i ~ ej/ <','~'~;4:.,' :v}'1; a J'! :r I .i": •1 ~ ~ )i / tiY a'.. / .y ) r • 1r~':~i k" ~tl 1,/:. '+y. I. >/•1. f ' .}~;••1, ~wl•r•••,y,~ a-~b.•' •J}k .,t~,•~,,1,; i•;~:J':.; r►.. ; f j,';1 .1• ~•1"tyi .JJ,t;C • -h1 t %ti1 : • '1 r ' :s •t. '1 .,r►.b~ ~ , /,~,•,j Jj: ~L~':., ~tl••y. 1'j• ~•a• A'•T,~,•.y '.n 't' 1I r N :a Z1L'~ ►'•s;•(t ~C+.•':~.'~'' ~1, _"a~• f a 1.1• i •rti•..I{ill ~.I~,~S~ L . ~ i~•o~j t ~i~: , t Y ' . •~i . t•..1•'~..7 t ~tlj'/ ••S1 ~1l-ti ~ t l } L♦ } k)' ` ~•,"r, ~~r I,~ }l~~ • "1 %'1•'.1 N (y~r.`~f : ~•'/~'i:.r .~••'..'y'' ;a.• r/t_',,,~• '~;,r:f~r~a 1••t+~l? l,~'ll I. r ~~I~ tart j rrw y.•. Jirt.,r} ! i;~t • A}'rI• 1. J~y ~L +a:A `J+• •f li y .!t t : . ' ~ •re~ 1. ~ f T r• ~Y;' •a~ N/ aa••.•! • a1 ~~iY,:. 4t .l;Y t 4r' :t~ L f+ J i~~ ia.K •1" ;"~t l t.,l E• /I~~''r•;iY'.~ :r.,r,••` u• ' r ' !J{ •1 `'r, ;.y !r^jL 1 ; "'a: r er ' Q J,. x•11 ~ ' 1,•. . ~ • ' :i.! .aM• . ,'.a. F r v • . y. A { a tit '.`,}Zh'•' • .:~+1.` Ul. 'ir rIr' h.•.. ~ Z. ! r I. ~ y. .f' tb~, 'Ilr„ (t;.'V''/ ,/.!~a':., ''va:4' M. 1 •~lr.'I~ ~fl•~ •y~~,.•'~~ t .3•tr.. .,,,~.J t r„ti,J.'1. a%'. j~ y r ,r r:. ~.~+:'r ;'~,•.t . ~..F+.:' .I!•~,~J•~9.. ~'jL~'t•(''~ 't.l J'%i.i )w,.•5.{ a•,I1 r ;.S •!a/A'"••a ►L.•. '~~'!Li . i• ft•• .J~;11J~ lr;irl'~~~1;k•~i v/..~~ :1✓ar~•~~.i•>. ,:1.~=.••1~ ' I,ti,!`• I . 't:'. • , r••''V'',.v}~,! ! i :K'• •'ik'k1••'••'' r •t. JP.1 / •r~4 / y.• . t ~,'r.V 4t:;~':. L 'a , ,r el:,.,•^a• 1 .'j ,•'i, j;?~ r 'r,~~',$,:•~t.s Y, C., .r. a r. +r;' 1r 'R'• ri4 i a,r•,1• ~ '►CI'' + ~ '1~N.!f'. -a. 'bf:i%';' I'//.. 1',it~ ~ ::I.,'t• 1111 •f•t:. ~r a : fir` lt..~~;i.:7.. ~'vw.'1,~,~' t'.j~{~'•~t,t lr~.M•d''••.` 'a'•±!•`I..l,{.y t'~y:.;iJ'•:f •~:+"'l, r:,y~':•; 'Y~ %'1~:::1 !1 2•. r' .}'i • ► .'.1:1~+., 'r. ~ t.; s" 3 +'.v a~ , .r ,•1.1•r~ ~1• r 1• F'', 1>; . a ►i• a i ~~:f r• 1. .'1;T• .w t ' ~ '~*Mr. 1• V l,a 1 ' '1. r,J•. 1'' ~''~'ti:' ( i. t•' ~ ~ 1:::~ ~,A:1:J•L: C(!.f l •a •r • • • i J , .itd 1 i,. ,Y I. ( j, : aa,, 1, • ~ y, t., ''/id • r•.td .i r••' •/n, t NL7 ,J'.. ~'Y l~ y. • C,, f?r•' + .,r.•~1. ~ - • „ r• ► ♦ 1 lr. a , 1 • r • ! i r., • ,,j t(„ a►' •:1 u.',• . i'~ • : t~,It•i 3. 1 '~,'t• ~J't~ '1' 1''t'. • Jr}.: , • , 1 ; ~,l •,1 ..V j: •i ~•/•:)l;.a•... a1' ..1 rl~..l ►ir J, r1l ~~a•} a. •nf l • •i; t rf / '~r~', 'M~,.~i k,~1~• 1 t' , j. 1•' i~'~ r.A ,.i j' ,i; r'4y.~ t•f);~'~••' It J•,' I:t+~•'r` Ij` %J'a r~ a • t .,:1 j'~ ,C `~J. ~ 'li, j;:YC' : • ; jl I rl~t•, ~ .«..r y ~,~+i L,r ,..1 . a•• y •1~:. •i.i.. e y ••J l . ~ • t 1 r ai:1~.~ •i' '%:',S • ~ (4''J .+•y~• ~'•,;lJ• ` ~:•t, .~t1'i.. r ,Y' 4!01,• ►1.•,~~' • «r.,tt• ! ~ .l i',~': ~ ~ . ~ .1.•• t • 'i . r: ► ,,.t . ,J• ~ ti. ~ 1!"•, ,yr!'.r} r .t. r t ✓ ;•K!lt;i,. ,vlr• •i.+~ a/. h)+ 1 11 1 1 •1! f) v ~ ( ♦l. b.E 'L: 1, r:1 r a 1. v.J+~ :~~/1' •i.~1! 1 h' .7'..r l'. l.t L v'a• S. f')„ s ' ~ 1''./~ ~ .,Il ,1•i 'y', r. 1 ».1'V•, r.i~ '•.a 1, 1' •.1•t 1'y 't•. k•ti,.. ~ t 'l 'Ift o• 1 4~ ~•••Y I ,q1 j,..ir } -iM~ ,~'1•' , , i1' t/;.. •},••.t. „ .•t'ufjf, ' 4 ` 1. 1',1A,)a'r 1'.k r YYY~•~ t 11 'i r rl 1 i•• .•1•• .14 • Y • r :ac.- •••1'.~ ,r r 1•.~ ,1a } 1 1` • i1 ~`1'•. rit!,t i•.y• , T { 1 f1I~. 11 1'~1~ Jt'f 11 •o.~l v t'.r)'', '~~•t:~ ~'.R•. 'ir'i I. kt '~~~.•V .".1,Y., ••.K J71.. P~•: ~.1,•'•t4'', I{~a}1. ' , r,•~r 1'•~,t'1 ~'j 'fkiJ~, T. ' ,1 1 'f 'v '1 4'•t' . 1~.'c,y :I ,1 >t. 1 1 . i Y' 1 7 y b•/.' / } r'' 1 . t}' J,: r .1~ J;'1 ' ,t, r t• t r•' f,-• t ,r J'~, a;, t'.•.r wa •.~t:..:~ f+.~~ P 1 , i r '1• { , 'f •1;.,11 ,A • !i' la q ~ . . . ,r . 1 , I: 1 , ~ ! ~ 1' • i~~ ' :1. 'i.t,i, a ~,l•:) ~+'t a11'• ~ ~i~l,~s~ /i • r': :~i . i' :lt~ h: i'~• r}~`.,''•'f .rlt,,l• •',/•.),1~•.t..,,j'!.. ".ti. •~•~j;' ~r'~.: .•.r~.,•• ~:.,^t~•; + ~.J ..l• .t ,ll .'..I 1' :_111 •~~1.. 'a}. ,JJJ,i~. •~~'.1 tr( •I: to V.~`~r'.'.' ,t. Ya~~•~~ YS i''}•r•'~ :I'r.:, ~tii1 llti •ia'N. r, ''1,)\~'..( r•> ~.1 •1~ ,a~i ♦...d ' •.ii IiiJt~t,. •a ~'I; y,}• ^ t• .t', 1 ~t ~:1 • ~`1~ '•t t••`o, ihN'a.~1 /rr'•4~`:••!j^•, ~ ` 1y ,••~.:1• ,y'/~!~•~ ~{r.. t ,1 • 1• ,r~, 1 )r 4+• r.~ r'• llt, J }/«,~'•~.I/1 .J,,,' ' PJ)p •~4tw ~j. :.1 ^ :~'1 :{•.1 1 ! 1'"'1',•~ .t :'1,.Z',~ + .1 ~:%J '1'~ 1"• rr r' 'I •~t i•• •I.S~'} ,'h ` '1 , ~ ~ t } ' T'/` •:1 ~ ( • • • ~ ' 'i. 't•' 1 ' ' ' 1'•• • k{'./; ~ 1 Q al" ~ ~a'~'~I ~ r ~ r . /l, Ir( • ,1,. . L j'; 1►'••: i' t•!'r.,1 J:J ~,II''r'' }f. '•!.r•;~ ~tt? r±. R}:~ •r~,~♦ V • f 1 1.. ly.• • J; ` `•a 1: •,1.,„. '1•,yla,, .l. •~I,1, J' 1,~,.'~;Y • .r IIi ~~j Irr. ~c,;1 K•.J • •f !r1 • '~`•'r '.',!1 r ~t.~• •J ~:1.•~• 1...:. l~,a/, :.l•',•r,r ''`•'r'•:~, ~ F ' ~,`~I•'•,Ir ,1 1'~) It 'i 1 •t,'•» } • a• 'a•', 't >7 (1 , ,1 r• •„i 111, ~''Y~'i .,,a, J~ ~1!t~. ~,►••~11. • V•,, V •a+•••r~ J :1••.1 ` ..:1: 1'":,•. •~~,7~ .•ari•~ t;', •y'1.•r ti/. •,1.,/,~' P~1'~ f:' t~1~ • 1 t: 1 r ''1, 4 ! I• • 1,., it.• ' •ri ••P;jl a~ ,NL~:, V~l!'•,~ }'fi~/•`:~ ••a►'r i 1 . 1: !r ( t .,Ir , '~l ti 1.~' ' 1 r.Y, • 1.•. ,,~~~;t.:r." 7,1. ~'y l•• IYr" ~•/r: i • , } 1` ~ '~"••1.~ k.1-1 •✓'1 ~.'1 rya, •`{v•'~i~• ,~~rt~'}•: • 1 '1 ,••~,1 IIIMII ' s ' C C f SCOPE A%O INTENT OF STAIDARD. ORCANIZATtON OF VfANDAttD. AND DFFINITIOVS SOIA_7 , Cross-Rrrerente seroeeo NCS11CSfN* PA Standard for construction standards for manufactured home corn- i Manufactured Horne Ieuallarions Manufactured Home Shea. munities. Included are requirements for manufactured ' Communities, and Set-ups) and the NFPA Stsndard for ritesatete home sites (whether a single site or sites located in eom• Criteria (or Mohilt Home Instselarions. Situ. and Communities munitieO. utility facilities (light. heat. water and sanita. .CSecs/ VFP.4 S01.4 VCSMCS/ VFP.4 sore . lion), manufactured home setups. and manufactured aYrA vFPA home on-site accessory buildings or structures. This stan- dard also eo.ers firesarety requirements for the installa• 18 t la) t•i /a1 92 3.2 tion of manufactured homes, sites including accessory - 1 2.1 lb) 1.2 (b) 82.1 5.21 buildings and structures, and communities and the main. 1-2.2 1.2.1 a 21.1 51 1.1 tenance of and improvements for existing manufactured 1.3 14 3 2 1.2 S•2.1.2 homes. i 1.4 1.4 8.3 5•3 1.4.2 1.4.1 $ 3.1 $41 1 5 I.5 • 3.! 3.3.2 1-2 Intended Usage of Manufactured Homes Covered 1.5 1 151 .8.34 !•3.3 Under this Standard. The provisions of this standard 1 s s 1.5.2 9.4 5.4 arc intended to apply to manufactured homes (single. t•6.s t 1.6 8.4.1 5.4 1 multiple. or espandable typra) for use as single-family 9.4.! 5.41 dwellings. {•4.3 5.4.3 8-51 5.5.1 Exception 1: TAis standard does not apply to manufac- ! 5.1 1 ! 1 8 5.2 $5.2 tured homes constructed and approted by the enforcing 5 3 1 1 2.1 authority bating jurisdiction specifically for multifamily 5 2 1 1 2 1 1 9.3.2 ! 5.4 4 3615age, 5.4 t 22 9 3 4 5.4'4 1 Este tion 2: This standard does not a ty to manefac- 5.4 s 2.3 f 3.5 54 42 p Pp 1.4.4 S-4.S tured homes utilized for other than dwelling purposes 6 1 3•1 1-2.1 Types of Structures Covered. ' 6.1 1 3•1.1 Appendix D Appendie w (a) bfanufactured Homes. The manufactured homes 6 11 3.1.2 6• t.s 3.1.2 covered under this standard are manufactured homes i _ complying with the Manufactured Home Construction { Appendix E Appendix s and Safety Standards as set forth in 24 C.F.R.. Pans 3280. 3282 and 3283 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) as man- 4 1 dated in the United States of America or. for manufac- 7.1.1 4.1 Appendix F Appendix C cured homes built prior to' June 15. 1976. to those complying with the Standard for Mobile Homes. NFPA ! t 5•1 Appendix J Appendix n 501B-1974/ANSI A) 19.1-1975 in effect at the time of 81.1 8•t.l manufacture. i. 6 1.3 2 S•1.! { 1.4 S•i.S NOTE t: Few the Manufactured Nome procedural and En• 8•t.5 5.1.4 forcemeat Regulations. as applicable in the United States of 8• I .S I S• 1.4. t America. 24 C.F.R., Parts 3290.3262 and 3283 (U.S.C. $491 es 8.1.5.2 5.1.4.2 sq.) 6.3 6 5 1 5 NOTE 2: The Standard for Mabik Hanes. NFPA $0181 (ANSI), may be referred so or guidance and Insy be used as the = ;o.erning document in areas outside the United States of Amer- sea and its poues4ons where ocher national of local taut do not t` apply. Manufactured homes used for ether than dwelling put. posts are not eo.ered. i' Standard for NOTES: For manufactured homes constructed prior to June k 15. 1976. consult with the manufactured home manufacturer for t Manufactured Horne Installations hisinstalWitentcquircnsenu. E (b) Accessory Buildings and Structures. See Chapter (Manufactured Home Sites, Communities 9 for requirements and descriptions of all accessory buildings. and Setups) 1-2.2 Applicability.. This standard is designed to be NFPA SCIA-1992 ANSI A225.1-t982 adopted by authorities having jurisdiction responsible for the uric and health of manufactured home fusers and;. for establishing regulations applicable to manufactured ° home communities. It is intended to apply to new rather than existin* manufactured home sites. communities and Chapter 1 Scope and Intent of Standard, set-ups. While this standard may provide useful technical Organization of Standard, and Definitions data for improvements to existing facilities falling within - its scope and such use is encouraged.'it is not intended to be applied retroactively to existing facilities except where,: 1-1 Scope. This standard covers the installation of the authority having jurisdiction considers such applies- manufactured homes. wherever located. and minimum tion essential for the safety and health of the occupants or w t S01A_ _%IA%VrACTI'RCO HOME MS_TALLATIO.NtS .s -rs of the facilities. This standaid shall not be con- _ mining Ow sterpsabilit) of in►,allatinn, or prnredures. equip. strurd as aelie%ing the iret.taller of a manufactured home tent of ma+eruls. ►M author;+. h,.ins jut+.dtrt:nn ma. WK acceptance on cc,mpLance %ith . CSD(S. XFM K other ap- of responsibility for compliance with local ordinances, pr.prcacr standard. In she abw"cr of wth aandard, said art. codes, and regulations established by the authorities thorittma.rrqu;set.;AenceofpseTrr;mcattamion•proredurtor having jurisdiction: for relieving owners or operators of site. the ituthority hs.ing jurad;cston maw she ester to the manufactured home communities from complying with liming or bbrfir.g practkes of an erRsn;rssiow d1warrnrd with ari hez legally enforceable regulations of an nsi P"`dart n•Iwuon .cRich is i^ a Posmilmot to determine corn. y'oa any res1'o vInner o ith appropriate standards for the current production of ble authority having jurisdiction: or for rrlieving the lismrdt+rrrss. manufactured home owner or tenant from responsibili- ties for the proper use and maintenance of a manufac- Awning. A shade structure supported by posts or col. cured home- umns and partially supported by a manufactured home installed, erected, or used on a manufactured home site. 1-2-3 Organization of Standard. This standard is divided into nine chapters with appendix material. The Awning, Freestanding., A shade structure supported chapters are divided generally by the kinds of work in- entirely by columns or posts and not attached to or sup- volved to facilitate adoption by reveal juri,, ctions. ported by a manufactured home or other structure. Chapter 1 provides general information: Chapter 2 gives information on site design. Chapter 3 contains material Awning, Window or Door. A shade structure sup. on >rtting up and stabilizing the manufactured home: ported ^holly by the manufactured home or building to Chapter 4 is on plumbing: Chapter 5 on fuels and supply which it is attached, giving shade to a window or door. $%•Stems: Chapter 6 on heating and cooling: Chapter 7 contains standards for electrical work: Chapter 8 gives in- Baling. A method of "wrappin a cross section formation on life and ftresafety, and Chapter 9 treats the (roof, walls, and floor) and the main game (chassis) of a subjects of manuf.eetured home accessory buildings and manufactured home with straps. structures Appendix material gives additional guidance as sho::n in she Contents. Building. A roofed structure erected for permanent use, I-3 Definitions and Units. Accessory Building or Structure, Manufactured Cabana. A room enclosure erected or constructed adjacent to a manufactured home for residential use by Home. A building or structure which is an addition to the occupant of the manufactured home. or supplements the facilities provided by a manufactured home. It is not a self-contained, separate, habitable Carport. An a+.ningg or shade structure for a vehicle building or structure. Esamples ate: awnings. cabanas, or vehicles which may be freestanding or attached to a ramadas, storage structures. carports, fences, wind- manufactured home. breaks, or porches. Anchoring Equipment. Straps, cables, turnbuckles. Community Building. Any nonlesidential building =.-*d chains, including tensioning devices, which are used used for manufactured home community purposes. With ties to secure a manufactured home to ground an- Community Building. Manufactured Home. One C}1Olj" or more rooms that are designed for industrial, profes• Anchoring System. A combination of ties, anchor- sional or commercial purposes and not intended as a ing equipment, and ground anchors that will, when dwelling unit. . , E designed and installed. resist overturning and Community Electrical Wiring System. All of the lateral movement of the manufactured home from wind electrical wiring, fixtures, equipment and appurtenances forces- related to electrical installations within a manufactured Approved. Acceptable to the authority having home community (park, estate, subdivision, etc.), in- jurisdiction. Acceptance shall be measured to the re- eluding the manufactured home service equipment. quirements of the .U.S. Department of Housing and Ur- ! ban Development as regards the Federal Manufactured Community Management. The person or entity who Home Construction and Safety Standard as set forth in 24 owns a manufactured home development or has charge, C.F.R.. Paris 3280 and 5282 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.). care, or control of a manufactured home community (park, estate, subdivision, etc.). Authority Having Jurisdiction. The -authority Community. Manufactured Home. A parcel (or having )urisdiction" as the organization, office, or in- contiguous parcels) of land which has been so designated dividual responsible for "approving- equipment, an in- stallation, or a procedure. and improved that it contains two or more manufactured home saes available to the general public for the place- NOTE: The National Conference of States on building Codes meni of manufactured homes for occupancy. and Standard,. Inc. (NCSBCS). the Notional fur Praretion A,snciacion (.NFPA). and the Atneskan Nationat Standard Its. NOTE: The manufactwed t►otr+r aiterRSaf k tot rent (u ista stisutc (ANSI) do not appro.•e. in,prct at test;() any installs- pars). of sites rear be sold for trtidensial trtcsipanq (as in a wb- tinns. ptocrdurrs equipment. at material nor do they approve division). ax eenifs am insmatlauon,. pprecrd,tres. equ;prnrnt. or material owe do sow) approve et e+alwere setting laboratorin. In deter- Community Street. A private way which affords e Housing, µ~D Seer.-Icy'd InU s ban D sst. Sec. lot the (20) gousiag the DePar Attlee Of A determine tart of an official °f of the ; tions used to a structure ment, oT suthort V1 of ~ Fdltlan) In• Calcula square feet in exteri delegated tespect to Title s e largest tart with respect CFR XX ~A•1.99 of tructuxe's t" th Gh, I number based on the d at 114 risk of death or ' or1 dimensions oje titons when erect de l,aw 9 "State' Includes ea of of Colt: incl unrealonable enstons will is and (21) District Puerto and ury• all aT' t horisontal P States, the of ,lent ersonal inj „ means true' site. These dtrooms, cabine interior exal Commonwean Islands. t2'e g 3 84 ~ rabtag, i exPandable containing r u anu os b ar he (11) thods of } other Projections windows' ae aiT'd Ame j rgertco~ Severe p ,Installat1o q 3280 2 tructures on , a petinttiona. S sup ,,X '(11) and fire safety, p sterns ' do not includ 9,11 s Z Se' sY ut Es Width est overall pions In .1 well ace, b udes uiremen (22) Its 1aTV ta) Defln to all subdipattorts n to t al iron, d electrical oducl" edbomes' symbol II sP is term in, a above req and with Kome" meve ing mode OInc ns whic those cormT'odn are in a In indivtdu hed In m ufactmeans al Qfla nation t which nt e stze requirem ma uiacturer in the td roSecti n ursu- nets an oor T pace. -width doe standard an vided usee Labeled B mark Labor terior P 07 c pro used In con (112) other d o atoxY, in- ; except t to vrhtch the certtfi oof j deflnitioT wh Ider' d t Eesttng respect files a clieis vripih the tarn i , der v'Tich iron p ~ ' „p,pproveadrl'y material, 1ypnBfiance with a or 11, Te n agency, or roer uct organitiation eva u n of v untar 28213 and comp t 3280. Nothdude bas windowsor eaves anwith comp ent i ant to In later' ang % nection y to epartm spectio ed with p dtc InsPec t or set forth should be overh space r amen stn ection ufactu o interio l e tkOn not on. s of tDeVD oPTnentbe- concern aintains labeled ege ng is In' van t is subs that a 'man reQUlre is n 58952. Dec. 18, Reties ~atec or r Teq ar an Urban rnidltne Eha of a 1a nationally inered to mean meets the ertY 140 FR a 1999. amendeG production d by whos ph the and means the of man. g 960, Jan... 1919'2"a goustn8 a ce with deter' 1 , necesv TI,Y Mt g tS of K D s gandbook pro990gioT or 4rR 20699• Apr' v' t 821 Center'ht and Jett side In catIl- lsco Allan ds or test specified home' oi(2) " the red . d%r a' men D 2a092. dune 29, tans. taeen the T19 means lien d star a in, lards (50 ticallY eligible FR T Acceptance ° P ome Label" the. recognize usaB Lured Stan automa 1g0%b). ufactured h mine' suitable 1. 1ASD ulee that it is S•C e Construe rttileWon tiftc Lion by der 12 U• 3280.3 cturei the Ce cera 80 8, is length a 'n hall Ssuch r approve iormEbixed each cqbl- ,lancing under faring to ach Sabra it lltanufactured Hom a ta) E esyer (3) " of u to nder 'i 32 trans- MaruteT;,bength of a t overall t d bove tureT to (13)1. eanslEslarBeSE con. i (11) s .11 26Ctmatnufacture °f ujS,C tiff man e m mode. including tfon' mean but not tuned Plans hfor °n' Y modethe l t netpu n tc the red h0aesi tnce ma, ar,enL1Y of each 1e to t gom Veling actured h to duTa factu for confor perm ble section ed for Sa 1n the txa tber pTOje6ngLb does not iri th assemblY ome Including, bility. o for anulso d o +e ectlons, anuf relating s Aorta m home Tn s. atertat those Secretary' taInets, ior space. 1roof PTO' there safetY Safety' of inspection shall c' d State M means Unite butible surfaced Ealn l vrtnea es' der hinclude j, ]imalitY and red Home ufac i dard. fan i C9) "CO made of. or fibers, elude bas or un does It qu factu man SEat uiacturer bitches ` "Manu e otmance annex that the b) each m building d b pant rte and overh an8 ace, nor h uell c t onstruction rim materials Tessed Papert, w11ilbSn consid Is no inrs ter coup m in- ` t18) e p rt woodier ma teTtal tba ai though a dr ba, lin C or ertified+, a eantion uch u th e t terials sb fl- as or by na means home totin. s against any n that ederal invoty fisted shed in- tuned cted hence of acct- the F force a eve t treated, or a list publi labora~I1ation d as stXbE even t is P occur ue In burn- Sue eom bu (14) public of Ehe or constr standard eluded iZed testing orB n able due to design a or manuiacraned home V etleed, fire- in re'09A or other evaluatio son to the ed hom • the ctuxot th or p 1 u%ti p meproof defect ally agency" duct of is such nufa dew tered• „Includes any comPe- ectirn Pro ction den ma roduced. ons u ertatn~T` t iron, sP with insp ilk It d ea, eriodie t or 13196' 1k Lion of reasonable oc to the public (c)emen of thefactured nYds a arY pl 5) Dc+rmanee' c f a m 'ueaor 2 cone aintain 1 e4utP Ste ates either any un Lltuser, occur. Tchi labeling Oi the the per • material o,he hom Y that action of tedLSLin B meets injury to do or A bedby Seca etcrence. or °rdtn rod se terial accidea, Engineer rac- rescri vents, that renders "tot the prod 1s, and W1113 ent or ma ds orb such kstered to P be as P • eq d Stan Reg n licensed a bit e of n of fit inLended art, terla the uipm lye dar for use t19) " as a perso Itecture In tion hone t there ,t was means the Dep that wile reeogn and suitable tect' mean or arch and lira' 3280.4 lnc°TP°~ irons, standard u e for abler TnenE° an AeveloPnbae t~ been ana jsaner. our m and engineering to all laws an Board a sPectfica °rganiza ears tice dsubject Ehe state's 1-`4- (a)Tof the followireferencc t t6) ~i °ustng and one or inaspecifiead uiacturer' ufacturing i State an Imposed byd ,,rcbttectuln the re codetncorp mea orated by to 5 U S•C u dard p s an n, es, Tti o 1orngineertng an Merit. ama uill ag 'g ho mess and who Is engaged. er F as obl, s t firths ah, are de (15) M m~ po Dwelling e family person erg aged in ers an of renderng sere aStan 1 e l (g) ,habitable To ted by °n sleeping. fWemblt" person erg for resale. a , a O racor tarring educe- and 1 CFP' , d2,rdsra 1 has been Federa26 ppl inerg• in full. T dard ~ more be occup living, p ed homes rneaT~ 1 prfeossiarnal p work req cation of of these st ec signed to for: chiding factur gome one or or eativeand eypertenc,i the Dir for O Ce standar sign facilities aterials, 111% m ManutacEuortab in _ ice training and the aPP ati by the d vrith d eating, eludes In s or " rtin th sciences of the mathemces erever refernc sistent. tl COOkin O'nIpment txtares. tilting (16) transp ich a traveling or sneering °aledge sciences Wh ion r this Standard Pr more sections, wh d engineering five work t t8) construction structure+ feet or more in special kn devices, the lumbtng+ hysical an crew eliis Standard a rofesstan vie rig and supervt• quiremen~ f t of the inconsis~na ' appliances. th °r site. is t both in is eight body body feet , P safetY+ a systems mode, tot 0- tkor' , evalua he e The abbreviattons,t e red rr accessoxt the fire or hen eree ted Taore square in calsuch profess h of, and acing. grad eleuctric home aidtt , or, twenty or a pertna- as consulta~nBn, in the P leng 11 iron,' plann etiionestgn sPecifica• nib T~anW,91tons issuing heat-pTOiacturedl10a factuTed dard' three hundred is built ° 6o be used forwtth ° of constr mar! Federal m liana the thT d whicd designe o pie l a and standard for ance feet, eraso an or atth ut er to ' sec ring compfor any such ork. construction a r onable and perform eets hen dwelling with aben cone es the r d design 185 me which m as a datic includ irons an meal's tion, deslBn+ • fours ties. and ditionirg, i con tmanufa the public ~bll t9,g, and tae TeUutredhe tang, . afr• t t ed there- 019, nee ds of dur9 binB, • s`'ems con ` qua]ItY and" p~ d electrical sY need'. for s etyImmi~ an sa(1,5 , "lxnmineht at pT resents means a haaard 194 i+ANUFACTURED_ HOMES FOk T ITLE_ 11 MORTGAGE IKSLFANCE This Department offers FHA Insurance on Manufacturea Homes (mobile homes) built since June 15, 1976. Except for a few oeviations, processing of applications is the same as for site-built housing. Utilizing e c on 203(b) program, a DIRECT ENDORSEMENT LENDEk OR THE. LOCAL HUD office can determine if a property is elAgible for up to a 30 YEAR MORTGAGE of the maximum mortgage limits of 366,450 in the Portland Area or $65,200 elsewhere In Oregon. EXISTING HOMES - OVER ONE YEAR OLD FHA will insure a high ratio loan to a qualifies owner-occupant if the borrower meets normal FHA mortgage creait stanaards, if the property meets the General Eligibility Criteria ano other requirements outlineo below, ano if the home has been installed only once since manufacture at the location where financing is being requesteo. EXISTING HOMES LESS THAN ONE YEAk OLD FHA will limit to a 905 loan those new homes which were installeo on the site less than one year prior to the bate of application for mortgage insurance, UNLESS the home founoation ano perimeter wall is covereo by a builders warranty ano a 10-year insureo protection plan accepteo by FHA, (Housing varranty Corporation, Inoianapolis: Home Owners warranty Corporation, Washington, D.C.), ano the property meets the General Eligibility Criteria anc otner requirements outlineo below., in which case FHA will insure a high ratio loan. PRCPOSEG HOMES FHA will insure a high ratio loan to a qualified owner-occupant if the property meets normal FHA mortgage creait stanoaros; if the property meets the General Eligibility Criteria ano other requirements outlines below; if the home is being installeo for the first time since being manufacturea. Incluoeo is a manufacturers warranty along with a signea statement from-the manufacturer stating that: a. The manufactureo home has been properly braced ana stiffened at the factory to prevent racking ano damage curing transportation. b. The nanufactureu home sustainea no damage curing transportation.. c. Tne homes insulated "Uo" value will not exceeo 0.099 for climate =one 11. (calculateo accoraing to NFPA 5O1) o. If the home was manufactureo in separate sections, that the sections were properly joineo and sealeo. 2 Other exhibits requireo for proposed homes include: a. Msanufacturec Home Mooel Description brochure. b. List of standard features. c. Factory oroer conformation form. A. General Eligibility Criteria. (New ano existing homes) 1) The home must have a floor area of no less than 400 square feet. 2) Tne home must be constructeo in conformance with the Federal Manufactured Home Construction ano Safety Stancaras, as evioencea t)y an affixed certification label, according to 24 CFR $3280.8. Only manufactureo homes proauceo after. June 15,1976, will bear that seal. Manufactured homes proouceo prior to that date are not eligible for insureo financing unoer Title II. 3) The home must be classifieo ano taxed as real estate (not as personal property). 4) The mortgage must cover the manufactureo home, it's founoation eno its site, ano nave a term of no more than 30 years from the date amortization begins. 5) Tne finisheo grace elevation beneath the manufactured home or, if a basement is used, the lowest finisheo exterior grace adjacent to the perimeter enclosure, must be at or above the 100-year return frequency flooo elevation. This requirement applies wherever manufactureo nomes may be installeo, not just in locations ciesignateo by the National Flooo Insurance Program as areas of special floor hazard. 6) A permanent founoation and perimeter footing and wall is required. he manufactureo homes main steel beams must.be supporteo on poureo in place concrete footings, min. 8" X 20" X 20" with, piers, supporteo on undisturbed soil. The height of piers is not to exceeo 3' - 4" unless supporteo by a registereo professional engineer's calculations. a. Piers may be aIsingle cry stack of 8-inch by b-inch by 16-inch concrete blocks 1 he blocks are not stackeo more than three blocks high. A pier of a single stack of blocks must be installeo at right angles to the main longitudinal steel beam and must be cappeo with no more than two 2-inch oy 8-inch by 16-inch wooo blocks. 3 b. A pier may be a double ar stack of 8-inch by 8-inch by 16-inch concrete blocks 3f the blocks are not stacked more than five blocks high. Each layer of blocks in such o pier roust tW stackeo at right angles to the previous layer of blocks. The piers must be capped with no more than two 2-inch by 8-1nch by 16-inch wood blocks. The piers shall be installeo so that the top joint between the cap concrete blocks is at right angles to the main longitudinal steel beam. c. A pier of concrete masonry block may be stacked more than five blocks high if the inoivioual cells of the blocks are filled with 2,000 PSI concrete cr mortar ano reinforcing steel as disigneo by a licensed engineer. o. All blocks must have compressive strength of FM of 1080 psi and must be set with the cores placeo vertically. e. Two opposing wedge shaped shims that are not more than 2 inches thick by 4 incnes wide by 12 inches long may be useo-to fill the gap between the main longitudinal steel beam and the top of . piers. Also, weoge shims to oe nailed on each sloe of frame into 2" X 8" X 16" wood block. f. In addition, a oureo in lace concrete perimeter footing, min. 6" deep by 1211 wloe accoroany to ocs soils condi ions with either a steel reinforceo concrete, steel reinforceo concrete block or pressure treated wood perimeter wall is requireo for every manufactureo home insured. ecure the perimeter wall to the outsioe of the dwelling's rim joist and perimeter footing by anchoring devices adequate to resist all loads identified in 24 CFR 200.926 (this incluoes resistance to ground movements, seismic snaking, potential shearing, overturning ano.uplift loads caused by wino etc.). Where a basement is included, founoation oesign by a registered engineer is requireo ano design.calculations ano oetaileo drawings for construction of the permanent foundation, perimeter wall and anchorage must be submitted with the application. All pressure treated wood must comply with the following: 1. Treating Process. Only pressure processes described in the "AwPA bloc of Stanoares" t-1, C-2, and C-9 shall be used. 2. Preservatives. All preservatives must meet the requirements of the current AWPA P-S. 7) The towing hitch and running gear must be removed from the manufactured home (including tongues, axles, brakes, wheels, lights and other parts of the chassis that operate during transportatfort). 4 8) The home must have permanent utilitles, installeo and protected from freezing. 9) Provide crawl space ventilation of 1/1500, a jQdl-plastic grmM cover with 6" min. lap and a min. 18" high X 24" wide crawl space access with locking devices. 10) Provide permanent steps and porches (minimum 316" X 316") at entrances. All exterior porches.wooo decks, structural aaembers am railings shall be constructea of either: pressure treated wood, reawooo or western red cedar. All porch support concrete piers to be on undisturbed soil and comform to local and state building codes. 11) Provide an.all weather driveway of concrete, asphalt or gravel to be properly graded and of sufficient depth to maintain a year around stable surface; min. one parking space per home site. Recommenoea dimensions of parking space to be minimum 910" X 2010". Recommenced concrete or asphalt maximum driveway grade - 14 percent. Gravel - 7 percent. 12) Gutters ano downspouts are required west of the Cascades - show method of disposal of water on plot plan. (dry well location etc.) 13) Aoequate site drainage must be provideo as follows: a. Slope site _away _from the side of buildings. The purpose is to gain roof water and o ner surface water away from all building walls. where possible, drain water away from foundation at min. 5% for 109 and off the remainder of the site at min. 2%. where such protective slopes meet a slope which orains towards the building, provide a arainage swale of adequate width, depth and longitudinal gradient necessary to carry the surface water away without flooding. b. Site grading control: The single most important grade relationship for proper lot gracing ano drainage is top of founoation to street elevation. If the top of foundation elevation is too low in relation to adjoining street grades, aoequate protective slopes ano drainage swales may not be possible to orasn the site satisfactorily. If the site is too high, unnecessary terracing and expensive outside stairs may result. 14) Final inspection oy an FHA Fee Inspector is required to verify that the dwelling placement 'is in accordance with required exhibits. Mortgage company is to obtain final inspection from the assigned inspector noted on the conditional commitment, or assigned by the HUG Office. 5 6. The following drawings must be submltteo In duplicate w1th•the Information noteo: 1. Plot Plan - to scale of 1" = 201-0" or 1116" _ .1'-M, minimum. a. Lot, block number and street address, if known. b. Dimensions of plot with north arrow. c. Location of manufactured home garage, carport or other accessory builoings if any. d. Location of walks ano driveway. e. Location of steps, terraces, porches, fences and retaining walls. f: Location and oimensions of easements and established setback requirements, if any. g. Indicate elevation at the following points: 1. Finish grade elevation at lot corners. 2. Finish grace elevation at each corner of manufactured home perimeter wall. h. Snow existing contours at. 51011 intervals on sites with slopes in excess of 2 to 1 slope. I. Show. protective slopes ano approximate location of drainage swales. use arrows to show direction of water run-off. j. Snow location of well, septic tank and orainfielo when individual water system or inoiviaual sewer disposal system is used. 2. Founoation Plan to scale of 1/4" = 1' -0" a. Show poured in place concrete footing locations for main steel beam support and perimeter wall support. b. Show foundation piers ano perimeter wall locations. C. Show-footing locations for porches, decks, and garage If any.. -d. Provide complete dimensions ano notes. 3. Foundation Section/Details at 1" = P -0" scale a. Show section/elevation thru main steel beam support pier and footing. b. Show section thru perimeter footing and wall including connection of perimeter wall to dwelling rim joist and poured In place conc. footing. c. Provide complete dimensions ano notes. 4. Garage/Carport plan and detail drawing at 1/411-c 1'-0" a. Show plan, elevations and details with dimensions. C. The following aaditional exhibits must be submitted in ouplicate: 1. A signeo Builders Certification for all foundation ano site work. "Certifaeo 6uiloer" (Manufactureo home founoations only) status. is obtaineo by submitting the builder's first case to MUU A, E ano-C branch for review ano approval. After a builder is certifieo, subsequent cases are submitted directly to a Direct Endorsement Lenoer for processing, along with a signed "Builder Certification" sheet for each case. 2. Verification of Local Building Coce status signed by-the builder ano lenoer. 3. A Builder's warranty, Form HLO-92544, for all foundation end site work. k 4. FHA 92005 Description of Materials for foundation, garage, deck ano site work. 5. MuL 92800 Application r 6. Location map (preferably a tract plat map similar to Preliminary Title Report) 7. Incivioual Sewage.System (if any) Permit by Local Authority for a new dwelling or existing less than 1 year olo. 8. A current certifieo report-from a licensed well driller for a new ` dwelling or existing less than 1 year olo, with a well, as follows: a. The pump test shall be conaucteo-using the pump installed In the p system. i 7 i b. Pump the well at a rate of 5 gallons per ednute for 4 hours. C. Record the flow from the pump every hour while the pxp 1s operating. r. d. Recoro the water level elevation below Vie ground surface. E `r e. If the well is impossible to enter, then pump the well at 5 gallons per minute for 8 hours. f. Include with the above report a copy of current bacteriological ano chemical tests of the water. Include an arsenic test in areas of probable occurrence. Testing ano location of water ano/or septic system(s) must be apprnved by local health authorities having jurisdiction in the area. If the local healtn authority will not perform the services, private State certified laboratories may be useo. t • f i. 9. If applicable; Special founoation engineering for soils, wind, or- flood plain problems. s. C r C' h. f C yr . €€t. . 7 1 i0562f 10/06/66 110 C'ontractor's Guide to the Building Cade f•'oundt ;ilk trnck width nUt II? 5s than studs 17-1 i .It Grade t~ (hic Y,ness ti" 1 story d" 2 story o. t 12" 1 story r 5" 1 story 12" 1 story t r• f • 15" 2 story E" 2 story 15" 2 story Typical Footings and Foundation Walls Distance from Grade to bottom of footing will vary with area. Code calls for feotings to be placed below frost level. } rvn gyn. ni /:wm B.Aj,, lyfe. v I,02, 1( 1k) Figure 6-9 Residential Foundations Underfloor Ventilation Whenever vuu have an underfloor area created by a crawl space but which is not a basement or a usable space, or a space that is nut used for habitation, you must provide ade- quate ventilation. This may be done by cutting vent holes in the foundation walls or by mechanical means such as a mesh fan. Vent holes trust have a net area of square feet for dime: each : S linear feet of exterior foundation wall. To reduce trial rl (Irv rot in the foundation, arrange the vents to give cross "enulation to all areas of the unused space. ed n I ~ II ed n FOUNDATIONS SECTION R-304-Foundation Walls. R-304.1-Concrete and Masonry. R-304.2 BackfIII Damage. The f loor framing system should be in place and anchored to the foundation wall as shown in Figure No. 304.2 to minimize the chance of damage to the foundation wall resulting from placement of the backf ill against the foundation wall. Also shown in the figure is the minimum distance above adjacent grade to which the foundation must be extended. Such extension is necessary to provide termite protection and minimize the chance of decay resulting from moisture migrating to the wood framing. A reduced foundation extension is permitted when masonry veneer is used. Finish grade 8" min. Foundation wall (masonry or plain concrete) Floors must be anchored and connected to restrain the top of the wall; the bottom must be restrained at the footing by concrete floor slab. keyed foundation or mechanical anchorage (reinforcing steel) J Basement floor slab or inside grade or crawl space Wall footing Below frost depth FIGURE NO. 304.2-BRACING FOUNDATION WALLS AGAINST LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE R-304.3-Foundation Studs. The requirement for foundation studs (knee-wall studs, cripple-wall studs) are contained within this section. The minimum length of 14 inches for foundation studs. is intended to provide sufficient clear space by which required nailing of the framing may be accomplished.. If the wood-framed foundation wall does not permit the installation of foundation studs of such a length, a solid blocking method of construction may be employed. Further restrictions of the section provide that when foundation studs exceed 4 feet in height, the partial-height wall shall for purpose of stud sizing be sized as if the partial-height wall were an additional story. Such a condition may occur in buildings of a split-level type, buildings with floor levels partially below grade or buildings with under-floor crawl spaces larger than the minimum specified within the code. The purpose for the treatment as an additional story is based upon the load-limiting capability of studs of a particular size as the stud's unsupported length is increased. In addition to the concerns for the vertical load-carrying capability of the studs and short foundation walls, a concern for the transfer of lateral loads through such walls when acting as exterior walls and bearing.partitions necessitates the bracing of such walls in accordance with Figure No. R-402.3.2 of the code. R-304.4-Masonry or Concrete Foundations. Foundation walls using unreinforced masonry or plain concrete are considered acceptable when'such walls will not be subjected to more pressure than would be exerted by AV% backfill having an equivalent fluid weight of 30 pounds per cubic foot. Where unstable soil is present or the structure is located in Seismic Zone No. 2, 3 or 4, the possibility of additional lateral loading necessitates the use of foundation walls as prescribed in Table No. R-304.4.2. A review of the seismic risk map contained within Appendix A provides one with the necessary information to ascertain the seismic zone. If unstable soil or ` ~ t , ~ t1• Z R i. • ~ A rte' A' 7~~L'^..l~t,',C Y1 2;; 7ta .i~C~:~ ~a~r' ;v S' C ~ . . '•W +Cra: .;t.' r.f.~}',~.•.A y y~- . S, i'.:: ri•+'+•.t~, 'N t ~ '~.::yti.:lij •'ti;.~ •vFa ,t~,~!~r , ~y/'~•.i~ ~ "'s;• • ..^.e(i:~ r 7ri.,;: :7,1•' u: i . j.. .}:F.'s.. •i •.A,.1 J~4]ri '1••:. • .S ; S•` , ,S~"?~!}'a,~ . h.: r•' .r. :'.;.'fa.'••5.; ~>i.a: `5~,:.J,t ,~•"S:.• ..:A~~, yl'•r, jit`il;* .i ti•,, .L: , • • ~:..•A ',1. . M~ ~M ``',1,•,~•"." 'i •1•::11„•? i., A, EXTERIOR 6,. CONCRETE SIDING JE BLOCK .019 FLASHING (2X4)OR(2X6) SUPPLIED WITEtLCO BASEME SIDEWALL UNIT EXTERIOR DOOR (a2"x 8C I/2 X 16 PRESSIDING TREATED PLYWRAO -15M/F T, 9 2 X 4 MUD SI-BEAM PRESSURE TR(SILL SEALER Iv NON- AIg FLASHING HY INSTALLESHRINKING SUPPLIED WITH GROUT. UNIT 2 X 8 MUD SILL 4+ CONCRETE PRESSURE TREBLOCK 12 ¢ R00 IN Ill X 15~ PRESSURE (SILL SEALER CONCRETE' FILLED TREATED PLYWOOD 8Y' ~NSTAI.I.ER) CONCRETE BLOCK PERIMET0 'INSUL- FILLED BLOC8 CONCRETE ATION BY-INSTAL DETAIL BLOCK LER (WHEN REa'D) OUTSIDE ENTRANCE SECTION E E SECTION F F f, MINIMUM FOUNDATION vENTIt:ATtON RE00. 6. CONCRETE TO' BE 3000 'PSI IN 28 DAYS 2x4 OR 2X6 SICE Y^Lt A, Vt50 OF CRAWL SPACE AREA OR AS A. CONCRETE POUR WITH SLUMP OF (4} sxaERZm R£Q•0. BY LOCAL CODES. 7. ALL WINDOW VENT OPENINGS MUST BE 2, BXt6 VENTS W/RODENT SCREEN$ OPERABLE DAMPER, AT LEAST 2'A' FROM BEAM SUPPORT 51E•x11'A.►KHOR DOLL RODENT SCREEN MESH SHALL BE A CORROSION LOCATION RESISTANT WIRE MESH-tW- Q~ER ~ NOTE: THESE DETAILS MAY BE USED FOR a 6'•0'0.0. I/4' IN ANY DIRECTION, BASEMENT FOUNDATIONS WITH THE TYP, t1lJD Sill 3. AN I X 24' ACCESS MUST BE PROVIDED TO FOLLOWING CHANGES. OLI THE CRAWL SPACE AREA. A. WALLS TO BE A MiN OF 131/2 BLOCKS 3 h~ > RSATFD KriN C'OS 5 ll 4. 2500 PSF ALLOWABLE SOIL HEARING PRES. IN HEIGHT a' coHC c'co:ac BLOCK OR TO BE SIZED BY INSTALLER FOR B. 4' CONCRETE BASEMENT FLOOR REd0. FILLED ACTUAL. SOIL BEARING PRES. C. A FOUNDATION DRAIN SYSTEM PER BLOCK gDrSCA"PI 5. THE FOUNDATION MUST BE DESIGNED f BUILT LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS DETAIL TO LOCAL CODES f ORDINANCES f MUST BE 0. INTERIOR OR EXTERtOFi STAIRS REO'0. s TYP. MUD SELL BUILDING f INSPECTED BY THE. LOCAL ANCHORING BUILDING OFFICIAL. THE EXTERIOR WALLS MUST BE SOLIDLY SUPPORTED BY THE FOUNDATION WALL. THIS FOUNDATION SYSTEM WAS NOT' DE5IGNE0' TO HAVE E -LE HOME FRAME SUPPORTING THE EXTERIOR WALL LOAD. NARLETTE NouEs ASSUMES NO RFFSP0NPPI81t 1T ~FO RNN 0 A IS SI H 0 TOM f~OFUNDATI EXCEPT FOR METHOD ar. a•~ CORPORATE iROIKtRING 1111L TAII C' .'N CA IMOCI A.. / StoEwu 2 X 8 MUD SILL 51LL SEALER X3 WELO FLOOR SYSTEM BY It1SIALLER t2XA OR (2X6) g HALF BLOCK 1 ~0£WALL MUD SILL OUIRIGGER A CONCRETE ~t /FT • ZXg BLOCK A 2~ X6 CONCRETE 2XAENDWALL FLOOR OORu 01Y INSTAL ER BLOCK CIE FILLED) ' 1 F,4 S 2X I TREATE B' HALF pER►METER ptAC 2Xq lr1UD SILL IR£AIED IIASULATIOh 1/Z RE-ROD is RH 11 PRESSURE PRESSURE BLOCK By%tASTALLER GROL SILL BYWHEN REtgQ? SEALER VAPOR BARRIER INSTALLER) t2' 1/2 pARGING q X 16 LF CONCRETE , I-BEAM LATtOh W NSPHALT,D ~ ` ANO FILL BELOW ROST LNEL CO CRETE FOC F AHABLOCK PERIMETER 4ER~WHEN tWHEN REQ 8X 16 CONCRETE INS q BY 0,) FOOTING REQ CONC BARRIER 6 CONCRETE CotACR~TE BLOCK RETE VAPOR BLOCK RE_ROO SESTIQN G D g 2 ►12 ~ • BLOCK 9 t NO FILL. lhE I# PARGING '°~4 B'X 16r CONCRETE BELOW LOCAL FROST L ASPHALT FOOTING SE~'(ION 8 WHEN REdD. E -ROD A t2)Yz LORE LocAL FROST TION AA f t 'S~ E, wELOEo BELOW r~EC MARRIAGE BEAM q' BLOCK WALL 3/8 Y. t n 19 . 0 GED Y. 3 WELD WELD q A MUO SILL SAREA T ' FT POST OW ONTO BEAM J~ Xt11t ~ 3' X 7.5F~ ...BEAM gENO p N WELD lir•.i: g"1 1. HEAT 8005 BE FLANGE 10 ,,r • PLATE t' t _ /16 STEEL 3/a y 31 WELD 6 2• WELD R00 X N FT PO R BOLTS I /L QF NONGRQUT 6 (TYP) • o * ~T t`t) M SECURME T SHRINKING •X 7.58e~:CAR ANCHO BEA 1 D MI~~t~y"~ 2gol VERSE N pNCRET~ VERSE BEAM dAPOR 8^ RESOD TRANS VS OES~RIPf10N arc 'FILLED BLO OF TRANS SAItAo tq)1/2 t0 REV 0A ro~uc owl BLOCKS *r. Ta NSVERSE BEAMS FILL. EACH WAY FOOTING SIZED {YPICA 2. ROLL 'ROUSE BLOCKS A- %I ABOVE STEPS PER FOUNDATION - - 3, INS CRL E IS USED, DRAWING 4. ►F VAYION BLOCK. vERSE SECTION 00 AT TRANS FouNDATICIN . I~'tlr~dp~ :1187 E;ti•raet. G • et .c, c•i Dec. 16, 1989 Mr. Jerry Edwards,, I'layor- # t" .a u ' On ~ t t city of rigrird 13125 S, W.1 Hall Blvd. a~U Tigard, +._Jr 97223 ;.J' Dear Mr-. Mayor- FZecentl the T':i. gar(l P:l E:inni rig Uepaartmen t al.:l arwed ti-iie location of a mobile home on a resi dent i al lot on Cook: Lane. 1-his decision was appealed to the Plannirig Corrimi s.si. on, whi c:-h decided t:iy a Z I. vote to uphold the Pl,--knninq Departmerit.'<s decision. NPO by :a vote of 6 to 0, with :l abs•tensi. on r-eCjUeS_tS:, that the Cit':, COUnci1. r-evi.ew thi_., deci.si.or-, both as i.t a pplies to this part.i CU l var•• case, and more i mpor tat --'tnt l -t o f! itUr-e f appl. i cations„ "s After reviewing the l..i r.+aird CommC.iri i. t:.•y DL-velopi-Tient Code we believe that this home does not conf: (--arm -to the requirements of the Code. r Ttie Plarininq DeparLment's iriL;=r pr eL~ttion allows azir)y rriarir.ira i-L N ' i 1 h~rnra which.- 1. is a:t•_ l a_s square feet in size, u-__>es ida.ng n1a-terial. C::C.IStomctrily used by site-br_i:i.'lt I—,c-imes, meets the i-UD Code for mobile homes tc locate on an-y: residential . lot without a covanent restricting them(.. This is a. neta ir•it.erpretai_iori. ~du CIOUbt that -the City Council intended this rriearii.nq in making the slight change -to the Code passed e,;trli.er this year, but only the Council can sIty. Section 1C. x'6.0730 of -the Code defines "ManLifE:tctUred Home A factory fabricated transportable building desiclned to meet Ll-ie Uniform Tsui l di r,q Code...". The home in gUesti on and mobile homc:~ s in general do not meet the Uniform L-iui l di ng Code. Section 18. 94•. 040 "Manuf actl.ll'-ed Homes on Individual j Building Lots" Paragraph 1 states, "The home shall meet all i c requir•-emt=ri•ts applicable to si.nq].n-•fanii7.y dwellings...". + Paragraph sst_ates, "All manufactured homes... shall be ` elevated on a permanent:, foundation and shaill be securely anchored to an aidequatel. y anchored foundation system...". This home is placed on blocE::s and is riot Anchor-ed. The City building inspector testified at the planning commission that mobile homes do not need -to be on a. foUnda.tion or anchored i~ 1 Page - i. r i 1 1 and therefore this building did not need to be. r Thank: you -for your consideration o•f tFiis regUest4 Sincerely, Herman Porter, C=hairman NPO i i t F Ee 1 C-- Page - 2