Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - 09/07/1982 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. AGENDA TIGA-RD PLANNING COMMISSION September 7, 1982 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - LECTURE ROOM 10865 S.14. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon 1. Open Meeting 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. 4. Planning Commission Communication 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Neighborhood Planning Organization Appointments NPO #''s 2, 4, 5 & 7. 5.2 ZOA 6-82 Zone Ordinance Amendment 5.3 CU 7-81 Cecil Boone Park NPO #5 5.4 ZC 12-82 Zone Change Sunnyside Estates S 4-82 Subdivision NPO # 6 5.5 PD 2-82 Planned Development Cambridge Square S 5-82 Subdivision NPO # 2 5.6 ZOA 7-82 Zone Ordinance Amendment Chapter 18.84, Section 18.59.030. 6. Other Business a. Discussion of Sign Code Revisions 7. Adjournment T I G A R D P L A N N I N G COMMIS S I O N Regular Meeting September 7, 1982 1. President Tepedino called the meeting to order at 7:33 P. «i. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room, 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Tepedino; Commissioners Clifford Speaker, Phil Edin, Mark Christen, Bonnie Owens, Roy Bonn. Excused absence: Susan Herron and Richard Helmer (Commissioner Moen arrived at 7:36) STAFF: William Monahan, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth Newton, Associate Planner; Ken Elliott; City Attorney; and Diane Jelderks; Clerk Typist. 3. Minutes from August 3, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting where considered. Commissioner Speaker moved and Commissioner Edin seconded for approval of minutes. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of those Commissioners present. 4. There was no Planning Commission Communication. 5, PUBLIC HEARINGS • President Tepedino opened the Public Hearings by reading the usual statement of authority for the procedure to be followed in the meeting Commissioner Moen arrived at 7:36. 5.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPOINTMENTS NPO # 2,4,5,& 7. A request by various citizens to be appointed as members of NPO #2, 4, 5, and 7. • Director of Planning and Development Monahan explained how the applicants for the Neighborhood Planning Organization were interviewed by a team consisting of himself, a Planning Commissioner and/or an NPO Chairman. The following individuals were recommended for appointment to the NPO's. Bruce Clark NPO #2 Gary Reid NPO #4 Mary Keski NPO #2 Louis Miller NPO #5 Rick McMahon NPO #4 Joe Schweitz NPO #7 Mrs. G. Ball NPO #4 Peggy Ober NPO #7 Carl Johnson NPO #4 Bob Irby NPO #7 Lou Christen NPO #4 Michael Heim NPO #7 PUBLIC TESTIMONY • No one appeared to speak. COMMISSION DISC'USSION AND ACTION: e Commissioner Speaker commented he had sat in on several of the interviews and was quite pleased with the caliber of the people applying for these appointments. • Commissioner Speaker moved and Commissioner Bonn seconded to forward the names of the twelve people to the City Council with their recommendation for appointment. • Commissioner Owens was concerned with the numbers of people in NPO #7 who all lived in the same area. Also, with the large number of people who did not live in the area, but operated businesses. • Director of Planning and Development Monahan stated the team had taken this into consideration at the time of the interviews. He and Commissioner Moen had discussed this and had checked the ordinance to assure they were in conformance. e Discussion followed regarding the balance in the NPOos between residents and non-residents and the number of members living in the same neighborhood. • Motion was approved by a unanimous approval vote of the Commissioners present. 5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 6-82 A request by the City of Tigard to amend Chapter 18.32.020, C-4 Residential Commercial Zone, of the Tigard Municipal Code, adopted June 21, 1982 to include Retail Commercial Uses as a conditional use in a C-4 residential zone. • Associate Planner Newton made staff recommendation for amending section 18.32.020 to include General retail sales as a conditional use in a C-4, Residential Commercial Zone. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • No one appeared to speak COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Speaker seconded to have the ordinance that was drafted by staff to include general retail sales as a conditional use in a C-4 residential commercial zone to be forwarded to City Council with their recommendation for approval. • Commissioner Moen question what had precipitated to require this ordinance. PAGE 2 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 • Associate Planner Newton explained that when staff had rewritten the zoning code for C-4 they had limited it to much. This type of use had been allowed prior to the rewritting. This had become apparent during the Milligan Comprehensive Plan Change. However, they felt it would be more limited to have this as a conditional use versus a permitted use. • Commissioner Edin questioned what process the applicant would be required to go through. • Associate Planner Newton explained they would need to go through a hearing for the Conditional Use before the Hearings Officer, then they would have to go through a Site Design Review, which requires Planning Directors Approval. Also the NPO would review the proposed. • The motion was approved by unanimous approval vote of the Commissioners present. 5.3 CONDITIONAL USE CU 7-81 NPO #5 A request by Bob Boone and Dave Hall for a one year time extension to an approved Conditional Use to allow construction of single family attached units in the R-5 zone. Property is located on the north side of Durham Road, 625 ft. east of Hall Blvd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12C lot 5100). • Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for a six month extension to allow the applicant to submit another LID proposal to the City. • APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Ryan O'Brien, Planner, R.E. Bancroft & Associate 140 N.E. 3rd, Hillsboro; because of the economy they needed a one year time extension. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • No one appeared to speak. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTLE • Commissioner Christen asked the staff why they were recommending a 6 month extension versus one year? Associate Planner Newton stated the Public Works Director felt this was adequate time to form the L.I.D. • Commissioner Bonn questioned the size of the L.I.D. and the number of signatures required. He felt even if they got the signatures together it would still take three or four months before they could get the L.I.D. finished before going through the Council hearings. Then they still have to file a preliminary plat and go through that hearing before the Planning Commission. He did not feel six month was enough time to accomplish this. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 • Commissioner Owens questioned staff if they felt the applicant should be able to accomplish all of these requirements within six months. Associate Planner Newton stated the applicant needed to make substantial progress on the Conditional Use; and by submitting the next subdivision approval along with the L.I.D. signatures this would be making substantial progress. Staff would not expect approvals to be done within that six months. • Discussion between Planning Commissioners, Staff and Applicant followed regarding substantial progress and time extension for 6 months versus one year. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Commissioner Moen questioned if this area was changing in any way where this development wouldn't fit. Associate Planner Newton stated she saw no problem with that. • Commissioner Moen moved and Commissioner Edin seconded to approve a one year time extension for CU 7-81 per Planning Commission's discussion. At Commissioner Bonn commented that maybe there should be a time limitation of two years and not go beyond that unless there are some extenuating circumstances. to Commissioner Speaker stated that at the end of the year applicant would have to come before the Commission again for another time extension or it would become dead, • The motion was approved by unanimous approval vote of the Commissioners present. 5.4 ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-82 SUNNYSIDE ESTATES NPO #6 SUBDIVISION S 4-82 A request for a zone change from R-7 to R-5 single family residential and approval of a 25 lot subdivision on 3.89 acres. to Associate Planner Newton made staff recommendation for denial of the ZC 12-82 & S-4-82 based on information submitted by the applicant, applicable NPO goals and policies and staff's field investigation. • NPO REPORT - Jane Miller 10920 S.W. Highland Drive, representing NPO #6, read a letter from NPO #6, not supporting the zone change from R-7 to R-5 or the 25 lot subdivision. They did vote unanimously to support the original subdivision plan for 15 lots, approved on February 20, 1980. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - John Gibbon, Staff Council for the Robert Randall Company, submitted to the Planning Commission a Diary of Events for Sunnyside Estates formally know as Gulfside Estates. He stated that they have come up with about three different plans based on two different ways of designing the sewer system. Presently they have a commitment from the Unified Sewerage Agency and the City of Tigard that they can hook into the Summerfield line, located to the southwest corner of the property. He continued that in September of 1980 bonds were given to the City to pay for the public improvements for the 15 lot subdivision. The bonds will expire this month unless they are extended. On December 30, 1980 a plat was recorder with Washington County for Gulfside which is a name they would like to get changed. The sewer has been the main problem, however with the agreement the y have with US A and City of Tigard, USA Y g , has informed them that there is adequate pumping capacity to handle between 22 to 28 units on this property. Because of the economic condition it was felt that h t 5 000 sq. ft. lots would be more marketable. They are looking to development at urban land standards. They also feel because of the topography that they would be able to maximize solar potential. After going through the process of analyzing the market and talking with the neighborhood it was determined to minimize the flag lots by using private drives. They are also working to maximize their lot yield and at the same time create good livability. This is how this came up with the 25 lot plan. They feel they need the flexibility of the R-5 zone. However, they are not married to the 25 lot plan and have some other proposals which they have developed after working with staff. What they are looking for is the zone change and some idea of what everyone can live with as a consensus as to a good number of lots for the site. • Joe Walsh, Planning Director Waker Associate, 11080 S.W. Allen Blvd. stated they were commissioned to look at the property and redesign it to the neighborhood needs and the property owners wishes. He presented a couple of examples showing other possible layouts, eliminating flag lots. Originally the property in the area was plotted by the County with 10,000 sq. ft. lots, mostly because of the septic tanks. Since then the property has been annexed and with the sewer being brought in it opens up more land to be developed. The site is on the outskirts of the older homes with larger lots with Summerfield on the opposite side. They feel the R-5 would be the best zone for developing this site. Some of the constraints they had on this property was the dedicated road that runs right through the middle of the property which makes the site difficult to plat out as a R-7 subdivision. Also, getting public improvements in would be more difficult. He continued that they feel they are compatible with the newer developed areas. They feel they are making better utilization of the remaining square chunck of land that's left between Sattler, 100th Ave and 98th St. The site is fully serviced with water. There is a drainage problem at the southern end of the property which would be tied into the existing storm drainage system. After receiving the staff report and talking with staff they went back and reviewed the plan and eliminated the hammerheads and dropped three lots, making the average lot size approximately 6965 sq. ft. per lot. They feel the compromise from the original approval of 15 lots with duplexes on PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 three of them is a good compromise. What they really need is the R-5 zone, which would allow them the most flexibility in the design of the lots. He also stated that when the original NPO Plan was adopted the City did not have a R-5 zone, it was only recently put into the ordinance. He felt maybe this was one element that may have been overlooked in the NPO, of not allowing for the difference in density of the single family zoning, which restricted them to only R-7 as the lowest zoning density, at the time of adoption of the NPO #6 Plan. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Bob Maddy, 10185 S.W. Hoodview Drive, stated he lived in one of the older established areas, which has 100 to 150 thousand dollar homes, some as much as 200 to 250 thousand dollars. He was concerned with the type of development that is being proposed. He was also concerned that access into this area will be limited by adding 22 to 25 units were access depends on a County Road that the County has not maintained. Relative to the applicant's comment regarding solar energy, the slope of the land has absolutely nothing to do with advantages for solar heating. • Bill Carver, 10155 S.W. Hoodview Drive, stated he lived to the west of this development and felt the majority of the lots in this area are larger than 10,000 sq. ft. He stated when you get a density this great, what you have is an apartment complex. His main concern was the road. He could not visualize 25 or 20 lots on a site that size. He wanted to know the value of the homes being proposed. he felt the high density was out of character for this neighborhood. • Dave Atkinson, residing on S.W. Century Oak Drive stated his position as an opponent is actually an inquiry. He wanted to know if the City had any future disposition plans for S.W. 100th St.? • Associate Planner Newton stated Public Work Director, Frank Currie is intending to have 100th be a cul-de-sac. Mr. Currie does not feel that there is any need to connect 100th with Highland. Drive. However, there is public right-of-way that would give fire and ambulance vehicles access. • John Ulwelling, 15165 S.W. 100th, stated he lived directly across from the proposed project. He agreed with Mr. Maddy even though he does not live in a 150 to 250 thousand dollar home. He lives on 38,000 sq. ft. , his next door neighbors to the north live on 7 acres and they both raise sheep. He felt the development has been insensitive as to what has been going on in the neighborhood. He has walked through the proposed site when 15 homes were approved and could not see how they would fit them on the site. Now with 25 houses proposed, this is enough, he appeared tonight to voice his opposition. • Tom McQuire, 9975 S.W. Sattler wanted to go on record opposing changing the zone from R-7 to R-5. PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 • Steve Davisson, 15040 S.W. 100th stated he bought in this neighborhood because the lots were large. He felt the R-7 was more dense than the neighbors wanted anyway. He could see the economical reason, however there's a difference when it was done for an advantage or greed. He felt cramming that many houses in that small of an area with the road in the condition that it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. • Malcolm Jones, 9885 S.W. Sattler, wanted to go on record that he was in agreement with the City Staff, NPO #6 and the other opponents in the opposition to this zone change. • Associate Planner Newton read a letter into the record from Noldrum L. Lewis stating the only objection he would have is if they intended to construct a road from the proposed site to Highland Drive. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTLE • Bill Carver wanted to know what the value of the homes would be; John Gibbon replied that the house that is on the property was appraised at $78,500 and he did not think any of the homes being proposed would be appraised less than that amount. or Discussion followed regarding types of homes to be built, how soon they would be built, the types of public improvements required, the possibility of building duplexes, and how the sewer and storm drainage would be connected. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Commissioner Moen wanted to know what the density proposed within the Comprehensive Plan is for this property; Associate Planner Newton responded she thought it was proposed medium density. • Commissioner Moen questioned if the NPO was opposed to the layout or to the density; staff stated yes to both. • Commissioner Speaker asked if the Commission would see the application again if they approved the zone change; staff stated they would see the subdivision application. He continued that he had sat through quite a few of these type of arguments. He felt if the roads were in that poor of condition that the property owners should form an LID. He was also bothered by the opponents who stated they had bought because of the large lots. Whether those people liked it or not, they are in an urban area and their lots of 1 to 7 acres are, you might say, undeveloped and eventually will be subject to development. Especially with Summerfield and Hoodview with lots smaller than R-5 so close to the proposed development. PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Commissioner Owens questioned Commissioner Moen about his concerns for sidewalks in the light of existing developments that do not have sidewalks. Moen affirmed his conviction that particularly if there are any children in the subdivision, they must walk the streets to get anywhere if there are no sidewalks. This he considered unsafe. • Commissioner Bonn, Christen and Owens had no further comments. Commissioner Speaker questioned staff whether approval of Phase I would commit the Commission to approval of the private road presently shown in Phase II. Newton stated staff was still considering this, but no decision has been reached. It was established the road into Phase I from 98th Avenue would be a public street, the cul-de-sac a private street. • Commissioner Edin expressed considerable satisfaction with the concept. • Commissioner Edin favored a sidewalk on one side. • Commissioner Moen MOVED approval of PD 2-82 General Plan Review and S 5-82 Subdivision of Cambridge Square Phase I based on discussion at this hearing and staff findings, with conditions 1 though 5 as stated in the staff report, and adding there Conditions: 6. That the 32 foot street into the subdivision from 98th Avenue be a public street; and 7. That sidewalks be placed on a least one side of the street and the cul-de-sac. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Speaker and was carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.6 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 7-82 A request by the City of Tigard to revise Chapter 18.84, Administrative Procedures changing public notice requirements for a decision made by the Planning Director; and revising section 18.59.030, Site Design Review applicability. • Associate Planner Newton made staff recommendation that the Planning Commission support the changes proposed by staff and forward to City Council. PAGE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 • Commissioner Christen did not feel that the opponents who were against this project because they lived in 150 to 250 thousand dollar homes had a valid argument. • Commissioner Bonn did not like flag lots. Looking at the total number of units, they were only requesting an increase of six units. He wished they could accomplish this without using flag lots, but with the street in the middle of the site it looks impossible. • Commissioner Edin commented he was in agreement with Mr. Speaker regarding the Roads. However, there is an incompatibility with parts of the neighborhood which has not been addressed adequately. What would the possibility be of having R-5 below Kable and R-7 above? That way the R-5 Zone would be closer to Suimnerfield and the R-7 closer to the larger lots. • Commissioner Moen agreed with Commissioner Edin's comments. he also did not think a development should be denied because of the condition of the road. However, the density issue should not be made light of nor NPO #6's recommendation for denial. He was not sure if the density problem had been addressed properly when the property was rezoned to R-7. Because of these reasons he would have to oppose this zone change. • President Tepedino was not persuaded that the zone should be changed from R-7 to R-5. He felt the Commission should look for smooth transitory changes rather than abrupt changes. He was concerned about the access for emergency vehicles, which is a big problem. He was not convinced that this is in the best interest of the neighborhood, the NPO, the City or the Applicant. • Commissioner Owen's general feelings about the higher density is negative. However, the need and reality of smaller lots and smaller homes and the fact that there are smaller lots south of this area does not make it 100% out of place. She was interested in Commissioner Edins proposal of split density. This is a difficult one to decide. • Commissioner Bonn moved and Commissioner Moen seconded for denial of Zone Change ZC 12-82 and Subdivision S 4-82 based on information submitted by the applicant, the applicable NPO policies and staff's investigations. Motion was approved by majority vote of Commissioner present. Commissioner Speaker voting no. 5.5 PD 2-82 General Plan Review Cambridge Square NPO #2 S 5-82 Subdivision A request by Century 21 Homes, Inc. for a general plan review and approval of a six-lot subdivision on 0.58 acres as Phase I of Cambridge Square. PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 • Associate Planner Elizabeth Newton briefly discussed previous hearings before the Commission and presented staff recommendations for approval of Phase I with conditions. f Neither the NPO nor CCI offered testimony. • APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Bob Miller, 5164 Bobs Court, Salem, Century 21 Home, representative. He expressed agreement with the staff report, and mentioned slight changes in the water system and storm drainage from what is shown on their plans. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: • No one appeared to speak. CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: • Dennis Russell, 12020 SW 95, raised the question of traffic which uses 95th to Commercial to get to downtown, rather than going on Greenburg and though the signal at the highway. He asked whether a stop sign could be installed to slow traffic down, and if it would be possible to have a light at SW Commercial and Main Street. He was told how citizens can initiate such a request for traffic controls. • Commissioner Moen expressed "excitement" at the concept. He voiced his concern that there was no provision for sidewalks, and he felt this was a real safety hazard. • David Oringdulph, on behalf of the developer explained the concept of 24-foot one---way streets, which they felt was adequate to take care of both automobile and pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Moen still felt there should be sidewalks on one side. • Commissioner Edin raised the question of the ability of fire vehicles to get into the cul-de-sac. This was declared to be not a problem by staff. He expressed concern about fire vehicles getting around on the one-way street if vehicles were parked on both sides. This has been addressed by the staff and fire officials and is not felt to be a problem. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 PUBLIC TESTIMONY: JB Bishop 10505 S.W. Barbur S-303 questioned when this ordinance would go into effect. Staff responded that the ordinance would contain an emergency clause which would make the ordinance effective immediately upon approval by City Council. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Commissioner Moen stated he did not have a problem with shorting the time. Regarding the problem of remodeling, would this involve commercial and Industrial sites; staff concurred. His concern was how many times could an applicant request a 25% increase or was there a maximum increase that would be allowed with larger buildings. • Associate Planner Newton stated that the applicant would still have to meet parking, landscaping, set backs and lot coverage requirements which would work as a check. • Commissioner Tepedino commented he sees this as a fine tuning process to a recently adopted procedure. • Commissioner Speaker asked staff if an applicant could apply for an addition if the surrounding property owners signed that they approved of this addition. • Legal Counsel stated they would still need to meet the public notice requirements. • Commissioner Owens asked Director of Planning and Development his opinion of shortening the time. • Director of Planning and Development Monahan felt the time was adequate, he felt the 20 days was excessive. • Commissioner Edin moved and Commissioner Moen seconded to forward to the City Council the changes in Administrative Procedures Section 18.84 per staff recommendations. • Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. 6. OTHER BUSINESS • President Tepedino read into the record the resignation letter from Commissioner Susan Herron. • President Tepedino distributed copies of the status of the drafts of the elements for the Comprehensive Plan and requested staff to review schedule; Director of Planning and Development Monahan reviewed the upcoming schedule. PAGE 11 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 7, 1982 • CCI meeting was announced for Thursday September 16 at City Hall, meeting begins at 6:00 P.M. • September 21, 1982 the Commission would be reviewing the Sign Code. 7. Meeting Adjourned at 10:10 P.M. ttia,c72/ / / / / Diane M. Jelderks /lanning Secretary .TTEST 1 Frank Teped no, Planning Commission President PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —September 7, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL MEET'IN'G Date Frank. Ted,,.ding Clifford Speaker Don Moen Zhte t a .03le s ti� Mark .Chr..isten Susan Herron Richard Hp. mer _ Bonnie Owens .,:toy Bonn 0 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - Lecture Room 10865 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPOINTMENTS - NPO # 2, 4, 5 & 7. A request by various citizens to be appointed as members of NPO # 2, 4, 5 and 7. 5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 6-82 A request by the City of Tigard to amend Chapter 18.32.020, C-4 Residential Commercial Zone, of the Tigard Municipal Code, adopted June 21, 1982, to include Retail Commercial Uses as a Conditional Use in a C-4 Residential Zone. 5.3 CONDITIONAL USE CU 7-81 NPO # 5 A request by Bob Boone and Dave Hall for a one year time extension to an approved Conditional Use to allow construction of Single Family attached units in the R-5 zone. Property is located on the North side of Durham Road, 625' east of Hall Blvd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 12C lot 5100) . 5.4 ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-82 Sunnyside Estates NPO # 6 SUBDIVISION S 4-82 A request by the Robert Randall Co. for a zone change from R-7 to R-5 single family residential and for approval of a 25 lot subdivision on 3.89 acres on property located at 15280 S.W. 100th Ave. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11CA tax lot 900) . 5.5 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 2-82 Cambridge Square NPO # 2 SUBDIVISION S 5-82 A request by Century 21 Homes Inc. , for a General Plan Review and approval of a six lot subdivision on .58 acres. The property is located at 11820 and 11900 S.W. 98th Avenue. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 181 35CD Tax Lot 2200 & 2300.) 5.6 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 7-82 A request by the City of Tigard to revise Chapter 18.84, Administrative Procedures changing public notice requirements for a decision made by the Planning Director; and revising section 18.59.030, Site Design Review applicability. DATE c 7 j /98Q. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/DESCRIPTION: 5: 1 /2) ( 0. I, t .11 .' PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation NOTICE : ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/1DESCRIPTION: 2O/i 6 Q ag31.1),adh;za/teA, A., A •0 ! • � ,//!�.' _ ice ii.ft L-61_ a- z' Raz:de/a-6a ganmeize,i, PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) _ Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation I DATE / TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) 5 3 ITEM/DESCRIPTION: /1,)P0 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation ' ) � �,"F ., 14'0 6' J te--5, }A��; NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME 440 5. and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/DESCRIPTION: 22 i . - A J,/ " �• PD ..SIC_' .211_11 . .' ,e • JL/ !�i r� �� %l./L. • . a___,Z1/1E-41.44(01 wf PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation iv e ,.. i. � � 1 - .340 Vox PO4,460.0 Co 130 Carver' /oiSS s W odd e 61(-. Ut,Jd r" ',Jac 4,1*'41 /�'"9 2, „.4 '', I1L W4/4./i4 4,41e.1 lit 4 Gl Gd L,Y, t .4 < 4, .S l✓ �S q ��a sY G 'il�Hl Joao 411 +�w I` b1� AO °C i Coy 3 5 S,LA.) . 66 7) Ii Ld:.. trr , ►u4,, 40141... / /aver..fi t,✓. ,/'e r DATE C-40- 0.1 1 �� 7� TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and•note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) S 55 ii, ITEM/bESCRIP.TION: . ~� Nniz t . IUPo 6 nena.p Jr,,„ Q , } ‘ pha4..J2 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation i. 1' Name, Address and Affiliation , � /" /20- Stn. gam; /f ,I ., I NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEITL NAME and note their address. on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/DESCRIPTION: J � � � /. � % r// / o , ,...y. .., , A ._ : I t i . • ,,i 1. . Z 1 * . 030 .. e. -,t_e_k.kseyii ao4;2.4) / ' PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation Item 5.1 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 23, 1982 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: NPO Membership Appointments The NPO Membership Interview Team met on several occasions over the past month to interview prospective members of NPO's 2, 4, 5 and 7. Twelve people were interviewed: NAME ADDRESS NPO 1. Bruce P. Clark 10840 S.W. Erroll St. 2 * 2. Mary A. Keski 2385 S.W. 173rd Ct., Aloha 2 3. Rick McMahon 13111 S.W. 61st Ave., Portland 4 4. Geraldine L. Ball 11515 S.W. 91st Ave. 4 * 5. Carl H. Johnson 6155 S.W. Bonita Grove, Lake Grove 4 6. Lou V. Christen 17895 S.W. Shasta Tr. , Tualatin 4 7. Gary Reid 12700 S.W. 72nd (Bus.) 4 8. Louis Miller 14660 S.W. 83rd 5 * 9. Joe Schweitz 11020 S.W. Cottonwood Lane 7 * 10. Peggy Ober 11385 S.W. Cottonwood Lane 7 * 11. Bob Irby 11515 S.W. Hazelwood Loop 7 * 12. Michael R. Heim 12885 S.W. Glacier Lily Circle 7 * Seven of these applicants live within the Tigard City Limits. * RECOMMENDED ACTION The NPO Membership Interview Team recommends that the Planning Commission forward the names of these twelve people to the City Council for membership approval to the NPO's noted. ame 23 /7 � I /arzt� '7? Z 3 ) INVENTORY OF CITIZENS `C`� ,� � 82 Suggested for Community Service DATE 1//ZZ/aZ NAi1E7czrr_ r► ORES. PHONE _5q— 76 Za ADDRESS I(� y �.\ _12G' 1 BUS. PHONE �4 /7 7 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD q Va. SUGGESTED BY N)A2 T, S�F i , WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? Pt.)e.bio Zo (p. _ AGE L l 1 MARITAL STATUS /A) j -) CHILDREN y EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND . . I ` / 'e / • rU o r OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUN'Dq Iy etdCZS _l�►S —7I/ pti5 „ '� 1__ !VAC4.g12. e 04. /4 As ttir 0110 _4; .. • A • PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY 4 i1-L ) r-ml's i►'!►_ r r AlPpro >.0 � 4.10333622y4 (1. : c yry m l . Ili 'Aaa. `.a • 1i' II A L Gs/A ►.IP • ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) _MO2T44 e.1 LI7S7) I...hl.!�lr►�G�v5 115SC2 . * e 1� Ai G1 t r , • \ 7 4111 .mss/ A a 1► • Mil >' ► ,* at • a4 a./ ' ADAC" S SA G BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN NPO #2 Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board or Committee INSIDE CITY n.t StAt OUTSIDE CITY INVENTORY OF CITIZENS .-.,,� "" Suggested for Community Service DATE - IT NAME��1�j/ r2�/ A • =S . RE S. ADDRESS-..-: . . aW J73a., F . al N ,g Ur BUS. PHONE e -- A y-oa3 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD SUGGESTED BY ---- r�,4)--w C 21 c WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? • AGE L MARITAL STATUS I`'l,(ll lit p CHILDREN �d�t EDUCATIONAL. BACKGROUND II S. PSYcuaL oG ~- 135R,-L,4itiD 5 ,-"Te Uti,u C--r? i7 Y OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND N. e SCMeNS LL/S 1 -LNC, CCcMPAN`l Se�et)rce -' 13 ta-A _ 1 + n Feg SoN t! PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY 'o"reo v F. �� J --- D rem C T'LYZS - l a�-(-L �'� A��� C'� 0.7 • ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES C1-9t t� u5 i Nt ce Assn. C (36,cxl 1z5JtJ S- V iC' �M�'C pyc . . E -CAL 11' Ui cold en Jz) 4 Qt M -e OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) c e( "C VI) G- 1./U P D -4 J a. 1ti C. T.( .1'tre/LI Or am w Y 0--r c r i=r 2MS (/U 0I01 OM LS 3tL6 G 1N �� t1C �aT l Z (G(4 , • BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTE, IN N P G # Date Received at City Hall Y Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board or Committee INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY LW .4;c:70 INVENTORY OF CITIZENS � /6 Suggested for Community Service DATE ///6Vo r.?. NAME 141-74 // 927a. `.0x,' RES. PHONE - ADDRESS /3/1/ cS'(Gc). &/ 4 r BUS. PHONE e„,...3 2°-1'6 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD_ SUGGESTED BY 2 F e- . WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? Za4 o AGE MARITAL STATUS CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND r � .. ' c:76.1.404 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND ,, / ee . _ /saai i tie e.V Lt"lc;5'thigef.4,-, ,:s71(.- . . , _______. PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES -°---- OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) BOARDS OR COIINIITTEES INTERESTED IN `� 1V904' ate Received at City Hall_ Date Interviewed Date Appointed T.- Board or CotLuUtittee INSIDE CITY v._S ∎v� eSS OUTSIDE CITY civet, ,�' MAR 2 3 198? 0\20 A" 1 Clrr F Tlcgku i N P O APP L I CAT I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limiter w to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW 1 NAME Geizoldine L. Ball ADDRESS 11 515 S. 6). 91.3.t A.tikntie IE,.and. 04egon 97223 TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) (Res.) 639-29000' PRESENT OCCUPATION Homenzah,.en. and flanaaen 4 DA, A.c. • FIRM NAME DP, 3NC. T_ HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? See 1970 ' IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? Y HAVE YOU BEEN I VOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? 00 #4 " Citizen no t iV IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: 3 fuzee Leen a.tteadi,zg tnoa.t all NPO # 4wIteetingo zo ad to keep agneazt DA w/urt 2.6 goilny on .uz the 7it:i itn,.f a -------- az to how Lt 14 tole developed and ZMWAtt orms ti..an s eto. • i WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? 6he4e 3 have Leen active in t0 4 as a citizen 3 Aeei .7 .could 4eiure.the zonmuin.ty well aa6 3 ..L,. ,.- ... .t/ze a4w. .eeven anx- any. oA.i t � in the City. iqz. Lavaile Allen.and .aeue/ra2 atlzena on the 165-0 .augyea.ted J Bend.tn. .thia I ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: • • 639-2900 DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER 7./,,,;!'ez,“ ,rte 1" 'e;�,� ,/ • 5;v N P O • APP L I CAT I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? /V"/��` r_ ' ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW / NAME L G i'/ J f. `/C°I1!/l �`t2 ADDRESS (s!/j`� .5 W. 136.11,1 /eel IV. ( )L) ' TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) (Res.) l'J l7'-///l PRESENT OCCUPATION _ /1�r���JJr�'G/ feu f 14,4 V l LJ,•ffutr.e _ FIRM NAME `1 C i'r`c - r/ 4.1 04 •-•e fv • HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? -2 r'`'6 /v (;...7./ //r q.r IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? r).., ,' y HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? yF'S IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: -14 /l/i to n i 14 r,/ , r ,/// ('.v L'/9 143e, /rrr el/ Y � .. a,^c( /,/Ie/.. '< ,. ' - l/ (-1./.?tr J/.)/6,rP 4 l/ eP 5' f /1-e, t rP ("4,2,4, !- ,/ / F'i 'er /f /)•G '-ii up re' r/✓�CC,Y., ./c 4 rr r' t r l /Ge—/?<2.:.y.(et" ✓ f6s..r.".r,Yf / r/l cY._r.-i/r i li 4c..�I rr F, j ,, w -f—/ /X I.1 r? 9, A U // t'c( r'i C ` C.'4' •k e e ,gel /G,/r tom' vc. -0,• / .:� r c Y'e; r>i s�,':CY./ (rb. . y/ �fi ea-c•e-,I r y J/el,' ,mot. 4.a� :i,.rlc �5 74.c' t.J t9.F :/iF �c�.a /''{ S"e-' c.t,✓�.S% `.a> C`/ - 4 /r(/d /(I'Jr` �`.Jli .'I.PpL.,zY'Q WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFF R/ AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? J .f/).-t' , .°�?r e ,r t [.r l'!,'rl�,' J'/9 Z) • ri )r•r• ia•G'e"( 70, / 1r ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: / i'� )�elLey Gcu,./-e.-re— I 1/ /1/ ( 7' ,,'J Q a:i.' /i`-7Pl / C.7 7^Y� -✓? y 11j/� �! !71 Yi._� t.7f4 cj., • DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER • • Si 30 INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service DATE( 2 / ?8 ' L.J 2, ,2)_, NAMELLV, W C ./7 73• i J1 's-r-2,-il . . MS. ONE •,', 38- 8 3 1 '7 ADDRESS___......17...,.E/...,/1 ,5, 'Wi ..5h/16-riq 77 BUS . PHONE •ji\' 5. ri IF,T a' d.- 7-0 pt 1 117 ,A/, 0 R.: -9'7 6 6 :LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD / 9V7,- / 9s 17,4 SUGGESTED BY .. ._ WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? •.. • AGE 7 '! MARITAL STATUS 1 1/7 a g ie i. 43- (Z CHILDREN 6 Se. Pt s EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND /, H -a- E-. r ,A - . 42 s i (17/,7,1-- lidiv ,-: ___j; _b/ ___... . ,. , • OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND *54.3 )1,e:-,.--J? .7e ,s' IN 1-7R-E f cz r---- M Ir.,/V‘S jacteLp cy. I', 4 Ci,i :E.i (2, 62 0 i 1,S 7 7 E g ir? IT; a V /.//7 Ar/7 r i . /•-7,j/77-f_1 t r? 7' '8/2-(77?& 4 C 6 I(..) 11.-> h E)R.Evious COMMUNITY ACTIVITY Pal fa T---I 1.1111 of1_, C/7/9 m. b EL le Ch 4-"H/r1 17 111 0 . 6' f 0 it r.*.-. Co,f)/ Tv) , 7/ . _ ,, ,. - ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES:2/0 wi mo Ni ti 77) tAhNi if<i ' rt -,t .1 ..i ova -If /. T o t I LIN'd SfLgjgf71.12.212 - (-5, s, - /1/3 d f'.• i f) Ai E- /61 511/S C.°.fo 2--) - 73.?.E$ OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) 14e e2_W_zL214ETLA2LLLLe4 .L14L_________ / 0 /7 P. P r-4 s , 4 0 Li. 1 4 7-P; 1 b IF 7-w 2:--- F-. .i ' 4-,a'J -:- / cl-- l'i•Ainf /-- 2,/". . . . . . . . .. OARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN N P0 _ bate Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed • Board or Committee....._ INSIDE CITY , OUTSIDE CITY / , , ((( • -• N P O,, 171;/,s A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? "" • ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to land use, zoning, housing. community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process • of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to'keep the neighborhood informed; to seek • neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the • . views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE•COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW • • • .• NAME •7.4p r /d/ ADDRESS a�74U Sl1i'. 72 ho, .0.---4// G%7,7,77.01'7' ' TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) Ox4' 52j (Res.) 4;55-:g y 7 - PRESENT OCCUPATION .6�e4V/ • • • FIRM NAME w Vie! hG HOW LONG HAVE YOU. BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? 7 ?. ,- • IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? ye> HAVE YOU BEEN.INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? Ye•IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: ,.7 - _ r 2! ` jy/l,/e....- a !__.i._ ©.r ., .,it -!/ Af �Y i le2,?7 CG1 L dp i7 WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? ,of / ` y i mot, t-- - .i/." 4r_ m ADDIT ONT A COMMENTS: i / / Ze dee...� fir' .d { 7 - ''A,,i is dire �, 7 .a �-- "1/447' , • —~ ___________ ______ . • DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER ;,.7.0 -- .3.1-2-/ • --_____-. RECEIVED N P O• A P P L I C A T I O N AUG 2 3 1982 QUESTION: What are NPO's? CITY OF TIGARD ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans;• to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood,. including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek • neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW • • -1AmE L k..7 ;,5 MI\Nt. ' • • W ADDRESS \LAt ),,1', 1 . �i7 • • TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus,.). ) - - '1ç, �-' [r� 0� (Res 1) � 4:,11....0.___ PRESENT OCCUPATION c r ,. ?: • FIRM NAME '"", t _ (- - ' HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? 1 ti ,--r • IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? _ . i ' HAVE YOU BEEN.INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? IlL IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: • • .. r WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? C? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: r" -30t DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER ,.4.7,1...q ‘•••1 ANTE-it) C.:4,,. ,{ {p . l 0 r. N P O A P P L I C A T I O N `" QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: . The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to land use zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAME () C ADDRESS f I C Q/ �v,-r�� 7 7 )--3 kaA- TELEPHONE NUMBER ( {y+3 r? (t0 j ! " / off -lip (U `d'S3` PRESENT OCCUPATION _ , ,1ccii `el u {. 'r , ( FIRM NAME_ 1' HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? //X IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? YLt') HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? h. • IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: • • WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? Ade( e 1 n-1OrWlet • 0 ?Lt tie ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER ';/ !J - - v„ 3/13/sn • • • • :114 OP° 7 NPO APPLI CATI ON QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions. affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including., but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek • neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW • kilymE 't' ADDRESS 33 54'0 1.[Si- 7{ '1,( 164 Vrl © r e TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) r hece-64.1,ci (Res.) (a�(ail ' c`7c PRESENT OCCUPATION .4\o't,cse l.,o • • FIRM NAME • ' HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? • IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? . . HAVE YOU BEEN .INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: • • • • • WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO?_ M Q YvI�CV 41)1' , ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: DAYPI11I•; TELEPHONE NUMBER S4 (1• • ins sce C► - • • 143 Ar- . N P O A P P L I C A T I O N • QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing;, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and tran,Sportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining Ci t y priorities orites for capital imp rovements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed, to seek • neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. • PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW • • NAME. B Q�s L. e `_, ADDRESS f I5J 5 5-0, N42 EL/00 o? 400p • Ti6 TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) 4 2 1. 5 0 PRESENT OCCUPATION Q PE RA 11 0,• 5 M Ms) Pt • FIRM NAME ?A•C a �- Cv • PJ.63 • 4 E•L-L _ HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? O g °1 1t. S IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? .1.1 0 • • HAVE YOU BEEN.INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? !r E S IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: E U�•C'id N E O"(t✓ • • • • WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? • co o c Vie: e h J a ►C {�-'c.(ti m • ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: • DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER 2..1-1' 4. S.a �� • • • s:. • 7,,-,6/6 pf\OA-ccoaff ,.. (s-q'S . . . a , N P O APPLICATION • QUESTION: What are NPO's? • ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including., but not limited to land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, • social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, ,environ-- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process . of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to'keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the . views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. . • PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW ' NANIEr i EL i 4 • El•h ADDRESS I a&q , 4). C-L4ciEia Li L y chute- • T TcG,eJ /• ©i 975.0.z • TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) g,2 . 0 (0 8 1 (Res.) 644-- 4475 • ' PRESENT OCCUPATION 5162E2 0E-P • FIRM NAME c C.1•1 7 C7UPic �� k rruGi SCIPQG1E5Co. • . •• HOW LONG HAVE YOU. BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? q• Y -Pc • IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? . W p- , HAVE YOU BEEN,.INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? N 0 IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: `____° • . . - • 0. 1 WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A b1EPI>lER OF AN NPO? • • • C(t ren U C�ht-U E+ % 'e GJq-e.4 o P 0%P.I.S LI 01 1.41 wd'ii4r id TN-c IU P°. 1 • IS°14Amate5: a4S Ac IZ?Pci ME,aCit( To Out4SE-Lue to gecoves,, ' Iiluol.uEaa 1 Y Fas)gt, - t JiT 1" 4 �+.e-.T1Gq'eO CITY G,du era)kit Esrr kw l''' O qe Ls 'CO 4E-LP b 1 e19-5 y e• 9 u !I 0 P. ' W' 'C; • I• ?C./• PI• /LL C•FPPrT Mimmiloompoolimenswa EA-64 Akio nvet Yalve' OFu.S1-1(i1&16 r 6.)007' Ocs'TT a'T • rah' (-1 &s ro CO-vvt e _ __. • • DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER 02.24•--oGs f —weeK -f-�'- _ . - _ -- Item 5.2 August 25, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNINGSTAFFf SUBJECT: Addition of General Retail Use Type as a Conditional Use in the C-4 Residential Commercial Zone. On August 16, 1982, the City Council voted unanimously to have staff initiate a zone ordinance amendment to allow General Retail Use types as a Conditional Use in the C-4 Residential Zone. Attached for your review is an ordinance which, if approved, would effect the change and a definition of General Retail Use types. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council for approval of the ordinance as submitted. is CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 82- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.32.020, RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ZONE, OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The City of Tigard ordains as follows: Section 1: Section 18.32.010(2) —Conditional Uses, is hereby added to and made a part of the Tigard Municipal Code as follows: Under Conditional Uses add, in alphabetical order, the following: Retail Sales, General Section 2: Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health, and safety of the public that the foregoing amendment to the Tigard Municipal Code becomes effective immediately, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present, after being read two time by number and title only, this day of , 1982. City Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: By the Mayor, this day of , 1982. Mayor - City of Tigard ORDINANCE NO. 82- t. Participant Sports and Recreation Refers to establishments or places primarily engaged in the provision of sports or recreation by and for participants. Any spectators would be incidental and on a nonrecurring basis. The following are partici- pant sports and recreation use typest 1. Participant Sports and Recreation: Indoor. Those uses conducted within an enclosed building. Typical uses include: indoor tennis courts, racketball courts,swimming pools, or physical fitness centers. 2. Participant Sports and Recreation: Outdoor. Those uses conducted in open facilities. Typical uses include driving ranges, miniature golf courses, or swimming pools. u. Personal Services, General Refers to establishments primarily engaged in the provision of informa- tional, instructional, personal improvement, and similar services of a nonprofessional nature but excludes services classified as Spectator Sports and Entertainment, Participant Sports and Recreation, or Transient Habitation. Typical uses include photography studios, driving schools and trade schools or reducing salons. v. Professional and Administrative Services Refers to offices of private firms or organizations which are primarily used for the provision of professional, executive, management, or administrative offices, legal offices, or architectural firms. w. Repair Services, Consumer Refers to establishments primarily engaged in the provision of repair services to individuals and households rather than firms, but excluding Automotive and 'Equipment use types. Typical uses include appliance repair shops,,apparel repair firms, musical instrument repair firms And shoe repair shops. x. Research Services Refers to establishments primarily engaged in research of an industrial or scientific nature which is generally provided as a service 1 vide rice or which g Y P is conducted by and for a private firm, but excludes medical testing and analysis, and product testing. Typical uses include electronics research laboratories, environmental research and development firms, or pharmaceutical research labs. y. Retail Sales, General Refers to the sale or rental of commonly used goods, and merchandise for personal or household use, but excludes those classified as Agricul- tural Sales, Animal Sales and Services, Automotive and Equipment, Business Equipment Sales and Services, Construction Sales and Services, Food and Beverage Retail Sales, Gasoline Sales, and Swap Meets. Typical uses include department stores, apparel stores, or funiture stores. _g- Item 5.3 MEMORANDUM AUGUST 26, 1982 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING STAFF O`'' 1 SUBJECT: Time extension for CU 7-81 Attached is a letter requesting a one year time extension for the Conditonal Use approved by the Planning Commission on September 8, 1981, for Cecil Boone Park. The applicant is asking for the time extension to allow more time to form an LID for sewer service to the site. A petition for an LID was received by the City but was returned to the applicant for lack of required signatures. The Public Works Director supports a six month extension to allow the applicant to submit another LID proposal to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a six month extension for CU 7-81. i ] .F.BAJ\CROFT R.E. OFT BANCR P,E.,P.L.S. N OFT P, .,P.L.S. I N C O R P O R A T E D R.M.O'BRIEN A.P.A. CIVIL ENGINEERS, RECEIVED LAND SURVEYORS&PLANNERS 140 N.E,THIRD AVENUE HILLSBORO,OREGON 97123 AU 1 I 1 7 1982 503/648-4101 August 11, 1982 U CITY OF TIGARD City of Tigard Planning Commission P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Cecil Boone Park Conditional Use, CU 7-81 (Expires on Septeiber 8, 1982) Dear Planning Commission Members, On behalf of the applicants, Bob Boone and Dave Hall, we are requesting a one year extension of the above Conditional Use Permit application. The reasons for this request are the poor economic conditions and the slow process of forming the LID for sewer service for this property and other properties in the area. No development has occured in the area and no development plans have been proposed in the area. Therefore nothing has changed that would warrent a complete re-review of this project by the Planning Commission. Your cooperation by giving us some more time to wait for the economy to improve, and to allow us to continue to form a sewer LID would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, 419 g2y4.4.6 4.040re Ryan O'Brien Urban Planner cc: Bob Boone Dave Hall W.399 .� rn ( 13 • 4400 ^i ° i, w !.3740 .ci E ? L4 z !ao i \ 330.02' E�359' r` a ze.�44004 zoa;s' a - — i X2300 • 4500 W. 359. .844c ti. o 3.9440. ~- N. /.✓y Ac ' R z I I N i m -• 10 n h :o e rn I \ - - 12 J ti H z O r' 0644' z z W 359� 4600 4003-, i+30 !.5! Ac, 95Ac• p o N _ T - ' 334.50 • p -N° p vI S.89°56'W. E.359' 20.7.7 222' W 330`8' • 208.71' p 150 —150' 150 - 200' 110.9 • 5 1 •1 N.89°59 W. 1189°59'W. 5000 5100 5200 5300 , 4.006 Ac 1 4800 4901 >•37Ae 2.694c. 1,46 Ac 1.844:.1.57 Ac.I'• ao p' 1.0.3 4 c. m 3 330.9y rn co OFF SET p ° rn'� p X203 O` i O F 0.29° cs' c r .'-'',..,11.122 w $ c - h r-. -t- r` r- r' "r 23019, ...2J A`. Ict. 200.71 'ti vi ° a r.- r` r N r; r- _m ' ti z v .P v a v 924c, ' °2200 ci'[V .f 4700 I `,o a W Mb -, .e N.57 Ac•_ -N .75 4c 6 4900 ° N•'c■ .J4Ac:a1 12 ° ° ° - N I, N,89°59'E, N.8 56'E. 165.98' !. 15 98' 6�' 150' '' .. 200' 11Q_e� - .. -.-..N/.7ll'- %/,4%%/oS.9//,i%. 205 � 150' I,QO_ i -----_"_—" /�'� C c•,AI 1 I_` 150 X31. 1" DUC\f'f�M� _.._.-___-.._._..__.. _.- •:.__—.._:. –` I I 1 1 I I 11, vim) 1 III �m ,t. Trow m� ,. ' oir dillindi oiling* e - . -lp woy 1v:tr.,: ::::g,„i lIUui. •6141 , .Ilkk Itgi. --j NUM - II 11 a a ` NIE�.i-, 1�.___�_______ _�____ Pum*'�'bo ..7 - SITE F144 CELL PIDIAIE P C BANCI T, L. 5100, 1'.P 2s1 (-2 C. 1100' O OR A TED I N C O R P P O R A T E D CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS&PLANNERS 140 N E THIRD AVENUE HILLSBORO,OREGON 97123 503/648-4101 MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 8, 1981 Page 10. 5.8 •. ►ITIONAL USE CU -81 , ECIL BOONE PARK NPO #5 i A request by Day. Co. for a Con•itional Use to construct single family attached units in an R-5 Zone. The property is located on the North side of Durham Road 625' East of Hall Blvd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12C, ------ Tax Lot 5100). Howard read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS, to which he added as Condition 4., "Sewer service shall be installed to the site prior to the issuing of building permits." He explained the formation of an LID in the area is now being worked on. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Ryan O'Brian of Bancroft, . Peterson & Associates. He agreed with the staff report and offered to answer questions. PUBLIC TESTIMONY in favor was given by -- • *** Dave Hall, the owner, who explained the intent was to provide affordable housing, constructing stick-built homes which will be an asset to ,the community in the $50 - 60,000 price range, common wall, smaller lots. *** Ed Cotter, 8065 SW Durham Road, who saw no objection to the development as proposed, but who expressed much concern about traffic on Durham, especially in the vicinity of the Durham School. PUBLIC TESTIMONY nominally in opposition was presented by Gertrude Gage, owner of Tax Lot 4300, who had questions on the terminology, and commented on the great increase in density as compared with present housing in the area. She wondered what this would do to her tax assess- ments and what it meant in terms of increased density on other parcels. CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: Newton of Staff responded to Mrs. Gages principal questions. Howard reported on the possibility of an LID for improvement of Durham between Serena Court and Hall Boulevard in the relatively near future, and the future prospects for improvement of Durham to the east. He predicted that while Durham may be desirinated as a collector, development in the area will generate arteri& . levels of traffic. One consequence could be a light at the intersection of Durham and Hall. Speaker and Staff discussed the severe pedestrian problem, espec- ially to the Durham Grade School, and there was a little discussion wondering if it would be necessary to have a school student injured or • killed to inspire needed improvements. Mr. Cotter and Staff discussed possible cooperation with the school authorities. Howard welcomed any MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 8, 1981 Page 11. input from citizens such as he to the School District. The 40 foot right of way, now undeveloped, was discussed, and it was ascertained there would be a street plug at the west end of the east-west street. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: There was discussion among Commissioners on various details of the development. Moen questioned __ __ the width of the lots. Discussion followed, with the conclusion that the lotting must conform to City standards or it is not approved. Speaker MOVED approval of Conditional Use CU 7-81 with the four { Staff Recommendations, based on findings as follows: the site is zoned R-5 on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and NPO #5 maps; that TMC 18.20.020 allows single family attached units on 5,000 square foot lots as a conditional use in that zone; that the application conforms to Policies 2 and 8 of the NPO #5 Plan; and that it furthers the objectives of LCDC Goal 10 calling for affordable housing. The motion was seconded by Owens and carried unanimously. ITEM 5.4 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LECTURE ROOM 10865 S.W. Walnut Tigard, Oregon A. GENERAL FACTS CASE: ZC 12-82 Zone Change Sunnyside Estates NPO # 6 S 4-82 Subdivision REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a zone change from R-7 to R-5 Single Family residential and approval of a 25 lot subdivision on 3.89 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, applicable NPO goals and policies and staff's field investigation, staff recommends denial of ZC 12-82 and S 4-82. APPLICANT: Robert Randall Co. OWNER: Same 9500 S.W. Barbur Blvd. S-300 Portland, Oregon 97219 SITE LOCATION: 15280 S.W. 100th Avenue (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 11CA lot 900) LOT AREA: 3.89 acres NPO COMMENT: NPO # 6 does not support the zone change from R-7 to R-5. The NPO feels that the zone designation should remain as R-7. Further, the NPO feels that the flag lots and increased density do not suit the character of the neighborhood. The NPO voted to support the original subdivision plan for 15 lots approved on February 20, 1980. BACKGROUND: On June 25, 1979, the Tigard City Council approved a zone change from Washington County RU 4 to City of Tigard R-7 with conditions (ZC 12-79). On February 20, 1980, the Planning Director approved a 15 lot subdivision at the R-7 density with conditions. (See attached S-5-79 staff report.) AREA CHARACTERISTICS: The surrounding area has been developed primarily as single family residential. The Church of Latter Day Saints lies directly to the south. The lots to the west and north are developed to the R-10 density. The property to the east is vacant. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: There is an existing house and garage on the site which will remain as a part of the new subdivision. The site slopes to the south and is grass covered. There are a few trees on the northern portion of the site. STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.4 7.0 12-82 & S 4-82 Page 2 B. APPLICABLE PLANNING CRITERIA AND STAFF ANALYSIS 1. LCDC GOALS AND GUIDELINES a. Citizen Involvement - The purpose of this goal is to provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all aspects of the planning process. In the case of this application, all owners of record within 250 feet received notice of the time and date of the public hearing on this matter. In addition, a public notice was published in the Tigard Times on August 26, 1982. b. Land Use Planning - All applicable LCDC Statewide Goals and Guidelines, NPO # 6 Plan Policies and City of Tigard Municipal Code provisions were considered in review of this application. c. Housing - The purpose of this goal is to ensure affordable housing and a wide variety of housing types for the citizens of the state. The subdivision proposed by the applicant offers single family dwellings on small lots which may reduce housing costs. d. Public Facilities - The purpose of this goal is to ensure that public facilities to the site are adequate. Sewer is available from an 8" line south of the site at Highland Drive and S.W. 100th. There is a 6" water line in S.W. 100th and an 8" water line in S.W. Sattler. There was no storm drain plan submitted with the preliminary plan. Fire hydrant locations were not indicated on the preliminary plan. There was no response included in the application from the Tigard School District indicating available space in schools to serve future residents of the subdivision. 2. NPO # 6 POLICIES Policy 2. The maximum overall density of development will be four dwelling units or 12 persons per gross acre. This amounts to a standard of 7500 square feet of land per dwelling unit allowing for streets and other open space. Some areas will have a lower density owing to topography, existing development patterns, or the desire of individuals to own a larger lot. Policy 3. Residential subdivisions will be developed with paved streets, curbs and gutters, street lights, and walkways, according to city or county standards. All utilities will be placed underground. Policy 4. Development will coincide with the provision of public streets, water and sewerage facilities. These facilities shall be (a) capable of adequately serving all intervening properties as well as the proposed development, and (b) designed to meet city or county standards. STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.4 EC 12-82 & S 4-82 Page 3 Policy 5. Planned unit development will be encouraged on tracts large enough to accommodate ten or more dwellings. Planned unit development will permit a degree of flexibility in design that will enable a higher quality of development in accordance with zoning standards. Policy 6. The single family character of the area designated on the plan map as urban low-density residential is viewed as a positive asset to be retained. Projects proposed for this area must be judged according to affects upon this character. The density or the proposed subdivison exceeds the maximum recommended in the NPO # 6 Plan but retains the single family land use. Public facilities and services are available to serve the site. The applicant has not requested the PD designation. 3. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS 17.16.100 Tentative approval. (a) Within sixty days of the date of sumission of the preliminary plat, the Planning Commission will review the plan reports of the agencies listed in Section 17.16.090 and may give tentative approval of the preliminary plat as submitted or may modify the plat or, if disapproved, shall express the Planning Commission's disapproval and reasons therefor. (b) No tentative plan for a proposed subdivision and no tentative plan for a major partition shall be approved unless: (1) Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions or maps of major partition already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects, unless the City determines it to be in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. (2) Streets and road held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are set forth thereon. (3) The tentative plan complies with the comprehensive plan and applicable zoning regulations of the City then in effect. (4) No tentative plat of a subdivision or map of a major partition shall be approved unless there will exist adequate quantity and quality of water and an adequate sewage disposal system to support the proposed use of the land described in the proposed plat. 4. STAFF ANALYSIS After reviewing the proposed plat and making a field investigation staff concurs with NPO # 6 that the proposed R-5 density is incompatible with surrounding land uses. Further, staff feels that the lot configuration and acesses proposed in the original proposal (S 5-79) makes better us of the property. STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.4 IC 12-82 & S 4-82 Page 4 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of ZC 12-82 and S 4-82 based on findings as follows: 1. The proposal violates policy 2 of the adopted NPO # 6 Plan. 2. The proposel is not compatible with existing surrounding land uses. ijadfrio PRE)tEED BY: Elitaibeth A. Newton APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning and Development MINUTES NPO #6 -- JUNE 17, 1982 1. ) The meeting was called to order at 7: 39 p.m. 2`. ) Roll Call NPO #6 Members': Phil Pasteris (Chairman) , Don Quinn John Arrigoni, Jane Miller, William Frederick, Marge Davenport Guests: Bob Bledsoe (NPO #3) , John Gibbon (NPO #6 member - Randall Co. ) , Mike Man (NPO #6 member) , Loretta Allen, Mike Sheppard.' City Staff: Jeremy Coursolle 3.) Approval of Previous Minutes -- Approved as written +I` 4. ) Golf Side Estates -- John Gibbon representing the Randall Company presented three site designs. * Plan A was presented to NPO #6 April 15, 1982, and showed 20 developed lots * Plan B was new and showed 25 developed lots. This was a variation of Plan A clustering flag lots. * Plan C reconfigured Kable Street to a "T" and provided 25 developed lots. The NPO reviewed these designs and indicated the flag lots and increased density did not fit the character of the neighbor- hood. The NPO then reviewed the approved plat for that area. It was noted that the approved plat was significantly different than Plan A. The main difference was the orientation of the flag on lot 11. The following resolution was unanimously passed. NPO #6 favors the original approved plot of 15 lots with the potential of three duplexes making a possible maximum of 18 dwellings. This will be presented at appropriate Planning Commission hearing. 5. ) Review of Annexation Policy Report Jeremy Coursolle reviewed the report and said that the City would now emphasize the annexation of some "bits and pieces" of land vs an old ploxy of "large area" annexation. Also, the City will not approve extension of USA lines beyond City limits unless annexation applications have been filed. Continued. . . • STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tigard City Hall 12420 SW Main St., Tigard February 20, 1980 DOCKET: SUBDIVISION, S 5-79 (Golf Side Estates, Ref. ZC 12-79) APPLICANT: ROBERT RANDALL COMPANY OWNER: SAME 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97219 CONTACT: DON DRAKE, PROJECT MANAGER 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97219 APPLICATION DATE: January 23, 1980 SITE • l,Q-1� 4 LOCATION: 15280 S 100t- , southeast corner of attle, an•�100th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11CA, Tax Lot 900) REQUEST: To create a fifteen (15) lot subdivision on a 3.89 acre parcel in an R-7 Zone, "Single Family Residential". SITE DESIGNATION: The site is presently zoned R-7 and is designated R-7 "Single Family Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan. PREVIOUS ACTION: - e A request by the applicant for a zone map amendment q Y PP p from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7 on the subject site was approved by the Tigard City Council, June 25, 1979, with conditions. (ZC 12-79) - A request by the applicant for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat on the subject site was tabled by the Tigard Planning Department in June 1979, until a sewer easement to SW 98th could be acquired through the adjoining lot to the east, Tax Lot 1100. (S 5-79) I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval in accordance with Section 17.06 of the Tigard Municipal Code to subdivide a 3.89 acre parcel into fifteen (15) lots with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet, four (4) dwelling units per gross acre. STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page 2 2. Applicable policies from NPO #6 Plan are as follows: Policy 3. Residential subdivisions will be developed with paved streets, curbs and gutters, street lights, and walkwaY s, according to city or county standards. All utilities will be placed underground. Policy 4. Development will coincide with the provision of public streets, water and sewerage facilities. These facilities shall be (a) capable of adequately serving all intervening properties as well as the proposed development, and (b) designed to meet city or county standards. 3. Section 17.06.065 of the Tigard Municipal Code states the following criteria for approval of preliminary plats: "No preliminary plat for a proposed subdivision and no map or major partition shall be approved unless the Planning Director finds: (a) Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions or maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects, unless the city determines it to be in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. (b) Streets and roads held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are set forth thereon. (c) The preliminary plat complies with the comprehensive plan, the applicable zoning regulations, and the regulations within this title. (d) There will exist adequate quantity and quality of water and an adequate sewage disposal system to support the proposed use of the land described in the proposed plat. 4. The site has one single family house located at the center of the proposed • subdivision, with access from SW 100th. The site slopes downhill from the northwest to southeast corner. It is a vacant field except for lines of trees on the south and west sides of the house. The house is served by overhead electric lines from Settler Street. 5. Surrounding land uses include single .family housing to the north and west, a baseball diamond and church to the south, and a vacant field (Tax Lot 1100) to the east. 6. A 10 lot subdivision is under consideration for the adjacent lot to the east of Golf Side Estates. (Tax Lot 1100, Ottoman property) . A preliminary subdivision proposal for the adjacent lot was submitted by the applicant, showing the extension of Kable Street as a through street from the east line of Golf Side Estates to the intersection of SW 98th and Lake Side Drive to make a 4 way intersection there. STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page 3 7. The nearest available sewer to the site is located in SW Lake Side Drive. This line is presently under the control of the Tualatin Development Corporation, until such time as it is accepted by the city for city operation and maintenance. A ten (109 foot sewer easement has been granted to the applicant by the owner of the adjacent lot to the east (Lot 1100) . The easement follows the south line of Lot 1100 to SW 98th Avenue. 8. Water service is available to the site from Tigard Water District lines on SW 100th or SW Sattler. 9. Traffic movement to and from the site will be served by SW 100th, SW Kable, and SW Sattler. NPO #6 Plan designates Sattler as a collector street (36' - 44' pavement) and 100th and Kable as local streets. SW 100th and, SW Sattler are county streets, presently in substandard condition, without adequate paving width, right-of-way, curbs, or gutters. SW 100th does not presently extend south of SW Kable Street. As part of its approval of the Summerfield Planned Development, the Tigard Planning Commission approved a forty (40') foot pavement along SW Sattler Street at the north side of Summerfield No. 7. The Tigard Municipal Code 17.28.040 requires a minimum fortyfour (44') foot pavement for collectors. 10. Applicant proposes to dedicate ten (10') feet of right-of-way along SW Sattler Street and 25 x 73.91 of right-of-way along SW 100th at the southwest corner of the site, as required in the zone change for this site. (ZC - ( 12 79) 11. Sewer, water, and drainage plans, and lot-line utility easements were not indicated on the preliminary plat. 12. Off-site drainage from the southeast slope of Little Bull Mountain collects in the southwest corner of the site, via open drainage ditches on SW 100th. There are swampy conditions in portions of Lots 10, 13, and 14. The nearest storm drain to the site is on the west side of SW 100th, about 100 feet south of SW Kable Street. 13. A school impact statement from the Tigard School District, January 23, 1980, stated that "no negative impact is anticipated" from the proposed subdivision. 14. Lots 1 and 2 on the preliminary plat are only 6,920 square feet each (not including the ten (10') foot street dedication on SW Sattler Street) . Tigard Zoning Code Section 18.20.035 requires minimum 7,500 square foot lots in R-7 Zones. yy. � STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page 4 15. The street cross sections proposed on the preliminary plat do not comply with city standards. II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. The proposed .preliminary plat conforms to NPO #6 Plan, in that the lotting pattern is for single family residential purposes. The gross residential density 'of 3.86 units/acre conforms to the R-7 Zone requirements, but Lots 1 and 2 are substandard. Lot 3 to the south. of these lots' is - nearly double the 7,500 foot minimum size, so an adjustment to the south lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 could bring them into conformance with the R-7 lot size requirement. 2. Both sewer and water service are available to the site to facilitate the proposed density. An adequate sewer easement from the site to SW 98th has been obtained by the applicant. However, since Tualatin Development Corporation presently controls the sewer on Lake Side Drive, the applicant must obtain permission from the Tualatin Development Corporation to tie V into that sewer or wait until that sewer is accepted by the city for city operation and maintenance. 3. Adequate right-of-way has been indicated for SW Sattler, SW 100th, and SW Kahle Street on the preliminary plat. 4. The proposed extension of SW Kahle Street through the site and the adjoining lot to the east (Lot 1100) would be desirable to provide better access for property owners in Golf Side Estates and better traffic circulation for the surroundH g area. The Tualatin Fire District (Joe Gruelich) concurs in this judgement. 5. Surface drainage is poor on the southwest portion of the site, due to the topography of the site and the runoff from uphill properties. Drainage will need special attention on this site. The applicant should • provide for improvement of drainage throughout the site and downstream thereof. 6. Applicant should revise the street cross section plans after consulting with the Public Works Department and before submitting grading and improvement plans for street improvements. 7. The City Council should. adopt the Comprehensive Plan (NPO) street standards by ordinance, so that the previously approved forty (40') foot pavement width on Sattler Street at Summerfield #7 can be permitted on the north side of Golf Side Estates, without unnecessary variance procedings. STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page 5 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions; 1. That the lot size on Lots 1 and 2 be adjusted on the final plat to allow for a minimum of 7,500 square feet per lot. 2. Public water service and sanitary service shall be installed to this site prior to the issuance of a Building Permit including the existing house on Lot 6. 3. That applicant obtain permission from Tualatin Develo pment Corporation to tie into sewer on Lake Side Drive or wait until that sewer is accepted by the city for city operation and maintenance. 4. That applicant convey a one . (19 foot street plug reserve strip at the east end of SW Kable Street to the City of Tigard. 5. Storm drainage plans for the site and downstream thereof shall be submitted •, and approved by the Public Works Director, and install storm drainage system to the site prior to issuance of a building Permit. 6. Grading plans and construction plans on all public right-of-ways shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director prior to commencement of work. 7. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate city department and changes are approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings. 8. Fire hydrants be placed as per Tigard Water District and Tualatin Fire District regulations. 9. All existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underground, including the existing house on Lot 6. Street lighting installations shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 10. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department. • STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page 6 11. That ten (10') feet of right-of-way along SW Settler be dedicated to the county along the frontage of the site with Washington County approval to improve SW Settler to collector street standards prior to issuance of building permits. 12. That twentyfive (25') feet of right-of-way along the southwest side of the property on SW 100th be dedicated to the county (the area is approx- imately 74 feet in length). Half street improvements are to be made along SW 100th from the intersection with SW Settler south to the intersection of SW Kable Street. Full street improvements are to be made along SW 100th from SW Kable Street intersection south to the end of the subject site property line. 13.- That street improvements be constructed to the approval of the Public Works Director prior to the recording of the final plat or issuance of a Building Permit. Action of the Planning Director is final unless notification of appeal to the Planning Commission is filed with the City Recorder within twenty (20) .days of the Planning Director's Action. Prepared by Richard Ross, Approved by Aldo : •ward, Intern Planner P1. f ' Director • vc This acknowledgement must be signed and returned to the City of Tigard, Planning Department. Failure to return this acknowledgement will result in no further action on this project with regards to issuance of Building Permits or engineering approval. Signature Date AGENDA ITEM 5.5 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.5 September 7, 1982 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 10865 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon August 27, 1982 A. FACTS: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CASE: PD 2-82 General Plan Review Cambridge Square NPO # 2 S 5-82 Subdivision REQUEST: A request by Century 21 Homes, Inc. for a general plan review and approval of a six lot subdivision on .58 acres as Phase I of Cambridge Square. RECOMMENDATION: Based on staff's analysis and information supplied by the applicant, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposal as submitted for Phase I. General Plan Review and Subdivision approval for Phase II to be granted at a later date. APPLICANT: Century 21 Homes, Inc. OWNER: Same 7412 S.W. Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy. S-112 Portland, Oregon 97225 LOCATION: 11820 & 11900 S.W. 98th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 181 35CD lot 2200 & 2300) . NPO # 2 LOT AREA: Phase I lot area .58 acres. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential PRESENT ZONING DESIGNATION: A-20 Multi-Family NPO COMMENT: NPO # 2 is currently inactive and was not able to comment on this matter. 2. BACKGROUND On May 19, 1980, the Tigard City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Revision from R-7 Single Family Residential to A-20 PD "Multi-Family Planned Development" for the subject property. On July 20, 1980, the Tigard Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plan for Phase I with conditions and gave tentative approval to the concept of cottage housing in an A-20 zone. STAFF REPORT PD 2-82 & S 5-82 Page 2 3. VICINITY INFORMATION The surrounding land uses are as follows: o The land to the north is developed as single family residential. o The subject site is bordered on the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad. . o The area to the east is zoned as single family residential. o The area to the west is vacant and zoned for single family residential. 4. SITE INFORMATION Presently, a portion of a garage structure lies within the Phase I limits which will be removed. The site slopes to the south and is grass covered with some pine and oak trees. B. APPLICABLE PLANNING GOALS: 1. LCDC STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS a. Citizen Involvement: Goal # 1 - The purpose of this goal is to ensure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Notices were sent to all property owners of record within 250 feet of the site. A public notice was published in the Tigard Times on August 26, 1982. b. Land Use: Goal # 2 - All applicable LCDC Goals and Guidelines, NPO # 2 policies and Tigard Municipal Code sections were considered in review of this application. c. Recreational Needs: Goal # 8 - The intent of the goal is to provide for the recreational needs of the citizens of the community. The applicant has not proposed any community recreation areas or facilities for the project. d. Housing: Goal II 10 - The intent of this goal is to provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. The type of housing proposed on this site is unique in that the units will be detached units in a multi-family zone. The lot sizes proposed will range from 2,423 sq. ft. to 4,297 sq. ft.. This type of housing will allow individuals to purchase a detached unit on a smaller lot at less cost than a typical detached unit on a larger lot. e. Public Facilities: Goal # 11 - The intent of this goal is to ensure that public facilities including water and sewer are adequate. There is an 8" sewer line in S.W. 98th. Water is available from a 6" line in S.W. 98th. The plans submitted do not adequately address site drainage. In addition, five hydrant locations are not shown on the plans submitted. STAFF REPORT PD 2-82 & S 5-82 Page 3 f. Transportation: Goal # 12 - The intent of this goal is to provide a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The site would be accessible via 98th. Staff will require the developer to extend Commercial Street in front of the site to connect 98th Street to 95th Street to allow for better traffic circulation in the area at a later date. Half street improvements will be required on S.W. 98th. In addition, all streets within the Phase I limits shall be improved as required by the Engineering Division prior to issuance of Building Permits. 2. NPO # 2 POLICIES POLICY 9. Urban medium density residential areas will be developed with paved streets, curbs and gutters, and walkways, according to City or County standards. All utilities will be placed underground. POLICY 10. Development will coincide with the provision of public streets, water and sewerag e facilities. These facilities shall be (a) capable of adequately serving all intervening properties as well as the proposed development; and (b) designed to meet City or County standards. POLICY 11. Planned Unit Development will be encouraged on tracts large enough to accomodate ten or more dwellings. Planned Unit Development will permit a degree of flexibility in design that will enable a high quality of development in accordance with zoning standards. POLICY 12. Site plans will provide for adequate open space to (a) protect adjacent properties; and (b) provide ample yard space for residents and play space for youngsters. POLICY 13. High design standards will be established for signing and appearance, including the landscaping of setback areas and the designation of access points. The applicant's development will average nine (9) units per acre. Staff will require that the site improvements are constructed to City standards. 3. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Section 18.56.030 addresses General Plan Review as follows: 18.56.030 General development .lan and resort. (a) Upon receipt of an application for a general plan and report review, the payment of the appropriate fee, and the submission of all appropriate supporting documents, the Planning Director shall initiate a review of the general plan and report. Particular attention shall be paid to the issues developed as a result of the preliminary development plan and report review. If significant differences arise, the Planning Director may schedule study sessions with the Planning Commission and the applicant to resolve the issues prior to a public hearing. Thereafter, if the Planning Director or Planning Commission agree, the applicant shall proceed to a general plan hearing. STAFF REPORT PD 2-82 & S 5-82 Page 4 (b) The general development plan and report shall consist of final plans showing the project as it will be constructed. All material which accompanied the preliminary development plan and report shall be updated to reflect the conditions, concerns, and changes brought about by the preliminary review approval. All deviations or variances from the standards prescribed by this title and in particular, in specific terms, all deviations or variances from the standards and specifications and requirements of Title 17 of this code, which are being proposed to be varied from, shall be addressed in writing with a showing that the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by such proposal. 17.16.100 Tentative approval. (a) Within sixty days of the date of submission of the preliminary plat, the Planning Commission will review the plan reports of the agencies listed in Section 17.16.090 and may give preliminary plat as submitted or may approval of the p y p y modify the PP. plat or, if disapproved, shall express the Planning Commission's disapproval and reasons therefor. (b) No tentative plan for a proposed subdivision and no tentative plan for a major partition shall be approved unless: (1) Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions or maps of major partition already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects, unless the City determines it to be in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. (2) Streets and road held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are set forth thereon. (3) The tentative plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable zoning regulations of the City then in effect. (4) No tentative plat of a subdivision or map of a major partition shall be approved unless there will exist adquate quantity and quality of water and adequate sewage disposal system to support the proposed use of the land described in the proposed plat. 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the General Plan and Subdivision for Phase I only of Cambridge Square based on findings as follows: 1. The proposal conforms to all applicable LCDC goals and NPO # 2 polices. 2. The proposal meets all applicable Tigard Municipal Code Requirements for Subdivision approval. Staff further recommends the following conditions be attached to approval: STAFF REPORT PD 2-82 & S 5-82 PAGE 5 1. The applicant shall apply for Preliminary Plan, General Plan and Subdivision approvals for Phase II of Cambridge Square at a later date. 2. The applicant shall submit sewer°improvement plans, all street improvement plans, all water improvement plans and storm drainage improvement plans to the City Engineering Division to be approved prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 3. Full half street improvements shall be made to S.W. 98th. These improvements shall be bonded for 100% of the estimated construction costs prior to issuance of any Building Permits. In addition, a bond shall be posted for 100% of the cost of water, sewer and storm drain improvements required to serve the site prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 4. The on site street improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits. 5. No changes shall be made to approved plans without approval of the appropriate City Department. • 11,...11 i 0[DIA PRE' ED BY:. E1izaie h A. ewton APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning & Development August 27, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING STAFF SUBJECT: Revision to Administrative Procedures Ordinance Attached is a memo which was presented to the City Council at their August 23, 1982 meeting. The memo briefly outlines staff's concerns with the Administrative Procedures Ordinance which became effective on February 1st of this year. Staff made some recommendations for changes to the ordinance which the Council supports. Please review the attached memo. Staff's recommendations are noted on Page two as Sections "1" and "2". STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission support the changes proposed by staff and forward their recommendation of approval to City Council. Staff will prepare an Ordinance incorporating these changes to be presented to City Council at the end of September. August 18, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Division SUBJECT: Administrative Procedures - Section 18.84 of the Zoning Code. Since February of this year, the Planning Division has been operating under a new set of Administrative Procedures for processing Land Use and Development applications for the City. For the most part, the new Administrative Procedures ordinance has streamlined the application process considerably. However, staff is concerned about the time involved in processing applications submitted for a decision by the Planning Director. The staff has had numerous complaints from applicants that the Site Design Review process takes too much time and some applicants have been discouraged from pursuing development plans because of the time involved in obtaining a decision from the Planning Director. Under the Administrative Procedures section of the code, any application submitted to the Planning Director requires notice as follows: Section 18.84.070 Notice (a) Decisions by the Director 1. Notice of a proposed action on a development application pursuant to Section 18.84.050(a) shall be given by the Director in the following manner: (A) At least twenty (20) days prior to the date of final decision set forth in the notice, notice shall be sent by mail to: 1. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property which is the subject of the application; 2. All owners of record of erty within pro p p y n one hundred (100) feet of the property; 3. The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization, if active; 4. Any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the city which includes provision for such notice; s. Administrative Procedures Memo Page 2 5. Any person who requests, in writing, and pays a fee established by the Council. The Director shall cause an affidavit of mailing of notice to be filed and made a part of the administrative record. (B) A notice published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of final decision set forth in the notice. An affidavit of publication 1 shallbe made part of the administrative record. In addition, there is a fifteen day appeal period which starts the day the final decision is filed as provided for in Section 18.84.240; Section 18.84.240 The Effective Date of the Decision - Appeal or Review (a) Any decision made under the provision of this chapter shall become effective on the fifteenth day from the date notice of the final decision is given, as provided in Section 18.84.130 of this chapter, unless an appeal or review is taken pursuant to Section 18.84.250 of this chapter. The process for Site Design Review and Minor Land Partitions takes at least 35 days and that does not includes delays in setting up the file or getting the public notice out or staff time to prepare the written recommendation to the Planning Director for his decision. Staff would like to recommend that the 20 day notice period be reduced to 10 , days and the 15 day appeal period be reduced to 10 days for decisions make by the Director. In addition, ,a large number of the applications submitted for Site Design Review are small remodels to existing buildings. Many of these applications are time consuming for both staff and the applicant. Often, applicants are discouraged by the amount of time involved in roces sin p g the application and often the public notice mailed on these types of applications generate no response. Usually the application proposals meet all zoning code requirements in terms of setbacks, building height, landscaping requirements, parking requirements and use types. Staff feels that in order to avoid discouraging existing businesses from expanding, limited remodeling to existing businesses should be allowed without subjecting the applicant to the lengthy design review procedure. Any remodel or addition of less than 25% of the existing building floor area should be allowed under an administrative review procedure. This procedure would require the Planning Director or his designe to review the plans submitted to the building department for all zoning code requirements and stamp as approved the site plan prior to issuance of the Building Permit. A notice of decision would go out to surrounding property owners within 100 feet of the property on applications for additions only. The surrounding property owners would have seven (7) days to appeal the Planning Director's approval. • • Adutinistrative`Procedures Memo Page 3 The procedure suggested here should further streamline our administrative process and encourage business expansion in the City. Further, 'it will cut down on the number of Site Design Review applications which will save staff . time and mailing and advertising costs. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •