Planning Commission Packet - 06/12/1984 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 12, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT BLDG. - BOARD ROOM
13137 SW PACIFIC HWY.
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
1. Call to Order
2. Rall Call
3. Approve Minutes from June 5, I984, Pla�nning Commission Meeting.
4. Planning Commission Communication
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 NPO MEMBERSHIPS - Recommendation to City Council for appointment to
NPO # 7
5.2 APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 4-84 FERD MORENO NPO � 3
5.3 LCDC IN ORDE1� TO COMPLY STATEMENTS
a. Remai.ning Goal � 5 issues
b. Exceptions to Private and Shared Outdoor Recreatioa Area
Requirements.
c. Subsidized housing dispersal poli�y.
d. Density - 10 units per acre
e. Manutactured Housing Conditional Use requirementa.
f. Manufactured Housing Needs �►ssessment.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. �1DJOURNMENT
0288P
t
I
l
`r
�
t
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
�
SPECIAL MEETING - JUNE 12, 1984 �
4
1. President Moen called the meeting �o order at 7:40 PM. The meeting was
held at Tigard School District - Board Room - 13137 SW Pacific Hwy. ,
Tigard, Oregon. '
�
2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Fyre, Butler,
Peterson.
ABSENT: Commissioner Leverett, Owens, & Vanderwood. '
STAFF: Director of Planning & Development William A.
Monahan, Associ.ate Planner Elizabeth A Newton,
Secretary Diane M. Jelderks.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 5, 1984.
President Moen requested that on page five that "most adequate" be changed i�
to "most appropriate". ;'
Commissioner Peterson moved to approve minutes as amended. Commissioner �':
Fyre seconded. Motion carried unanimously by the Commissioners present. #;
�I
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIOid �I,
o President Moen stated that staff had checkt,�d with legal counsel to !�
determine if a meeting could be held with four Commissioners present, �I
since there were only seven members nn the Commia�sion at this point. -�
Staff had been advised a meeting could be conductecl. �
�
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AP�OINTMENT TO NPOs !''
Director of Planning and Development Irlonahan made staf,f's recommendation
for Russell Krueger, 12225 SW 2nd, Beaverton; and Lee Cunningham 13385 SW �I
115th, Tigard, to be appointed to NPO �� 7. i.
,'.
Each applicant was present and addressed the Plar.�ing Commission as to why r'
they would like to become a NPO member. `
PUBLIC TESTIMONY '
, �;
o No one appeared to speak. �
�
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED `�
�li
fl
�
�I
i
Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 1 �
� � r
I �
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forwaxd
rPCOmmendatian to City Council for appointment of Rusaell Krueger and
Lee Cunningham to NPO 4� 7.
Motion carried unanim�usly. I
502 APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 4-84, FERD MORENO NFO �� 3
An appeal of of the Planning Director's approval to operate a residential
home for the handicapped on property zoned R-2 located at 14430 SW
McFarland (WCTM 2S1 lOBA lot 3800).
Director of Planning and Development Monahan reviewed the packet of
information distributed to the Commissioners. He then reviewed the
criteria needed to approve a home occupation permit and how they had been
applied to this application for it to be approved.
o Frank Josselson, Attorney, objected to the way the proceedings were
being conducted.
o President Moen stated. that the staff's report and applicant's
presentation should be allowed t� be heard again.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Ferd, Moreno, 14430 SW McFarland referred to
Senate Bill 478 which allowed this type of use. He then reviewed the
criteria which he had met for approval of the Home Occupation Permit.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Frank Josselson, 838 SW First Ave. , representing the petitioners,
stated he would speak after the other public testimony had been given.
o Michael Smith, 11645 SW Cloud Court, showed slide of the area.
(Discussion followed on what issues needed to be addressed.) Mr.
Smith continued how angry he was that approval had been granted. for
the Home Occupation Permit. He felt it vi.olated the Community
Development Code. His main concern was that he felt the applicant
had mislead the City and neighbors with the actual use of the home
occupation. He requested the Commission to deny the Home Occupation
Permit.
o Harry Backeberg, 11750 SW Wildwood, supported the appeal. He felt
the home had been increased in such a size to make it a commercial
use and it did not fit into the single family neighborhood.
Requested the Commission to deny the application and have the
facility torn down.
o Rob Walsh, 11545 SW Cloud Court, felt a degree of antagoniem with Mr.
Moreno. He felt there was a possibilty of 12 to 15 bedrooms. He did
not feel it was a single family use.
Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 198# Page 2
o Cathie Soren,sen, 11515 SW Cloud Ct.; Penn Stohr, 15575 SW �loud Ct;
and Ronald Grant, 11865 SW Wildwood, all supported the appeal to have
the Home Occupation Permit denied.
o Charles A. Gutweniger, 14355 SW McFarland Blvd., requested the
Planning Commission deny the Home Occupation Permit. He felt a motel
had been added in a single family residential area. He felt the
applicant was circumventin� the law.
o Frank Josselson, Attorney, reviewed the history of the application,
beginning with the building permit. He stated the construction is
not for a single family residence, rather a group residential
facility or boarding house. He contended that Mr. Moreno lied to the
City, misrepresented the use of the facility and has violated almost
ever Cit ordinance dealin with sin le family residentia,l use. He
Y Y 8 8
was concerned how the facility would be regulated and enforced.
CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL
o Mr. Harold Carlson, Bull Mountain Road, stated he had visited Mr.
Moreno's home and was impressed with the interior and exterior looks
of the facili.ty
o Julene, Carlson, 14615 SW Hazeltree, commented that the house is big,
but it was also immaculate.
o Ferd Moreno, explained why the lower portion of the house was the way
it was and that it could not be used for additional bedrooms.
o Mr. Walsh added �hat the heat pump was not a problem. Also, the
vacant lat adjoining this property had not been built on b�cause Mr.
Moreno's hoime had ruined the lot.
o Commissioner Butler asked several questions regarding the use of the
facility and how calculations were done to determine the use For the
Home Occupation area.
o Associate rlanner Newton reviewed the floor p13ns which had been
submitted by the apglicant. Discussion followed between
Commissioners, staff, applicant, and neighbors regarding the number
of individuals living in the facility, square footage and how it is
bei�ng used.
PUBLIC HEARING GLOSED
COMMISSIONER AISCU83ION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Butler commented that all of his questions had been
answered and that the criteria had been met by the applicant.
o Commissioner peterson felt all the criteria had been met.
Plar+ning Commission Minutes June 12, 19$4 Page 3
o Commissioner Fyre had some concerns that the primary use is
residential. He felt, maybe, this matter should be taken to LUBA.
He was of the opinion that the Home Occupati�n Permit should be
denied.
o President Moen was concerned about the square footage being within
the 25%, however, he had recalculated and it was within the 25%. He
then reviewed each of the criteria and felt the applicant had met all
of them.
o Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to deny
ttne appeal to deny the Home Occupation Permit HOP 4-84.
Discussion followed regarding the findings. Frank Jnsselson ob�ected
to the praceedings of the hearings. Further Discussion.
Motion approved by majority of Commissioners present, Commissioner
Fyre voting no.
o Further Discussion regarding written findings.
o Commissioner Fyre moved and President Moen seconded to reconsider the
approved motion. Motion carried unanimously.
o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Butler seconded for
tentative denial of thE appeal of HOP 4-84 until written findings
could be furnished by City staff.
Motion carried by ma�ority vote of Commissioners present with
Commissioner Fyre voting no.
5.3 a. GOAL �� 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC �IVD HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Associate Planner Newton reviewed the Goal 5 In Order to Comply statements
and how the City might amend the plan to bring it �nto compliance.
Y
�TPQ/�CI GQ�F?�'!'G - No �n� �p�eared tc s�e�k �
4
PUBLIC TESTIMONY �
o J B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 303, ob ected to addin �
�� �K f
paragraph number two without having additional public input from the '�
NPOs and CCI. On Item �� 4 he was confused where the concluston above °'
was. Discussion with staff followed.
iil
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSEID ,;
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION I';
�',
o President Moen felt this is a clean up item and he had no problem ��:
with the additions. "
t:
i;
i'
�,
[f
�pz
!''
Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 4 +;'
t:�'
i��.
, _�..__� �., _�__ ... ..:..__�;
� _._ .
o Consensus of the Commission was to require development under the
Planned Development process only.
o Commissioner Butler moved to submit staf.f's recommendation �ta City
Council, with the modification of deleting "and require additional
setbacks" under E�hibit "A", second paxagraph, with recommendation of
approval. '
Commissioner Fyre Seconded. Motion carried unanimously by the ;
Commissioners present.
5.3 b Private Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation areas requirements k`:
(Chapter 18.120) - Community Development Code
;
Associate Planner Newton reviewed the option chosen by staff for the ;,
Private Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas Requirements.
(Exhibit A) `
�,
i
Pres3dent Moen questioned if any one of the finding or all of the findings f
would have to be met to grant the exception. Staff stated that any one or
more of them.
i
NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak.
�`
PUEi.IC TESTIMONX '
i
o No one appeared to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
�:,,�
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION �i'
�'
o Commissioner Butler suggested adding the words "any one or more of ;''
the following findings" after the ��ords "based on". He favored �`
having private or shared outdoor areas.
s,
o Commiseioner Fyre and Peterson agreed.
o President Moen moved for the �oilowing iang�age: :
z,'
C. The Director may grant an exception or deduction to the Private
Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas Re�quirements �`
provided the application is for a use designed for a specific 1�•;
purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature (for example ;i
senior citizen housing) and which can demonstrate a reduced t�;
demand for Private Outdoor Recreational Area based on any one or
more of tile following findingss #'
.
1. There is direct access by a pedestrian path from the �
p�c►posed developa►ent to public open space or recreat�on 4" il
areas which may be used by residents of the development. �? '
f�
{ ,'I
� � � � �� � � � ��a:l
�<<
�, i
i,
Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 5 ! I
t?
_ _ ,: ��.I�
� _
2. The development operates a motor vehicYe which is ava�lable
on regular basis to tranaport residents of the development �
to public open space or recreation areas.
3. The required square footage of either the Private Outdoor �I
Area �r the Shared Outdoor Recreation Area may be reduced
if together the two areas equal or exceed the combined
standard for both.
o Commissiener Fyre seco�ded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by
the Commissioners present.
5.3 c Policy 6.1.2 - Subsidized Housing Dispersnl
Associate Planner Newton stated that there were several ob�ections to this
Policy being discriminatory. She explained that staff had done some
research and found that the City of Salem has an acknowledged Housing
Dispersal policy 3ncorporated into their Comprehensive Plan by reference.
Staff is recommending a policy similar to the one currently in use hy the
City of Salem and adding 5ection 4 to Policy 12.1.1. as listed in st,aff's
memo.
CCl/NPO COMMENTS
o Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, NPO 4� 3 Chairman, proposed adopting
something more in tun.e with the feeling that was adopted when we
�:ioinallv ?rin�tg� our nlan instead of something similar to Salem's.
He proposed changing 30 perc�nt to 20 percent and allow no more than
two instead of �hree subsidized housing units to ad�oin. Discussion
followed.
o Geraldine Ball, commented that she attended the LCDC hearing and this
was the biggest issue that Tigard had.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
o Commissioner Fyre supported Mr. Bledsoe, however, he did not want to
impede the process.
o Commissioner Peterson supported the staff recommendation.
o Commissioner Butler stated that he could live with the 30 percent,
however he would like to see the three changed to two.
o Pres3dent Moen questioned the use of "should be" versus "shall be°
and why staff had dropped "should be located near shopping and health
care facilities". Staff stated that the word convenient was
ambiguous. Discussion foilowed regarding two or three subsidir,ed
houeing units adjoining.
Plann3ng Commiss�on Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 6
o Commissioner Butler moved to recommend approval of 5.3 c to the City
Council with the change of no more than two subsidized housing units
shall ad�oin.
Commissioner Fyre seconcled. Motion carried unanimously by the
Commissioners present.
5.3 d Density - 10 units per acre.
Di�ector of Planning and Development Monahan reviewed the present density
and how LCDC had re�ected staff's approactx to take credit for additional
uni�s within redeveloping areas of the the Central Business District and
the CP areas of NPO 4� 4, which left 9.1 buildable units per acre. Staff ,
then revi2wed the four alternatives they had investigated.
CCl/NPO COMMENTS - Staff presented the CCI minutes which supported
alternative number two as being the most desirable, number one being poor
but possible, the third being poor and destroys the character of the plan,
and iour being prefera�le to option one, because it leaves the best vacant
land for commercial, but unre�listic as it involves a ma�or change of the
Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Jim Miller, 12910 SW 63rd Place, Portland, Or. 97219, opposed
changing the property in NPO �� 4 from Commercial Profesbional to
Residential 40 units per acre.
o Bob Bledsoe, 118U0 SW Walnut, opposed alternative number three,
considered number 2 as being possible. He suggested taking high
density to 50 units per acre. (Staff commented that we can nnly get
credit for 40 units per acrQ).
PUSLIC HEARING �LOSED
o Commissioners Butler, Peterson and Fyre favored option two as being
the best and easiest way to go.
o President Moen, felt the Council has two options. If they choose not
to fight LGDC, then the only option is alternative number two. The
problem being that LCDC won't allow residential to be counted in the
redeveloping Commercial zone. If we were to fight LCDC then he would
suggest that we create a special zone called residential/commercial
professional and do something on that oxder. Discussion followed
regarding readdressing the redeveloping issue.
o Gommissioner Peterson moved to approve 5.3 d alternative number two
and forward the recommendation to City Couneil.
Commissioner Fyre seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously by Commissionere present.
5.3 e Conditional Use Standards for Manufactured Housing Units,
�
1
i
Planning Co�ission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 7 �
A�ssociate Planner Newton reviewed the ob�ections as being more restrictive
for manufactured homes. Staff recommended removing the requi.xements in
the conditional use standards as they are also required in the subdivision
and site development review process.
CCl/NPO COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Don Sehaeffer 15685 SW Upper �oones Ferry Rd. , Space 6, commented
that manufactured homeg should be permitted in 3.5 and 4.5 zones as
th�re is a great need for this type of housing.
o Staff commented that this was one of the options that was proposed,
however, staff chase the option to amend the conditional � process.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Fyre and Peterson supported changing th� conditional use
requirements.
o Commissioner Butler stated he would like to see them as a permitted
use in the 3.5 and 4.5 zones.
o President Moen stated there had been a lot of public in�ut to have
them as conditional uses and supported keeping them as conditional
uses.
o Commissioner Fyre moved to approve 503 e, the conditional use portion
of the recommendation and forward to t�e City Council for approval.
Commissioner Peterson second�d the motion. Motion carried by
unanimously by Commissioner present.
5.3 f Manufactured Homes - Needs Assessment.
Associate Planner Newton explained that in order to gain acknowledgment
the plan needed to be amended to in�clude an assessment of additional
manufactured homes, a needed housing type, that are projected for the
planning period. Staff explained the methodology that they had used to
ascertain need.
o Discussion followed as to why this was needed and th� difficulty in j
doing a pro3ection ae there have been no manufactured homes built in �
Tigard in the last 10 years.
��1
CCl/NPO COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak. ;'
e
PUBLIC TESTIMONY �'
!;
o Harry Fields, 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Roa�, questioned the method �
r
used for the pro�ection. He quoteal fiqures for other a,reas for
manufactured homes stating that they are a needed affordable �
housing. He wanted to k�ow if 1.9% wasn't limitin�g. r
� � � � � � �
�;
3:
Planning Commission Minutes .Tune 12, 1984 Page 8 s
I" .;.. . ,:. ..:�
i
o Mr. Monahan commented that these figures are only projection and do '
not limit the growth to 1.9�. i
o Clyde Johnson,12120 SW Summercrest Drive, commented that there is no ,
place to put mobi�e homes for individualg evicted from the Terrace
Heights Mobile Home Park. Discussion followed.
o Niel Miller, 11480 SW Royal Villa Drive, commented t�at there are no
spaces available for mobile/manufactured home and there needs to be.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Discussion followed regarding the methodology used for the pro�ection
and what the impact would be. �`
o President Moe� moved to recommend 1.9X and requested staff to �
research to see if a better methodology could be established. �;
Commissioner Pet�rson seconde� the motion. Motion c�rried �`
unanimously by Commissioner present.
M
i'
6. OTHER BUSINESS i`
o There was no other business.
7. Ad3ourn 11:40 P.M. `
s;
��� �
.
Diane M. Jelder Secretary
a:
;,.
f;
A.TTEST:
� `I
� ������ C��� i,l
A. Donald Moen, President ;�'
i'
��
s
i
i,
�
,.
4
0483P:dmj �
,
!
i
i
i
T�lanning Commission Minutes June 12, 19$4 Page 9
� ���� �,
l
PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE CALL:
�
Donald Moen .,
_��
Bonnie Owens �
John Butler '�� f
Milton Fyre �
Deane Leverett � `
Dave Peterson _� '
Chris Vanderwoor3 _�
,I
i
I
�
�
E
�
�
,
�
s
I
i
;
�
�
:. ...,, ,. �
�
� )
�.
;.
�
�
(
k
n
i
, �.
h
i
. ....... _.. �---�'��'-�y�� ' ,
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEL•'T �
r
f
NOTICE: AL' L PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY TTEM MUST SIGN TH�IN N�'�hi�: �
and note their address on this, sheet, (Please Print your name) . ��
S
ITEM/bESCRIPTION: NP� ��CS ���/!_� �
•
i+ �
4R F��r►r►�t E �sa-.�-i�a c � '
�:
,
,
�,
�
�
PROPONENT (For) dPPONENT (against) �;.
�.
Name, Address and Affiliation • Name, Address and Affiliation ;
E
i
�.
/ �'.
�;
1;
. �
t'
1'
• � f'
Y
, f
i,
f
''i
��I
1;I
}.�
!'j
i`''.
!;
4;;
i'
�'
�',
{':
F>.
�:
�;;!
r`
�:
[::
I.
l(
[:
. � � � � � � , . � �K
P.�
� . . . � . ' . � .. � - � . . . . � � .,� . , ��,.
I'. . . � . . � . � � � � . . .. � .. . . . ._. ... .._. .. ..�c,._.,�
� � _. , a
i 1 f. �.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITE�f MUST SICiJ Ttt�ZK NAht�:
artd note their address on this sheet. (please Print your name)
ITEM/bESCRIPTION: fj/Q'�,� �� /"���C
�v 's1l
�
, � ,��,� ,���a ���e�.�_���?
/- ��er� n�v����
�G� .�-..3
PROPONENT (Far) OPPONEN'.0 (against)
Name, Address anel Affiliation • Name, Address and Affiliation
_ ,,
.� JPsSRIs � f��-� �-. �
y � c� � SCJ �, rsr /�� �.
� ��,����-,..� `I ? �--e ��
, J� _l���y ��v����f
Q2. �C�6t�.�6 �t��c3 s�. c�.���p
c,S � �S.:Gv C�/'
orer�s �c� -,
�L�61.) p� t 7���t,c� C°L�Cc_� C '-•
,
. � �` -
/-� �f�.3.�J` -f'�tl
�/A,�c�s /9• G?tlTt.vt�v/6's� --`Fil�c�9� Be v,b
j
i
;
i
�
�
�.
� x
�i
:�
�,
,;i
6.
_ ,;.
�
�;
��: ." e
;;
':�;
_ t;,
— �.;
��;
� . � �;;
..... . _ . __.__.._._�./�- ,_£� _
`1`IGARD PLANNING COMMISSIO�] SIGN UP SHGET
NOTICE : A1:L PERSONS DESZRING TO S�EAK ON ANY TTENi DiUST SICN THEIY, 1Ve1i�1�
and note their address on �.his sheet, (�lease Print your naxc►e) _
. �
ITEM/bESCRIP.TION: �
.
�
�
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address and Af�iliation
�` �
� :�-!� t%. ,5 0� p —p `� ,�w �!�
r
. . . . . . . . . . I
• � i
i
. �
i
i
i
•f
�
3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO 5PEAK ON ANY ITEM riUST SIGN THEIIt NAMF �
and note their address. on this sheet. (please Print youx name)
s. 3 . .
ITEM/bESCRIPTION: •
.
��
b ,
� �
;';
PROPONENT (For), � OPPONENT (a�ainst) ,�
�.
Name, AddreS�s and Affiliation � . Name, Address and Affiliation
;,
��
. � '
�
;
j;,
y:,
, �,��
i � '
�
3
�
- _ _ . _ ,�
-----�______
k ,.
`i'IGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHGE`P
NOTICE: A1;L PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ZTEM h1UST SICN TH�TY, NAI�IE
and note their address on this shcet, (Pleas� Print your name) .
3 � � �
5� ITEM/bESCRIP.TIdN:
.
Y ,
/
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address and Affiliation
,
�— 5
. .
.
,
.`
-
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM b1UST SIGN THEIft NAMR
.
and aote their adStess. on this sY►eet, p eas Pri t our name
I �
( 1 e n y )
� 3 � �
TTEM/bESCRIPTION: .
.
_ �
r
.
A
�%�
;;
. ,!
PROPONENT (For), � OPPONENT (against) ,'�
Name, Address and�.A_ffil.iation � . Name, Address and Affiliation
�--- -- ;
i�/� G � � ;11��c. ��'r/8 sr,�, 39a �� . r�
�_.
: ' .,
. � ///��YL? ' ��,....`.."'��'� . � 3{
. �`_` _,.,�.�.�....—+-... . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . }�I
� • .. . � . . . f'��
� r . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4�'.
' . . . . .. . ..
� '
�
.. . . . . . . . . . . . ���I
' � . � . � . . � ��.t.
. . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,]
17
�s1
. . . " ��.,��...�.�� V':I
... . . ... .. ... . ., ....._,.:..u.�:.;-♦
. :.:�.._�........
. .. . . . . . .. .....:,. .�. .. ;.'..:,... .:,:_.._..._
�. . . . . .. . .....___ __—_..
7'IGAPD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP 5f-IEL`P
.
NOTICE : A1',L PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY TTEM MUST �IGN TH�;IY NA61E
and note their address on this sheet. (please Print your name) .
� � ITEM/bESCRIP.TION:
� •
. �
�' �
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Nameo Address a Affiliation • Name, Address and Affiliation
r.w. �P,��.r �asy� ��5•
�°N 's''f��lf��P Sl�4 �"��e+ OS�w� z ' S �Cr'��
.
:�
NOTICE : ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM b1UST SIGN THEIft NAMF
and note their addtess. on this sheet. (please Print your name)
� ITEM/bESCRIPTION:
� .
�
• ,
PROPONENT (For), � OPPONENT (against)
Name, Addres�s and Affiliation ._....w._-- .._..-.-�.__...,Name,, .Address and Affiliation
- ._.,��
�� �Q�/ 5 $�` �' . �' � �.
�o�u S',�/.�,�'f'.e �-- - �..._..�:__._--�
f' 1�� I � ��t7 �t,,.�� l�.ur
___�__.___ --. ; .- .. _ _ .
,
� ?;11 , `�,
_... _ �. _
__.... _... . _ . . _ . _ . _
._.
; ,_ __._ . _ .._
�
. A��.. �� ��i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0; Members of the Planning Commission
FROMt William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Dev�lopment ��
DATE: May 31, 1984
SUBJ]EGT: NPO Appointment
The following individuals have applied for membership on the City's NPO's:
Lee R. Cunningham, 13385 SW 115th NPO �7
Russell A Krueger, 4600 NE 28th Avenue, Vancouver, WA NPO �7
�f the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council approves the
applicants listed above, the membership on the NPO's will be as follows:
NPO ��1 9
��2 6
��3 8
��4 9
#5 10
4�E, 10
�7 10
Tt�e Planning Department recommends approval of the applicants for NPO
�eembership listed above.
(04_5�P)
,
,
��i���
C17YOFTIG�ARD ctz�iz��� (;UMMl�r�i��:� iN•r�:KN:s•i• n����.�cn�a�ic�N '
Nnrth.: ��,�,11 a lzc�uetC�t�CZ, --- un ra.: �`��_�� , 1��� _
nllUtth.S;i (Ith.s. ) : �'�V�U� �, ,, �G,� C"(UQ . 6 . � ►t���`;. I��u)N►�:: ��p"'___`�
AUUK�;55 (IiUS. ) : ��� �,,�, ��� �,a��e,�i q�tc�c��fill`;. 1'll()Nl:: ��b '� l�1 �
l,� o�.+.�'tic�iZ��p �' ��o�,�
I..�NC;'['Ii Uh' It�S1U�NCE 1N 'I'1c;AkU: ���,'�.(�,� SUC;CES'1'hU IiY: ��`l___����,1.5�i_l�
WHH.'k�: I)tU YOU L1VE i'REVIUUSLY? �'1��Q, �� „ C7����,�.��,--1,..L— --_-
F;UUC:A'1'1()NAL 11ACK(;kOUNU: _����'�., Q� ��'�,�� �C,_�C�l,. ���<�I�_t1Q�L>�.
���v�n-�r� �-1�o.h ��chcx�� , �qs5 ���c�— -��°i�1-� C�t��c� ������qs (-.
� �
OCC:UPA'1'IUNAL S'fATUS ANU BACK(�ROUND: �[�,'(� Q�Q,`('`��_j�J��� ��aQ,`Z
C
���'(`l C�, ��� 2
HOW LUNG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? 5��:��� ��C� IC��
b
IS 'I'HIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? ��� `�'j,
�
PRF:V1()US COMMUNI'1'Y ACTIVITY: ��� � ��,� ��,���Q(�.
URCANi'LATIONS AND OFFICES: ��,�,
�, � �� � C�
U'I'Wt�k INH'�ktMA1'IUN (GEN�ItAL R�:MARKS) : _=�__�� �� <�L� �`{\3, ► 1,���,�,����—
_�,.��
V�� � ►��.Q.��Q, �1�,�„�. �1,�,Q \.1V� V.1 V_�l J1�� 1V\��..1- i �Q��
" � _ D..���^�� C4���
0 �' a `'
�_..__\J�.J�/Y �
�
-�—���q�C�.��1.5�s�,
liOAlll)5 , (`t)MhII I'CI;M:S Oft NYU LN'fElth:S'1'GI) lNt -���1=-�.L_�... _
U;il �� It,+�'��ivi�tl r�t (;iLy 11a11 I?;tl.�� litc��ivi��w���l i .A ---,--•--
__ _ . �._..._� _
Uril �� i\������int ���l li��,nr�i , (:�nuniitf���� , ��i NI'�� �
�� ---___._._ ... __,....---__. ..
In�, i�l�• i il �; lliil :: i�l�� i j � y
- .. ._�__----- ----__._—.___-_.._..._.._.. - - -- .,�,
l U 4��1���)
� . �� . . . . . .��..... .1
� � � . . . . . . . . " � � � � � � � {
.. . ... . �. .. � ' . . . . � . .� �
M.
s
�
.,
CrITYOF TI�7/4RD CITIZEN COMMTTTEE INTEREST APPLICATION
NAME s 1..C.C. J[ , (�v�ay�a G\�,I►1� DAT E:
ADDRESS (RES. ) : \�3�'G� �j �� \\���y' �1223 RES. PHONE: ���-�p��Q
ADDRESS (BUS. ): �{,1,•.•.t,,, BUS. PHONE: 'SNh.��.
��Kt�I�G,�I�
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD:� ��V V g V� SUGGE TED BY:
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? �p� p(t,V ��r.+�c, \L..`J•
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: ��u, ��,�,,,t-,�►,. �� � )� v,'C:G�
Ga��C�.Gn I� LLy���� ►�bK�t � �Y2�
OCCUPATIONAL ST�i:'JS AND BAGKGROUND: ���y���ti,,..��, C�_��$V y� (�W�
��,�(,b,�S- �v�av��5 \uC.• ��,�.� ��R��C..� �o ai���u
�7 x>lcGl ta\�S.—� - ��cc���.-1�-r�.��� G.�1�_�1`1�� �Rb
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? 02 �C 1(C S
IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO ARE�, (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)?
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: �� `,���� LJt��5_T�L�\�S� � Jl�LK`h1�1 1V k"`�b�
��,�� �� v ST�r✓t a� �b�K.4.�'S �sS�C �
[� ��.� ��e c,c.vc �(l�,a� �►i.S�
�e.C_�-��a A �.c..V�r� \S h+-• �'ta,l2ac�
ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: ��.■-�- \( � Y� �_�
(��'� \ C�L Q I�Y .��{�CZ'C7S �'T4 Y✓iftl.ta11��7
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) :
BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: �P� � �,
�
Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed
Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NP0
—
Inside City Outside City
�0346p)
f
� . j ,( ��,
PLAI�NING COMMISSION
� CITY OF TIGARD, ORECON
� FINAG ORBER 84-02 PC
A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE AP�,EAL OF MICHAEL SMITH, FILE N0. HOP 4-84,
UPHOLDTiNG THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT� ENTERING
FINDINGS� C�NCLUSIONS AND A FINAL ORDER.
The Director of Planning and Development iesued the decision an April 20�
1984. The Director's decision was appealed on April 30, 1984, by Michael
� Smith. The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above-entitled appeal at a
special meeting on June 12, 1984� The appellant, surrounding property owners
and legal counsel representing the petitioner s�oke in opposition of the
Director's decision. Mr. Moreno and neighboring residents spoke in support of
the Director's decision.
The Commission finds the following facts in this matter:
1. The appellant for this matter, Michaei Smith, requested that the
building permit issued to the applicant on November 29, b983, should
be cancelled and an occupancy permit should be denied.
2. The appellant's �ustification ie presented in the minutes for the
June 12, 1984, Planning Commission meeting and in the appellant`s
noti�e of appeal. The appellant spoke at the June 12, 1984, hearing
on how the Home Occupation permit violated the Community Development
�,__ Co3e. The appellants attorney, Frank Josselson spoke at the June 12,
1984, Planning Commiss�on meeting where he contended that Mr. Moreno
had lied to the City, misrepresen2ed the use of the facility and
viola�ed almoet every City ordinance dealing with single family
residential uses.
3. The r�levant approval criteria in thie matter are contained in
' Section 18.1G2.050 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code.
The appellant has the burden of proof to show how thes:e criteria were
not met in the original applieation.
The Commission finds the following FINDINGS in this matter;
-
1. Approval criteria number A. under Section 18.142 reads: "The use
shall be a lawful use which shall be carried on by occupants of the
dwelling." The applicant's use as a residential home is a lawful use
of the propert�• under Cdlapter 18.4b of the Tigard Municipal Code.
The appellant has not provided convincing testimony to the contrary.
2. Approval criter3a number B. under Section 18.142.050 and reads: "The
Home Occupation ehall be operated entirely wit'hin:
1. The dwellwing unit and the use and the storage of matertal
.- and prodacts shall not occupy more than 25X of the gross
floor area."
�.
The applicant provided the City aith documentati�on that l.ess [han 25X
,�•N of the house would be uised for the residential home and aseocirsted
,
s�mra�eo The appel?ant h�s not provic�ed an�y verification or
testimony that the applicant exceeds this requirement.
FIN,AL ORDER NOP 4-84 Page 1
._ _. . :,.. �,..,:,::,.�.:�:�
� _
F 1 1
�
3. Approval criteria number C. under Section 18.142.050 reads: "Th� use
r ahall be a aecondary use to the primary use of the house as a
` dwelling:"
The applicant has stated that the residential home is a secondary use
to the dwelling. The evidence in item number tcao supports this
contention. The appellant has not provided evidence to the
Commisaion that the residentlal home is the primary use.
4. Approval criteria number D. under Section 18.142.050 readst "There
shall be no exterior indication of tt►e home occupation; no exterior
signs shall be used; no other on-site advertising visible from the
exterior shall be used which informs the public of the use except of
the address of the home occupation may be displayed."
Slides presented at t�e Planning Commiesion hearing on June 12, 1984�
by the appellant of the Moreno home showed no exterior indication of
h as si ns or advertiein .
home occu ation suc 8
the 8
P
S. Approval criteria number E. under Section 18.142.050 reads: "There
shall be no outdoor stoxage of materials, vehicles or products oct the
premises. Indoor sY.orage of material or products shall not exceed
the limitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire�
, Iiealkh and Aousing Codes."
Slides entered into the record by the appellant at the June 12, 1984,
Planning Commission heazing show no evidence of outdoor storage of
�� mat-erials, vehicles or products on the premises.
6. Approval criterfa number F. in Section 18.142.050 reads: "The uae
shall nat include any retail sales other than telephone sales."
The residential home use does not involve retail sales.
7. Approval criteria number •G. in Section 18.142.050 reads: "The use
does not involve direct sales or sevice from the property
necessitating customer traffic to the residence."
The residential home use does not involve direct sales or service
from the property. �
8. Approval criteria number H. in section 18.142.050 reads: "The Home
Occupation shall not produce any n:oise or obnoxious odors,
vibrations, glare, fumes, or elpctrical interference detectable to
normal sensory perception outside the etructure.°
The appellant did not provide any written or oral testimony as to
what, if any, noise, obnoxious odors. vibrations, glare, fumes, or
electrieal interference were evident to normal seneory perception�
outside the structure, beyond the normal reaidential use of the home.
9. Approval criteria number I. in Section 18.142.050 reads" "There
� shall be no other employees on the premises other than those who are
permanent residenta of the dwelling."
FINAL ORDER HOP 4-84 Page 2
, _..,..,, �:M.�.�
_ ._. _.._. ... `..�_ ._, . .:_ _ ...���_ .... � ._. .,,r«
_ � _ .
� � l �
,
As a condition of approval of the Home Occupation Permit, no people
�' may be employed at the home wha are not residents of the home. The
` applicant testified that thi� condition was being met. The appellant
did not present any convincing testimony to document that there are
or will be employeea wt�o are not residents of the home.
10. Approval criteria number J. in Section 18.142.050 reads: "The use
ehall not require any additional parking other than that which is
required for the re�idence."
The appellant did not pxovide any documentation or convincing
, testimony that the use would, require parking other than that required
for the residence. The Tigard Coimmunity Development Code requires
two spaces for each single family dwelling unit, one of which ahall
be covered. The applicant's home meet5 this criteria. The
re additio
nal arkin for the
development Code does not requi p 8
res�dential home.
11. The burden of proof is on the appellant to show how the Directors
decision violates a procedural process or that the appliant's Home
Occup�tion violates the approval criteria set forth in Section
18.142.050 of the Community Development Code.
The Commission adopte the following :CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Based on Findings numbers 1 - 10, the Commission has dekermined that
� the applicant's proposal for a Home Occupation permit meets the
��, criteria set farth in Section 18.142.050 of the Tigard Community
Development Code.
2. Based on Findings numbers 1 - 11, the Commission has determined that
the appellant has not shown how the applicant's Hoa�e Occupation
violates Section 18.142.050 of the Tigard Community Development Code.
It is Therefore, ORDERED that, based on the above Findings and Conclusions;
the appeal of HOP 4-84 Ferd Moreno be denied and the Direckor's decision �or
approval of the Home Occupation Permit be upheld.
It is further order that the appellant be notified of the entry of this order.
, �� day of �U�� 1984, by Planning Commisaion of I
PASSED: This
the City of Tigard-� 'l�
I
,
�, L..��A-t ,�'-�G�� �,!�G���_ �
President - Planning Commiesion �'
City of Tigard �
;
�
4
J
{,i
�
�
�w, 0535P �
,;
: �;
FINAL ORDER HOP 4-84 F�age 3 _ {
� -, -; .,.�_�..,......e,,mm.::_.".,
�� s. � �
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Planning Commission June 7, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff U�!�
SUBJECT: Appeal of Home Occupation Permit of Ferd & Jean Moreno i
The hearing of the appeal of Home Occupation Permit 4-84 is a de novo '.
hearing. At your meeting you must con�icie�r the following approval criteria: �
;.
18.142.050 Approval Criteria i:
A. The use shall be a lawful use which shall be carried on by
the occupants of the dwellings;
B. The Home Occupation shall be operated entirely within:
1. T.he dwelling unit and the use and the storage of
material and products shall not occupy more tha^ 25� of
the gross floor area.
C. The Us� shall be secondary use to the primary use of the
house as a dwelling;
D. There shall be no exterior indication of the home occupatiQn;
no exterior signs shall be used; no other on-site advertising
visible from the exterior shall be used which informs the
public of the use except of the address of the home
occupation may be displayed;
E. There sha11 be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or
products on Che premises. Indoor storage of material or
products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the
provisions of the Building, I'ire, �iealth, and Housin� Code. `
i'
F. The use shall not include any retail sales other than
telephone sales.
i�
G. The use shall not involve direct sales or service from the ��
property necessitating customer traffic to the residence. y�
i';
H. The Home Occupation shall not produce any noise or obnoxious ;a
o�ors, vibrations, glare, fumes, or electrical interference `7
�:
detectable to normal sensory perception outside Che structure; '}
��f
i1
� � � � ��
�.i
;+i
t'
�
I
�
�' _ : _�«J
I. There shall be no other employees on the premises other than
those who are permanent residents of the dwelling;
J. The use shall not require any additional parking other than
that which is required for the residence.
Since it is a de novo hearing, I will pressnt the City's input as to how the
applicant conformed to this criteria at the hearing. As such, I will be
speaking in favor of the approval because it is my opinion that it meets the
approval criteria.
The hearing should be limited to a consideration of the approval criteria as
it applies to the proposed use, not the pre-existing problems between the �
neighbors.
Please bring the packet of information for this item that was given to you for
the past meeting.
0468P
' i
i
�
1
. . . . .. . . . . . k
.. � . � �. � . . �. . � P;
.. . � � � .. . � . � � � � . � �� S,
� � .. � � . . � .. . � z
n
�
�
� ��sui�uiiv�a r•c�r+iv�i � N,���r�i�..H i iv�v T"IGAFiU �;,r� �---��-�._ ___, iy�.. �(� ,�
THE UNDI��,�,,,iVED HE��BY API�LiFS F�R A PEr�M�'f FOR 7�•�E WORK HEREIN INDICATED RUILDER PHON[ _.�.,_.. ---
OR AS SHOWN AND APPROVED(N i HE ACCOMF'ANYING PLANS AND Sf�ECIFICATiONS. OWNER PHONE _ '____-_.---
L07 NO. ____.�_-------
OWNER �`'• '„r.E• . JOBADDRESS i ,�. � . r,� ,,_ i —
-- -----i_�.V - - ARCHITECT
ENGINEER
BUIIDER ADDRESS __� DESIGNER __! ___
STRUCTURE ❑ NEW � REMODEL O ADDITION ��� RCPAIR ❑ RENEWAL ❑ FIRE DAMAGE ❑ DEMOLITION
❑��RESIDENCE ❑ COMM O EDUCATtONAL ❑ GOV'T O RELIUIOUS ❑ PATIO � CARPORT ❑ GARAGE ❑ STORAGE ❑ SLABL FENCE
OCCUPANGY _ LANDUSEZONE �"S'�' BLDG.TYPE _.__FIREZOIVE_ "' °LANCHECKBY = HEAT, " __—
— ���_ A�i.-r — - ---
;)�:,c:>';it: 2C;.J `�:'+� .� •�-�-;;��==- Ern �pUj�t�siC' .—�—
;sC'.IT:t1 I"l��`:d Clf� St'..�I.'t.i4]21Ct'�' �P UL? '?lL:lr��y••.o.,; _
SEWER PERMIT# _._�
OCC.LOAD FLOOR LOAD HEIGHT NO.STORIES AREA NO.BEDROOMS VALUE
BUILDINGDEPARTMENT SETBACKS FRONT REAR LEFTSIDE RIGHTSIDE
Permit ���•'l� THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE BUILDING CODE, 20NING
REGULATlONS AND ALL APPIICABLE CODES AND ORDI'NANCES, AND IT tS HEREBY AGREED THAT'iHE
Pian Check W WORK WILL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IN COMPLIANCE
�;.��;� � WITn :,L:. APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. THE ISSUANCE OF TNIS PERMIT DOES NOT WAIVE
Sub•iotal " RESTRICTiVE COVENANTS.CONTRACTOR AND SUB CONTRACTORS TO HAVE CURRENT CITY BUSINESS
LICENSE.SEPARATE PERMITS REOUIRED FOR SEVI6ER,PLUMBING AND HEATING.
State Tax �' ,:=t
`��� SDC— ; � ��`•a ..i"".�.,
Totai '=it� • , ' L,.., _
ppCq APPLICANT OR AGENT
By
Receipt No. 1 �: �� j•.` ADDRESS PHONE
Approved '"�''
BUILDING P�RMIT APPLICATION TIGARD DAT� '���������'����� '''�� ,is =�
4 f�� �:s
TI-iE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES FOR A PERMIT FOR THE WORK HEREIN INDICATED BUILDER PHONE "�''t+—! :I y f
OR AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN THE ACCOMF'ANYING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. oWNER PHONE (�2i.t—`'•�+4`.' _
�.�
LOT NO. _.
OWNER 't'.. ,c�Xen�� JOBADDRESS �4l�:3i� ci�. 'ci'.:�Yrl. :r.,, ;�`�ac;nw iiJ.i,;;
` ARCHITECT
ENGINEER
BUILDER �',..';. "orer�o ADDRESS a�r,�i• DESiGNER � _
STRUCTURE ❑ NEW ❑ REMOQEL LQ ADDITION ❑ REPAIR ❑ RENEWAL ❑ FIRE DAMAGE ❑ DEMOLITION
C� RESIDENCE ❑ COMM ❑ EDUCATIONAL ❑ GOV'T ❑ RELIGIOUS ❑ PATIO ❑ CAR PORT � GARAGE ❑ STORAGE ❑ SLAB❑ FENCE
OCCUPANCY �'�-�3 LANDUSE�ONE �-��� BLDG.TYPE ��'� FIREZONE PLANCHECKBY `���%' HEAT �__
Coi�strtict ��..,.li.ticn ta E��:isti;�� sin-�lo ;;�,;;z.i.y a'r�l�ali�:.�.
1�.��1 :i�1fi. 'iGRCL' '+.�'L':�i L' ':<?�.�:1?.�'Cta :��.il'J�):.: : Lir�:Z3:�C
SEWER PERM�T q
OCC.LOAD FLOOR LOAQ HEIGHT NO.S'fORIES 1 I AREA ) 1�.;i NO.BEDROOMu y VALUE ';{.y�:,��� �,
BUILDINGDEPARTMENT SETBACKS FRONT REAR LEFTSIDE I�� � RIGHTSIDE
Permit i"�-�•�j'� THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE BUtLDING CODE,ZONING
3�����4 REGULATIONS AND ALL APPLICAB�.E CODES AND ORDtNANCES,AND IT IS NEREBY AGREED THAT THE
Plan Check 1NORK Wil� BE DANE IN ACCORDANGE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IN COMPLIANCE I
�.'.• t�`�4�i W�TH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANC6S. THE ISSUANCf OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT WAIVE
Sub•total RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.CONTRACTOR AND S�UB CONTRACTORS TO HAVE CURFiEN7 CITY BUSINESS
LICENSE.SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR SEWER,;,PLUMBING AND HEATtNG.
State Tax 7•7; .. . ._. .:;w- "�
So�— ,.�.:��� ,��'j �%r;�-��..�,�;�—_.:
Total :i;?:; I ; , � ._.
PDCN APPLIOANT OR AGENT �
By !,.
. Recoipt PJo. • __ �_�.�_.
' ApDfoved , • ADDRESS ��PH�NE
, , _ _ ...._ ...__. . .._ .__ .__._ ..-------
Contractor ,
3 � --- permit No. .
RouQh�in
Fixture
Final
HEATING
Canhactor
Permit IVo.
Gas w OII
flough•in
Final
SEWER
Final
DRIVEWAY
Final
Storm Drainayo
(Rain Drain)Final
Sidewalk
Curb&Stre�t Final
Approach
BLDG. DEPT.FINAL 'I'�MpORARY CER71P'1CATE OCGIIPANiCY
CERTIFICATE OC(.`UPANCY Fi�al •
Landacapinp j
Zoninp F(nsl ;
�� (
�
. . .._....... . -�------ ------..__.
-----
�
DATE INSP. YPE YNSPEGTIAN REMARKS PL.UMBING DATE �
, ' Contractor
� Peemit No. G � �,G �
�• �
` • • R��•in
n ' . Fixture
�
�� � � Final
HEATIN[i
— Contracto� ' �
� Permit Na (
1 , ��� �3�J~,-� r
Ga:w ON /
Rouyh•In —
Final
SEWER
Final
[1RlVEWAY
� . � �4
Final ;
$totm Orqin�ge
_ �'
(Rein Drein)Finel
. � . — . - - . � — � . . � . � o�.
Sidsw�lk
y
1 �
__ –--
Curb�Stre�t Findl
.
Appr� {
BLDG. DEPT.RINML 7'EMPORARY CERTtFICA'TE OCCUPANCY Final
G�RTiP'ICA7'E OCCUI'ANCY
Landacapin4 i
ZoninQ Finel �
, F
--- . ---- is
� " _._._... _ ..__v�_ .._�a::, .::=°
Testimony of Ferd Moreno, City Council Meeti.ng, March 26, 1984
�oreno: My name is Ferd Moreno and t reside at 14430.
S,W. McFarland. I live in a big house that' s getting
bigg�r. I didn't know anything about 478 until I receiWed a
capy of it from the City of Tigard. I �hink it' s the bESt
bill that ever came out of S�lem, th� �l�px I get, and this
is a right of the elderly people, for us senior citizens,
and I 'm a senior citizen, for five of us to live together
and pay somebody t� take care of our needs if we're partially
crippled or something, and I would urge the City Council or
the Planning Commission or whoever to take into consideration
-- now maybe the bill needs some refinements or that type of
thing -- but I could stand up here, and this is not the time
for it, and show you the activities in the neighborhood that
I live that are far more damaging to property values than
the disruption of the neighborhood than having some o1d
people live in my home, and I wish that this would be
addressed, as far as disruption of the neighborhood is
' concerned, because that se�ms to be what's the big problem
right now, and as far as the intent of my property is
concerned, I know a lot of these people back there are
interested, that 's probably why they're here. My house is
going to get bigger; I'll be submitting another plan for
another addition to go within the rules and regulations of
what°s already �� the books as far as the amount of proper�y
I can cover with a building. I like a biq hQUSe and I 'm
going to have a big house as long as it conforms with code,
and as far as the use of that house is concerned, on the
inside, as long as it complies with the law, and the law
right now says th�t I have several options: I can rent the
house; I can sell the house, or I can use it for senior
citizens, or I �an adopt a family and increase the size of
it -- whatever -- or I can live there by myself, whatever
need be, and I hope to address the fact that the disruption
of the neighborhood problem and the traffic, be�ause there
are a lot of other things that are going on in our neighbor-
hood that cre�te more traffic than three or four citizens
that are lega:lly blind or crippled; they're not driving any
cars or chasirig around.
Councilwoman Scott: Is your property the one that has the
For Sa1e sign up at the present time?
�
Moreno: Yes, Ma 'am.
�
Councilwoman Scott: And� then, you are planning on selling �,
it?
Moreno: Yes, Ma'am.
— �;
Councilwoman Scott: Another question I would like to ask:
How m�ny carepeople do you have, �or how many elderly do you '
have im the home at the present time?
t;
!,;
Moreno: I have Unc1e Pau1, he's r►ot a blood relative; he' s ;��
eS�Iy blind.
' �
, is
. �.
� __ ..���;
w
Councilwoman Scott: Are you planr�ing to have more in the
ome? or is that ?
Moreno: That' s -- I change like the weather in Oregon,
depen�cing on how the reaetion of my neighbors.
Councilwoman Scott: Well, I think there's a lot of concern
here, and I m not trying to dig into the privacy, or whatever,
a citizen has from the Board. I think that it would probably ,
be better if you would try to communicate with the Council '
also, and T did ask i.f you were planning on having any m�re !,
patients in the home or the care center. '
Moreno: At this point, my house is for sale.
Councilwoman Scott: Thank you.
Moreno: You're welcome.
l�eM �5. 3. a.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Planning Commission June 7, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff �'.d/�
SUBJECT: Goal 5 Orders to comply
On April 26, 1984, the Land Conservation and Development commission voted to
continue acknowledgment of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan on Goals 2, 5, 10, and
1/+. The Goa1 2 and '14 orders to comply were addressed satisfactorily with the
adoption of an Urban Planning Area Agreement between Washington County and the
Cit}r of Tigard. The Goal 5 in order to comply statements are as follows:
GOAL S: OPEN SPACES, SCENIG AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1. Amend the plan to detesmine which wetlands, drainageways, and creeks
adentifiecl in the City's resource inventory are significant (1C)
resources.
2. Identify conflicting uses and analyze the ESEE consequences of these
uses upon si.gnificant resources identified in "1" above.
3. Based upon the analysis in "2" above, provide plan policies and
implementing measures (i.e. , the sensitive lands section) as outlined
in the Goal 5 Administ�cative Rule (OAR 660-16). Note: This may
require revision of policy 3.1.1.
4. Amend the Development Code to include setback standards (i.e. , 15
ft.) and apply to important open space and water areas and fish and
wildlife habitats (refer to Conclwsion above).
5. As�ign the Historic Overlay District to the five remaining important
historic stsuctures as identified in the plan.
The Ci.ty planning staff inet with a me4nber of the LCDC staff on May 24, 1984,
to discuss how the city might amend the plan to bring it in to compliance with
Goal 5. After the discussions with LCDC, staff recommends the following:
o Amend the floodplain and Wetlands Map to designate five specific
areas as significant resources. Those areas are: the S,ummer Creek
Floc�dplain and Riparian Forest, Krueger Creek, the Summer Creek
Floodplain and ltiparian Forest at the east end of SW 135th, Fanno
Creek north of North Dakota, and the 108/113 Tualatin F'loodpla'in
Ravine.
o Am�nd page I-42 of Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan to include a
list of those areas to be designated as significant wetlands on t�e
Floodplain and Wetland Map. iSee attachment "A".)
o In policy 3.5.3 change "SHALL" to "HAS" to indicate that t�?e City has
designated 100-year floodplain at Fanno Creek, it's tributaries and
the Tualatin River as Greenwaq. (Attachedment ".4").
,
� Amend Section 18.84.010 of the Community Development code by adding a j
new Section C. which will specifically prohibit development in a11 ;
areas designated as significant wetlands and will require development �
on adjacent property to be developed as a Planned Development ancl
maintain a 25 foot setback. (See attached "B".) �
"r
o Amend Policy 3.1.1 adding a note excluding landa designated as �
significant wet�.ands on the Flaodplain and Wetlands Map from the �'
policy. (See attachment "C".) t
!;
�,
o Add a new policy 3.2.4 which prohibits development within areas �'
designated as significant wetlands and requires land adjacent to r'..
significant areas to be �'reveloped under the Planned Development ��
designation (See �ttachment "D".) �`
r;
r:
ci
�'1 a
i"
st:�.
I,a
!;i
�.I
�ti
�;'f;
{::
5
. . }�:�i��:
0468P s'`'.
i�
�:'.
4
F.;.
� :
1i,
. .. . . . . },.,
. . � �. .. ��:�
. . ' . ';.,'.
� . � � ... �p�����.
.. . _ � . � p;t�:
. . . �.� �..�'..
. . � . .. . �. (.t��-
�i.�
. . . � �� . i.::
�y;
;?,
€,
,.�
i;
� � � � � �� � � �t
�;:
�}y
;�
��:
d''
,f+i
, ...
;�; �.,
Exhibit "A"
add to page I-42
Protect the areas designated a� significant wetlands on the Floodplain and
Wetlands map and prohibit conflicting uses on those sites. The sites
designated as significant wetlands axe:
Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest
Krueger Creek
&ummer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest at the east end
of SW 135th
Fanno Creek north of North Dakota
Ravine 108/113th Tualatin Floodplain
' Preserve the areas identified in Appendix I of the document significant �
wetlanda, drainageways and creeks. Allow �onflicting uses as identified in �i
Appendix I with limitations. Require development under the planned �
development provisions and require additional setbacks for areas develoing 1
adjacent to significant areas listed below: �
�
Tigard/Tiedeman Fanno Creek March and Floodplain
Tualatin River Floodplain west of Cook Park �
Fanno Creek Park/Main Street
' F o reek Hall Bonita - Bonita Durham
ann C
/ /
�'
"�
+
On page II-18 change: °
I
�
i�
3.5.3 THE CITY HAS DESIGNATED 100-YEAR FLOdDPLAIN OF FANNO CREEK, IT'S `{
TRIBUTARIES, AND THE TUALATIN RIVER AS GREENWAY, WHICH WILL BE THE �
BACKBONE OF THE OPEN-SPACE SYSTEM. �
;�,
0464�P '
r;
,;,
i•:3
t'?i
. � � . � .. �'j
f`:�
. . . . . . . ���
r,,�
�;,1
y_�
[:
f':..
�^[
rt,
�s
;i
;,
��
i,";
�
}t
t;
p<
a.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . 4;:
. � . � . . �, �� � � ��
` . . . . . . . � . � � . . . . ... . .�.. . . . ��� ;-;. . , .-. ..,. � �....:_ �Se'
A
Exhibit "B"
3 . Land f-orm alteralion or devel��ment wiL-hin a c!r'ainageway - .
where there is year round water flow, unless:
' �'or wi-f�f,�.ir� w�/a,�rG�
( a, The drainageway is proposed l:o be incorpor•ated into a
public facility of adequate size to �tccommod�te
maximum water Flow in accordance with t;he �d�pled 1981
Master Drainage Plan as prepared by CN2M Hill; or
b. The land is not proposed to be partitioned, subdivided
or d�veloped.
4. Application pursuant to subsection 3 (a} and 3 (b) shall be
approved by the �irector.
C�
�t:. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this
Chapter, all other uses are pruhibited on eensitive land areas.
� �, A use established �rior to the adoption of this Code, which
would be prohibited by L-his Chapter ur which wauld be subjecC to
the limitations and controls imposed by this Chapter shall be
considered a nonconf-orming use. Nonconf-urming uses shall be
subject to the provisions of Chapter 18 , 132 of this Code.
18.84.020 Administration and Approval Process
A, The applicant for a Sensitive Lands permit shall be the recorded
owner of Lhe proper�y or an agen� �uthorized in �ariting by Lhe
owner.
�`
8, f� Pre—Application conference with City sLaff is required. See
Section 18,32.040.
C. Due to p�ssible ch�nges in State statutes, or regional or local
policy, information given by staff ta the .a�Qlic�nt during tF�e
Pre—Application Conference is valid for not mo� �h�n 6 months.
1, Another Pre—Application Conference is required iP any
varia�ce applic�tion is submitted mure than 6 munths afber
the Pre—Application Conference.
2. Failur�a uf the Oirectar l:o pr^ovide any of L-he inFor�mat:ion
required by this Ch�tpter shall not constitute a waiver of
l:he st�ndard, crit�ria or requir•ements uf the applications .
D, The Hearings Officer shall approve, apProvc� with conditions or ;
deny an applicatian fur a Sensitive L�nds p�r�i�it as set Fort;l�i in ;
Section 18.84.015 (B)�1)(2)(3), excluding subsections (B)(3)(s ) �
and (3)(b) . The Hear�ngs OfPicer's decisian may be reviewect by �
ttie Council as provided by 18.32.310(B) . '°
{:
� � � t�
� � � �;
�. The Director shall approve, ap�rove wilh conciitions or deny an f?1
application for a Sensitive Lands permit; as set Farth xn ;;
Sectio�s 18.84.015 (4) . The d�cisiun inade hy t;he Dir�ctor irtay t
be �pppealed to the Planninc� Commission as provided by h'
1.8 .32, 310(A) . i,;
4:1
. . . � �(';��.
1.'i
. . � . . . .���
I'.YI — 140 �
�'
l;
;,.
_ -- . ::__. _ , _:.
. • . .,. _. .. ._. ;
�
� _
Exhibit "C"
o Many portions of the floodplain area contain natural aspects such ag
� sig�ificAnt vegetatian, wildlifa, scenic are�e� rnd hrp v�luhk►la f��r ���►on
space a�nd recra�ti�n.
o Vegetation serven an essantial element in runofP and erosion control, aa
well a�s Por the protection and natural habitatioh of wildlife.
NonethelQSS, it is too often removed and replaced by buildings or
�� impervious surfaces.
o Due to the general nature of soils and geologic mapping, site specific '�
analysi� is often necessary to determine the presence of geologic hazards
and the severity of soil problems which are constraint� to development.
� Such geologic har.ards exist when certain combinations of slope, soil, and
bedrock, and moisture render land unstable.
,;' o Earthflow and slump areas exist in hilly sections of the planning area and
� are associated with poor drainage, shallow subsurface flow on ground water
and springs, and high susc�ptibility to er�sir�n. Earthflow and slump
} occurrences can destroy roads and buildings, and adversely aPfect water
f.
„ quality. Mass movement has not resulted in any major loss of life or
` property thus far, because little in the way of urban developmQnt exists
on land with serious problems.
a
o Increased runoff and sedimentatfon from poorly developed hillsides can
require increased public expenditures for flood and erosion control and
storm water management.
�� o The City of Tigard had adopted a "Hillside Development Provision" within
the Sensitive lands ordinance which r�quires additional review of those
�� developments. �
,.;
o The City of Tigard requires new developments to have a storm water runoff
plan to ensure against advers� effects such as erosion and sediment.
VOL ICY . _...__
3� �•�• TNE CITY SNALL NOT ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS H�VING THE FOLLOWING
DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS EXCEPT WNERE IT CAN BE SNOWN TNAT ESTAB�ISMED
AND PROVEN ENGINEERTNG TECHNIQUES R£LATED TO A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN WILL
MAKE THE AREA SUITABLE FOR TNE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT;�/�/U�: '1�If(� POLlC� DCES
NUt /�•��f'Lt,I � L/-�?flJ�� oE���N� A-s ��GIvlFIGA:IV'r W�,TGNNtJ��� ��v -rN�.
a• A'RERS NAVING A NIGN �EASONA� WATER TABLE WTTHIN 0-24 INCHES OF THE �j�J�iN ,
SURFACE FOR TNREE OR MORE WEEKS -0F TNE YEAR:
hN:�P VY�I'�
b• AREAS NAVING A SEVERE SOIL EROSION POTENTIAI; L��t�,)�� �I,AP�
�• AREAS SUBJECT TO SLUWIPTNG, EARTH SLIDES OR MOVEMENT;
d• AREAS HAVING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25X; OR
e� AREAS HAVING SEVERE WEAK fOUNDATION SOILS.
TI — 12
�
c. Develapment is prohibited within all greas designated as significant
wetlands on the Floodplain and Wetlands Map. Development on property
adjacent to significant wetland� shall be done under the planned
development section ot the Communiry Development Code. In addition, no
developraent shall occur on prope�-ty adjac�nt to area designated as
significant wetlands an the Floodplain and Wetlands Map within 25 feet of
the d�signated wetlands area.
0464P
� '
r
Exhibit "Dt1
6
2. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMEMT SNALI_ BE ALLOWED WN�RE
BOTH SIOES OF THE F1000PLAIN* ARE DESIGNATFD AS FiTI1F�R �NDUSTRTAI_
OR COf�MERCTAL ON THE COMPREIIENSTVE PLAN MAF�, ANU 7�11� i'AC�URS SE�I
FORTH IN POLICY 3.2.3 CAN 8E SATISFTED. '
3. L.AND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT SHF�LL BE ALL�OWED WNERE
ONE SIDE OF TNE FLOODPLAIN* IS PI.ANNEO FOR CUhrNERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL USE SUBJECT TO TNE FOLL()WING LIM�TATIONS:
,
(a) THE LAND FORM ALTERATION OR DEVELOPMENT IS ON LANO DESIGNATED
ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FOR CtN�1MERCIAL OR INDUSTRTAL
�
USE;'
(b) THE APPLICANT CAN SHOW THAT ALTERATION� OR DEVELOPMENT' INTO
` TNE FLOOOP�AIN* IS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO BETTER THE
ECONOMIC USE OF THE SITE;
(c) THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN POI.ICY 3.2.3 CAN B� SATISFIED.
�.2.3 WNERE LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT ARE ALL(�JED WITNIN 7HE
100-YEAR FLQODPLAIN* OUTSIDE THE ZERO-F00T RISE F�OODWAY�, THE CITY
SHALL REQUIRE:
a. THE STREAMFLOW CAPACITY AF THE ZERO-FOOT RISE FLOODWAY� BE
� MAINTAINEO;
b, ENGIflIEERED DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTAT'ION SHOWING THAT TH�RE WTLL BE
NO DETRIMENTAL UPS1'REAM OR DOWNSTREAM CHANGES IN THE FLOODPLfiIN�
AREA, ANO TNA7 THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE SENSITIVE LANDS
SECTIOflI OF TNE CODE HAVE BEEN MET (See FIS September 1971);
4
c. THE PLANTING OF AN EVERGREEN BUFFER ON TNE COMPIERCIAL OR
INDUSTRTAL LAND ABUTTING RESIDENTTAL LAND WNICH SCREENS THE
DEVELOPMENT FROM VIEW BY THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIA� LAND, AND WNICH
' IS OF SUFFICIENT WIDTN TO BE NOISE ATTENUATING:" AND'
�
d. THE DEDICATTON OF SUFFICIENT OPEN LAND AREA FOR GREENWAY ADJOINING '
TNE FtOODPLAIN* INCLUDING PORTIONS AT A SUITABLE ELEVATION FOR TNE �
CONSTR'UCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PATNWAY WITNIN THE
FLOODPLAIN* YN ACCORDANCE WITN THE ADOPYED PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE �
PATHWAY PL_AN, j
;:'�
' The Flc,odplain and Floodway, as defined by the Flood Insurance Study for
� thq �ity of Tigard dated September 1, 1981.
�• 2-.�',
; �- 3,.. NATURAL RESOURCES
� �1NDING
';
� Currently, there are extensive rock and gravel extraction areas located �o
� the �orth and west of Ti ard s
�
wushington Caunty , g planning area within Beaverton and
�� `,
II - 15 .
i,'
. ;:.
'.'.
� _ _ _ .: : , ...�.. .. _ -
_ ,
C
3.2.4. THE CITY SNALL PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AREAS DESIGNATED AS
SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS ON THE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS MAP. NO
DEVELOPMENT SHALL OCCUR ON PROPERTY ADJACENT TO AREA DESIGNATED AS
SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS ON THE FLOODPLAIN AND W�TLANTIS MAP WITHIN 25
FEET OF THE DESIGNATED WETLANDS AREA. DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY
ADJACENT TO SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER THE PLANNED ,�
DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE CODE.
i
0464P
�`
,I
;•
;
�.o
t
i �
f!
'i
f!,
E
�`I
j�
}
i
I�
���,
, }:^
!''
r.
. � � � � � � � � �,��'
1'
� � � i�,!
1'
{;
f,
k;
�'
�'.
G
� l�'P.Nt. � 5.3.l�
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Planning Commission June 8, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff �'.C(/J�
SUBJEGT: Private Ouzdoor Area and Share Outdoor Recreation areas
requirements (Chapter 18.120 - Community Development Code).
One of the orders to comply issued by LCDC on Goal 10 deals with the City's
requirement for Private and Shared Outdoor Recreation Are�s in Multi-Family
Projects. The Development Code as submitted to LCDC reads as follows:
Chapter 18.120.180
6. Private Outdoor Area - Residential Uses
a. Private open space such as a patio or baleony shall be
provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use of
indi��idual units and shall be at least 48 square feet
in size with a minimum width dimension of 4 feet; and
(1) Baleonies used for entrances or exits sha11 not
be considered as open space except where such
exists or entrances are for the sole use of the
unit.
I
(2) Required open space may include roofed or �
enclosed atructures, such as a recreation center
or covered picnic area. ;
�
�
b. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should ;,
be eriented toward the sun; and ;''
1�
c. P�-ivate outdoor spaces shall be screened or desi$ned to �'
provide privacy for the usern of the spa�e. t'
�
7. 5hare O�utdoor Recreation Areas - Residential Uses: x'
� � � � � �� � ��
a. In additi�n to the requirements of aubsections (5) $nd ��
�6), usable outdoor recreation s ace sha11 be ��
� provided �`s
in x�sidential devel�pment for the shared or common use �`.
of all the residents in the following amounts: +'
�.
(1) Studio up to and irncluding two-bedroom units: ' �'
200 squaxe feet pe.r unit. �
(
(2) Three or more �edroom units; 300 square feet per �
unit.
�
}11
� f1.�
..._ . . . t ---.:M..,..��.�..._.�.�.W�
I
I
I
b. The required recreation spacP may be provided as II
follows:
(1) It; may be all outdoor space; or
(2) It may be part outdoor space and part indoor
space; for example, an outdoor tennis court and
indoor recreation room; and
(3) It may be all public or common space; or
f4) It may be part common space and part private; for
example, i� could be an outdoor tennis court,
indoor recreation room and balconies on each
unit; and
�5) Where balconies are added to units, the balconies
shal�. not be less than 48 square feet.
c. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily
' observable for reasons of crime prevention and safety.
The LCDC staff sustained objections raised by the Oregon Housing Division,
1000 Friends of Oregon and khe Home Builders Association of M2tropolitan
Portland on this requirement. The LCDC staff report reads as follows:
Objection
The Oregon Housing Division, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Home
Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland have objected to the
Residential open space requirements for single family attached and
multifamily developments. The Housing Division summarizes this
ob,jections as follows:
The Tigard Site Development Review process requires all new
multiple-family and single-€amily attached developments to
provi.de a private outdoor area of at least 48 square feet per
unit and a shared, usable outdoor recreation area of 200-300
square feet per unit.
These open space requirements are a special condition imposed
on multiple-family and attached housing, which are needed
housing types in Tigard. The requirements have the effect of
discouraging needed multiple-unit housing for low - and
moderate - income households by adding unreasonable cost
(Letter dated February 24, 1984, p.4).
Response to Objection
This objection is sustained. Although it is common to have
requirements for private open space and shared recreation space in
multifamily developments to compensate for reduced personal spa�ce,
these requirements clo add to the cost of any single family
attached and multifami,ly housing development. It is recognized
that these requirementa m:�y be desirable and appropriate £or many
housing developments zn Tigard. However, these private open space and
recreatio►1 space requirements may not be appropriate for multifamily
developments d�signed for seniors or other speciaZ use groups which do not
demand as much private space and share recreation area. The ap�lication of
these SiCe Review requirements to all multifamily housing develops could add
unnecessary cost to needed affordabl� housing.
The order t� comply which was adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission at the April 26 hearing essentially gave the Ciky two options �o
bring this section oi the Code into compliance. The order to comply statement
reads as follows.
Amend the Site Review section of the Development Code to add an
additiona� category under 18.120.170, Exceptions to Standards, for
granting an exception to the Private Outdoor Area and Shared
Outdoor Recreation Area will not add unnecessarily to the cost of
affordable housing or have the effect of discouraging needed
housing.
The City's planning staff favors the first option suggested by the LCDC staff
for two reasons. First, there is already a section in Chapter 18.120 which
allows the Director to grant exceptions to the setback yard requirements and
secondly, there may be a development which can demonstrate a need for reduced
recreation axeas.
STAFF RECOMME�DATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a rec�mmendation to the
City Council to amend Section 18.12D.170 by adding a section "C", which allows
the Director to grant an exception or deduction to the Private Outdoor Area
and Shared Outdoor Recreation Area requirements based on certain criteria (See
attached Exhibit "A").
i
� 1
,
1
I
€
0468P �
{,
� ��
�i
�
�
, � . . . � � . � . .� . . . , � � i;
. � . � . . � � � . . � � `��
� � . . � .. . . � . � ,�. . .. . �. -�., . ,, . . :.. . ,_ .,
1. A� exception which is not greater than 20 percent oP the
required setback;
_ 2. No adverse affect to adjoining prope�ties in terms of
.�••
light, noise levels, and fire hazard;
3. Safe v�rhicular and pedestrian acceas to the site and
on-site;
4. A more efficient use of the site which would result in more
landscapins3; and
5. The p�eservation of natural features which have been
incorporatQd i�to the overall design of the project. ,
B. The Director may grant an exception or deduction to the
off-street parki dimensional and
n9 mi
nimum number• of spar.e
requireme�ts in the applicable zoning district based on the
following findinc�s:
1. The application is for a use designed for a specific
purpose which is intended tn be permanent in nature (for
example, senior citizen housing) and which has a
demonstra�ted lcfw demand for ofF-stireet parking; or
2. There is an opportunity fow sfiared parking and there is
writi�en evidence L-hat the property owners have entered into
�a binding agreement to share parking; or
(� 3. There is community interest �in the preservatiion of
` � particular natural feature(s) on the site, public
tr�naportatio� is available to the site, and reducing the
standards will not adv�rsely affect adjoining uses,
therefore the public interest is nnt adversely afFected by
�,, ��,r��,�. ��Ap the granting of the exception.
�• .�'.� The Director shall grant an exception to the landscapinep
requirements of this Code, Se�tion 18.120.150, upon finding that
the overall landscape plan provides for at leas� 20 pereent of
the gross site to be landscaped.
�� � The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by
18,32.310(A) . No notice of the Uirector's decision need be
given.
18.i20.180 Approval Standards
A. The Oirector shall make a findi:ng with respect to each c�f the
following criteria when approvir�g, approving with condit'ions or
denying an applicatio�:
1 . The provisions oS� the following Chapters: ;
a. Chapter 1B.92, Denaity Computa�tiion 1
C.� '
III - 232
�
��
�
3
�
t _ . ;y
Exhibit "A"
, C. The Director may grant an exception or deduction to the Private Outdoor
Area and Shared Qutdoor Recreakion Areaa Requirements based on the
following findings;
1. There 3s direct access �y a pedestrian pakh from the proposed
development to public open space ox recreation areas which may be
used by residents of the development.
2. Ttye development operates a motor vehicle which is available on
regular basis to transport residents of the development to public
open space or recreation areas.
3. The required square footage of �ither the Private 0utdoor Area or the '
Shared Outdoor Recreation Area may be reduce�d if together the two
areas equal or exceed the combined standard for both.
i
E
�
�;
0468P
k
r
. . . . � � . . . . �
. . . . . . .. � . ��
. . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._i
� .- �� . .. � . . �. �. . � . . . . � � � � � � � � � �::.iy
� � � . � . . . . .. . . . .. � � . � � . . ' -.'.�
. . . . �. . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:
� . � . � . � .. . . . � . . . , . � � ..� .2r
�� � . � . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� . �
� . . � �. . . � . � . .. . . . � . - ��- �'
. . � . .. . . . .. � .. �. ,,.:.r
� .. � . � � . . . �.. .��. ......_,.., ... �... ��.�.:. . ;�. '.`
��*�s.3. �
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON li
T0: Planning Commission June 7, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff �'N"- "
SUBJECT: Policy 6.1.2 - Subsidized Housing Dispersal
One of the Goal 10 In order to comply statements deals with policy 6.1.2 of
the City's Comprehensive Plan which, amended by Council on May 14, 1984, read.s
as follows:
6.1.2 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS SHALL CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. TO PREVENT THE GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATI�N OF
PUBLIC HOUSING AND INSURE A BALANCE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH
HOUSING, THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS
LOCATED WITHIN ANY SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DZST�tICT SHALL BE FIVE
TIME THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON ANY STREE� IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS POLICY, THE TERM "SUBSIDIZED HOUSING" SHALL
MEAN ANY HOUSING DEVELOPED OR CONSTRUCTED WITH FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING OR URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND THE STATE OF OREGON OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A PRIVATE OR
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.
The Oregon State Housa.ng Division, the Housing Authority of Washington County,
1,000 Friends of Or�gon, the Home Builders Association and Oregon Legal
Services all filed objections to policy 6.1.2. A copy of the LCDC staff
report outlining these objections is attached.
The In order to comply statement adopCed by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission reads as follows:
Delete Policy 6.1.2 dealing with dispersal of subsidized housing, or,
provide an analysis in the plan why this policy will not unnecessarily add
to the cost of needed assisted housing and more clearly define the term
"subsidized hausing." �
The Council addressed the second part of the ici order to comply statement with
the amendment adopted on May 14, 19$4.
I
t'
;.
i,
t
� ` ;
Staff did a survey of other Cities in the State and found that Salem has a
Housing Dispersal policy as part of their Housing Assistance Plan which was
adopted by reference as part of their acknowZedged Comprehensive Plan. A copy
of the City of Salem's Dispersal Policy for Single Family Subsidized Housing
is attached. Salem's policy basically uses locational criteria to site single
family subsidzied housing. The City of Salem's Planning Airector informed
staff that although there have been no applications for subsidized housing in
the past two years, the policy has been successfully applied several times
since it's adoption in 1977.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission :Eorward a recommendation to he
City Council to modify policy 6.1.2 to require Single Family subsidized
housing to be sited in conformance with specific locational criteria.
Recommended policy language is as follows:
Policy 6.X.2 TO AVOID CONCENTRATIONS OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING �N SINGLE
F.AMILY ZONING DISTRIGTS, THE LOCATIQNAL CRITERIA IN
SECTION 4. UF POLICY 12.1.1 SHALL BE APPLIED WH�N
SITING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROJECTS IN SINGLE FAMId.Y
ZONING DISTRICTS. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS POL'iCY, THE
TERM "SUBSIDIZED HOUSING" SHALL MEAN ANY HOUSING
DEVELOPED OR COIVSTRUCTED WITH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING OR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
THE STATE OF OREGON OWNED AND MAT.iv'iF1INED BY A PRIVATE
.-------.
OR GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
Add Section 4 to Policy 12�1.1 as follows:
4. Subsidized Housing in Single Family Zoning Districts
A. The Following factors will be the determinants for locating
subsidized housing, as defined in Policy 6.1.2, in single family
zoning district: �
i
;
All units should be located within one mile of an elementary �
school. s
�
All units should, if possible, be within 1f4 mile of a route of i
public transit. �
�,
Additional subsidized units should be encouraged in areas which �,I
exhibit a lower-than-average level of subsidy and medium-to-low i;
level of poverty. f'
No mone than 30 percent of the units in a development of 10 units
or more sha11 be subsid:ized. s.
� �;
�� � �.
No more than three subsidized housing units sha11 adjoin. �°
� � � � � �� :_�
0468P f��
�
�i
�='i
�
��
� f.
�;�
� _ ..„,..:.. .�..,... _. _ ., �
City of Tigard -46- April 4, 1984
1. Two housing units which are attached are ;,;
considered compatible with a detached single
fami ly unit; but '
2. M�re than i:wo housing units which are attached
are not cansidered compatible with a single
f amily detached unit (Plan, p. 37). ,
Part "a" of this Policy has the greatest impact on small developing
parcels which are ad�acent to "established'° areas on two or more sides.
f��rt "b" of the Policy does not clearly indicate if compatible housing
must be provided on all of the abutting "developing" area parcel or �ust
within 100 feet of the "established" residential area.
One of the implementation strategies in the plan for this policy
indicates that upon periodic plan review, the City "shall maintain an
updated map showing 'established' and �'developing' areas" (Plan, p. 38).
This strategy suggests that the "established" areas boundaries will
expand over time to encor�pass new developmen�s in �djacent"� "developing"
areas. The effect of that action will be an incremEr.*a� erosion of the
maxim�m density in developing areas and potential reduction of �he
overall average density specified i� the Plan.
Other housing policies commit the City to develop clear and concise
regulations, to require that all housing be of safe and sound
construction, and provide direction for residential buffering and
screening. One p�licy in the "Special Areas of Concer�" element in the
plan allows for medium hiqh and high density residential d�velopment in '��
the "Tigard Triangle" commercial area.
Objections
The following parties have objected to Tigard's housing Policy 6.1.2 (see
previous page): the Oregon Housing Division, the Housing Authority of
Washington Cour�ty, 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Home Builders Association
of Metropolitan Portland, and Oregon Legal Services Corporation. These
similar objections are described below.
Housin Division: The Oregon Housing Division contends that Tigard has
no coor nate with the H�using Division for the provision of subsidized
housing as one implementation strategy suggests, and further contends +
that the vague definition of subsidized housing in Policy 6.1.2 could �
include all subsidized housing programs. The Housing Division ob�ection
further states: '
The Housing Division does not believe the dispersal policy is
necessary to prevent isolation of State and Federal loan
recipients f rom the mainstream of the community. The recipients �
of State and Federal sinqle-family subsidy programs are �
typically indistinguishable f rom the3r neighbors.... �
,
� � �
>4�;.�,,:.
' ,�< ,, City of Ti�ard
'47'" _ April 4, 1984
:� 1�`"
I r4��
� The .dispersal polic� places an unwarranted burden on both the
,4;°�� eligible households and the State and Federal agencies
'"s administering housing subsid
y programs. Thp policy has not been
coordinated with the State Housing Division, and as a practical
matter, the Housing Division could not comply with the policy.
The Division is not able to screen loan applicants for their
vicinity to other loan recipients.
Finallj►, the dispersal polic,y is not implemented in the Tigard
Development Code. We question how the City could implement �
policy that discriminates between home buyers on the source of
their financing (letter dated February 24, 1984, p, 3),
Housin Authorit of Washin ton Count : The Housing Authority submitted
a eng y o ec ion o 0 o ey 6. 1.2 and the City's findings to
support this policy. The Housing Authority's letter, in part, states:
It is the Housing Authority's position that Pol�cy 6.1.2 is
not only a thinly veiled effort to deviate from the City of
Tigar•d's responsibilities in connection with complying with
Goal 10 as to low income persons, but it is also an
unconstitutional effort to place into its comprehensive plan a
buil�t-in bias against governmental subsidi2ed housing. Such a
�olicy also has the effect of violating the provisions of
ORS 197.295 through �RS 191.313, which statutes were amended by
the 1983 legislature to specifically inc�ude "government
assisted housing" as "needed housing" as defir�ed therein (Letter
�t'i' datE� February 21, 1984, p. 2).
The Housiny Authority further argues that:
It is also unclear wh the '
housing would serve toy isolate�x its y recipients lyf om isthe
mainstream of the community when a similar effect is not
predicted with other low income households that do not receive
public housing assistance. By any ob3ective standard, a senior
citizen living in his or her own home and having a marginal
social security income would be classified as low income, but
would not be limited by this policy. Given the lack of any
f actual basis for the City of Tigard's
lack of rationality, it is apparent that�the City of1Tigardts
policy is to avoid what it has concluded to be the undesirable
effect of having low income people living near one another--and
ther� further defining low income
certain kinds of people as those receiving
February 21, �ggq� p.p4�licly assisted housinc� (Letter dated
i
1000 Friends of Oreqon: 1000 Friends recognizes Tigard's attempt to
disperse w bsidized housing pro,�ects to avoid creation of ghetto
conditions, but feels Policy 6.1.2 goes too far and d
is
provision of housing needed by a significant se�nent of r Tigardhs
population. 1000 Friends argues that this policy conflficts with the
� ,
;;.
iiy
� � . . . . . . � � : :� i�:.:
�'� . � . .._ ... � .. . � : � � . ... :. ,.�!''.'
'r
City of Tigard -48- April 4, 1984
Goa1 10 requirement to atlow for flexibility of housing location, type
and �_:^;ity, and is overly broad in its definition of subsidized
housing. 1000 Friends concludes that any subsidized housing dispersal
policy must comply with Goa1 10, and that Policy 6.1.2:
"Must be deleted or amended in a way that ach�eves its ob�ective
(i.e., to avoid public housing slums) but still allows for an
adequate supply of needed housing and flexibility in housing
location, t�pe, and density" (Letter dated February 24, 1984,
PP. 7-9).
Home Builders Association: The metro home builders association questions
res rict ng any ousing type based on the financing source and is
particularly concerned about the broad definition of subsidized housing.
On this particular point, the Homebuilder's letter states:
"To paint such a broad stroke discriminates against virtually
the entire housing market and could make it very difficult to
obtain financing to build in Tigard. That obviou"sly would
significantly impair housing opportunities. Clarification and
refinement of this restriction is needed" (Letter dated
February 23, 1984, p. 6).
�Ore�on Le al Services: Oregon Legal Services objects to Policy 6.1.2
eTi cause t 3iscourages rather than encourages subsidized housing and
limits housing flexibility for approximately one-third of Tigard
hous�holds that are eligibl� fur housing assitance, This objector also
argues that this policy violates ORS 197.307 by not allawing developers �
economies of ��.a�e from building on adjacent lots or construction of
subsidized duplex units.
Response to Objections
These objections are sustained. Tigard's housing background material
does indicate that approximately 1,900 households, �r about one-third of
its existing households, have income levels at or below the moderate
income level for Tigard, and th�se groups may need some housing
assistance (Resource Document; p. 167). However, Policy 6.1.2 as it is
written does not encourage needed assisted housing, nor is there
sufficient information in the Plan to justify this policy or to show that �
this policy will not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed housing. i
�
�
jection
1000 Friends of Oregon has ob�ected to Policy 6.3.�(b) in Tigard's plan
because it does not cc►ntain sufficient clear and ob�ective standards for
determining compatiblity with abutting residential development (see
pages 45-46). 1000 friends' letter states:
The policy's compatibility standard is v�ague, discretiAnary and
open-ended. Thouc�h the "example" given in the policy is Gle�r
and ob3ective (and hence permissible), it is included in the
�
_ ,
t
t --
_ . �...._ �
�'=': �
�►' . :<_ I �
, , ;.,M
c �rY ,�f ��M �iNG�� �i���y ��,aSiDiz��D ��;
�x� �� ��,��- ��s ,�,�. POLI G y ;��
� .,
;
POLICY 12 Thus, to avoid concentrations, the following criteria shall be ;
followed in the location of new subsidized single-family housing. '''�
�
(1) Where single-family units are �equired by program regulations, and ��I,
land availability permits, development should be encouraged to (,
take the form of a clustered or Planned Unit Development concept ;
to achieve the higher densities appropriate to an urban setti�g. !
(2) All units should be located within one mile of an elementary school . � '��
�; :
(3) All units should, if possible, be within 1/4 mile �f a route of '�
public transit. ''
(4) All units should be convenient to sh�pping and health Care ;,
facilities. �
• ii
. , , ,,
(5) Additional units should be encouraged in school attendance areas ; ;
other than those which currently have a higher-than-average ievel ; ; '
of subsidy.
(6) Additional subsidized units should tie �ncouraged in areas which �
exhibit a lower-than-average level of subsidy and medium-to-low level
of poverty, i ��
, �;
(7) No more than 30 percent of the units in a development of 10 units � ��
or mar�e shall b� subsidized.
I j
i
(8) No more than three subsidized housing units shall adjoin. :
�
Phase III (Site Design Review Final ) ' � � ��
�
POLICY 13 Following the approval of the Site Design Review Committee ' �
and acceptance of the proposal by the Department c�f Housing ; ;;
and Urban De:�elopment, and preced3ng the start of the final
working drawings, a final proposal shall be submitted for ' :
review and appro�al to the Site Design Review Committee.
The submittal shall consist of the following: �
�;
(1) A site development plan indicating location of buildings, ; �
streets, parking areas, service areas, play and oper� area and I ; �
construction materials for each.
(2) A landscaping plan indicating general lawn and planting areas, �
fences and so on. ' +
(3) An elevation and floor plan for a typical unit. � '`
�
(4) Time schedule for project completion. ` � �
Significant deviations from the proposals submitted as the above shall � � i
require the approval of the Urban Design Coordinator. '�
. l ��
Submission af information shall be followed by a review period of ��
; �,
ten working days� upon which time the developing ayency shall be informed � ;��
of modificaiton required and/or approval . The developer, if desired, j �'��
�
,
-13- , ;
� � I
1� 5. 3. d
MEMORANDi7M
CITY OF TIGARD
T0: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Developmer�t �����
DATE: June 6, 1984
SUBJECT: LCDC Acknowledgement
Attached are staff recommendations aimed at satisifying the "in order to '
comply" xequirements of LCDC issued at our recent acknowledge,ment hearing.
These issues must be addressed by the City Council for submittal to LCDC by
July 1, 1984. '
The following issues will be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting June
13, 1984:
1. Remaining Goal ��5 is§ues.
2. Exceptions to Private and Shared Outdoor Recreation Area
requirements.
3. Subsidized housing dispersal policy.
4. Density - 10 units per acre.
5. Manufactured Housing Conditional Use requirements.
6. Manufactured Housing Needs Assessment.
Staff is requestin� input from the Commission on each item with a
recommendation for Council consideration. Please note that the item dealing
with the density question contains several different options for attainment of
ten dwelling unit� per acre. Staff is requesting either that the Commission
choo:se the option which it prefers or rate the options in terms of
desirability.
(0468P)
;
'!
i
�
s
6
,
. .. , , . ., ._�..,.»;
MEMARANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: �lembers of the Planning Commission June 7, 1984
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development w� dj,�_�
• jo
SUBJECT: Uensity - 10 units per acre.
ON April 30, 1984, staff made the City Council aware that LCDC continued the
City's request for acknowledgement to July 1, to allow time to correct
deficiences identified in the plan. One definency reads:
"Comply with the Metropolitan Housing rule by providing an �verall
average density of ten units per acre net residential buildable
acre (OAR 660-07-035) or take an exception in the plan to the
Housing Rule. Calculations of overall density shall include
consideration of density reductions due Co transition from
established to developing areas".
Staff gave the Council several ideas of how the City can address the density
issue (see attached Council minutes). The Council directed staff to keep the
plan as consistent as possible without going back to the NPO's to change
designations on individual properties. The Council also expressed interest i.n
encouraging high density residential along with commercial uses in NPO �� 4,
therefore, staff has explored options directed at concentrating the density in
this area.
Present Density - Based upon the buildable lands inventory which was updated
in October of 1983, the City has 1310.87 acres of buildable residential land.
This land is presently zoned to allow 11,942 dwelling units, or 9.1 building
units per acre. Our original submission to LCDC included an effort to take
credit for an addztional 1400 + units within redeveloping areas of the Central
Business District and the CP areas of NPO # 4. LCDC rejected this approach
and stated that redevelopment for residential use could only be credited for
pre existing residential land.
Approches to Equal or Exceed an Over�ll Density of LO Dwelling Units Per Acre.
The Staff has investigated many ways to inccease the density ta 10 units per ,
acre. Following are the alternatives abailable to you for consideration: I
i
1. Change all CP zoned land in NPO �k 4 to R-40 Residentisl. ��I
2. Change Medium High from R-20 to l�t-25. '
I
.,_;
3. Change several zoning categories to increase the allowed
density on R-1, R-2, R-3, R 4�5, R 4-SPD, R-12 and R-12PD.
4. Change a strip of land presently zoned C-G, C-P and R-3 in
NPO �� 4 to R-40.
'' One alternative not discussed would involve reviewing the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Maps to identify land which should be upzoned under exisring
residential densities. The Council did nat favor this option, however, if
the Gommission feels that this is a viable option, it may wish to express this.
Alternative - The following four pages present the options identified by staff.
ALTERNATIVE � 1
Change all CP in NPO �k4 to R-40 with Commercial Professional offices allowed
on the first two floors.
Involves - add 18.58.030 J. Commercial �rofessional uses on first two floors.
NPO �k4 only.
Increase height limitation to 80 ft. for NPO #4 18.58.050
Options to property owner
Build up to 2 floors of CP
Build up to 40 DU per a�cre.
Combxne by building up to 2 floors commer�ial & resid�ntial up
i
to 40 DU. i
Add residential to existing comm. thak has no more than 2 +
stories of comm. I
f
Effects �
1. Makes all Commercial Professional structures in excess of two stories �
�
nonconforming. �
s
2. Creates situations where High Density Residential could be located �
adjacent to existing commercial i.e. landmark Ford, Lamb Weston, �
�ommerce Plaza, OEA. _+
�
3. Restricts existing commercial buildings from expanding above 2 floors i'
for additional commercial space. �;
4. Limits economic developn�ent opportunities which property owners have
{'
relied on since the property w�s designated commercial.
,s
Density Calculations �
r�
t:
1. Changes 62.33 acres of buildable CP land to R-40. Total before .��
��
recalculation 1310.87 acre� and 11,942 units. Total after r!
recalculation 1373.20 acres and 14,435 units. i=�,
k,
a.,
2. Allows R-40 reaidential on land which is presently developed. Some =;
land is devoted to commercial uses which have a significant economic �
life remainir►g. Other lands have potential for redevelopment as they i;
are now developed for residential use. These properties could be ;,
combined with adjacent buildable land to foxm larger developable �'
parcels. p�.
t:
s
r.
(0468P) �
�
r
f
�
P'.
�
�
,,
, �
ALTERNATIV� � 2
Change Med. High (13-20 d/u/a.) tA Mea. High (13-25 d/u/a.)
Involves - changes 18.56 R-2D (20 units per acre) to R-25 �25 units per
acre). Development Standaxds remain as written.
Effects - allows property owner to develop land at 25 units per acre.
Density Calculation
1. Change 233.49 acres from R-20 to R-25.
Total before redesignation
131A.87 acYes 11,942 potential units
Total After redesignation
1310.8J acres 13,109.5 potential units
(0468P)
�
ALTERNATIVE � 3
Change several zoning categ�ries to increase the allawed density in R-1, R-2,
R-3, R-4.5, R-4.SPA, R-12, and R-12PD
Change
R-1 to R-4.5 - Increase of 21 units
R-2 to R-4.5 - Increa-se of 136 i.inirs
R-3 to R-4.5 - Increase of 95 units
R-4.5 to R-5 - Increase of 205 units
R-4.SPD to R-S�PD) - Increase of 53 units
R-12 to R-15 - Increase of 602 units
R-12(PD)to R-15�PD)- Increase of 107 units
Density Calculation Acres � of Fotential Units
Total Before Redesignation 1310.87 11,942
Total After 1310.87 13,159
. � � . . . . .. ., . . . . � � � � . � �F
. � � � . " . . - .. �.. �(
. . . � � .. � . . . .. . � � �. . � . . � �
. . . . . . . , � y;
S
. . . . . . . . . . . .. � . � . .. .. . �
� .. -.. . ... - .
I _ _ _
�
ALTERNATIVE �k 4 .
Change a strip �f land presently zoned G-G, C-P and R-3 in NPO �k 4 to R-40.
A portion of �IPO �� 4 could be rezoned leaving Commerc.ial on the most visible
land along I-5. Th� strip proposed for residential zoning is bounded by SW
72nd Ave. to the west and SW 68th on th� east between SW Hampta�n amd A�lanta.
Additional land above Atlanta on 72nd would also be included while several
parcels of land beteen Clinton and Franklin Street would be excluded. By
leaving out this parcel, land which is moFt desirable for commercial
development wi.11 remain as commercial.
The attached map illustrates Che area which would be redesignated to R-40.
This involves changing some land £rom low density residential and some from
Commercial Professional.
Option to pr�perty owners
The same options as available under Alternative �� 1 would be available.
Effects
The same effects as outline in Alternative # 1 would apply except the land
which is most desirable for commercial development will be preserved, i.e.
along I-5 and adjacent to the new interchange.
�
I
�
Density Calculations �
i
r
1. Change 1.88 acres from R-3 to R-4 t
Change 21.51 acres from C-P and C-G to R-40 �
Change 41.236 acres of develaped 1ar��1 irotn C-G, C-�P, and R-3 ?;
,,.
,
Total before recalculation 1310.87 acres and 11,942 units.
�';
The recalculation involves the City's contention that 50�6 of the already r'
developed area will be redeveloped. This would allow for the grouping of ;::i
buildable lots with other lots that now are developed as low density `;,
�residential so that larger scale projects wi11 be possible. �'
f�'�
�'.1
Recalculation t,'�!�
t:;.
i�:'
Buildable Lands 1332.38 acres 12,872 units
5�% of Redeveloped Land 20.93 acres 83? units ��
TOTAL 1353.31 acres 13,709 units
��'
�,�
��
The above calculations adds all vacant buildable residential land to 50% of ;,
r.
the now developed (as residential) land within the redeve�.oping area. �,,
�:
�,,
�;i
0468P 4;.
���
;�
i,�.
� � ���
�y:
�� � : .,. .._.. :___.. ...� . _u..�:;.,_ „ .�..�-- ��
� � � ,
. 4 . �� �, �
�■ ■��������! — �.. '/� �■ —
� �"�" �'�■��I � i.,v�s� , R � ' ■- `'"
�,�„■ pr ,���i� � . � ��� �, � � = �
. _ , � ,r�� �n ♦�� � ��_
. � �- �� � —
, _� ��.�� : �� - I � '� _
� -� I� , 1 . .:, �
� �,il �� — e o ��
�. � ; � /
.. �■ � - � - ��
� . ! �-- _ �r�i► _.
: � �-
•,. , �1 .� ► • m • �--
� � � _ � �° 1� . � ��
"' �.��.. r- � , .�.�.,.. �� � �
�
� "' � ■_. � � � ,,... �
? -B- � � 11 3 r�
� J ' , �,�.
4 �
, �� � �.��� —
� t; ■. ��
� • �"� , ..����■
'� k ...�. , .� ��'
�� � ��'� /� `' ��
� `� �: ��- � � F = .. 1 1 e
� �, . I� ■■ � � !�")
I; � - ��i; ��� ��},;: �e e�� �■ � .,�■r �■ � �►
� � � ��� ��� ��.�{: � .�. � �■ �
� � ������ +��� a,.� . � � �. I� . ��* -�� `�,
y'.
� � x �� ��� ��� � ��� �� �
� 7'�&a n 6.��' � ,,
7 ��,.,o , . •��� ��
� � �■■ _ • �� ��
.. .. , �, ' �� ;, � ! � ■ o.— —
'. .� �,$p.'. .1 �
. _ . . . . . � � . �s.[� .il ,I Pl �� 71; �9
. . . . . .�u . � . . �:D7,;� . . . .. � ac�l':����1'�;, '�J �
9
_ I ��� �� � °�� �%'• �����
_. _ . - _. ,
_ .. • _ _��;d� � � �� . °--� �� `� �
tl
�`� � ■.� �� � �
... �'����! ��� �Q , � " °o: a� i i �
�� � ..� �■ . �. ■
� �� ���u//'`;� .-,� . ... ■ ..� ii � �i �
� �!�NS� �' '� .�r■■ :��■ ::
r � ■� �,� . �� ��'���� ���a��� ■
� iK x�° � �■ ■ •: �: jj��� ���
� ��
� ��� � ;;� •.� : ii ;�� �i
� � �' � ■i � E�■ ,.�� I��
��a� _� G,� �~�, � �� �� �� �■ ��
's. � , � t� !� 7� ��
_ . w`:�,:;<. :.. � f�7 �� ;�■ �■
•� C-�� �� „�� ��
i W/� �■ �� �►
� ■� �■ ��
� e �� 'c'�
�������� ■1
- . . .. .. ._.._.. .. . . ... .. . . .. . .. ...... .. . .. . .... . .. .. _... ..... .. . . . . ... .. . .... ... .. . . ... . ._.. .. . ......� t
,
�
+
j
i
j`
S;
4
�.
r'
r
RECOMMENDED ACTION i
i;
�,
The staff is asking the Cammissio�. to choose one alternative to recommend to f
the �ity Council or to rate the four options in order of preference. If the �'
Commission chooses to design a fifth option, staff will assist at the meeting. �':
i'
�
4''
�'
i`',
:;:
��:'
�i
�'.
�I
E.;
� � ��,
� :'i
f::;�
s,':i
;,,
j;'i
13
�'
i:.�
f;l
�i
1;"
�i
�'`�
j''
t(';
iv,
S'
�;:
�.:
�!
�':'.
. � '�;F:��,
�r'
i';
�'r
F�,'
(.;
;. '
�,
�.,
!,"i
� � � � . 4 i,,..
. . . .. r�:�;�.
t,.
. � .. . . � � � � � � � 1.�;:�'
. . . . .. . .. , t,..r.
� � . � . .. . ... �t
.� � � .. . � . i�
. . . � . .� . . � . � � �,u'�.
. . .. . � . . . � .. . . � 4�°:�.
- : . � �. �. .. � . . � . �:�I
.. �. . � . . . � � ... . �'�':,
.. � � � - . . � . . t4��'.
pa.
.. . � . � �� � . . �F��.
�,
t.
� � . � � . . . .� ��(.
�
. . . � , . ��..
. . .. . . . � �.
. . � - . !�.�.
. . . . . . .. ...l�t-.
' . . . . . . .. ... � � ;�.:
� . � . . . . . � . � . . �+�..
f[[�
. . . . . . . f��.
�
� .. . � . . .. . . .. .:. .... .�. .:�:_.., .. ��:.. . .,. .,.,:�... .. :.;_ . �.._ '� . .='_.._ ......R....._......�::::.,I
APPENDIX
This table is attached to show the potential impact of
increasing Che maximum density allowed in existing zones.
Zoning Acres � of D.U. Effect
Buildable land
R-1 5.98 6 Change to R-4.5 = + 21
R-2 54.23 108 Change to R-4.5 = + 136
R-3 63.50 191 Chan�ge to R-�+.5 = + 95
R-4.5 444.37 2018 Change to R-5 = + 203
R-4.5PD 105.93 477 Change to R-5 = + 53
R-7 ?9.09 554 NO CHANGE
R-7PD 68.87 482 NO CHANGE
R-12 2D0.55 2407 Ghange to R-15 = + 602
R-12PD 35.88 431 Ghange to R-15 PD = + 107
R-20 22.17 4443 Change to R-25 = +1111
R-20PD 11.32 226 Change to R-25PD - + 57
R-40 14.98 599 NO CHANGE
1310.87 11,942 NEEB 1168 more units
C�-P in A 62.33 0 Change to R-40 w/CP = +2493
plus redeveloping
l
:;
t
�
,
�
;
;
�.
�-
��;
�;
�
��
�
.. ._ �
. �+� 5� 3, e.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TTGARD, OREGI�N
T0: Planning Commission June 7, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff �(,�
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Standards for Manufactured Housing Units.
One of the Goal 10 In order to comply statements deals with objections to
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan raised by the Oregon Manufactured Housing
Association. Their objection and the LCDC staff's response contained in the
LCDC staff report are as follows:
OBJECTION
The Oregon Manufactured Housing Association has objected to three parts of
Tigard's Development Code: first, OMHA contends that manufactured housing
is seldom developed at densities greater than six dwelling units per acre,
so it is unlikely that manufactured housing will be located in the high
density R-12, R-20, and R-40 zones; second, OtZHA objects to a statement in
each residential zone which indicates that conditional use approval is
"discretionary with the Hearings Officer; and third, OMHA objects to
Section 18.130.040�A)(1)�b) and 18.130.040(B) in the Conditional Use
section of the Code which contain subjective or open ended approval
skandards. The OMHA requests that manufactured housing be permitted
outright in the R-3 and R-4.5 zones or that the conditional use
requirements be amended to make them clear and objective.
Response to Objection
Thi•s objection is sustained. Since the number of manufactured homes has
not been estimated by the City, it cannot be determined if sufficient
amounts of land for this needed housing type already exists or if
additional land is needed. The conditional use sections cited by OMHA are
not clear and objective and must be changed in order to comply with the
Housing Rule. Although the various residential zones refer to the Hearing
Officer's discretionary approval, the real test is in the actual
conditional use section of the Code which is clear and objective except
for the two subsections cited by OMHA.
The In order to comply statement adopted by the Land Consexvation and
Development Commission is as followsa
Amend the R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones t� allow manufactured housing as an
outright use or amend the Conditional Use ap�,roval standards
18.130.40.A.1.b. and 18.130.040.0 to be clesr and objective, or aaa a new
manufactured housing needs.
Staff recommends that the City pursue the second alternative and amend the
Conditional Use approval standards in Sections 18.130.040A.1.b. and
18.130.040.c. Since manufactured housing subdivisions are required to go
thx^ough the subdivisi.on approval process and manufacturing housing parks are
required to go through Si,te Design Review, it seems excessive to place
dup�icate approv�l standards on these uses at the Conditional Use stage. In
addi�ion, staff recommends that Section 18.130.040 l.b. be omitted from the
Code as it is vague and discretionary. A copy of Chapter 18.130 CONDITIONAL
USE is actached in it's entirety showing the changes recommended by staff.
�
i
1
1
1
I
�
i
1
�
t
0468P �
�
;i
J'
i�
y;
�:
i;,
� � � � � � �
�.
k
�
�
<,.
�:
�.
�
�
�f
�
� ,_� ,-
18. 130. CONDITIONAL USE
18.130.010 Purpose
� The purpose of this Chapter is to provide standards and
procedures under which conditional uses may be permit�ed,
enlarged, or altered if the site is appropriate and if other
conditions can be met.
18 130 020 Administration and Approval Process
A. The applicant of a Conditional Use proposal shall be the
recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing
by the owner.
B. A Pre-Applicatio� Co�ference �:th City staFf is required. See
�ection 18.32.040.
C. Due ta possible changes in Statp statutes, or regional or local
policy, inFormation givQn by st�ff to the applicant during the
Pre-Application Conference is vaLid for no more than 6 months.
1. Another Pre-Application Conference is required if any Site
� Development Application is submitted 6 months after the
Pre-Appli�ation Conference.
,I
2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the i�formation ;
required by �his Section shall not constitute a waiver of i
the starodard, cr•iteria or requirements of the appli�cations.
�� �D. The Director sh�ll mail notice oF any Conditional Use proposal
to the persons who are entitled to notice in accorciance with ;
Section 18.32.130. �
E. Action on the application shall be in accordance with Chapter �
� - i:
18.32. �
• �
18 130 030 Expiration of Approval - Standards for `Extension of Time k
_ ;,
A. Approval uf a (:onditional Use by the Hearings Officer shall be �',I
void after one year iF: �'
?;
� � � i;
1. Substantial conatruction of the approval pla�n has not begwn �
within that one year period; or �
��
� i;
2. Construction on the site is a departure From the �pproved ;'
plan. �
r
4
8. T9�e Nearings Officer shall, upon wriLten request by the �
applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of }'
, the approval period not to eMCeed 6 months afl�:er a hearing as �
provided in 18.37 provided that: �
. � � � . . . . . . �.G..
1 . No chanqes are made on the original �onditional Use plan aa t
aPproved by the Hearings Officer. �
,. ., �
�
III - 239 �
�
�
. . . . . . . . .. .. 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yG
` .. . .. . .. . .... ...,_ .,. .. . � . ��� .:� .. �.:.■
2. The applicant can show intent of initiatxng co�s�ructio� of
the site within the 6—month extension period; and
3. 'fhe�e have been no changes in the facts or applicable
( policie� and ordinance provisions on which the approval was
based.
' C. The decision oF the Hearings Ofricer may be appealed as provided
by 18.32.310(B) .
18 130.040 Appro�ral Standards and Conditio�s
A. 7he Neari�gs Office shall approve, approve with conditions or
deny an application for a conditio�al use or to enlarge or alter
a Conditional Use bas�d an findings of fact with r�spect to each
of the following crite�ia:
1. The site size at�d dimensions provide• C�mL,n` �
�1
a. Adequate area for the needs of the proposed uae; •aR1d"'
•� b. Adequate area for aesthetic design treatme�t to
b� �� mitiqate possible adverse eFfect from the use on
surrounding prnperties and uses.
2. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the
proposed use considering size shape, location, topography
and natural features.
�J 3 . All required public facilities havr� adequa�e capacity to
serve the proposal.
4. The applicable rer�uirements of the zoning dis'trict are met
except as mod�,fied by this Chapter.
5. The supplementary re�uirements set forth in Chapter 18.114
(SIGNS) and Section 18. 120.180 (APPROVAL• STANOARDS) Site
Development Review, if applicable, are met.
6. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the
comprehensive plan.
B. An approved conditional use or enlargement or alternation of a�
existing conditional use sha11 be subject to the de�elopment
review provisions set forth in Chapter 18. 120.
C. The Nearings Officer may impose co�ditions, on its approval of a
conditional use� which it find� are necessary to assure the use
is compatible with other uses in the vicinit;y. Th�eae ccr.!nditions
may ir�clud'e, but are not limited to the following: '
1. Limiting the howrs, days, place and manner qf operation, ,
�_:..:
III — 240
� � _ � � �� � � � �- , �; �.. , . �� ,�
2. Requiring design features which minimize environmental
impacts such as noise, vibration, air palluti�n, glare,
odor and dust.
r3. R�quiri�g additional sec back areas, lot are or lot depth ,
or width.
4. Limitinq the building height, size or lot Goverage, or
location on the site.
5. Designating the size, number, location and de�ign of
vehicle a�cess points.
6. Requiring street right-of--way to be dedicated and the
street �o be improved.
7. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and surfacing of
parki�g a�nd loading areas.
e. Limiting the number°, size, lor,ation, height and lighting of
signs.
9. limitfng or setting standards for the location and
intensity of outdoor lighting.
10, Requiring berming, screening or iandscaping and the
establishment of standards for their installatian and
maintenance.
� il. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and
materials for fences.
12. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing
� trees, so�ls, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and
�� , � drainage areas �, �� t,r �����i�a f+>�?� � %L�f'"�v ���;� ;r,"5--�_��g�`r'S ''���
�. ) 4�;� t.`,.4`1! ,,,�, �n.:^�r/��1't.lf"�, �� :��_ "L�;i.�.>' 1 �'� �' � `� �� ,�
18. 130.050 Ma or Modification to A ��� � ' '� �� '"� ;��� � �� "��
i Pproved P1=ans �" , , � ,�' A ,� '`{�t � �r � T�`
. ���,.1����7"i�E� '$-9..j�`;;�"�. '�.r�J x�— �`���4�9�j `""'�."' S�" ''
� ,. . ' . ,,,?Zfc�Pil�.,� ��
A. An applicant may request approval of modification to an approved �� ;:`.'�� c.;�'€�
plan by: f��^Ff��.�' -�,{:�,,,
1. Providing the Director with 5 copies of the praposed �������� ������.-���
modified Conditional Use plan; and . ;r
,�. ;,�,,
„��;
. �-
2. A narrative addressing the proposed changes as listed 'an��`��'�' � ��`=4'.�
�B� � �,��% 6�,at;'�
�`�c�rA:�+�t,!.
t:w��� ��
B The Director shall determirre that a major modifi�ation or
modifications has resul�ed if one or more of the changes Yisted �'�'� ���°`"'
below have been proposed; ��,� ��������
- ��
1 . A change in land use; �'��'-°�i��� a�°�'�
t �^�
tiAt i ai���« �.•�
�. An increase in dwelling unit density;
. . . . � 9Y�^��!r��7�r ij"�.c 7. '.
�'
�.. ���'�• < � M1''��yv"`
� � -�{�
� � � � �� ���� ��,
zrt — Zai ��
��.r�'� �;�:��`��
������" �'�����vx��
... .. . ... . ... � .. . . . . .. ... . . . .... .. . . .. ... . .. . .... 5.�.�..
3. A 107L char�e in the ratio of the diffe��nt types of
dwelling units to the number of units;
4. A change in the type of commercial or i�ustrial s�aPuctures;
� 5. A change in the type and location of acceasways and parking
areas where off—site traffic wc�uld be affected;
6. An increase in the floor area proposed for nonresidential
use by more than 10 percent where previously specified;
7. A ra�uction of more than LO percent oF the area reaQrved ;`
for common open space and/or usable open space; ' �;;
Y:
e. A reduction of speciFfed setback requirements by more than
20 percent; a
�:
9. An eli,mination of project amenities by more tfian 10 percent !�'
where previously specifiec! provided such �s: `°
i .
a. Recreational facilities, �
b. Screening, or ?�'
�:
,;
�;.
c. l.andscaping provisions; k-'
,:-
�;
10. A lOX increase in the approved density; and
t:��
,- 11. Any other modification to conditions imposed at the time of
t Site Devel�pment Review approval.
z
C. Upon the Direct�r de^cermining that the p�s^oposed modification to
the Conditional Use plan is a major modification, the
�pplic�tion shall swbmit a new application in accorda�ce with
Section 18.130.070 for Conditional Use prior_, to applyirtg for
Site Development Revi:ew.
D. The Director's decision may be appealed ai prAVided by
16,32.310(A)..
18 130.06U Minor Modification(s) of a Conditional Use Permit
�
A. Any modification which ia not within the description oF a major ''
modification as provided in S�ction 16.130.05U ahall be
considered a mir►or modification. ''ll
;',:�
B. A minor modification shaTl be approved, approved with conditions , ��
or denied following the Oirector's review based on the findings ` :i
that:
`i
1. No Code provisions wil;l b� violated, and �
�r;,
s,:
2. The modification is not a majar modification. ,,;
�,�
r,�
C _ I�
,r
�';
,;:
�,
III -- 242 �
��'
'-�
�';, ��v�
��
C. NoticQ of the Director's decision shall be given as provided by
18.32.120. The deciaion may be appealed �. providQd by
18.32.310(A) .
C18. 130.070 Aaplication Submission Requfrements
A. All �pplications shall be made on forms provided by the Director
and shall .be accompanied by:
1. Five copies of the site de�elopment plan(s) and necessary
data or narra�tive which expla�ins how the development
conforms to the atandards:
a. Sheet size Corxiitional Use site plan(s) shall be drawn
on sheets not exceeding 18" x 24"; and
b. The scale for a site plan shall be 20, 50, 100 or 200
feet to the inch.
c. All drawinga of structure elevationa shall be a
standard architectural scale, beir►g 1/4" or 1/8".
2. A list of thQ namea and addresse� of all who are property
awners of record witkiin 250 feet of the site.
3. The required fQQ.
e. The required info�^mation may be combined a�d does not have to be
C,, placed on separat� map�.
C. The Conditional Use plan, data, and narrative ahall ihclude the
following:
1. Existing site conditiGns, Section 18.130.08Q;.
2. A sitQ plan, Section 18.130.090; �
3. A grading plan, Section 18.130. 100;
4. A landscapQ plan, Section 18.130.120;
5. Architectural elevations of all structures, Section
18. 130.110;
6, A sign plan, Section 18. 130.130;
7. A copy of all existing and proposed restr3ctions or
covenants; and -
18. 130.080 Site Conditions
A, The site a�nalysis drawinga aha11 include:
�,. �
III - 2�3
1. A vicinity map showing streets and access points, �
pedestrian and bicycle pathwaya, transit stops and utility
locatfons;
� 2. The aitQ size �nd its dimensions;
3. Contour lines att 2-foot ir►tervals .,for grades 0-�lOX and less
and 5-foot intervnls gor grades over 10 percQnt;
4. The general locatio�e of draina►ge patterns; I
5. The genoral location of natural F►a�zard e►reas includirog:
a. Floodplain areas (100-year floodplain and flooding), I
, i
b. Slopes in excess of 25X; �
i
c. Unstable ground (Areas subject to slumping, earth
slides or movement); •' �
d. Areas having a high s�asonall water table within 0-24
ir�ches of the surfaco for three or more weeks af the
year;
e. Areas having a severe soil erosion pot�ntial; and
f. Areas having severe weak foundation soils.
6. The general location of natu�^al resource areas as shuwn on
�. the Comprehensive PI�n �a� inverstory datas;
7. The general location of site features including:
a. Rock outcroppir�s; and
b. Trees with 6" caliper or greater measuring 4 feet from
ground level. ' .
e. The location of exis::ir�g atructurea on the �ite and
proposed use of those struc�ur�es; �and
9. T'he loGation and type of noise sources on t'�e site or on
adjoi�ing property such as traffic ways, mechanical
equipment or noise producing land uses. �
i;
18.130.090 The Site Plan {'':
;;;
A. The proposed ConditionaY Use plan ahall be a� the same acalo as �':
the site conditions and shall include the following informat�,on: ��
�
r`
1. The proposed aite arK! surrounding properti�s; ;�'
�::;
E�
2. Contour i�tervals (see Section 18.130.080 (A)(3); :,
P'
1„
� k''.
� Ph
�!
zii — 2a4 �::
�
�:
3. The location, dimensions ar►d names of aTl:
a. Existing streets and
r
� b. Proposed streets.
�. The location and di�ension of:
a. The entrances and exits on the site;
b. The parking a�d circulation areas;
c. Loading and services areas, if applicab�e;
d. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation, if applicable;
e. Outdoor common areas, if applicable; and
f. Above ground utilities.
5. The location, dimensions and s�tk�ack distanc¢s of all:
a. Existing structures, improvementa and utilities which
are;
(1) Located within 25 feet of the site and are on
adjoining property; and
r- (2) To remain on—site.
4_
� b. Propa�se� structures, impro�ements and utiliLies on the
aite.
6. The location of areas �o be landscaped; and
7. The locations of proposed utili�y lines. ',
.
18.130.100 Gradincl Plan I
A. The grading p?an shall include a grading plan at the same scale
as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following
inFormation:
1. ArQag of cut and fill; and
2. Slope ratios and slope stabilization proposals.
18.130.110 Architectural Urawings
A. The Cond'ational Use plan proposal shall includQ:
� 1. The square footage of all structures proposed for use
on—site; and
�_
III — 245
2. Preliminary elevation drawings of each structure.
18.130. 120 �arvdscape Plan
� A. The Conditional Use plan proposal sfiall include:
1. The general location oP fences, buffers and �creenings;
�� 2. The eneral location of play areas and common open spaces;
9
and
3. The general location of existing and pro{�sed plant
matQrials.
18.130.130 Sian Draw�ings
Drawings indicating sign location shall be submitted in
accordance with Chapter 18'..114 of this Code.
1� 130 140 Additional Information Required and QJaivpr of Requfrement,s
� A. The Director may require information in addition to that
required by this Chapt.er in atcco�^dance with Sectxon 18:32.080
(A)•
B. The Director may waive a .specific requ'irement For information in•
accordance with Sect�on 18.32.080 (B) and (C).
18 130 150 Standard Dimensional Requiremen'ts for Conditional Use Types
�, A. A Conciitnonal Use pr�posal shall comply with the standards oF
the zoning diatrict in which it ia located and .the applicable
provision of this Code, or as otherwise provided in standards
that follow.
B. A Conditional Use permit shall not gra�t_ uar-iances to the
regulations otherwise prescribed by this Gode. A variance
app4ication may be filed in conjunction with the .Co�ditional Uae
application and both applications may be 'hea�^d at the same
hearing.
C. The additional dimensional requiremes��s and approval standar�s
for Conditional Uses are as follows:
i. Acceasorv Owellinq Unit.
a. A secondary unit may be allowed within an existing
sirx,�le family detached unit for occupation' by a pQraon
related by blood or marriage to� the property owner
providing each oF the following cond'itions are
s�tisfied:
(1) The lat coveraga standards of thQ basa zone shaill
not be exceeded;
�..,_
III - 246
(2) There shall be a minimum of 250 gross s�u�re feet
of floor area for each occupant, however, there
shs�ll be no more than two occupants and the unit
shall be limi�ed in size to 800 gross squa�re feet.
�, (3) One of the un�.ts sfiall be occupied by the property
. owner at all �imes that the accessory dwelling
unit is occupied. Should the property owner
vacate one of the units, the accessory u�it sha►11
not be occuRied. '
(4) AlY requirements of the basa zone sha�ll be
satisfied and required yard areas shall not be
�used for parking.
5 The off—street arki re uirements of 16.106
� ) P �! q
shall be satisfied for the principle dwelling And
one additional space shall be provided for the
accessory dwelling unit.
2. Adult Entertainment.
a. No adult entertainment establishment sha11 be
permitted to locate in a�ny residential zoning,
neighborhaad commercial, commercial, professional, or
industrial district.
b. No adult booksCore or theater shall be permitted to
locate within 5l)0 feet of any:
� (1) Residential districtt;
(2) public or private nursery, pre—school, elementary,
jwnior, middle or high school;
(3) Day care center, nursery . .school, convalescent
hom�, home for� the aged, resident care facility or
hospital; �
(4) Public library;
(5) Public park; ar
(6) Religious institution. `
�
c. Distance shall be measured in a straight li�e, without ',
regard to intervening structures, objects or roads,
from the closest point of the structure or portion of
structure containi�ng the use, to the c'loxest portion
of the residential district or prapert�l line upon '
which a use specified in b, above is listed. �
;
d. Any sign shall comply with the aign requirements, ;
i Ghapter 18.11A. i
r 'i
�•. i
;.
III — 247 (.
;�
�,
e. Hours of operation sh�ll be li�ited to 10:00 �.m. to
1:00 a.m.
f. All windows less "than 7 feet fro�n the ground shall be
cavered or screened ih such a manner that the sales
� area a�r�d inventory are not visible from the sidewalk
adj�cent to thp use.
g. Doors and windowa shaill at all times be closQd except
for norn►al ingress and egreas.
h. No amplified or m�chanica�lly reproduced sounds shall
emanate from the confines of the structure or portfon
of the structure i� which the adult businesa is
operated; and
i. All adult entertainment establishments shall co�ply
with all applicable State laws.
3. Automobile and E ui nt: Fleet S�ora e.
Q pme g
a. Na buildings or structures shall be allowed.
b. Setbacks:
(1) Setbacks shall be used as a landscape buffer when
the storage lot abuts a residential zonirx�
district.
4. Au�owrobile and Equipment• Sales/Rental (Farms, Nea�y and
C., Liqht Equipment)
a. Setbacks:
(1) Five feet oF the perimeter setback shall be used
for landscaping and screening pu�^poses.
5. Communitv Recreation and Rarks� � .
a. Setb�cks:
(1) All building setbacks shall !a� a minimum of 30
feet from any property line.
b. Off—street Parking; There are no parking requirements.
6. Neliports: Applicable district: All commercial and
i�dustrial zo�es. Heliports shall be sited in accordance
with the ODOT Aeronautics Div3sfon requirements arsd the FAA
recommended design guidelines.
7, Vehicle Fuel Sa1es:
a. Lot size: 10,000 square feet.
4:.
III — 248
b. Setbacks: .
(1) The front yard setback shall be 40 feet.
� (2) On corner and through lots, the setback �hall be
40 f�et on any sfde faci.ng a street.
(3) No , aide or rear y�rd �etback sha11 be required,
except 20 +Feet where abuttfng a re�idential z�nir►y
district,
c. Fue� tank installation: In accnrdance with Ghapter
18.104.
d. euilding Height: Same as applicable zc�ne.
8. Parkinc� Services.
a. No buildings or structures shall be allowed.
b. Setbacks:
(1) Setbacks shall be used as land�cape buffer when
storage lot abuts a residential zoning district.
9. Schaolse
a. Lot Size:
(i) Preschool or elementa�ry except a3 provided under
C,, sabparagraph (3) . Minimum of five (5) usable
acres plus ohe (1) _uaable acre� for each one
� hundred (100) students, or major fraction thereof,
of the ultimate buildinq capacity.
(2) Junior high or high schools (any.. -com�xr�ation of
grad�s seven (7) thraugh twe�lve (12) . Minimum of
ten (10) usable acres plua one (1} usable acre for
each one hundred (100) students, nr major fraction
thereof, of the wltimate building capacity.
(3) Twenty Thousand (20,000) square fee� for nursery
schools with l�ss than forty--five (45) pupils.
(4) Any combination of pre-school and junior or high i
schools shall comp:ly with the standards as
specified by (2) above,
b. Setback�:
(1) The f'ront yard setback shall be a minimum of 30
feet.
�l
III - 2A9
i
i
�
. �
(2) On corner lots a�nd through lats, the setback ah�l� '
be a minimum of 20 fe�et on any aide fdcing a F
street, plus meet visual cle�rance areas (Chapter i
18.102).
;.
(� t3) The aide yard setback shall be a mi�imum of 20 '`
feet. I�
';
(�1) The rear yard setback shall be a� minimum of 30 �
fQet. ��'
';;
;,
r
10. Reliqious Aasembly and Accessory Uses. ��.
�
A. L,ot Size: ThQ minimum lat size shall be 20,000 aqua�rQ ;�
feet. l��
�,
�
b. Setbacks:
�;
(1) ThQ fro�t yard setback sh�ll be a minfn�um of 25� , . �
feet. R
1.
.(2) On corner lots and through lots, the setback ahall �
be a �ninimum of 20 feet, plus meQt visus�l �
cleara�ce areas (Chapter 18.1Q2). `
3 The side yard setiyack shall be a mi�imum of 20 �
�� � � feet. ��
r
(4) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 2� �.
/ feet. �
l `
, (�i�) Each setback shall be increased 5 feet for evQry #
� 10 feet of building height over 45 feet,. {
11. Hosaitals. �I
, a. Lot Size: Minimum int size sha11 ,bQ- 20,000 square ��
feet plus 1,000 square feet for each bed over 15. �
� . i
b. Setbacks: �
(1) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 '
feet.
(2) On cor�er lots and throuqh lots, the setback shall
be a minimum of 25 feet, plus meet visual �
cleara�ce areas (Chapter 18.102).
(3) The side yard setback shali be a minimum of 25
feet.
(4) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 25
feet.
� (5) Each setback shall be increased 5 'f'eet in evewy 10
feet of buflding height over 45 fQet.
\. I
� ZII — 250
12. Funeral a�nd IntQrment Services (IntQrrinc� a�nd CemQteries
only).
a. Lot Size: Minimum lot size shall be � acrQS.
� b. Setbacks;
(1) For gravea only '
(a) The front yard sethacks shall be a minimum
of L5 feet.
(b) The side yard setbacks shall be a minimum oF
15 feet.
(c) The rear yard setbacks sF�all be a minimum of
15 feet.
(2) For structures only.
(�) The front yard setbacks shall be a minimun►
of 35 feet.
(b) On corner lots and through lots, the
setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet on
any side Facing a� street, plus m�et visual
clearance areas (Chapter 18.IO2)
(c) The side yard setback shall be a minimum of
25 feet.
�~.
(d) 7he rear yard setback shall be a minimum of
25 feeta
c. Adequate fenG'�ng shall be provided: A fence of at
least 4 feet in height located. :ak...�east 2 i/2 feet
from any riyFit-of-way shall completely suri^ound the
area and shall meet visual clearance areas.
d. Off-street Parking:
(1) There are no parki�g requirements. '
13. Lodge, Fraternal and Civic Assemblv.
a. Lot Size: '�linimum lot size shall be 20,000 square
feet.
14. Spectator Sports and Entertainment (Other, in coniunction
with school use onlyl.
a. Lot Size: The minimum lot size shall be 2 acrea.
i
`•,.. #(
I:II - 251 ` i
�
.. � . . . . � . . � . . . � �.�_ 4
., . . . . . _ �. . �. � .�,i
i.
. . . . . . . . .. .t
b, Setb�cks;
(i) The front yard setba►ck sfiall be a minimum of 30
feet.
j (2) On corner lots and through lots, the �atbs�ck
l. shall be a mir►imum of 25 feet on any side facing
a street, plus meets visua�l cleararoce a�reas
(Chapter 18.102).
(3) The side yard sQtback sha�ll k�e a minimum of 25
feQt.
(q) The rear yard sQtba«!c shall be A n�inimum of 30
fee�.
(5) Each setback shall be increased 5 feet for° �very
10 feet of building height over 45 feet.
c. Off—street Pa�rkicig: Exempt, if constructed with a
schoml use. Otherwise, requirements shall comply with
Section 18.106.030 of the parking requirements.
15. Duplexes.
a. �ot 5ize: 10,0a0 sqware f�et.
b. The remaining dimensional requirements o� the
underlying zoning district shall apply.
\
\
III — 252
_ _ .:. � ...,.__ .__,.. :� ,. .�. :_..�...,...� „_ ..�,_ ..�... �_.;�..
--- ,�
_.. �
����- `�' � � ,
�
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Planning Commission June 7, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: LCDC Compliance - Manufactured Homes - Needs Assessment
In order to gain acknowledgement af Tigard's Comprehensive Plan, the City must
address the fol�owing In order to comply recommendation:
"Amend the plan to include an assessment of additional manuiEactured homes,
a needed housing type, that are projected for the planning period."
The staff has reviewed various methodologies to produce this needs analysis.
The recent past was of little help in determining trends, Cherefore, the staff
chose a straight line projection which results in maintenance of 1.9 � of all
� units in the City as manufactured homes. We are open to input to determine
other feasible means of ascertaining needa
.
.
0468P
, �.- _ _ _ _ _
" Number of Building Permits (Multi and Singl� Fam�ly)
County Tigard Tigard as � of County
.1974 1,693 156 9%
1975 1,094 317 28�
1976 2,420 355 14%
' 1977 2,904 516 17�
1978 2,495 610 24%
1979 1,929 533 27�
1980 1,345 300 22ti
1981 1,238 189 15%
1982 586 117 19%
1983 583 241 ��1�
TOTAL 16;2g6 3,334 2Q% average
An average of 1,628 pern�its issued by the County per year from 1974 - 19$3.
An average of 333 permits issued by the City per year from 1974 - 1983.
;
04b8Y
Washington County Manufactured Homes
% Change
Existing �rior to 1970 2085
Increase 4/1/70 ° 12/31/75 1359 for total of 3442 39�
� Change
Over Previous
Year
Year # of New Tota1 Units
Units
34�+2
Increase 1976 249 7•2
3691
1977 299 8.0
3990
1978 245 6.1
4235
1979 340 8.0
4575
1980 211 4.6
478b
1981 242 5.0
5028
1982 189 3.7
5217
1983 126 2.4
5343
237.62 units average 5.6 Ave. over
previous year
04b8P
Manufactured Housing Units
Projection 1983 - 2000
Total County* Total City**
�
1983 5343 106
1984 5581 108
1985 5819 110
1986 6057 112
1987 6295 114
1988 6533 116
1989 6771 119
1990 7009 121
1991 7247 124
1992 7485 126
1993 7723 128
1994 7961 131
�
�� 1995 8199 133
1996 8437 136
1997 8675 138
1998 8913 141
1999 9151 144
2000 9389 146
*Based on an increase of an annual increase of 238 units.
** Based on an increase of 1.9� annual increase. I
0468P