The URL can be used to link to this page

HOP 4-84 14430 SW MCFARLAND BLVD ie PL ---------------- FX2,) C. I'l 0 f::' j4..'Fj.4j_ I OF' gmmgig --7--'�' I I ifi-—66—Mam-4-t 111 III ios-m I ' II 111 III III III Plgz i 111111 1 1,4111111111111111111111 1,P1111111-1 till it I I IT,�4�1 2 NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED 3 4 10 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE; IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. oc ea ea a ge S2 vz cz zz la oz 61 of Ll 191 91 *1 el 21 t , 01 6 9 L 9 s IP E lilt JANUARY ' 9 1992 24 )( EL � o( x I, I as 7�� y l /Gr c — �� n mnn a'A A /kill go tr ql . j I ir , . I 1 � T ♦•� '��, p i t - . .. �4 �.� %'AL.'S _.- .. - I Rl'1'�•IIIIIIII I�lyllll4(I�IIIIIIIIII III II III IIIIIIIlIIIIIIII I,yllllll 11 l'Illllrl 11 ll�l,lll�ll , Il llllll llllllllllllllllllll lllll�llllllllll111111111111111�111�111I TII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111 1 • NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED _ - I 2 3 4 5 B T 8 B 10 II 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTIM-17 IS DUE TO ,. 4E .QLALITY of THE ORIGINAL _ DRAWING. QC 62 92 12 42 421 •2 92 l2 41 LI 01 41 ►I fl 21 II 01 6 9 l 9 S ► C 2 Ir'•r24X �nduulnulUu6wLI1IbNILIIdIINIuuIMld1 dmd9lllwdlnllul uuhudxnluuluuluu6ntluulDuhnduldlw�wduuLulhnlLulhw6mbi�dWl�uduullm�ull9ulnulnldlWinR 1 JANUARY 9 1992 MORENO, FERD HOP 4-841,, 14430 SW McFarland Blvd. � ..�....,»wad. -�= �,.....,. ..:�,. June 17, 1986 Ferd and Jean Moreno P.O. Box 23044 'Tigard, OR 97224 , RE: Residential. Care Home at. 14430 SW McFarland Blvd. Dear Mr. and Mrs . Moreno: Our records indicate that your home ocrunation permit for a residential care facility expired in April, 1985, Your business tax also has expired as of May 25, 1984, Please complete the enclosed Home Occupation Permit renewal application and business tax forms and return them to me at Lhe address given below along with your payment of $60.00 ($20.00 for the home occupation permit renewal and $40.00 for the business t:ax . Failure to do so constitutes a violation of Chapter 18 , 142 of the Tigard Municipal Code which requires any person conducl.ing business out of their residence to obtain and keep current a Home Occupation Permit and a business tax. Should you feel this lettor is in error, please contact us so that we may update our records. Sincerely, Deborah A. Stuart � Q Assistant Planner DAS:bs101 ;V" January 7, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. Moreno 14430 SW McFarland Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Moreno: Please find enclosed your check to the City of Tigard for renewal of your Home Occupation Permit. Due to administrative modifications in 1985, the collection of renewal fees for home occupations has been postponed until 1986. Henceforth, you can expect a notice reminding you of such renewal fees at the same time you are due to renew your business tax, either in March, June, September. or December. If you are no longer doing business in the City of Tigard, please advise us so we update our records. Please call Deborah Stuart, 639- 4171, if you have any questions. We are very sorry and would like to apologize for any inconvenience this delay might have caused you. Sincerely, Deborah A. Stuart Assistant Planner DAS:bs32 October 23, 1985 Mr. Ferd Moreno C'T w0FTI1FARD 14430 SW McFarland Blvd. ' Tigard, OR 97224 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Dear Mr. Moreno, I am in receipt of your October 14th letter and your request. Section 18.142.050(1) of the Home Occupation Chapter of the Tigard Community Development Code reads as follows: "There shall be no other employees on the premises other than those who are permanent residents of the dwelling." This is interpreted to allow any person residing in a home with a valid Home Occupation Permit to be employed by the business. Section 18.26.010 of the Community Development Code relating to definition of terms used in the Code reads as follows: "All of the terms used is this Code have their commonly accepted dictionary meaning unless they are specifically defined in this Code or the context in which they are used clearly indicates to the contrary." There is no specific definition for the work "employee" contained within the Community Development code. The intent of use of the word "employee" In Chapter 18.142 is clearly not contrary to the standard dictionary meaning. Circular E published by the Internal Revenue Service defines employee as follows: "employee - n: Anyone who performs services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done) is an employee. The intent of Section 18.142.050 (1) of the Community Development code is to allow residents of the home to be employeed by the Home Occupation business and to prohibit traffic generated by persons coming to work in the home who are not residents of the home. Please confirm for me in writing whether or not you have any employees at 14430 SW McFarland Blvd. who do not reside at the site. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Ne%Znn Senior Planner (EAN:dmj/2029P) 12755 S.W. ASH P.O BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 --- s' i'Ax7 CG �� QHOME OCCUPATION PERMIT RENEWAL L� A �J This application shall include the following: 1. The required fee as established by the City Council. 'i I CIT1-]X= on(Of TiwL#RD 2. One (1) copy of the sheet of questions with responses. 3. A list of nares and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 100 feet of the site. No application for renewal will be accepted unless it is accompanied by all of the above. APPLICANT: ADDRESS: .3d � � ??0- Is ]s applicant the occupant of residence on site?_ �Z BISINESS NAME: e _ HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER: �-�C —�� BUSINESS PHONE ��•(� —O�y E PLAIN THE _JATURE OF THE BUSINESS. . .BE SPECIFIC. . . x a c.t This renewal application shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. Certain conditions may be added to the approval of this permit . To continue commencement of your business, you must also renew your Business Tar Receipt. ignature) (Date)` If approved, your Home Occupation Permit Renewal will be valid for one year and shall be renewed anually. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL QUESTIONS ON THE hACK OF THIS FORM. (0257P) TO APPLY FOR A HOME OCCUPANCY RENEWAL PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Do you have any employees who don't reside at the home? 2, Do you have customers/clients coming to your residence? If bo howV many per day? r 3. Do you have deliveries or pickups made of products or supplies to your residence? If so, how many and what type? 4. What are your hours and days of operation be? 5. Does the business generate any noise which can be heard outside of the structure? 6. How many square feet is your residence and how many square feet are devoted to the operation of your business, including storage areas? 7. What vehicles are associated with the business that aie garaged at the residence? 8. Do you store any materials, vehicles or products outdoors at the premises In conjunction with the business? 9. Do you have any signs or advertising visible from the exterior of the premises? 10. Please show the floor layout of your house and the area used for your home occupation on the attached graph paper. Please designate those areas which are utilized 1) entirely for the home occupation and 2) partially for the home occupation. Please designate the approximate dimensions of the room(s) used for the home occupation. 11. Have you made any changes to your business since your original application as approved by the Director? (dmj/0257P) f September 12, 1984 CiTfC*11FAM WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Ferd Moreno 14430 SW McFarland Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit HOP 4-84 Dear Ferd, At the City Council meeting of Monday, September 10, 1984, the Council decided not to hear the Smith Appeal. Therefore, the next action will probably occur at LUBA. Thank you again for your willingness to cooperate in our attempts to complete this matter. Sincerely, William A. Monahan Director of Planning and Development 0630P dmj 12755 S.W ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 September 11, 1984 A- alyminFARD Attorney Tim Ramis WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON O'Donnell, Sullivan b Ramis 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: LUBA No. 84-070 Dear Tim, Enclosed please find a copy of the record of the above referenced case relating to Michael Smith's appeal of a Director's Decision granting a Home Occupation Permit to Ferd Moreno of 14430 SW McFarland, Tigard. The record contains the fallowing: 1. Affidavit of Mailing - For review hearing on June 5, 1984. 2. Planning Commission packet for June 5, 1984, containing: o Application by Moreno. o Community Development Code provisions relating to Home Occupations. o Notice of Decision. o Notice of appeal by Smith and Hopkins. o Floor plan subizitted by Moreno. 3. Withdrawal of Hopkins from the appeal . 4. Minutes of June 5, Planning Commission Meeting. 5. Minutes of June 12, Planning Commission Meeting with o Sign up sheet. o Letters, photos, and testimony submitted and discussed at the hearing. o Handwritten memo from Josselson. 6. Minutes of July 24, Planning Commission meeting. 7. Final Order dated August 3, 1984. In addition, slides submitted by Michael Smith which were shown at the June 12, Planning Commission Meeting are enclosed. Also, tapes of the hearings related to this issue are enclosed. Since William A. Monahan Director of Planning and Development (0612PdmJ) --- ----— 12755 S.W. ASH P.U. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH639-4171 AUDIO/VISUAL OUT DATE ' —2• y TIME' Q ktA .,� RENTALS & SERVICES s to a'oM / 237 S.W FRONT AVENUE DATE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 �N — (50 3)222-1664 Ley TIME ❑ AM ❑ F! NAME J I ADDgESS tTAL D TIME OUT Ia T -A TIME IN 3DRIVER'S CENSE �RE.GISTrIONM PMONE E y _ I ADDRESS WHERE ITEM IS , DUE BACK ITEM RENTED PERIOD RATE AMOUNT OF TIME MERCHANDISE SOLD OUT' USED d AMOUNT I i � ;res y/,;z e T G7u� o'0 i4Pe�_ r r 1 1 This is a contract of,renting only and not of sale, the TOTAL RENT / undersigned renter agrees that he hall rented the Item(s) --�— herein described upon the express condition that It will at TOTA MERCHANQI8E r Fall times remain the property of the rental agent named — — above; that he has examined said Item, found It to be in r goodcondlllon and will return It In as good condition as r when he received It, ordinary wear and tear excepted; that --- — 1 he will return al once to the rental agent any Item not , functioning normally; III he will pay promptly when due -- �� all rherges which accrue because of this rental, Incfuding TAX I damages to said Item. In the event the renter falls to _ return said item at the agreed time, or falls to abide by any of the other terms of this contract, the rental agent TOTAL CHARGES may repossess It without notice to the renter, and the +—�+ rental ages hereby released from all clslm, arising r therefrom. I charges ere based on the time Item Is In LE88 DEPOSIT renter's pass sion whether In use or not. The rental agent Is not responsible for accidents or Injuries caused directly TOTAL DUE or indirectly In the use of the rented Item. CUSTO R'S SIGNATURE L.t—P2 r.sWI REFUND , Z RENTAL. AGREEMENT DECEIVED (11954 CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 2 (661-10-020 ) / BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS �` J OF THE STATE OF OREGON / I 1141- JOW Smith, (( } LtJBA No. Petitioner, } V9. } Respondent . ) STATEMENT OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE C' /7 O _ intends to participate in the above captioned review proceeding. i atute CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on ') z /y '"V, I served a true and correct ropy of this Stag ment of Intent to v Participate on all persons listed in paragraph II of the Notice of Intent to Appeal pursuant to rule 661-10-010 (8) by (a) mail or (b) -peraorta-l- cie,Lj*e-r}c_ Dated: gnatu e 3i O'DONNELL, SULLIVAN & RAMIS A'1 TOf2NEY5 AT LAW CANBY OFFICE MARK P O DONNE"LL 181 N GRANT,SUITE 202 EDWARD J.SULLIVAN' BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING CANBY.OREGON 97013 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS (503) 2 66 1149 1727 N W.HOYT STREET KENNETH M ELLIOTT PORTLAND.OREGON 97209 yALCM olFlC[ CORINNE C. SHERTON STEPHEN F.CREW (503) 222.4402 EOUITARLE CENTER TOWER _.- 530 CENTER S5N.E.,SUITE 240 STEVEN L FFEIFFER KIPKLAND T ROBERTS PLEASE REPLY TO PORTI AND OFFICE SALEM.OREGON 97301 (503) 378-9191 ADRIANNE J BROCKMAN 'AOUIT tCO IN ONFGON AND THE OF COUNSEL DISI.ICT OI COI Uw EIA August 23, 1984 Mr. Ferd Moreno 14430 S. W. McFarland Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re : LUBA Appeal by Michael Smith Dear Mr. Moreno: Enclosed please find a notice which the City of Tigard. received from the Land Use Board of Appeals. Vire complying with the request and preparing a record to ser s the basis for the appeal. Tigard will not, however, assume responsibility for the defense of the challenge to your permit. It is the city' s suggestion that you or your attorney file a Notice of Inten- to Pa.rticip:te in order to preserve your right to defend the permit. Please consult the Land Use Board of Appeals in Salem fol the specific require- ments. The City will not be making an appearance in the case except to provide the record. Very truly yours, • Timothy V. Ramis TVR: sw Enclosure � cc: Mr. Bill Monahan, Planning Director, City of Tigard Mr. Frank Josselson Mr . Michael Smith .. Land U.se Board of Appeals v'°TOR^TIVE" 106 STATE LIBRARY BUIi_DING, SAI-FM, ORFGUN 97310 PHONE (503) 373-1265 August 13, 1984 Timothy V. Ramis O' Donnell, Sullivan & Ramis 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: Smith v. City of Tigard LUBA No. 84-070 Gear Tim: This is to advise you that a Notice of Intent to Appeal has been filed in the above matter and that Section 661-10-015 of the Board ' s Procedural Rules requires that service be made upon the respondent within 21 days after the date of the land use decision being appealed. The record is to be prepared by respondent and transmitted to the Board within 21 days of the date of such service. I Very truly yours, Lay Kingsley Managem..nt Assistant cc : Frank Josselson AUG 14M4 I I •I I I V PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIGARD, 0RFG0!-' FINAL ORDER 84•-02 PC A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MICHAEL SMITH, FILE NO. HOP 4-84, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTUet Or PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, ENTERING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND A FINAL ORDER. The Director of Planning and D-vetopment issued the decision on April 20, 1984. The Ditector's decision was appealed on April 30, 1984, by Michael Smith. The Tigard Pl&nning Commission heard the above-entitled appeal at ,, special meeting on June 12, 1984. The appellant, surrounding property owners and legal counsel representing the petitioner spoke 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, Michael Smith, requested that the building permit issued to the applicant on November 29, 1983, should be cancelled ,and an occupancy permit should be denied. 2. The appellant 's ,justification is presented in the minutes for the June 12, 1984, Planning Commissioa meeting and in the appellant 's notice of appeal. The appellant spoke at the June 12, 1984, hearing on how the Home Occupation permit violated the Community Developmw- : Code. The appellants attorney, Frank Josselson spoke at the June 121 1984, Planning Commission meeting where he contended that Mr. Moreno had lied to the City, misrepresented the use of the facility and violated almost every City ordinance dealing with single family residential uses. 3. The relevant approval criteria in this matter are contained in Section 18.142.050 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The appellant has the burden of proof to show how these criteria were not met in the original application. Tile 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 property under Chapter 18.46 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The appellant has not provided convincing testimony to the contrary. 2. Approval criteria number B. under Section 18.142.050 and reads: "The Home Occupation shall be operated entirely within: 1 . The dwellwing unit and the use ami the storage of material and products shall not occupy more r_han 25% of the gross floor area." The applicant provided the City witl• documentation that less than 252 cf the house would be used for Iht• residential home and associated storage. The appellant has not provided a,,} verification or testimony that the applicant exceeds this requirement . FINAL ORDER HOP 4-84 Page 1 3. Approval criteria number C. under C:ction 18.142.050 reads: "The use shall be a secondary 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 two supports this contention. The appellant has not provided evidence to the Commission that the residential home is the primary use. 4. Approval criteria number D. under Section 18.142.050 reads: "There shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation; no exterior signs shall be used; no ether 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 the Planning Commission hearing on June 12, 1984, by the appellant of the Moreno home showed no exterior indication of the home occupation such as signs or advertising. 5. Approval criteria number E. under Section 18.142.050 reads: "There shall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products on the premises. Indoor storage of material or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire, Lealth and Housing Codes Slides entered into the record by the appellant at the June 12, 1984, Planning Commission hearing show no evidence of outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products on the premises. b. Approval criteria number F. in Section 18.142.050 reads: "The use shall not include any retail sales other than telephone sales." The residential home use does not involve retail sales. 7. Approval criterld 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 18.1.42.050 reads : "The Home Occupation shall not produce any noise or obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, fumes, or electrical interference detectable to normal sensory perception outside the structure." The appellant did not provide any written or oral testimony as to what, if any, noise, obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, fumes, or electrical interference were evident to normal sensory perception outside the structure, beyond the normal residential 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 perman :it residents of the dwelling." FINAL ORDER HOP 4-84 Page 2 As a condition of approval of the Home Occupation Permit, no people may be employed at the home who are not residents of the home. The applicant testified that this condition was being met. The appellant did not present any convincing testimony to document that there are or will be employees who are not residents of the home. 10. Approval criteria number J. in Section 18.142.050 reads: "The use shall not require any additional parking other than that which is required for the residence." The appellant did not provide any documentation or convincing testimony that the use would require parking other than that required for the residence. The Tigard Community Development Code requires two spaces for each single family dwelling unit, one of which shall be covered. The applicant's home meets this criteria. The development Code does not require additional parking for the residential home. 11. The burden of proof is on the appellant to show how the Directors decision violates a pencedurel process or that the appliant's Home Occupation violates the approval criteria set forth in Section 18.142.050 of the Community Development Code. The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1 . Based on Findings numberF I - 10, the Commission has determined that the applicant's proposal for a Home Occupation permit meets the criteria set forth 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 Home Occupation violates Section 13.142.050 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 Director's decision for approval of the Home Occupation Permit be upheld. It is further order that the appellant be notified of the entry of this order. tn! a/ PASSED: This _� day of ��,,, J 1984, by Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. President - Planning Commission City of Tigard 0535P FINAL ORDER HOP 4-84 Page 3 CITY AF TIFA RD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON July 31, 1984 Michael Smith 11645 SW Cloud Ct. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Smith: Attached is a list of all persons who were notified of the Public Hearing on the Moreno Appeal (HOP 4-84). The final decision has not been mailed and will be mailed upon completion of the minutes of the meeting of July 24, 1984. The period to appeal to LUBA does not begin u:itil the final notice is mailed. Final notice will be mailed to all persons who spoke at the hearing and to all persons named on the attached list. Sincerely, ma awjw& Elizabeth Ann Newton Associate Planner City of Tigard F.AN:ch 12755 S1V ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD. OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 — 11650 SW Cloud Ct. 11760 SW Gaarde Tigard, OR 97223 ( Tigard, OR 97223 SMITH DOUGHERTY FARMER 11645 SW Cloud Ct. 14500 SW McFarland Blvd. 14320 SW High Tor Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 ANDERSON BUTLER LUTON 14225 SW 117th St. 11580 SW Cloud Ct. 11825 SW Wildwood Sr_. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 KNASS STOHR LEWIS 14383 SW McFarland Blvd. 11575 SW Cloud Ct. 11835 SW Wildwood St. Tigard, OR 97,23 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 COFFELT FUGERE 17212 SW Pilkington 14235 SW 115th Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tigard, OR 97223 MILLER SCHULZ Ferd Moreno 14190 SW 117th Avenue 11615 SW Cloud Ct. 14430 SW McFarland Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 TIGHE BRIAN Josselson & Potter 14230 SW 117th Avenue 7630 SW Fir 838 SW First Ave. S 430 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, Oregon 97204 FLOWERS VOGEL 11700 SW Gaarde 14380 SW McFarland Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 GALIGER 10515 SW Carrollview Dr. ' x Tampa, FL 33618 HICKOK GUTWENIGER 14185 SW 117th Avenue 14355 SW McFarland Blvd. Tigard, oR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 CROSSWAY KAUFMANN 11740 SW Gaarde 14425 SW McFarland Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 11645 SW Cloud Ct. Tigard, OR 97224 July 27 , 1984 William Monahan HAND DELIVERED Director of. Planning & Development City of Tigard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Final Order 84-02 PC, File No. HOP 4-84 Bill : Please provide me with a list of awl parties whom the City' s records indicate were mailed written notice of the above-referenced land use decision. I request that this information be sent immediately so that I may file an appeal to the Oregcn Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) in a timely manner as specified by their rules and regulations. Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully, Michael A. math cc. Frank Jossel5on, Attorney for Appellant Timothy Ramis, City Attorney 11. A demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Inspection Office before the existing structures are removed. 12. The subdivision plat shall meet the following standards: a. Vertical Datum shall be City of Tigard (N.G.S. 1929). All existing and established (temporary) bench marks in the vicinity of the project shall be shown on the construction drawing. b. Compliance of 18.160.160 (all) with the following exceptions: 18.160.160 A.2 Capped 5/8" X 30" Iron Rods on surface of final lift will be acceptable. C. Compliance of 18.160.190 (B) d. All storm and sanitary lines shall be placed in positions that DO NOT interfere with centerline monumentation. 13. Lots 8, 9, and 11 shall_ have a minimum frontage of 15 feet on the private street. 14. Lot 11 shall maintain a 10-foot sideyard setback on the south side of the lot . 15. This approval shall be exercised within a period of one year or the approval shall expire. lb. A sidewalk shall be installed on the north side of the street. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.:: APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION HOP 4-84 FERD MORENO NPO # 3 An appeal by Michael Smith 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 10BA lot 3800). Director of Planning and Development Monahan explained why a fifth Commissioner was needed to vote on the final order and that Commissioner Owens had listened to the tape and reviewed the record to become familiar with the record. Associate Planner Newton reviewed the final order. Discussion followed. o APPLICANT - Michael Smith, 11645 SW Cloud Ct. stated that they felt the findings were not findings but conclusions; also that the applicant has the burdon of proof not the appellant and if there is a disagreement they it is up to the Commission to determine who is correct . He did not feel this was reflected correctly in the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 24, 1984 Page 3 o Discussion followed on who was responsible for the burdon of proof. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioners Owens, Butler, and Peterson supported the findings and had no changes. o President Moen made corrections to the wording of the final order. o President Moen moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to accept the final order as corrected. Motion carried 4 - 0. Commissioners Fyre and Bergmann abstaining. 5.3 Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 5-84 CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Associate Planner Liden reviewed changes proposed by staff. Discussion followed r.•egarding changes on Page III-310 c, III-245, III-246, and III-185. Staff requested adding to the change on page III-224 that the conditional use permit must be a "valid" conditional use permit . Commissioner Vanderwood Arrived. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to forward to City Council. with a recommendation of approval. Motion carried by a majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Vanderwood abstaining. 6. OTHER BUSINESS o Discussion of final order for Tigard West. o Commissioner Fyre was selected as second Vice-President in case President Moen and Vice President Owens were unable to attend a meeting. 7. Adjournment - Commission continued with a workshop. Diane M. Jelderks, Secretary ATTEST: A. Donald Moen, President 0555P PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 24, 1984 Page 4 •SENCER: Complete Rams 1,2,S,NO+. Add your address In Me"WORN TO" P 714 137 6 P 2 J. space on reverse. (CONSULT nSTMASTEfl FOR FEF RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL 6 1' The ssrtAaMr1111, edN�l r�,. NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIUFD a r R SItewleMA101RM14dM101Aeerad '��t^""' ?-� NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ❑ 5w.to whom,do.srldsawws � (See Reverse) Z. ❑ RESTRICTED OELIVERY..........ttt . (r,v msvkw odt"An to Nwee�h eatMywi nSent to —_— 0 AW few*Acepf AM.) TOTAL Stree 3. ARTICLE AODR SSED T0: V P.O.,State and 21P#do O Li`4fs`7"d t9 d -- �� Postage 4. TYPE Of SERVICE: 72 NUMBER y ❑REGISTERED ❑INSUREll i3' * Certified Fee — �RTiriED ❑COD ?rl 14 ❑ Special Delivery Fee EXPRESS MAIL -- (Altlnys*Wn signetere M addresses x sem)_ Restricted Delivery Fee I have received"W ankle dsacrlbed Ioove. --- -- - 911 MATURE ❑Addrassse ❑ utharlZed Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered VV _ a Return receipt showing to whom, S' DAT 0 DELIV POSTMARK Date.and Address 0.setwety Imry M in revert dal TOTAL Postage @rkias Y 'r's..,.•. LL , 8 ADDRESSEE*8 ADORE:+S(drY re r Wwwd Q Postmark o U e 2 1� 7. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: u. No v n s 41'Or P 714 137 692 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NOINSURANCE DED NOT FORNTERNAI INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sent t --- � Str P.O, a O _ o s Postage 4, Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered • Return receipt showing to whom, Date,and AddrelLgi Delivery TOTAL Post s LL — Post mark,� ate �X84 .a U. no 11645 SW Cloud Ct. Tigard, OR 97224 July 1 8 , 1934 William A. Monahan Director of Planning & Development City of Tigard 12755 SW Asti St. Tigard, OR 97223 HAND DELIVERED RE: HOP - 4-84 Dear Bill: Enclosed are the 10 slides of the subject property and surrounding neighborhood which you requested from the June 12 , 1984 Planning Commission hearing to be included in the record. At that hearing, our attorney, Frank Josselson, requested a draft of the written findings prior to final action by the Planning Commission. To date, neither Mr. Josselson, I , nor any neighborhood member has received this draft. You will remember the reason we requested this draft is that we believe you and the Planning Commission acted im?properly - both proredurely and substantively - in tentatively denying our appeal . We want to be certain those written findings accurately reflect this hearing in the event we appeal any unfavorable decision to LUBA or seek remedy in District Court. I await your prompt reply. Rk�s,pectfully, , Michael A. Smith cc. Frank Josselson, Attorney for Appelant Tim Ramis , City of Tigard Legal Counsel City Council members COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forward recommendation to City Council for appointment of Russell Krueger and Lee Cunningham to NPO 0 7. Motion carried unanimously. 5.2 APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 4-84, FERD MORENO NPO 11 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 IOBA lot 3800) . Director of Planning and Development Monahan reviewed the packet of information distribi:ted to the Commissioners. He then reviewed the criteria needed to apptove 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 to be heard again. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Ferd, Moreno, 14430 SW McFarland referred to Senate Bill 4713 which allowed this type of use. He thea reviewed the criteria which he had met for approval of the Home Occupatior. Permit. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Frank Jossel.son, 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 violated 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. tic requested the Commission to leny the Home Occupation Pel, ft. 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 den; the application and have the facility torn down. o Rob Walsh, 11545 SW Cloud Court , felt a degree of antagonism 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, 1984 Page 2 o Cathie Sorensen, 11515 SN Cloud Ct. ; Penn Stohr, 15575 SW Cloud Ct; and Ronald Grant, 11865 SW Wildwood, all supported the appeal to have the Home Occupation Lermit denied. o Charles A. Gutweniger, 14355 SW McFarland Blvd., requested the Planning Commission deny the Home Occupation Permit. lie felt a motel had been added in a single family residential area. He felt the applicant was circumventing 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 every City ordinance dealing with single family residential use. He was concerned how the facility would be regulated and enforced. CROSS EXAMINATI'1N AND REBUTTAL o Mr. Harold Carlson, Bull Mountain Road, stated lie had visited Mr.. Moreno's home and was impressed with the interior and exterior looks of the facility 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 that the heat pump was not a problem. Also, the vacant lot adjoining this property nod not been built on because Mr. Moreno's home had ruined the lot. 1) Commissioner Butler asked several questions regarding the use of the fic?lity and how calculations were done to determine the use for the Home Occupation area. o Associate Planner Newton reviewed the floor plans which had been submitted by the applicant . Discussion followed between Commissioners, staff, applicant , and neighbors regarding the number of individuals living in the facility, square footage and how it is being used. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Butler commented that all of his questions had been answered and that the criteria had been met by the applicant . Commissioner Peterson felt all the criterti had been met. Planning Commisston Minutes June 12, 1994 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 Occupatinn 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 mo:•ed and Commissioner Peterson seconded to deny the appeal to deny the Home Occupation Permit HOP 4-84. Discussion followed regarding the findings. Frank Josselson objected to the proceedings 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 majority vote of Commissioners present with Commissioner Fyre voting no. 5.' a. GOAL # 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND 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 into compliance. NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak PUBLIC TESTIMONY o .! B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 303, objected to adding paragraph number two without having additional public input from the NPOs and CCI. On Item n 4 he was confused where the conclusion above was. Discussion with staff followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o President Moen felt this is a clean up item and he had no problem with the additions. Planning commission Minutes June 12, 1984 page 4 'rL46.46. C 1 O ""V "t'` ✓ ! -� c C 4.1 41 c to V, C ..� �1- y / 0 I c �.,c b ck i i t 4. A 6 foot high, sight obscuring fence shall be installed along the northern property line p_ior to issuing occupancy permits. 5. The building setbacks shall be as shown on the applicant's site plan labeled "Plan 7601", reviewed by Planning Commission on .June 5, 1984. 6. 11`is approval is valid for a period of one year. 7. 111e two driveway accesses, storm drainage and holding tank specitication to be worked out with staff. 8. Obtain access permit from Washington County. Access permit will address roadway drainage and sight distance prior to issuance of a building permit. i 9. Assure construction of a sidewalk to County standard prior to issuance of a building permit . 10. Dedicate additional right-ot-way to provide 35 feet trom centerline of Beef Bend Road adjacent to the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Assure installation of street lights (staff to clarify it these mean illuminating) at the access drive and at the intersections of the frontage road with both Bull Mountain Road (staff to clarify that Bull Mountain is necessary) and Beet Bend Road prior to issuance of a buil:iing permit. Comissioner Butler seconded by motion. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.5 APPEAL NOP 4-84 FERD MORENO NPO # 3 Monahan reviewed package of information that was submitted to the Planning Commission. Discussion on how to proceed. o Bob Bledsoe, NPO #3 Chairman, stated the NPO unanimously supports the appeal especially on the grounds that apparently a false application had been submitted. o Attorney Josselson requested the applicant speak first. • APPLICANT: Ferd Moreno, 14430 SW McFarland, responded to allegations made by the appellant. o Discussion followed on the lateness of the hour and when mould he a � )od time to continue to the hearing to. o Commissioner Butler moved to conti:iue NOP 4-84 to the June 12th Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Peterson seconded. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. o Statt noted the next meeting would be held at the Tigard School District Building on Pacific Highway. PLANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1984 Page 7 AGENDA I'T'EM 5.5 JUNE 5, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Members of the Plannirg Commission FROM: William A. Monahan, Cirector of. Planning and Development kw DATE: May 30, 1984 RE: Appeal of Home Occupation Permit of Ferd and Jean Moreno. On March 9, 1984, Ferd and Jean Moreno applied for a home occupation permit to operate a residential home for the handicapped. The planning staff reviewed the application acid supplemental information prior to determining that the application complied with Chapter 18. 142 cf the Tigard Community Development Code. On April 20, 1984, 1 signed the staff report which stated that the approval would be final within ten days unless an appeal was filed. An appeal was filed on April 30, 1984, by Michael Smith and David Hopkins, adjacent property owners within IOC' of the subject property. Since the tiling of the appeal I have met with our Cite Attorney Tim Ramis as well as the petitioner's attorney, Frank Josselson. The result. of our meeting is that Attorney Ramis agrees with the petitioners that the role of the Planning Commission in reviewing this approval centers on finding whether or not each of the ordinance criteria for approval are met based upon substantial evidence in the r9cord. Tie Commission must state in its findings why it believed one side and no• the other. For your use in conducting Lhe review, the following are attached: 1 . Home Occupation Permit Application and letter of March 9th. 2. Chapter 18.142 of the C-mmuni y Development code. 3. Letter of March 12 - Willia A. Monahan. 4. Letter of March 13 - Ferd Moreno. 5. Notice of Decision - HOP 4-84 - April 20. 6. Notice of Appeal. April 30 7. Letter of May 15 - Frank Josselson 8. Letter of May 16 - Frank Josselson 9. Letter of May 25 - Attorney Ramis Section 18.32.230 of the Code states that the appeal of a decision nade by the Director shell be de novo and conducted as if brought under Section 18.32.090 (B) or (C) - the regular procedure used by the Planning Commission. 114481' HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT APPLICATION / This application shall include the following: I. The required fee as established by ^�/^� T ^p(� the City Council. CI1 I VT I'17NriW 2. Three (3) copies of the attached _ sheet of questions with responses. �! 3. 'list of names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 10v feet t of the site. No application will be accepted unless it is accompanied by all of the above. APPLICANT: C /:z ADDRESS: ADDRESS: y y`j Q_ M Is applicant the occupant of residence on site? � BUSINESS NAME: HOME 1'E LEP LONE NUMBER: `o`O-��7v B(rSINESS PHONE _ EXPLLAIN TH NATUREOF THE BUSINESS. . .BE SPECIFIC. . ./ / This application shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. Certain conditions m9y be added to the approval of this permit. Pr;-r to commencement of business, you will obtain a Business Tax Receipt. (Signature / ( (Date) It approved, your Home Occupation Permit will be valid for one year and may be renewed anAally. (0251P) TO APPLY FOR A HOME OCCUPANCY PERMIT PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Will you have any employees at the residence? C s 2. Will you have customers/clients coming to your residence? if so how many per day? --5 "/ �m 3. Will you have deliveries or pickups made of products or supplies to your residence? If so, how many and what type? yQ 4. Whst will your hours and days of operation be! Con \ii n 5. Will the business generate any noise which can be heard outside of the structure? lVd 6. How many square feet is your residence and how many square feet will be devoted to the operation of your business, including storage area/s? ��d �� JDDI� or �GSs �ay DvS the sS 7. What vehicles will be associated with the bus.ness that will be garaged at the residence? B. Will you store any materials, vehicles or products outdoors at the premises in conjunction with the business? (/ j 9. Will you have any signs or advertising visible from the exterior of the premises? (.dmj(0257P) r 4 ,Q / C 4"`7 SCEft MAR 12 1984 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. CA 1 ,� s . /3, "-�zll ,7 - d 18. 142 HOME OCCUPATIONS 18. 142.010 Purpose A. It is the purpose of this Chapter to regulate home occupations in residential zones in a manner that will ensure that the use is. 1 . A secondary, lawful use to the primary residential use of the premises upon which they are found, and 2. Not disruptive on the residential area. 8. The standards contained in this Chapter are intended to assure that home uccupations will be compatible and consistent with the residential uses and will not have a detrimental effect on the neighboring properties. 18. 142.020 Exemptions Garage sales are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. 18. 142.030 Administration and Approval Process A. The applicant of a hone occupation propcsal shall be the occupant of the property. 8. A Pre-Application Conference with City staff is required in accordance with Section 18.32.040. C. Due to possible changes in State statutes, or regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the Pce-Application Conference is valid for not more than 6 months. 1 . Another Pre-Application Conference is required if any variance application is submitted 6 months after the Pre--Application. 2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this Chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standard, criteria or requirements of the application. D. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny any application fur a home occupation. The Director shall apply the standtardi set forth in Section 18 . 142.0r�0 of this Chapter when reviewing an application for a home ocf:upation. E . Notice of the Director's decision shall be given as provided by 18.32. 120. The decision of the Director may be appealed in accordance with Section 18.32.310 III - 275 18.142.040 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time Revocation A. Approval of a home occupation by the Diro.ctor shall be effective for a one-year period. d. The Director shall renew the permit upon: 1. Application and payment of a fee by the applicant; 2. Finding that: a. All of the conditions of approval have been satisfied; b. There has been no change in the original application approved by the Director; C. There have been no changes in the facts or applicable policies on which the approval was based; d. The applicable approval criteria in 18.142.050 are satisfied. C. The Director shall give notice of the renewal as provided by 18.32. 120 and the decision may be appealed as provided by 18.32.310(A) . 0. The Director may revoke a home occupation approval if the conditions are not satisfied as provided by Section 18.32.250(F) . 18. 142.050 Approval Criteria A. The use shall be a lawful use which shall be carried on by the cccupants of the dwellings; B. The Home OCCLI +tion shall be operated entirely within: 1 . The dwelling unit and the use and the storage of material and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the gross floor area. C. The use shall be a secondary use to the primary use of the house as a dwelling; D. There shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation; no exterior signs shall be used; no other on-site advertising visible from the exterior shall be used which informs the public of the use except of the address of the home occupation may be displayed; E. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehiclts or products on the premises. Indoor storage of material or products mall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire, Health arxi Housing Godes. III - 276 F. The use shall not include any retail sales other than telephone sales. G. The use shall not involve direct sales or service from the property necessitating customer traffic to the residence. H The Home Occupation shall not produce any noise or obnoxious odors, vib►a-ions, glare, fumes, or ele::trical interference detectable to normal sensory perception outside the structure, I. There shall be no other employees on the premises other than those who are permanent residents of the dwelling; J. The use shall not require any additional parking other than that which is required for the residence. 18. 142.060 Approval and Compliance for a Business License No business license will be issued For a home occupation until the home occupation application is approved and the applicant certifies that the home occupation will be operated in strict compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and the conditions of approval. 18. 142.070 Time Limit and Revocation A. The Director may approve a home occupation application subject to a specific time period at the termination of which there shall be a renewal application to determine if all of the conditions and provisions of this Chapter have been satisfied. The permit shall be ;-enewed if all of the conditions have been satisfied. B. The Director may revoke a home occupation approval if the conditions are not satisfied as provided by Section 18 .32.250 (F). 18. 142.080 Ap-plication Submission Requirements A. An application shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: 1 . Three copies of the necessary data or narrative which explains how the proposal conforms to the standards in 18. 142.050. T_. A list of names and addresses of all persons who are property owners cf record within 100 feet of the site. 3 . The required fee. III -- 277 CITYOF rIIF.�RD WASHINGTON COLVM,OREGON March 12, 1984 Mr. Ferd Moreno 14430 SW McFarland Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit Dear Mr. Moreno: In reviewing your application for a home occupation, I noted that the space vhich you will be devoting to the operation of your business is 1500 square feet. Please submit a drawing of your floor layout showing the areas to be devoted to the home occupation. Upon receipt of the drawing, we will consider your application. Sincerely, William A. Monahan d Director of Planning and Development (WAM:pm/0354P) - — -- 12755 S W ASH P.O ©GX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH 639-4171 — 11-3 r 3 w 1 NOTLCE OF DECISION HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 4-84 APPLICATION: Request by Ferd Moreno for a Home Occupation Permit to operate a Residential Home for the Handicapped on property zoned R-2 located at 14430 SW McFarland 'Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10 BA Lot 3800) . DECISION: Notice is hP.eby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1 . Background No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Department on this property. 2. VICINITY INFORMATION The subject property is surrounded by parcels that are all zoned R-2 (Residential). 3. SITE INFORMATION AND PROPOSED DESCRIPTION There is a 6,000 square toot home on the property. Ttie applicaat is proposing to use approximately 1400 square feet for handicapped Residents. The applicant and his family will occupy the remainder of the home. 4. AGENCY AND NPO COMMENTS None B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposal appears to be in conformance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 18. 142 of the Tigard Municipal Code. C. DECISION Home Occupation Permit HOP . 84 is approved subject to the following conditions : 1. The square footage of the home used for occupancy by handicapped residents shall not be expanded . 2. There shall be no people employed at the home who are not residents of the home. 3. There shall be no signs or advertising visible from the cxterior of the premises. 4. There shall be no more than five residents of the facility receivi.ng care. 5. The Home Occupancy Permit shall be renewed annually. 6. A Business Tax shall be obtained for the premises. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: h _The applicant b owners _ _Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization `_Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECI:,ION SHALL BE FINAL ON April 3U, 1984 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. E. uestions: If you have any questions, please c2i1 the City of Tigard Planning Department , Tigard City Ball , 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. L William A. Monahan, Director of Planning b Development DATE APPROVED l N n« orris CS Ur JOSSELSON 8C POTTIM SwrE •3o THE DAYTON BUILDING B]B S W.rIRT,T AVENUE 1LI.t.--CNE PORTLAND. OREGON 97204 "011 .'?H-145' April 30, 1984 APR 30 1984 CI ,`;' OF TIGARD Ciyt Recorder PLANNING DEPT, City of Tigard Enclosed for filing is a Notice of Appeal in case No. HOP 4-84. Very truly yours, Frank Jbaeelson FJ/rb Encl . r/ b/ 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF TIGARD 2 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUESTS TO CANCEL BUILDING PERMIT, TO DENY OCCUPANCY PERMIT, 3 AND TO ABATE A NUISANCE 4 In the Matter of the application ) of Ferd and Jean Moreno for a ) 5 Home Occupation Permit for a ) No. HOP 4-84 Residential Home For The ) 6 Handicapped ) 7 8 This is an appeal by Michael Smith ani' David Hopkins 9 ( "Petitioners" ) , of a Home Occupation Permit approved by Mr . William A. 10 Monohan, Director of Planning and Development ( "Director" ) . The 11 permit was approved on or about April 20, 1984 for Ferd and Jean 12 Moreno ( "Applicants" ) , who own property and reside at 14430 S .W. 13 McFarland in Tigard. Petitioners Smith and Hopkins own and reside 14 on S .W. Cloud Court, adjacent to and directly across the street, 15 respectively, from applicants' property. Applicants requested the 16 Permit to enable themselves to establish and operate a Residential 17 Home For The Handicapped out of their residence. A copy of the 18 Director' s Notice of Decision .is attached to this Notice of Appeal . ly Petitioners each own a home and reside on properties located 20 within 100 feet of Applicants ' . Petitioners are within sight and 21 sound of AP plicants' property, are adversely affected and aggrieved 22 by the decision of the Director, and are legally entitled to notice of 23 proceedings involving Applicants ' property. Applicants have installed 24 a heat pump, or heating and ventilation system, noise from which 25 interferes with Petitioners' quiet enjoyment of their properties. 26 Petitions have minor children, to whom Applicants' property constitutes Page 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL I an attractive nuisance. Applicants ' property is unsightly, impairs 2 the view from Petitioners' homes, and diminishes their property 3 values. It is a vector breeding ground. Applicant fails to maintain 4 his structure and yard, which constitute a private nuisance as to 5 Petitioners, and a public nuisance under Tigard Code Sections 6 7 .04.010, 7 .04.020, 7 .04.034, 7 .04.050, and 7 .47 .070. 7 The grounds for this appeal are: 8 1 . The use proposed would be a primary, and not a secondary, 9 use of Applicants ' property (Section 18. 142 .010(A) ; ) 8 . 142 .050(B) ) 10 (unless otherwise specified, all citations herein are to the Tigard 11 Municipal Code) ; 12 2. The use proposed would be disruptive to the residential. 13 area, inconsistent and incompatible with surrounding residential uses, 14 and would have a detrimental effect on neighboring properties 15 (Section 18. 142 .070( B) ) ; 16 3 . The proposed use and the storage of material and products 17 would occupy more than 25 percent of the gross floor area ( Section 18 18 . 142 .050(B) ) ; 19 4. There is ,nd would be outdoor storage of materials , vehicles 20 or products on the premises, and indoor storage of materials or 21 products will exceed the limitations imposed by the Building, Housing, 22 Fire, and health Codes (Section 18. 142 .050(E) ) ; 23 5 . The proposed use would pror,uce noise, obnoxious odors, 24 vibrations, glare, and fumes detectable to normal sensory perception 25 outside the structure ( Section 18 . 142.05001 ) ) ; 26 6. There would he employees who ary tio�t permanent residents Page 2 - NOTICE OF AI111EAI, R i i J 11� 111 1(I 1�1 1 111 III �1 I III III 1(i ii I 11 1111 I�1 (�I•Irl 1 1 �1 1 It 111 1�I I I 1 I I I I( 11 I I I 1 I I (�I 1 f 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I � ( r 1 1 1 1 III 11 111 1 I S I I ,., . .,� ,.,��rrewn , OL NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED ---�I -�—�-- 2 4 5 6 7 0 I I 12 1 • DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE,- IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. OE aZ 9Z LZ 9Z SZ 111P EZ ZZ IZ OZ at 81 LI 1111 91 Irl fl ZI II 01 d 9 L 9 S 0 E Z ►lllunbulllluluulu11111111uIIIlII11tInlllnitt111ttN11► MI1/1 I�Itlfln 11t1111Ul�Illutllllllllll III IlolhollIII 11111111U111 611111111imil 1111U bwu11111ullIiiIii omshmii1 hAIiJu&u6hiu1j,i InWWhIN �h.».......�. r+11n1111aIt1+111��111nr1 JANUARY 9 1992 �Vr.-Msbra- rur� �'�' : , ,, b �:.. w „ n. I (Section 18. 142.050( I ) ) ; 2 7 . The use would require parking other than that required for 3 the residence (Section 18- 142. 050(J ) ) ; 4 8. The use will involve direct sales or service from the 5 property necessitating customer traffic to the residence (Section 18 . 142. 05C (G) ) ; 7 9 . Applicants lack adequate off-street parking to accommodate 8 the pruposed use (Section 18. 106.030(A) ; 18. 106.020; 18. 106.010; 9 18. 106.015) ; 10 10. Access to Applicants ' property is legally inadequate I 1 G_h . 18. 108) ; 12 11 . Applicants have failed to provide landscaping and screening 13 as required by Chapter 18. 100; 14 12 . On or about November 29, 1984, Applicants applied for and 15 sect,red a building permit to construct an addition to their residence. 16 The building permit application specified it was for an 1159 square- 17 foot "addition to single family dwell? ng. " The building permit applica- 18 tion was false in that Applicants understated the number of square 19 f-et to be constructed, and falsely stated the nature, purpose, and 20 proposed use of the addition. The addition is to be used for handi- 21 rapped bedrooms and accommodations. 22 13 . Applicants have failed to secure Site Development Review as 23 roquired by Chapter 18. 120; 24 14 . Applicants failed to secure approval for an Accessory Use `y roqu red by Chapter 18. 144; 26 15. Applicants failed to secure approval for an unlir a 1r; P"V 3 - NOTICE OF APPEAL, I under Chapter 18.43; 2 16 . Applicants have failed to describe their facilities or 3 proposed operation sufficiently to enable the City of Tigard to 4 ensure, by application of conditions Dr otherwise, the health and 5 safety of the proposed residential facility for its handicapped tenants; 6 17 . Applicants ' property is currently in violation of. City and 7 DEQ noise standards. Approval of the application violated DEQ and 8 City noise standards and LCDC Goal 6; 9 18. Neighborhood streets are unable to accommodate the additional 10 traffic to be generated by the proposed use. Approval of the applica- 11 tion therefore violated LCDC Goal 12 and Tigard Comprehensive Plan 12 Volume 2, Chapter 55; 13 19. In the construction of the propc-od facility, Applicants 14 have failed to comply with State Health Division and [uniform Buildinq 15 Code standards designed to assure the healthfulness and safety of 16 such facilities; 17 20. Approval of this application violated LCDC Goal I inasmuch 18 as no citizen involvement was sought or had; 19 21 . The conditions attached to this application are insufficient 20 to ensure that Applicants ' property will not remain and become _,n 21 even greater nuisance, annoyance, and disturbance to petitioners, 22 their properties, and other neighbors and neighboring properties, ' 23 and to the public. 24 22 . Before approving any use of Applicants " property, the City 25 should require Applicants to abate existing nuisance conditions, and 26 A19C 4 - NOTrCE OF APPEAL I should institute such safeguards as may be appropriate to prevent 2 further or repeated violations . 3 23 . For reasons set forth in Paragraph Nos . 7 , 9, 10, 11, 12, 4 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21, the building permit issued to Applicants or, 5 November 29, 1983 should be cancelled (see Section 18. 32. 390(A) (1. ) ) , 6 and an occupancy permit should be denied. 7 The Director' s decision in this case and his Notice of 8 Decision appear to be contained in the same document, which bears 9 the date "4/20/84" . The notice specifies that, unless appealed, 10 the decision will become final on April 30, 1984. The proposed 11 decision was filed un April 20, 1.984; notice of the proposed decision 12 was "given" on April 20, 1984; notice of the proposed decision was 13 published in the newspaper on April 19, 1984. 14 Petitioners did not receive notice of this decision until 15 April 23, 1984, and had limited time to secure legal counsel, prepare 16 this Notice, and file this Notice. There was not a proceeding in 17 which a record is made and kept, and there was, therefore, no such 18 record to examine. The grounds specified above are not exclusive; 19 additional grounds may be raised at the hearing in this m,,itter. 20 Respectively submitted, 21 22 By �_- 23 Frank� ooselson Of Atto neys for Petitioners 24 25 26 Page 5 - NOTICE OF APPEAL LAw DrrICEs O. .T(ISSEL.SON & Po-rTEl2 SUITf 430 IHE DAYTON BUILOING TELE■ F530 S w FIRST AVENUE TELEPHONE '7 352 PORTLAND. OREGON 97204 (503) ?213-145'S May 15, 1984 Mr. Tim Ramis City ;attorney 1727 N. W. Hoyt St . Portland, OR 97209 Mr. Rill Monahan Planning Director City of 'Tigard 12755 S .W. Ash Tigard, Oregon Re: Appeal Of Smith and Hopkins/Moreno Gentlemen: We are attorneys for neighbors of Ferd and Jean Moreno who are concerned about the Moreno' s establishment of a residential home for the handicapped. The reasons they are concerned are that the Morenos chronically fail to keep and maintain their property in an attractive condition; fail to cut their grass and weeds; maintain open piles of junk and rubbish; and are generally poor neighbors. Our clients are not apposed to the Moreno' s use of their property for a handicapped residence, so long as it is controlled. They arc, ho%:,ever- , afraid, given their experience, that if the Morenos are permitted to add tenants and employees, the propert-y will become even more of a nuisance than it is presently . In the course of our research on the pending home occupation permit proceeding, we have discovered a number of important city ordinances that have been and are being violated by the Morenos. The purpose of thin lnttAr is to bring the most serious of these violations to your attention and to request that the law be enforced against the Morenos. Refore discussinq the ordinance violations, we will cigar away the smokescreen hehind which many of the violations have been concealed, ORS 443 . 580 et seq. May 15, 1984 Page 2. 1 . ORS 443 . 580 et seq.--does not enable_a property downer to construct a multi-family dwelling in a single family zone, or to violate other land use restrictions �jpklicable to new construction within a zone. ORS 443 . 600 states: "(1 ) A residential home shall be consid- ered a residential use of property for zoning purposes. Residential homes shall be a permitted use in all areas zoned for residential or commer- cial purposes, including areas zoned for single- family dwellings . No city or county shall enact or enforce zoning_ ordinances prohibiting the use of a residential dwelling, located in an area zoned for residential or commercial use, as a residential home. " (a ) A city or county may impose zoning conditions on the establishment and maintenance of a residential home in an area zoned for residential or commercial use, provided that such conditions are no more restrictive than conditions imposed on other residential dwell- ings in the same zone. " All this statement does is prohibit a city from preventing a dwelling from being used as a residential home for the handicapped. In other words, a city may not prevent a horr.e- owner from taking as many as five handicapped tenants as renters in his home. It is important to identify what this statute does not do. It does not allow new construction to accommodate handicapped tenants . Indeed, it says that the "establishment" of a residential home is subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on other residential dwellings in the same zone. If site development review is required of a boardinghouse or apartment for well people, it is also required of a boarding- house or apartment for handicapped people. The statute does not permit the construction of multi-family dwellings in single family zones . Where the legislature wished to allow such development, it knows how to say so. See ORS 443 . 550 ( Siting of State Licensed Facilities) . May 15, 1984 Page 3 . The Tigard Municipal Code continues to govern the kinds of construction, development, and activities that are permitted in a single family zone. 2 . Ordinance Violations The least serious of the violations committed by the Morenos is that of the Koine occupation ordinance. The Morenos have, with apparent impunity, wilfully violated and flaunted several important city ordinances. Many of these_ violations involve a deception relating to the construction of the new wing on their home. In November 1983, when the Morenos applied for a building permit to construct the addition to their home, they stated that it was for 1159 square feet and for an "addition to single family dwelling. " Subsequently, in correspondence with Mr. Monahan, they repeated that the new addition was for single- family occupancy . A . The structure is a multi.-famt-�, croup residential. home. It is clear that the structure was designed and was intended all along to be used for multi-family occupancy. The word "family" is defined in Code Section 18. 26.030 to mean: "An individual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage or a group of not more than 5 person;. (exciuding servants) who are tint related by blood or marriage. " (Emphasis supplied. ) The structure being built is for the use of the Moreno family and five handicapped tenants plus one live-in employee. This is more than a single "family. " Among Tiqard' s building types, what is being built is a "Muliple Family Dwelling" , that is, "A structure containing at least three ( 3 ) dwelling units in any vertical or horizontal arrange- ment, located on a single lot or development site. " Section 18 . 26.030. Among Tigard' s residential use type classifications, this use most closely resembles "Grout, Residential " , that is, living units containing "groups of more than five (5 ) persons who are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and where communal kitchen/dining facilities are provided. Typical uses include occupancy of retirement homes, boarding houses, cooperatives, .and halfway houses. . . . " See Section 18.42.020( A) ( 5) . The Morenos ' home is not a duplex because it. contains more than two dwelling units. See Section 18.42.020(A) (2 ) . Tt is IOSSELSON Lie 1 01"rnui May 15, 1994 Page 4. not a "Group Care Residential" facility because it is not "authorized, certified, or licensed by the State. " See Section 18.42.020 (A) (3 ) . It is not a "Residential Home (Residential Care Facility) " because it houses more than five people. See Section 18. 42.020(A) (7 ) . B. The building permit should be revoked and a certificate of occupancy should be denied. Code Section 18. 32. 390(A) provides: "A. The Hearings Authority may, after a hearing conducted pursuant to this Chapter, modify or revoke any approval _granted pursuant to this Chapter for any of the following reasons: "1 . A material misrepresentation or mistake of fact made by the applicant in the application or in testimony and evidence submitted, whether such misrepresentation by [sic_: "be"] intentional or unintentional. ; or "2. A failure to comply with the terms and conditions of approval ; "3. A failure to use the premises in accordance with the terms of the approval ***" The grounds for revocation are, first, that the Morenos mis- represented the use to be made of the structure, and failed to disclose that it was a multi-family use ( i .e. , Group Residential ) . Moreover, we suspect that the building size in the permit application, i.e. , 1159 square feet , was only half the size of the building constructed. Mr. Ed Walden, Tigard Building Inspector, told me that the building co,le requirements would have been different if this structure had been identified in the application as a multi-family structure. It might be noted that the filing of a false building permit application is a criminal offense called unsworn falsification, ORS 162 .085 . Second, the use is not permitted in an R-2 zone.. Group Residential. uses are not permitted either outright or as conditional uses in an R-2 zone, or, for that matter, in any single family residential zone. They are allo-4ed as condi- tional uses in certain multiple family zones, see, e.g . , -lossm'Sor & 11o'r-1.14,R May 15, 1984 Page 5 . Sections 10. 54 . 040( E) (R-12 zone) ; 10. 56.040( E) (R-20 zone) , and are allowed outright only in the R-40 zone (Section 10 . 58. 030( E) ) . Code Section 18. 2.0 provides that: "Any permit or approval issued or granted in conflict with the provisions of this chapter shall be void. " The building permit is void. For these same reasons, no certificate of occupancy should be issued. See Code Section 18. 18. C. The Morenos failed to secure site development review as required ]_law. Site development review is required of any new multi-family development. Code Section 18. 120.020(A) . Before issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy, site development review is necessary. Chapter 1.8. 120 cont,,-, ns numerous requirements relating to architecture, landscaping, access and parking, drainage, private and shared outdoor recreation are.-as, noise, buffering, screening, and compatability, none of which have been applied to this development. D. The Moreno property is and has been a�public nuisance. Tigard code Section 7 . 04.010(5 ) prohibits the maintenance of any condition on private property which causes noise un- reasonably offensive to the public. Morenos have a hest pump outside their home which creates a great deal of noise for neighboring property owners . Had Morenos been subjected to Site Development Review, this nuisance could have been dealt with . Section 18. 120. HE ,A) (S) . Tigard Code Section 7 .04.020 requires property owners between the months of May and September to "cut and remove, and keep cut and removed all weeds, thistles, burdock, ferns, and other noxious vegetation, and all grass more than ten inches in height, and all dead bushes, dead trees, stumps, and any other thing likely to cause fire. " Tigard Code Section 7 .04.030 requires property owners to remove and keep removed all filth, rubbish, waste ►naterial , and any other substance which may endanger neighbors, passersby, ,)o5SEMSON & I'c3•rTER May 15, 1984 Page 6. or the public. Section 7 .04.050 prohibits the open storage of junk for more than five days. The Morenos chronically fail to keep their yard in a well- maintained condition, fail to cut grass and weeds, and maintain open piles of rubbish and junk . Their house and yard are maintained so poorly that they seriously detract from the appearance and value of neighboring properties. Violations of the city nuisance laws are Class C misdemeanors, and each day is a separate offense. The Morenos have never, to our knowledge, been prosecuted for violations of these ordinances, even though the city is often required to send officials to their house to enforce the laws . 3 . Conclusion The Morenos are in violation of most every city ordinance applicable to the construction and maintenance of residential property. Their building permit application falsified the purpose and use for the addition to their home. The addition to the home converts the home to a multiple family structure which is not permitted in the R-2 zone. The Morenos failed to sect-ire site development. review. They do not maintain their grounds , which are kept in a nuisance condition. Quite frankly, many of the Morenos ' neighbors have been afraid to alert the authorities, or even publicly to participate as parties to the pending home occupation permit proceeding, for fear of intimitation, physical violence or retaliation by Mr. Moreno. The morenos ' neighbors are not opposed to Morenos' use of their property for a residential home, so long as the permit contains enforceable conditions compelling the Morenos just to he good neighbors. I feel differently. These people have chosen to live in a fine community, among decent, law-abiding people. It is an affront to the city and to the neighborhood to allow plain and important ordinance violations to go uncorrected. if the Morenos are allowed by the city to perpetuate and profit from these violations, there will never be any reason to expect them to abide by conditions, however restrictive, in a home occupation permit. JOSSELSON & DOTTER May 15, 1984 Page 7. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City of Tigard direct its city attorney immediately to institute proceedings for declaratory judgment and injunction to: 1. . Cancel the November 29, 1983 building permit; 2 . Demolish the addition to the Moreno home; 3 . Order the property restored to its condition prior to commencement of the new construction; 4 . Permanently enjoin the Moreno to comply with the nuisance provisions .in Tigard Code Sections 7 .04.010, 7.04 .020, 7 .04.030, and 7 .04.050. Thank you for your attention to this lonq letter. Sincerely yours, Frank .7sselson FJ/cb '1d3Q om"1-11- -d .Josst.tso. Ns 1'arri:i`I (1),4V911 10 010 SUITE .lO THE DAYTON BUILDING I 1 I lIE• 83f3 5 W --,r .vCNVC I r�''' �1 �• "V E� 111 It 1Nf PORTLAND. OREGON 97204 I May 16, 1984 Mr. Timothy V. Ramis Tigard City Attorney 172.7 N.W. Hoyt St . Portland, OR 97209 Re: Appeal of Home Occupation Permit Of Ferd and Jean Moreno Dear Mr. Ramis: As you know, our clients Michael Smith and David Hopkins have appealed a decision of the Tigard Planning Director to issue a Home Occupation Permit to Ferd and Jean Moreno to enable the Morenos to establish a residential home for the handicapped. We understand that the appeal will be heard by the Tigard Planning Commission the first week in June 1.984. We are informed that the Planning Commission ordinarily sits without legal counsel present. We there- fore respectfully request a legal opinion as to procedures to be applied at the hearing. The Tigard Home Occupation ordinance contains nine criteria for the approval of Home Occupation Permits . These aie listed as subparagraphs 1.8. 142.050(A) through (J ) of the Tigard Municipal Code. We believe that at the Planning Commission hearing, the Morenos ,ill have the burden of proving that each of the nine approval criteria is or will be satisfied by their proposal . In order to approve issuance of the permit, the Planning Commission will have to adopt a written statement setting forth its findings on issues of fact and its legal conclusion. Where a given fact is in dispute, that is, where there is contradictory testimony, the Planning Commission must state in its findings why it chose to believe one witness, and not to believe the other. For the Morenos to prevail, the Planning Commission must find that on each disputed issue, the greater weight of the evi- dence supports the Moreno' s position. IOSSI 1.tii)N Ft f'<>TTH'I? May 16, 1984 Pagt� 2 . We respectfully request that before the hearing you send me a letter stating whether it is your opinion as Tigard City Attorney that the stp.tements made in the preceding paragraph of this letter are correct. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Frank Josselson FJ/cb CC: Mr. Bill Monahan O'DONNELL, SULLIVAN & RAMIS cAr.•v orrlc[ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1B1 N202 511.1E 202 MAIlK P U DONNELI LAN 1.v.OREGON 97013 EUWARD J SULLIVAN' 4 EJALL.OW & WRIGHT BUILDING Ir,oal 266 11149 IIMUIilY V RAMIS 1727 N W 010" STRUT ----- KENNEIH M ELLIOTT CONINNL C SHF RTON PORTLAND OREGON 97209 'rry•E EES,--�ry��+ SALEM or►ICE STEPHEN F. CREW 1503! 222.4102 flM�� R if111 TEN E . Sum 240 SIEVCN L PFEIFFER �1� ,L1� EGON 97701 KIRK.LAND T ROBCRT�. PLLASL REPLY 10 PORTLAND Off IC( �( 2 ry/ (J I 789191 E 2 ADRIANNJ BROCKMAN MAY �JeA��.1 0••,00r.Sao.••. Or CuuNsc' unl,ncl u.cu.use.. CITY OF TIGARD May 25 , 1984 PLANNING DEPT, Mr . Frank Josselson Attorney at Law 42.0 The Dayton Building 838 S. W. First Avenue Portland, Oregon 977.04 Re : Appeal of tiome Occupation Permit of Ferd and Jean Moreno _ Dear Mr. Josselson: I am writing in response to your letter of May 16 , 1984 requesting an opinion as to the burden of proof borne by the applicant in the above case. I am in agreement with the analysis you set forth in the letter . The Planning Commission must find that each of the ordinance criteria are met based upon substantial evidence in the record . The Land Use Board of Appeals and the appellate courts have found that on disputed issues the decision maker must state in its findings why it believer] one version of the evidence and rejected the other. I hope this letter will be halpful to the Planning Commission and to the parties. I am senaing a copy of this letter to the Planning Director for inclusion in the record of the case. Sincerely yours, Timothy V. Ramis V%"P:Ili ch Cc : Mr. Bi1.1 Monahan i f881'8Z AwW aSTTgnd—98W9-LL •(0og lot Vaoi ISt WIDA) P°II'Ue s AS OEbii :pa,v w, 'L-H pauoz AjQdosd'paddvaipuvq 010 J 1 0"1011�Q� v a,eJado 01 t•TI F uv d0H J01 luwdds o,Joix+Jia ,.! E n OdN ON3L�OW ti82i:i t"dOH JIWI[3dN0I,LVdfM0'3I�1 uv H Jo pyd�SY ,(0001101 Vol In KL:),%)P �1L PuQ laag 10 Jousoa ,AN:PO wml'oi4l POi�oT ti;JOdaacl ,1�,8t 0d ,zo us 1noglW s2ulpllnq uzabisq'uojjw9dat NO 90npot.,PkI0P.,Rit;wi 4!�ddv Jot oQIV aa1711Wa1 Pa1viOJ'8luatudolaeap isiznapisat.lNn b uv 10 £it odN IN11IM073A•3H X10 MJ.D(1S MMa llh �dS.f Rhos alive;5k (0041013C(E£ IST WL�M) • 00edsFdpuvd.pAmAkti%to-xolaauviJgA �J = 11114£1 MS 10 OPTS 1'9"pals�o'•17Nn uap p nw v Jo3 Y puv QdZi Z(pouoz tgsadoid uo luaaidola"P Ivp 1 lWa 1.711 Lit OWN H 493nux 113SS[IH f8-R A--qONViHVA CNV W"SCISAyd Jdt MdO I3A8Q$J,IS L� (10£poi 1111 i ISt WJ�lb, 'AAII Ju13'ki AS WE81I P0.17'ti7�pa�oi , XVQdOJd IMIiwsad gT auo Am ajogm su41e RIPS aail,genii o?v[0da�40� w+ �, 4#OdN 3NI oz)vxal Wk:3-las NOLLd'3JX 3Q03 NOIS a SONI-IY:3H 3ngAd.,, ► ;, - 'ILThBCtt g��iva'�q'lo�tL6 210 I 'pss81i'onu,AV qbV %S 44LZ1 yv 7uvwdotaAa(I puv.Ruluavid 10 J01cwJ$U 910,tUO4 P0alvlgo aq Asw uollmwo1u11aggnrI uggaio:ptd11.'IRulvM:,ASS,£':i8011 'wool,wn,",ioogaS gBiH J01un f Aoimod'lr: d 00L 11196V9 0Pn 'NiM–n& }. no uopgwwo:)Iulauvid prem ow A paJaW00 Aq,IlJ*CL Uv u L .4•, t `. OCID � 04 m n C t? C. O m m y I O 0) Oa £ I y r Q fO1 i d a r `I �'.� > O 2 > m c�Tf y 0 ` O O '� ❑ ❑ > rn m O� p . v t Q R Q Q (t m V h 6dc a _ O «. z E J w Z O `° m.Ix1c r < ♦[ t0 .O Z i7 TT U L K \ f00 � J T N m m C: 41 C m m oQ- yr o , t E Q- c o o m LL ^^ cdoio , (P U) O m02 0 om `! a O � � mumro N to 3 0 i Q ~ D '� rov m 3 o 0 Z_ ;� c o Q1 L v t 00 o r n r, to o4 LL 0 Lo -'4 3 a 0 ON n @t ON �� w E-t c+1 O Q (7 Q C m o o d, ti c N W -43 TN p aC >, C C Q O b 0 L q v5` m00., O m m N v y > oo N O O t1 N U U 7 > m 7.i�0 t0 LL dl t0 O y '«. 7 E Q r4 0 Or (n U :c. p to 0) Q1 m V U E, U 04 N Ui Z n .CD � n c ll Q c m c p a r LL 10 �- 0 d c . c 0 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) 1 , Kathleen Reffett being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: That I am a of •rn aigip fir The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of hearing of the Tigard Planning Commission of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the 25th _day of May 198 4, by riailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B) , said notice as hereto attached, desposited in the United States Mail on the 25th day of May 198 4, postage prepaid. e retary 4t Person who deli ed to POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn to before me on the day of _ , J ' NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON h1y Commission Expires: N 0 T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G Notice is hereby given that the Tigard Planning Commission, at its meeting on Tuesday, June 5, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. , in the lecture room of Fowler Junior High School, 10865 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, will consider the following application: FILE NUMBER: HOP 4-84 APPLICANT: Josselson & Potter for OWNER: Ferd Moreno Michael Smith & David Hopkins 14430 SW McFarland Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon REQUEST: An appeal of the the Planning Director's approval for a Home Occupation Permit to operate a Residential Home for the Handicapped on property zoned R-2. LOCATION: 14430 SW McFarland (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10BA lot 3800) (See map on reverse side) The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Community Development Code and rules of procedure of the Planning Commission. Any persons having interest in this matter may attend and be heard, or testimony may be submitted in writing to be entered into the record of the initial hearing. For further information please contact the Planning Department at 639-4171. TIGARD CITY HALL, 12755 S.W. Ash Avenue (Corner of Ash Avenue & Burnham Street) , or contact your Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) # 3 Chairperson Bob Bledsoe � Phone Number 639-8937 (pm/0257P) L -A_ L►._ CL ... 3A ri At D OL aw !Jus cr sw 14 o_ - � / ST I Y puM IM NU?KINS MORSE IS650 SW Cloud Ct. 11760 SW Gaarde Tigard, OR 97223 'Tigard, OR 97223 SMITE DOUGHERTY FARMER 11645 SW Cloud Ct. 14500 SW McFarland Blvd. 14320 SW High Tor Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 ANDERSON BUTLER LUTON 14225 SW 117th St. 11580 SW Cloud Ct. 11825 SW Wildwood St. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 KNASS STOHR LEWIS 14383 SW McFarland Blvd. 11575 SW Cloud Ct. 11835 SW Wi.ldwood St. Tigard, OR '+7223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 J N COFFELT FUGERE 17252 SW Pilkington 14235 SW 115th Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ( � , Tigard, OR 97223 MILLER SCHULZ Ferd Moreno 14190 SW 117th Avenue 11615 SW Cloud Ct. 14430 SW McFarland Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 TIGHE BRIAN Josselson & Potter 14230 SW 117th Avenue 7630 SW Fir 838 SW First Ave. S 430 'Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, Oregon 97204 FLOWERS VOGEL 11700 SW Gaarde 14380 SW McFarland Blvd. 'Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 GALIGER 10515 SW Carrollview Dr. Tampa, Fl. 33618 HICKOK GU'TWEN1GER 14185 SW 117th Avenue 14355 SW McFarland Blvd. 'Tigard, oR 97223 'Tigard, OR 97223 CROSSWAY KAUFMANN 11740 SW Gaarde Tigard, OR 97223 14425 SW McFarland Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 O'DONNELL, SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW cAN8r FIC MARK P O DUNNELL lift N GRAN, SUIT. SVC 202 EDWARD J SULLIVAN' CANNY,OREGON 97019 SALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING (s03) 2661149 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS KENNETH M ELLIOTT 1727 N.W. HOYT STNEET ___ CORINNE C. SHERTON PORTLAND.OREGON 97209 Rsoffff RALEM OF ICE STEPHEN F CREW 1903) 2224402 LE CENTER TOWER STEVEN L PFEIFFER -- T.N E . SUITE 240 KIRKLAND T. ROBERTS PLEASL REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE EGON 97301 1 78.9191 ADRIANNE J. BROCKM.AN MAY 2) 19{i,A;MIT ON[GON ANO TNt OV COUNSEL DIt INIGT Ut CUL UMAI• CITY OF TIGARD May 25, 19 8 4 PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Frank Josselson Attorney at Law 430 The Dayton Building 838 S. W. First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Re: Appeal of home Occupation Permit of Ferd and Jean Moreno Dear Mr. Josselson: I am writing in response to your letter of May 16 , 1984 requesting an opinion as to the burden of proof borne by the applicant in the above case. I am in agreement with the analysis you set forth in the letter . The Planning Commission must find that each of the ordinance criteria are met bused upon substantial evidence in the record. The Land Use Board of Appeals and the appellate courts have found that on disputed issues the decision maker must state in its findings why it believed one versioi of the evidence and rejected the other. I hope this letter will be halpful to the Planning Commission and to the parties. I am srnding a copy of this letter to the Planning Director for -nclusion 4_n the record of the case. Sincerely yours, Timothy V. Ramis TVR:mch cc: Mr. Bill Monahan May 24, 1984 l a Mr. Bill Monahan Planning Director City of Tigard 12755 S. W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Bill : This letter is to inform you that I request to remove my name from the appeal I filed April 30, 1984 for the Home Occupation Permit submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Moreno and approved by you on April 20, 1984. This request to remove my name from the appeal is subject to a written agreement given to me by Mr. Moreno on May 24, 1984, to complete landscaping by July 30, 1984 and painting of his house by June 15, 1984. Resp ctfully, Dave Hopkins 11650 S. W. Cloud Court Tigard, Oregon 97223 DH:klw JUN 41984 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEFT. LAW OFFICES OF •Idll ONINKIwId JOSSELSON & POTTER CINNc)I I W 00 SUITE 430 THE DAYTON BUILDING V�S�tP]B S.W FIp ST AVENIIF � E r. lib�J AFL NF - - PORTLAND. OREGON 97204 IF I)31 141-'S May 16, 1984 Q Mr. Timothy V. Ramis Tigard City Attorney 1 1727 N.W. Hoyt St. I Portland, OR 97209 Re: Appeal of Home Occupation Permit Of Ferd and Jean Moreno Dear Mr. Ramis: As you know, our clients Michael Smith and David Hopkins have appealed a decision of the Tigard Planning Director to issue a Horne Occupation Permit to Ferd and Jean Moreno to enable the Morenos to establish a resident?al home for the handicapped. We understand that the appeal will be heard by the Tigard Planning Commission the first week in June 1984. We are informed that the Planning Commission ordinarily sits without legal counsel present. We there- fore respectfully request a legal opinion as to procedures to be applied at the hearing. The Tigard Home Occupation ordinance contains nine criteria for the approval of Home Occupation Permits. These are listed as subparagraphs 18. 142.050(A) through (J) of. the Tigard Municipal Code. We believe that at the Planning Commission hearing, the Morenos will have the burden of proving that each of the nine approval criteria is or will be satisfied by their proposal . In order to approve issuance of the permit, the Planning Commission will have to adopt a written statement setting forth its findings on issues of fact and its legal conclusion. Where a given fact is in dispute, that is, where there is contradictory testimony, the Planning Commission must state in its findings why it chose to believe one witness, and not to believe the other. For the Morenos to prevail, the Planning Commission must find that on each disputed issue, the greater weight of the evi- dence supports the Moreno' s positio. JOSSLLSON 8c PO'TTHR May 16, 1984 Page 2 . We respectfully request that before the hearing you send me a letter stating whether it is your opinion as Tigard City Attorney that the statements made in the preceding paragraph of this letter are correct. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Frank Josselson FJ/cb cc: Mr. Bill Monahan X 7 LAW OFFICES or .JOSSELSON & POTTER SUITE 430 THE DAYTON BUILDING 1 f-I.E+: 838 S.W. FIRST AVENUE TELEPHONE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 (503) 228-1455 May 15, 1984 Mr. Tim Ramis City Attorney 1727 N. W. Hoyt St . Portland, OR 97209 Mr. Rill Monahan Planning Director City of Tigard 12755 S .W. Ash Tigard, Oregon Re: Appeal of Smith and Hopkins/Moreno Gentlemen: We are attorneys for neighbors of Ferd and Jean Moreno who are concerned about the Moreno' s establishment of a residential home for the handicapped. The reasons they are concerned are that the Morenos chronically fail to keep and maintain their property in an attractive condition, fail to cut their grass and weeds; maintain open piles of junk and rubbish; and are generally poor neighbors. Our clients are not opposed to the Moreno' s use of their property for a handicapped residence, so long as it is controlled. They are, however, afraid, given their experience, that if the Morenos are permitted to add tenants and employees, the property will become even more of a nuisance than it is Presently. In the course of our research on they pending home occupation permit proceeding, we have discovered a number of important city ordinances that have been and are being violated by the Morenos. The purpose of this letter is to bring the most serious of these violations to your attention and to request that the law be enforced against the Morenos. Before discussing the ordinance violations, we will clear away the smokescreen behind which many of the violations have been concealed, ORS 443. 580 et sec. JOSSELSON & POTTER May 15, 1984 Page 2. 1 . ORS 443. 580 et seq. does not enable a property owner to construct a multi-family dwelling in a single family zone, or to violate other land use restrictions applicable to new construction within a zone. ORS 443.600 states: 11 (1 ) A residential home shall be consid- ered a residential. use of property for zoning purposes. Residential homes shall be a permitted use in all areas zoned for residential or commer- cial purposes, including areas zoned for single- family dwellings . No city or county shall enact or enforce zoning ordinances prohibiting the use of a residential dwelling, located in an area zoned for residential or commercial use, as a residential home. " (a ) A city or county may impose zoning conditions on the establishment and maintenance of a residen teal home in an area zoned for residential or commercial use, provided that such conditions are no more restrictive than conditions imposed on other residential dwell- ings in the same zone. " All this statement does is prohibit a city from preventing a dwelling from being used as a residential home for the handicapped. In other words, a city may not prevent a home- owner from taking as many as five handicapped tenants as renters in his home. It is important to identify what this statute does not do. It does not allow new construction to accommodate handicapped tenants. Indeed, it says that the "establishment" of a residential home is subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on other residential dwellings in the same zone. If site development review is required of a boardinghouse or apartment for well people, it is also required of a boarding- house or apartment for handicapped people. The statute does not permit the construction of multi-family dwelli-gs in single family zones. Where the legislature wished to allow such development, it knows how to say so. See ORS 443. 550 ( Siting of. State Licensed Facilities) . JOSSELSON & POTTER May 15; 1984 Page 3. The Tigard Municipal Code continues to govern the kinds of construction, development, and activities that are permitted .in a single family zone. 2 . Ordinance Violations The least serious of the violations committed by the Morenos is that of the home occupation ordinance. The Morenos have, with apparent impunity, wilfully violated and flaunted several important city ordinances. Many of these violations involve a deception relating to the construction of the new wing on their home. In November. 1983, when the Morenos applied for a building permit to construct the addition to their home, they stated that it was for 1159 square feet and for an "addition to single family dwelling. " Subsequently, in correspondence with Mr. Monahan, they repeated that the new addition was for single- family occupancy. A. The structure is a multi-family, groin residential home. It is clear that the structure was designed and was intended all along to be used for multi-family occupancy. The word "family" is defined in Code Section 18. 26.030 to mean: "An individual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage or a group of not more than 5 persons (excluding servants) who are not related by blood or marriage. " (Emphasis supplied. ) The structure being built is for the use of the Moreno family and five handicapped tenants plus one live-in employee. This is more than a single "family. " Among Tigard' s building types, what is being built is a "Muliple Family Dwelling", that is, "A structure containing at least three ( 3 ) dwelling units in any vertical or horizontal arrange- ment, located on a single lot or development site. " Section 18.26.030 . Among Tigard' s residential use type classifications, this use most closely resembles "Group Residential ", that is, living units containing "groups of more than five (5) persons who are not related by blood, marriage., or adoption, and where communal kitchen/dining facilities are provided. Typical uses include occupancy of retirement homes, boarding houses, cooperatives, and halfway houses . . . . " See Section 18.42.020(A) (5) . The Morenos ' home is not a duplex because it contains more than two dwelling units. See Section 18.42.020(A) (2 ) . Tt is JOSSELSON Bc POTTER May 15, 1984 Page 4. not a "Group Care Residential" facility because it is not "authorized, certified, or licensed by the State. " See Section 18.42.020 (A) (3 ) . It is not a "Residential Home (Residential Care Facility) " because it houses more than five people. See Section 18.42.020(A) (7) . B . The building permit should be revoked and a certificate of occupancy should be denied. Code Section 18. 32. 390(A) provides: "A. The Hearings Authority may, after a hearing conducted pursuant to this Chapter, modify or revoke any approval granted pursuant to this Chapter for any of the following reasons: "l . A material misrepresentation or mistake of fact made by the applicant in the application or in testimony and evidence submitted, whether such misrepresentation by [sic_: "be"] intentional or unintentional. ; or "2. A failure to comply with the terms and conditions of approval ; "3. A failure to use the premises in accordance with the terms of the approval ***" The grounds for revocation are, first, that the Morenos mis- represented the use to be made of the structure, and failed to disclose that it was a multi-family use ( i .e._, Group Residential) . Moreover, we suspect that the cullding size in the permit application, i.e. , 1159 square feet, was only half the size of the building constructed. Mr. Ed Walden, Tigard Buildinq Inspector, told me that the building code requirements would have been different if this structure had been identified in the application as a multi-family structure. It might he noted that the filing of a false building permit application is a criminal offense called unsworn falsification, ORS 162.085. Second, the use is not permitted in an R-2 zone. Group Residential uses are not permitted either outright or as conditional uses in an R-2 zone, or, for that matter, in any single family residential zone. They are allowe(, as condi- tional use-3 in certain multiple family zones, see, e.g. , •JosSELsoN & POTTER May 15, 1984 Page 5. SecfJ ons 10. 54.040(E) (R-12 zone) ; 10. 56.040(E) (R-20 zone) , acid are allowed outright only in the R-40 zone (Section 10 . 58.030( E) ) . Code Section 18.20 provides that: Any permit or approval issued or grr,ued in conflict with the provisions of this chapter shall be void. " The building permit is void. For these same reasons, no certificate of occupancy should be issued. See Code Section 1P. 18. C. The Morenos failed to secure site development_review as required by law. Site development review is required of any new multi-family development. Code Section 18. 120.020(A) . Before issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy, site development review is necessary. Chapter 18. 120 contains numerous requirements relating to architecture, landscaping, access and parkino, drainage, private and shared outdoor recreation areas, noise, buffering, screening, and compatability, none of which have been applied to this development. D. The Morenoro ert is and has been a ublic nuisance. Tigard code Section 7 .04.010( 5 ) prohibits the maintenance of any condition on private property which causes noise un- reasonably offensive to the public. Morenos have a heat pump outside their home which creates a great deal of noise for neighboring property owners . Had Morenos been subjected to Site Development Review, this nuisance could have been dealt with. Section 18. 120. 180(A) (5 ) . Tigard Code Section 7 .04.020 requires property owners between the months of May and September to "cut and remove, and keep cut and removed all weeds, thistles, burdock, ferns, and other noxious vegetation, and all grass more than ten inches in height, and all dead bushas, dead trees, stumps, and any other thing likely to cause fire. " Tigard Code Section_ 7 .04.030 requirea property owners to remove and keep removed all filth, rubbish, waste material, and any other substance which may endanger neighbors, passersby, i i JOSSELSON & POTTER May 15, 1984 Page 6. or the public. Section 7 .04.050 prohibits the open storage of junk for more than five Ways. The Morenos chronically fail. to keep their yard in a well- maintained condition, fail to cut grass and weeds, and maintain open piles of rubbish and junk. 'T'heir house and yard are maintained so poorly that they seriously detract from the appearance and value of neighboring properties. Violations of the cptnuisance off_enseWlas are Class c The Morenos haveemeveors, and each day is a separate to our knowledge, been prosecuted for violations of these ordinances, even though the city is often required to send officials to their house to enforce the laws. 3 . Conclusion The Morenos are in violation of most every city ordinance applicable to the construction and maintenance of residential property. Their building permit application falsified the purpose and use for the addition to their home. The addition to the home converts the home to a multiple family structure which is not permitted in the R-2 zone. The Morenos failed to secure site development review. They do not maintain their grounds, which are kept in a nuisance condition. Quite frankly, many of the Morenos' neighbors have been of-aid to alert the authorities, or even publicly to participate as parties to the pending home occupation permit proceeding, for fear of intimit3tion, physical violence or retaliation by Mr. Moreno. The morenos ' neighbors are not opposed to Morenos ' use of their property for a residential home, so long as the permit contains enforceable conditions compelling the Morenos just to be good neighbors. I feel differently. These people_ have chosen to live in a fine community, among decent, law-abiding people. It is an affront to the city and to the neighborhood to allow plain and important ordinance violations to go uncorrected. If the Morenos are allowed by the city to perpetuate and prci. i_t from these violations, there will never be any reason to expect them to abide by conditions, however restrictive, in a home occupation p-rmit. JOSSEI.SON LSC POTTER May 15, 1984 -Dage 7. For these reasons, T respectfully request that the City of Tigard direct its city attorney immediately to institute proceedings for declaratory judgment and injunction to: 1 . Cancel the November 29, 1983 building permit; 2 . Demolish the addition to the Moreno home; 3 . Order the property restored to its condition prior to commencement of the new construction; 4 . Permanently enjoin the Morenos to comply with the nuisance provisions in Tigard Code Sections 7.04.010, 7.04.020, 7.04.030, and 7 .04.050. Thank you for your attention to this long letter. Sincerely yours, frank J sselson PJ/c1) 01YOF I ARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON May 7, 1984 Mr. Fere Moreno 14430 SW McFarland I Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit HOP 4-84 Dear Mr. Moreno, Please be advisrd that your application for a home occupation permit and my approval of it has been appealed. The appeal was filed on April 30, 1984 , by the law firm of Josselson and Pottir un behalf of Michael Smith and David Hopkins, residents within one hundred feet of your property. As a result of the appeal a hearing will be held on June 5, 1984, by the Tigard Planning commission to review my decision. Please A an to be present at the hearing to discuss the issue. A copy of the appeal is attached for your information. Sin cly, illiam A. M nahan Director of Planning and Development dmj encl . 12755 S W. ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH 639-4171 — wi�k ._,. . . �+, •AAW'1�N�1Y1r1�i�+M". .. mPs . ly',tY' 9 LAW OFFICES OF JOSSELSON & POTTER SUITE 4^O THE DAYTON 61-1ILUIN(:j t Et E. 639 S W. FIRST AVENUE TELEPHONE I 27-352. PORTLAND. OREGON 97204 1503) 22B•145i April 30, 1984 APR 3 0 1984 CITY OF TIGAKD Ciyt Recorder PLANNING DEPT. City of Tigard NF'FEAL, � DATE RECEIVED*�y�� Enclosed for filing is a Notice of Appeal in case No. HOP 4-84. Very truly yours, Frank Ja elson r'J��•l� Encl . 2 BEFORE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF TIGARD 2 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUESTS TO CANCEL BUILDING PERMIT, TO DENY OCCUPANCY PERMIT, 3 AND '"O ABATE A NUISANCE 4 In the Matter of the application ) of Ferd and Jean Moreno for a ) 5 Home Occupation Permit for a ) No. HOP 4-84 Residential Home For The 6 Handicapped ) 7 8 This, is an appeal by Michael Smith and David Hopkins 9 ( "Petitioners" ) , of a Home Occupation Permit approved by Mr. William A . 10 Monohan, Director of Planning and Development ( "Director. " ) . The 11 permit was approved on or about April 20, 1984 for Ferd and Jean 12 Moreno ( "Applicants" ) , who own property and reside at 14430 S .W. 13 McFarland in Tigard. Petitioners 'Smith and Hopkins own and reside 14 on S .W. Cloud Court., adjacent to and directly across the street, 15 respectively, from applicants' property. Applicants requested the 16 permit to enablE themselves to establish and operate a Residential 17 Home For The Handicapped out of their residence. A copy of the 18 Directoc-' s Notice of Decision is attached to this Notice of Apreal . 19 Petitioners each own a home and reside on properties located 1110 within 100 feet of Applicants ' . Petitioners are within sight and 21 sound of Applicants ' property, are adversely affected and aggii_evect' 22 by the decision of the Director, and are legally entit; ed to notice of 23 proceed ;ngs involving Applicants ' property. Applicants have installed 24 a heat pump, or heating and ventilation system, noise from which 25 interferes with Petitioners ' quiet enjoyment of their pr,-�Yerties . 26 Petitions have minor children, to whom A,-)plicants ' property constitutes Page 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL ..___... .. ... .......... ....._. .. _. .._ 1 an attractive nuisance. Applicants ' property is unsightly, impairs 2 the view from Petitioners' homes, and diminishes t;ieiL property 3 values. It is a vector breeding ground. Applicant fails to maintain 4 his structure and yard, which constitute a private nuisance as to 5 Petitioners, and a public nuisance under Tigard Code Sections 6 7 .04.010, 7 .04.020, 7 .04.034, 7 .04.050, and 7 .47.070. 7 The grounds for this appeal are: 8 1. The use proposed would be a primary, and not a secondary, 9 use of Applicants ' property (Section 18. 142.011)(A) ; 18. 142 .050(B) ) 10 (unless otherwise specified, all citations herein are to the Tigard 11 Municipal Code) ; 12 2. The use proposed would be disruptive to the residential 13 &rea, inconsistent and incompatible with surrounding residential. uses, 14 and would have a detrimental effect on neighboring properties 15 (Section 18. 142. 070( B) ) ; 16 3. The pr,3posed use and the storage of material and ,-)roduct.s 17 would occupy mDre than 25 percent of the gross floor area (S,!�ction 18 18. 142.050(8) ); 19 4. There is and would be outdoor storage of materials , vehicles 20 or products on the premises, and indoor storage of materials or 21 products will exceed the limitations imposed by the Building, lmusing, 22 Fire, and Health Codes (Section 18. 142.050(1) ) ; 23 5 . The proposed use would produce noise, obnoxious odors, 24 vibrations, glare, and fumes detectable to normal. sensory perception 25 outside the structure ( Section 18. I42.050(H) ) ; 26 6. There v+ould be employees who are not permanent retsidents Page 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL I (Section 18. 142.050( I ) ) ; 2 7. The use would require parking other than that required for 3 the residence ( Section 18. 142. 0500) ) , 4 8. The use will involve direct sales or service from the 5 property necessitating customer traffic to the residence (Section 6 18. 142.050(G) ) ; 7 9 . Applicants lack adequate off.-street parking to accommodate 8 the proposed use (Section 18. 106.030(A) ; 18. 106. 020; 18. 106.010; 9 18. 106.015) ; 10 10. Access to Applicants ' property is legally inadequate 11 (Ch. 18. 108) ; 12 11 . Applicants have failed to provide landscaping and screening 13 as required by Chapter 18. 100; 14 12 . On or about November 29, 1984, Applicants applied for and 15 secured a building permit to construct an addition to their residence. 16 The building permit application specified it was for an 1159 square- 17 foot "addition to single family dwelling. " The building permit applica- 18 tion was false in that Applicants understated the number of square 19 feet =o be constructed, and falsely stated the nature, purpose, and 20 proposed use of the addition. The addition is to be used for handi- 21 capped bedrooms and accommodations. 22 13 . Applicants have failed to secure Site Development Review as 23 required by Chapter 18. 120; 24 14 . Applicants failed to secure approval for an Accessory Use as 25 required by Chapter. 18. 144; 26 15. Applicants filed to secure approval for an unlisted use P"W' 3 - NOTICE OF APPEAL 1 under Chapter. 18.437 2 16. Applicants have failed to describe their facilities or 3 proposed operation sufficiently to enable tie City of Tigard to 4 ensure, by application of conditions or otherwise, the health and 5 safety of the proposed residential facility for its handicapped tenants; 6 17 . Applicants ' property is currently in violation of City and 7 DEQ noise standards. Approval of the application violat -id DEQ and 8 City noise standards and LCDC Goal 6; 9 18. Neighborhood streets are unable to accommodate the additional 10 traffic to be generated by the proposed use. Approval of the applica- 11 tion therefore violated LCDC Goal 12 and Tigard Comprehensive Plan 12 Volume 2 , Chapter 55; 13 19. In the construction of the proposed facility, Applicants 14 have failed to comply with State Health Division and Uniform Building 15 Code standards designed to assure the healthfulness and safety of 16 such facilities; 17 20. Approval of this application violated LCDC Goal 1 inasmuch 1b as no citizen involvement was sought or had; 19 21 . The conditions attached to this application are insufficient 20 to ensure that Applicants ' property will not remain and become an 21 even greater nuisance, annoyance, and disturbance to petitioners, 22 their properties, and other neighbors and neighboring properties, 23 and to the public. 24 22. Before approving any use of Applicants ' property, the City 25 should require Applicants to abate existinj nuisance conditions, and 26 Page 4 - NOTICE OF APPEAL 1 should institute such safeguards as may be appropriate to prevent 2 further or repeated violations. 3 23 . For reasons set forth in Paragraph Nos. %, 9, 10, 11, 12, 4 13, 1.5, 18, 19, and 21, the building permit issued to Applicants on 5 November 29, 1983 should be cancelled (see Section 18. 32. 390(A) (1 ) ) , 6 and an occupancy permit should be denied. 7 The Director' s decision in this case and his Notice of 8 Decision appear io be contained in the same document, which bears 9 the date "4/20/84" . The notice specifies that, unless appealed, 10 the decision will become final on April 30, 1984. The proposed 11 decision was filed on April 20, 1984; notice of the proposed decision 12 was "given" on April 20, 1984, notice of the proposed decision was 13 published in the newspaper on April 19, 1984. 14 Petitioners did not receive notice of this decision until 15 April 23, 1.984, ani had limited time to bccure legal counsel, prepare 16 this Notice, and file this Notice. There was nct a proceeding in 17 which a record is made and kept, and there was, therefore, no such 18 record to examine. The grounds specified above are not exclusive; 19 additional grounds may be raised at thi hearinq in this matter. 20 R?spectively submitted, 21 22 By Frank a selson 23 Of Atto-rneys for Petitioners 24 25 26 page 5 - NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE OF DECISION HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 4-84 APPLICATION: Request by Ferd Moreno for a Home Occupation Permit to operate a Residential Home for the Handicapped on property zoned R-2 located at 14430 SW McFarland (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10 BA Lot 3800). DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted i)elow. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Department on this property. 2. VICINITY INFORMATION ;he subject property is surrounded by parcels that are all zoned R-2 (Residential) . 3. SITE INFORMATION AND PROPOSED DESCRIPTION There is a 6,000 square foot home on the property. The applicant is proposing to use approximately 1400 square feet for Handicapped Residents. The applicant and his family will occupy the remainder of the home. Lf. AGENCY AND NPO COMMENTS "one B. ANALYSIO AND CONCLUSION The ptoposal appears to be in conformance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 18. 142 of Che Tigard Municipal Code. C. DECISION Home Occupation Permit HOP 4-84 is approved subject to the following conditions : 1. The square footage of the 'home used for occupancy by handicapped residents shall not be expanded. 2. There shall be no people employed at the home who are not. residents of the home. 3. There shall be no signs or advertising visible from the exterior of the premises. 4. There shall be no more than five residents of the facility receiving care. 5. The Home Occupancy Permit shall be renewed annu.11y. 6. A Business Tax shall be obtained for the premises. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: The applican� 6 owners Owners of record within the required distance The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON April 30, 1984 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. E. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall , 12755 SW Ash, PO Bo) 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. - 7-, William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development DATE APPROVED L V 1 l f- 7 1I fr' 1 i Y, NOTICE OF DECISION HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 4-84 APPLICATION: Request by Ferd Moreno for a Home Occupation Permit to operate a Residential Horne for the Handicapped on property zoned R-2 located at 14430 SW McFarland (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10 BA Lot 3800). DECISION: Notice is `iereby given that tLe Planning Director for the City of Tigard nas APPROVED the above application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusiors on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Department or this property. 2. VICINITY INFORMATION The subject property is surrounded by parcels that are all zoned R-2 (Residential) . 3. SITE INFORMATION AND PROPOSED DESCRIPTION There is a 6,000 square foot home on the property. The applicant is proposing to use approximutely 1400 square feet for Handicapped Residents. The applicant and his family will occupy the remainder of the home. 4. AGENCY AND NPO COMMENTS None B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposal appears Lo be in conformance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 18. 142 of the Tigard Municipal Code. C. DECISION Home Occupation Permit HOP 4-84 is approved subject to the following conditions : 1. The square footage of the ►,ome used for occupancy by handicapped residents shall not ba expanded. 2. There shall be no people employed at the home who are not residents of the home. 3. There shall be no signs or advertising visible from the exterior of the premises. 4. There shall be no more than five residents of the facility receiving care. 5. The Home Occupancy Permit shall be renewed annually. 6. A Business Tax shall be obtained for the premises. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: �• The applicant b owners >( iOwners of record withi , the requirfd distance `X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization )( Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON A2ril 30, 1984 UNLESS AN 1,?PEAL IS FILED. E. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City !Mall , 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, b39-4171. William A. Monahan, Director of Planning 6 Development DATE AP ROVED I f- J T .�� --�r-- ^T _ 1,861 '61 IINdy grll4nd 9it9.L.L { -onoN aQ 04 Illb leadde uv - Uo BuNeaq oq.L'Ml '0£11jdV Si lRadde un go Aulilg.jog aulipuep aqL'lugs pue `7' uan jy ay ou.jalge Snap A! ;MD sapino'd p !� p 01 ulgllb Pallg ay new leadde ua lb e go1gM'apoo luawdolan:0 A)VUnwwoJ aql go OL£'Z£'8l uollaas PUB(V)06Z'L£'$1 UOW,rs glib 2111ep10338 UI Uolslaap 9141 teaddB Am uolslaop aql of need AuV 'tool 'O£1pdV uo leUlg aq llegs uolsiaap agy•£7^L6 uo8alO'pjx91L'Z6££Z xog m i!� 'O'd'qsV AAS 9S,Z i 'I113H AJD P19911'luawyjedaQ auluuBld wo ul0.0 Wulel4o .j z gr aq ueu snopipuoa go lua jealegs pua u0191:19p go 9uipuig poldope aqs 4. '(008£ Jul VHOI TSE dBW xul'oJ'gsBAA) pueljgdoW'AA'S OEtti Q is P019301 Z-H pauoz nuodoid uo paddeojpueq agl cog awoH 1BTluaplsa2l e aleaado of lluuad uopednaoO awoH a panorddu Seg.coloaJIQ aulutmd aq.I E#OdN ON3HOW UNRI i J.IWII}3d NOI.LVdn:)Do 3WOH zN003VO 'OYVBIJL :W A119 y cc CL _ 0 � . z Q V 1 cc 0 z Z Al z O O ' I � m O w _ a 0 Z E I'E- ao m cn `ry d 1, W S� 3 \ ctf r:d P, m Q> bn W40 O V `1 pp H LL W Icco p : `«cl 0 0 �; � E � ^�• m v L " O w p ry m m N $ 1� N H �U V «� �q to d N Q (D A V m c°� y0 t 3 0 r o cd t`- Ch O Z H c .a m a m 40 O� LL. Z tL O L' `m N c cd �`� �' o. E-4 ri o Q C, � CL- 0 y J w N LU CI a) 0 m ta = IJ 0 • O MOlt O J-i LL Cm0O� p U) Uy_ L+aPQ W QY w o aai� �v m �, S Ebf) O � O rW F?- c 0 a)0 C ami vOi E li vwE a I'4) m ` c°'� °' o > Q • • • c i 0 I Testimony of Ferd Moreno, City Council Meeting, March 26, 1984 Moreno: My name is Ferd Moreno and I reside at 14430 S.W. McFarland. I live in a big house that' s getting bigger. I didn' t know anything about 478 until I received a copy of it from the City of Tigard. I think it' s the best bill that ever came out. of Salem, the older 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 to 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 olC people live in my home, and I wish that this would be addressed, as far as disruption of the neighborhood is concerned, because that seems 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 on the books as far as the amount of property I can cover with a building . I like a big house 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 !.t complies with the law, and the law right now says that I have several options : I can rent the house; I can sell the house, or I can use it for senior citizens , or I can adopt a family and increase the size of it -- whatever -- or I can live there tty myself. , whatever need be, and I hope to address the fact that the disruption of the neighborhood problem and the traffic, because there are a lot of other things that arp going on in our neighbor- hood that create more traffic than three or four citizens that are legally blind or crippled; they' re not driving any cars or chasing around. Councilwoman Scott : Is your property the one that has the For Sale sign up at the present time? Moreno: Yes, Ma 'am. I Councilwoman Scott: And, then, you are planning on selling I it? Moreno: Yes, Ma 'am. Councilwoman Scott: Another. question I would like to ask: How many carepeople do you have, or how many elderly do you have in the home at the present time? I Moreno: I have Uncle Paul , he 's not a blood relative; he' s legally blind. Councilwoman Scott: Are you planning to have more in the home? or s that ? Moreno: That ' s -- I change like the weather in Oregon, e�penJing on how the reaction of my neighbors. Councilwoman Scott: Well , I think there' s a lot of concern . ere, and I -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 I did ask if you were planning on having any more patients in the home or the care center. Moreno: At this point , nay house is for sale. Councilwoman Scott: Thank you. Moreno: You 're wz.lcomp. l / 1 -eoo &A ..�.;� ,,eat. 71-JA0 '- Il f C1 OFTIGAD WASHINGTON COUNTY,ORECCJN Maren 12, 1984 Mr. Ferd Moreno 14430 SW McFarland Tigard, OR X7223 RE: Home Occu)aEion Permit Dear Mr. Mo-eno: In reviewing your application for a home occupatio,i, I noted that the space which you will be devoting to the operation of yc,.r business is 1500 square ceet. Please submit a drawing of your floor layout showing the areas to be devoted to the home occupation. Upon receipt of the drawing, we will consider your application. Sincerely, William A. Monahan Director of Planning and De-eloimet,' (WAM:pm/0354P) -- -- ---- 12155 i W. ASH P.O BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGOM 97223 PH:839-4171 __j � e MAR I iy84 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. 'fid _ vyu� t7Q�- ex- � G HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT APPLICATION This application shall include the following: I. The required fee as established by the City Council. CITY^r T1GA RD 2. Three (3) copies of the attached sheet of questions with responses. r� 3. A list of names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 100 feet ern of the sit-. No application will be accepted unless it is accompanied by all of the above. APPLICANT: fes^ -- - '" 9 c / ADDRESS:--1Y-Y,30 { MC--F - 1 fi n cI Is applicant the occupant of residence on site? S BUSINESS NAME: HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER: 0 BUS INIESS PHONE ��7 n _�f' (1 EXP;.AIN THF NATURE OF THE BUSINESS...BE SPECIFIC.. . ( a( This application shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. Certain conditions may be added to the approval of this permit. Prior to commencement of business, you will obtain a Business Tax Receipt. (Sig Da e ' If approved, your Home Occupation Permit will be valid for one year and may be rent-wed arually. (0251P) TO APPLY FOR A HOME OCCUPANCY PERMIT PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Will you have any employees at the residence? r , ►0W":aL4'Al' 2. Will you have customers/clients coming to your residence? If so how many per day? _5 e_/ �n� 3. Will you have deliveries or pickups made of products or supplies to your residence? If so, how many and what type? 4. What will your hours and days of operation be? co n fin v SUS 5. Will the business generate any noise which can be heard outside of the structure? y,�f 6. Ho% many square feet is your residence and how many equare feet will be devoted to the operation of your business, including storage areas? r � ' 7. What vehicles will be nssociated with the business that will be garaged at the residence'. 8. Will you store any materials, vehicles or products outdoors ar the premises in conjunction with the business? C' j 9. Will you have any signs or advertising vis .ul.e from the exterior of the premises? (dmj(0257P) Tax Gert- Date Amount $ BUSINESS TAX INFORMATION SHEET C NOF MID miser,ouoa+ r c�� n BUSINESS NAME Q i U) &C, � r c n BUSINESS ADDRESS >WNER S 6 OR PRIMARY CONTACT I STATE, ZIP MAILING ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE NUMBER CITJI, STATE, ZIP NO. OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOY'.h3*** PRIMARY CONTACT PHONE NUMBER ***Full-time equivalent employee to be defined as the total number of hours worked by all employees working within the City of Tigard divided by 2,080 hours equals the number of full-time equivalent employees working within the City of Tigard. 1 DESCRIPTION OF TYPE OF BUSINESS: C� / -Ile- t7rr / �S� ��T� _ lT� /7C// 1 12 5? c7l NOTE: Solicitation Or Sale "Door-To-Door" In Residential Art-..!,us Are Prohibited Within The City Limits of Tigard. NOTE: A Business Tax Receipt Does Not Imply City Approval Or Endcrsement To Operate The Business Or The location Of The Business. Qjsn;tion9 On Permits And Land Use Regulations Can Be Referred To The Appropriate f;epartment At City Hall . If Tax Exempt, Please Submit Documentation. t certify the information cn this information sheet is true and correct . � � ��✓ Joe P Sigtlature of Authorized Regres ntative Dat _ I r-�D Y C /`t (2 W rt e y' rint Name and Title Tax Exempt Status Approval I JLW(0119F) h 74-1 IZICI /ten yf— py- OF r7 lb r December 26, 1983 C� 1` OV i IGAND Mr. William A Munahan IANIINNN'a DEPT City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Monahon: Thank you for the letter. I can appreciate your concern and especially the problems of dealing with people. The addition to my home is alternative number one (1) 1n your letter dated December 21, 1983. Sincerely ren6' P. S. There is one side befit to the addition; my neighbor (Nike Smith) hates my yard weeds with a passion-the addition will cover 1,159 square feet of weeds. December 21 , 1983 C11YOF T117ARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, //OREGON Mr. F.A. Moreno 14430 SW McFarland Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Moreno: I have been advised by the Building Division that you are planning to add 1,159 square feet of living area to your property at 14430 SW McFarland. Normally an addition would not Le a concern of mine, however, your addition which provided a separate bathroom for each room raises several questions. My particular concern is whether or not what you are planning to have as an end product is allowed without addit anal apl.)rovals from the City. I understand that your addition will provide for four additional bedrooms with separate baths. From the little that I knuw of your proposal addition, I believe the following are your alternatives: 1. To have additional living area for a single family home. No building or zoning restrictions appear to be applicable. 2. To have a residential home, residential care facilities. This is a permitted use in an R-2 zone. The definition as it appears in the Community Development Code reads as follows : "A residence of 5 or fewer mentally or physically handicapped with staff - need not be related". 18.42.020 A - 7. Ibis portion of the Code was included to comply with Senate Bill 478 (copy attached). To qualify for a permitted use in accordance with this provision of the Code, the intent of the Senate Bill m"st be met . A careful reading of the Bill is required. A further concerti is whether or not the proposal use complies with the existing covet.ants of your suL,-ivision. Although the City does not enforce thea, you .Aould be sure that your proposal does not conflict with them prior to initiating any construction. 3. To have a group care residential facility. 'lltis is a conditional use in an R-'. zone. To receive approval of this type of use, you would be required to file an application with the City. 'llte definition of this type of use is: "Refers t,) services provided in facilities authorized, certified, or licensed by the State to provide board, room, and provide care to six or more physically disabled, mentally disordered, mentally retarded, handicapped persons, dependents or neglected children; but excluding those uses classified under hospitals. - -- - - 12755`;W A!a I P 0 110X '1-3:197 T IGA 11 Typical uses include, intermediate carte faclities and institions tar the mentally retarded and physically handicapped" TMC 18.42.020 A - 6. Again, the covenants attached to your subdivision could also govern. In order that my office and the Building Division are well informed in this matter, I would appreciate hearing from you concerning your plans. the more information that my office has, the better we will be able to respond to citizen inquiries on this matter. Sincerely, `rte-"'' '•,/� ��'`%_;" William A. Monahan, Director of Plann,.ng and Development WAM:ch Mault,350.403MMsh C740lu3C3Vty, 4Z0rAgo3M . xti! To Date - - ----Y - Time �PZlJ WHILE YOU WERE GUT ot _ Phone TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL RETURNED YOUR CALL WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH n i Message U /TT oe- 57A, = - 7:'S �ultxzom.alz Oouaity, Ozr4s�goz� To —--- —— D?re WHILE YOU WERE OUT Phone— TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL RETURNED YOUR CALL WILL CALL AGAIN WANT6 TO Message 1j�MN1�1 NII�M !1 HOUR CARE, it )Vale ratm will, Pnvnlc he lh Deluxe home Bull Mln MJO-9440. Pd-S7 /1 er' �-� c 293 i 62nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-1983 Regular Session f 6 Enrolled Senate Bill 478 Sponsored by Senator COHEN, Representatives THROOP, ZAJONC, JOHNSON (at the request of Association for Retarded Citizens) I i• CHAM-PR...........3............................ A)•1 ACT Relating to certain residential homes. Be It Fnacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. As used in sections 1 to 3 of this Act unless the context requires otherwise: (1) "Handicapped person" means an individual who has a physical or mental impairment which for the individual constitutes or results in a functional"imitation to one or more major life activities. (2) "Major We activity" means self-care. ambulation, communication, transportation, education, sociatization,employment and the ability to;,.quire and maintain adequate,s:re and decent shelter. (3)"Residential home" means a residence for five or fewer unrelat^.d physically or mentally handicapped persons andlor staf�fff persons who need not be related to each other or to any other home resident. (((JJJ SFk-nON 2.The i egislative Assembly finds and declares that: �— (1) It it the policy of this state that physically or mentally handicapped persons are entitled to live as nornvdly as passible within communities and should not he excluded from communities because their disability requires them to live in!;soups; (2)There is a growing need for residences to provide quality care and protection for physically or mentally handicapped persons and to prevent inappropriate placement of such persons in state institutions and nursing homes; ----IJ3)It is eifficult to site and estaLltsh residential homes in the communities of this state;aril (4)Restrictions on the siting of such residences have hMr-,U1ea state wide problem. SECTION .3. (1) A residential home shall he considered esid - use o Pyyy�t -)r zoning Purposes. Residential homes shall he a perrnitt,�d use in all areas toned for rest cntral o+ commercial pur,Kncs, including areas zoned for single-family dwellings No city or count e shall enact or enforce zoning ordinances prohibits uje use a tesidcnti d dwcllinQ, kxa+.. m +n •+rea tone far resi�irnNA gr cunimertutLuse, as a fe_•'cntia) h (2) A city or county may impose zoning cards a itiann the establishment and maintenance of a residential home in an area zoned for residential or commercial rise,provided that such conditions are no more restrictive than conditions imposed on other residential dwellings in the same tone. Approved by the Governor .lune 30, 1983. Filed in the office of Secretary of State July 1 , 1983. �� s �� ionDfTI '` 1?01•t90.9 Chapter 13 REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP SR OCCUPANCIES Group SR Occupandes Defined-.' . 't- . , t, w Sec.1301.Group SR Occupanicies'shallbe: Wirisior►1.Lodgingand carp of more than five but less than 16 ambulatory persons who may be handicapped to a degree which makes total self- dependence either impassible or undesirable, but who possess sufficient faculties to rt�cognize an emergency sftation and to react immediately and positively to attair,elf-preservation. Division 2.Lodging and supervision of more than five persons who are no( handicapped whose place of residence therein is dictated by an authorized and duly responsible governmental agency exercising legal restraint over the occupants. Division 3.Lodging and care of more than five unrelated occupants living together in a special residential unit. For occupant load,'see Section 3301 for Group R Occupancies. For handicap access,see Chapter 31. For the purposes of determining other applicable provisions,the Group R, Division 1 Occupancy requireinents shall apply to SR Occupancies unless specifically excluded. Group SR Occupancies do not Include residential care facilities, nursing homes or other state-licensed cane facility. definEtlons Sec. 1302. For the purpose of this chapter, certain terms are defined as follows: HANDICAPPED means: (a)A physical condition which Is certified by competent medical person- nel as makl,rg it unlikely that a person could escape the building In a fire emergency,or (b)A mental condition certified by competent mental health personnel as 1 being Group 5R-1 level as defined by regulations of the Health Divi- slop, u (C)See apEEfi SR-1 LEVEL -A mildly handicapped individual who is not impaired in his/ k her ability to make reasonable dec(sion,or take prudent action with respect 1 f' the health or fire safetyand self •preserMttion and is capable of responding on his/her ow:r,without assistanor,to a signal device to depart a building in an emergency situation and who requires 24-hour supportive service. Construction Height and AIIoMtshle Area Sec.1383.(a)General.Buildl*or parts of buildings classed Ih ftup SR because of the us*or characterafthe occupancy shall be Ilml . Is types of ccon*tkdo6 Kq forth MAN" No. 5-C ani! No. 5-0 1Cif'E3n"" R-1 'a.1 �cT 2g 11645 SW Cloud Court Tigard, OR 97224 October 28, 1986 Mr. William Monahan Director of Planning City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Moreno Home Occupation Permit Dear Bill : We demand the immediate revocation of the Home Occupation Permit issued to Mr. and Mrs. Ferd Moreno located at 14430 SW McFarland Boulevard in August, 1984 (City of Tigard Planning Commission Final Order 84-02PC, File #HOP 4-84) . The Morenos have consistently failed to abide by the conditions established for continuance of this Home Occupation Permit. Specifically: 1. More than 25% of the dwelling is being used for business purposes. Patients are observed daily in the kitchen, dining room, living room and occasionally in the basement of the residence, in addition to the bedroom wing (violates Section 18 . 142 . 050 of the Tigard Municipal Code and Approval Criterion #B) . The areas of the hona being used for the Morenos business exceed the areas specified by Mr. Moreno in his application to the City. 2 . The business use has become the primary use of the dwelling, in violation of Section 18 . 142 . 050 and I Approval Criterion #C as evidenced by: (a) using more than 25% of the dwelling for business purposes as stated in #1 above, (b) listing the property in Oregon Multiple Listing in 1985 as Income Property, stating a gross annual income of $60, 000, and (c) soliciting patients from Meridian Park Hospital . Mr. William Monahan October 28, 1986 Page 2 3 . The Morenos have employed a teenage girl to work as a part-time employee in violation of Section 18 . 142 . 050 and Approval Criterion #I. At the time of issuance of the Home Occupation Permit to the Morenos, we specifically requested to be informed of any subsequent requests for renewal. This has not been done, or we would have brought these facts to your attention at that time. I was reminded of this fact after r:-ently receiving the October 1985 City Publication "All About Town, " Volume 1986/87 #3, specifically the article on page 2 entitled "Home Occupation Permits" (a copy is enclosed) . The Morenos flagrant and continuous disregard for the rules and conditions placed upon them by the City for Home Occupation Permit should result in the City's immediate revocation of this permit. Please respond to me in writing informing me of the city' s action. P ectfully, oe `Michael A Smith cc: Mr. Frank Josselson Mr. Timothy V. Ramis The Honorable Tom Brian The Honorable John Cook The Honorable Gerald Edwards The Honorable Carolyn Eaden The Honorable Valerie Johnson August 7, 1986 'C"irf C „"n WAND OREGON 25 Years of Sere cce Ferd Moreno 1961-1986 14430 SW McFarland Blvd. Tigard, OR 97224 Subject: Home Occupation Renewal Dear Mr. Moreno, On the advice of the City Attorney the City will not pursue requiring you to renew your Home Occupation at this time pending further clarification of Senate Bill 478. Please be advised how- ever that the City may require compliance with Home Occupation renewal requirements if it is determined at a furture date that such requirements are allowed under Seante Bill 478. Sincerely, Slizbeth A. Newton Senior Planner 13126 SW Hall Blvd RA.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (6031)639.4171— From the CWsk of JOYCE COHEN Nome Address: Oregon State Senate P.O.Box 395 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97031 ili,>•il-( .�1��-1e-� G t ,-C;�iL�C.L'!i ` r /t z � JOYCE COHEN CLACKAMAS COUNTY COMMITTEES DISTRICT 13 Chairman Senate Commitee un Con,.•nerce, REPLY TO ADDRESS INDICATED- ID Banking and Public Flnancs Senate Chamber Member Salem,Oregon 973'0 Senate Committee on Envinmment and Energy P.O Box 363Senate Committee on Judlc ary 03 Lake Oswego.Oregon 971 OREGON STATE SENATE SALEM, OREGON August 2, 1984 Mr. William A. Monahan Director of Planning & Development City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash P.U. Box 23397 Iigard, OR 9722.3 Dear Mr. Monahan: Mr. Glen Haddock has forwarded to me copies of the exchange of correspondence relating to the City of Tigard ordinance on home occupation as it would apply to residential homes. As a member of the Legislative Assembly which enacted 1983 chapter 2S'3 (SB 478) on siting of such facilities, I wish to make clear to you that your int-erpretaticn violates not only the spirit but the letter: of that chapter. ORS 443 . 580 to 443 . 600 ( 1983 chapter 293 ) was enacted to prevent exactly what the City of Tigard is trying to do by dpplying what may otherwise be a valid home occupation ordinance to an activity over which the Legislative Assembly has limited the city' s jurisdiction. ORS 443 . 600 (2 ) allows a city t0 impose zoning conditions on a residential home ( for five or fewer handicapped persons) Provided that "such conditions are no more restrictive than conditions imposed on other residential dwellings in the same zone. " A reading of Tigard' s Home Occupation Ordinance reveals Mr . William A. Monahan 8/2/84 Page 2 numerous provisions that, insofar as Tigard alleges they apply to residential homes, are clearly invalid . For example, 18. 142 . 050 B, E and I would clearly discriminate against residential homes by unreasonable differentiation from other residential dwellings if the ordinance were applied to residential homes . You indicate in your June 27, 1984, letter to Mr. Haddock that private conversation with informed persons have no effect on your interpretation of SB 478 ( 1983 chapter 293 ) but that .,you would "evaluate" a written opinion of the Attorney General . Before anything goes far enough to incur that expense, I urge you to consider consultation with the Tigard City Attorney who is your department' p official legal advisor. Your interpretation of 1983 chapter 2013 , is clearly in error and, I urge you to make the necessary tnodif -, ::ations to comply with Oregon State Law. Very truly yours, Ja c C en Oregon State Senate July 24, 1984 A CITY'OF TI1FARD Mr. Glen Haddock ASHINGiON CGUNTY,OREGON Glenco Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 23331 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Residential Homes Dear Glen, Your recent letter requested clarification and interpretation of three sections of the Tigard Community Development Code and application of it to residential homes. Following is my interpretation: (1) 18.142.050 B (1) - please see the attached internal staff memo which I directed to Liz Newton of my staff in March concerning how the area devoted to residential home use should be determined. (2) 18.142.050 C - The use shall. be a secondary use, meaning the property :oust have a primary use of single family residential dwelling. Therefore, the main use of the property is a living unit for an individual or family entity. The home occupation, whether a business office or residential home, must be an add'tional use, not the only use of the property. (3) 18.142.050 I - No employee may be utilized at the site who does not live at the site. All home occupations are prohibited from having employees who live elsewhere and travel to the site to work. This does not, however, restrict service personnel such as private landscape workers, painting contractors, or other such people from visiting the site to perform services. I hope this information answers your questions. Sincerely, �� William A. Monahan, Directcr of Planning and Development 0540r/dm f 12755 S.W. ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH 639-4171 GLENCO HOMES, INC. "The Finest in Senior Residential Care" P.O. Box 233?i V 'b Tigard, Oregon 97223 , Ph. (503)639-7157 July 130 1984 ,IUL ' 11984 ctirr U� JJJNKU pL#,to NG DEPT• ':r. William A. i•'onahan Director of Planninr and hevelopment City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash St. Tirard, Oregon 97223 Dear Bill, In trying to come to grips with the City of Tigard home occupations section of the Tigard Community Development Code as may pertain to a residential care facility, we don't thinl; onerators (providers) of such homes Ihave objections to most of the provisions which apply to exterior si ms, outdoor or indoor storaEe, direct sales of products, noise and sanitation control, and additional parking. However, residential care homes are unique among; other hone occupations in that they are used as residences. There are 3 provisions of the occupation section that we don't understand and we are ackinp you to clarify on our behalf as to how you interpret them as relatin,r, to residential care facilities and how you would enforce them. They are: 1) 18.142.050 B (1) 2) 18.142.050 C 3) 18.142.050 I 1.1e would like to resolve what we perceive as potential issues by arriving at a mutually agreeable understanding with the city that we and the city can live with comfortably. Sincerely, Glen haddock, President GLENCO HONES INC. WASH, COUNTY ADULT FOSTT,11 110';P: ASSOC. GLENCO HOMES, INC. "The Finest in Senior Residential P.O. Box 23331 Tigard, Oregon 97223 ,f Ph. (503) 639-7157 IG V Aw- /4• �+�f;h�Ani n . >zl c f T',4,0""-, - 7"c L) ti,�zTTjdaK/ F /`�f4c1F /�}. G s diff:✓/�� f�U� e7v67- 7)�e 77A% S , f f cl L 7 /S �i�c'k'S�.!¢z� ?t' nP._T / c• s y ;Tf (7 -77h_- D ._.L ex 1,c c C� o�iT�r c �>�� /l�19j11 Tc� � y! � 1- � ,Z ,eN yYl�R 7v l c► u.-p P �' �«.I c� E c JUL 1-0 1984 �Y� <� �` Aj. CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. June 27, 1984 CI Ff OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Mr. Glen Haddock, President Glenco Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 23331 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: 12015 SW 118th Dear Glen, Thank you for your prompt response concerning your intent to operate a residential home at the above named property. Although the County task force has been hard at work, any recommendations which they produce will not supercede local permit requirements. Theref-)re, I will continue to follow the City Council's direction and require application for home occupation and business tax for all residential homes in Tigard. Your reference to permitted uses requiring no approval under the provision of the code requires some clarification. Tlie meaning of section 18.46.020 is that the uses are n,-rmitted as opposed to requiring a conditional use or not allowed at all. The fact that they are permitted upon meeting certain conditions does not violate section 18.46.020. other sections of the code, as is standard in municipal zoning codes, allow, for example certain commercial uses in commercial zones as permitted uses. By qualifying as a permitted use, however, does not relieve a commercial use from apply for and receiving approval through site development review and paying a business tax once business commences. I interpret the :ode to require that all home occupations receive a permit and pay a business '-ax. The City Council has directed me to proceed with this interpretation and apply the code. Any private discussions which you have had which you made reference to in your letter have no bearing on my interpretation of Senate Bill 478. I would, however, be pleased to evaluate any written opinion from the Attorney General's office on the meaning of the language of Senate Bill 478. Anything short of a written opinion has questionable weight . In conclusion, I must deny your request for a ninety day delay in processing a permit for your facility. I mist require that your process a home occupation permit and business tax as soon as possible. Sincerely,---- William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development WAM:din j ------ 12755 S W ASH P 0 BOX 23397 TIGARD. OREGON 97223 PH 639-4171 ---- ,t r.' GLENCO HOMES, INC. "The Finest in Senior Residential Care" P.O. Box 23331 Tigard,Oregon 97223 Ph. (503)639-7157 June 20, 1004 f',r. 1,1illiam A. l.:onahan Director of Planninp and Develor,ment City of Tigard 12755 S.V% Ash P.O. Box 23307 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Bill, I am in receipt of your letter asking, that we apply for a )tome occupation permit and nay a business tax to the City of Tigard for our address at 12015 S.1% 118th. Ile do intend this to be a resiae.itial care facility and we will be happy to corVly vrith payin3 a business tax to the city. (iowever, several things are unclear. As we understand it, the 1,9ashinFton County Commissioners now have in their hands a tasl. force report recommending among; other things, that the County assume control over all inspections and licensing of Adult FocL-er Homes (residential care facilities) in the counc,r. (Annual fee to be 1'250.00 per home) ':'e revard the ador,tion of an ordinance to be fairly imminent following; the necessary nublie hearings. This policy will follow similar programs now in place in :.ultnomah and I ,., • Clackamas counties and mai- eliminate city requirements for duplicate :axing. Another point is that under the City of Tigard building code, section 18.46.030 for single famil,-• residential lots up to 20,000 square feet, a residential care facility is a Permitted,r Use. Undr:- 18.4G.020 a nermitted use is described as a use which requires no approval under the provi,.s,.ons of this code. Therefore, unless we can come to understand the code differently, we cannot legally apply for or he r-ranted a home occupation permit. Further, our ?private discussions with the state Attorney General's office, leliolators and other government officials least us to believe that S.B. 's nnnun e, and more importantly, its intent, would preclude the imposition of a home occunation hermit on residential care facilities. GLENCO HOMES, INC. "'rite Finest in Senior Residential Care" P.O. Box 23331 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Ph. (503) 639-7157 ,,,cause of the irapendin county rer,ulatians on residential care facilities which may substantially alter the relationship of these care homes to ?overnmental bodies in ':!ashinton County, I am requesting; that this matter be held in abeyance for 90 days during which, I'm reasonable sure, the County will have established its nroceduren. (sincerely, GLEFC0 1i0:1XS, INC. Glen i'addoc%, President P.S. 7 will he out of town and not available for response until after the 28th, MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Liz Newton, Associate Planner March 30, 1984 FROM: William A. Monahan 10M Director of Planning b Development SUBJECT: Home Occupations/Residential Homes Among your responsibilities is the processing of home occupation permit requests. We have t..tked before about the information which an applicant must supply to satisfy the applicahle code provision. In addition, we have discussed the application of the provision as it relates to residential homes as defined by Senate Bill 478. I would like to update you with the latest direction given by the City Council in this area. On March 26, 1984, I asked the City Council, in essence: 1) Do they consider a residential hotue as a home occupation thus governed by Section 18.142 of the Tigard Community Development Code? 2) If it applies to residential homes, is the language as written acceptable or should it be changed? 3) If the language should be changed, is the language which I proposed in my February 22, 1984 adequate for consideration by the Planning Commission? 4) Should the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the matter on April 3, 1984? 5) Are there any portions of the existing code provision that should be modified? The Council discussed the issue and directed me to apply the current code to home occupations, including residential homes, without further modification by the Planning Commission. The Council felt that action will be taken in the near future by the County and State to address the gaps in the bill and the issues wh,ch have arisen as a result of the bill. Although the Council questioned me as to the adequacy of the limit which specifies that no more than 25% of the gross floor area is used for the commercial use, they did not recommend that we increase the amount allowed for residential homes. Therefore, the answers to the above questions, as I perceived them at the Council meeting were: HOME OCCUPATION MEMO MARCS' 30, 1984 PAGE 2 1) Residential homes are governed by Section 18.142 of the code. 2) The current language is acceptable and should not be changed. 364) The Planning Commission need not conduct a hearing on this issue. 5) No sections of 18.142 need to be modified. During the Council's discussion, the issue of the 25% area limitation was raised. I was asked how we determined the area devoted to the use. I informed the Council that it is up to the applicant to tell us which areas are devoted to the use. As you and I have discussed, we must ask the applicant to submit a drawing of the house layout with identification of those areas proposed for the use. We should require that all bedrooms and bathrooms used by the tenants are counted, as well as the bedrooms and 'bathrooms used by the employees hired by the residential tenant to operate the facility, a portion of the food preparation area - not to exceed 50%, and any other areas exclusively devoted to the use of the tenants and employees. Those areas that are partially used by the primary and secondary use, such as the living room and dining room, may be considered also, however, I feel that at thzs time we should concentrate on the areas which are totally used by tenants and employees plus a portion of the food preparation area only. A question was also raised on enforcement. I advised the Council that we are not aggressively seeking out violators. Rather, we are pursuing those homes which are reported to us as operating. In addition, since it is required that all home occupation applicants receive a permit before commencing operations, all applications submitted lawfully before a use begins are processed. Therefore , please proceed to process permits for home occupations i.n accordance with the code provisions now in place. (WAM:pm/0385P) 18. 26. 030 ( "Floodway" means the normal sL�,:am or drainage channel and that adjoining area of the natural floodplain needed to convey the waters, and i.ncludit)g the zero-foot rise floodway area defined by the U. S. Corps of Engineers Flood Insurance Study, September 1, 1981. "Floor area" means the gross horizontal area, under roof , of all floors of a building, measured from the exterior walls , excluding vents , shafts , courts and space devoted to off- street parking. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls is the usable area under the horizontal projection of the .roof or floor above. "Frontage" means that portion of a development site which abuts a public or private street. "Garage" means a building or portion thereof in which a motor vehicle is stored, repaired or kept. "Grade (adjacent ground elevation) " means the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than five feet from the building, between the buil.din4 and a line five feet from the building. "Gross acres" means all of the land area included in the legal desc,ripii.nn--ofthe_kroperty. Home occupation. A home occupation exists when a dwelling unit in a residential zone is used for commercial. ,purpose. See Chapter 18. 142. "Homeowners association" means an incorporated, non- profit- organization operating under recorded land agreement.; through which each lot owner of a planned development or other described land area is automatically subject to a charge for a proportionate share of the expenses for the organization', activities , such as maintaining a common property. " Implementing ordinance" means an ordinance adopted to carry out the comprehensive plan, including, but not limited to the provisions of this code. " Industrial use" means any use of land , structure or natural resources involving the manufacturinq, processing or assembly of semifinished or finished products from raw materials, or similar treatment or packaging of previously prepared materials. 207-1 (Tigard 4 18. 142 .010--18. 142 .020 (1) The proposed site and surrounding properties; (2) The .location, dimensions and names of all: (A) Existing streets , and (B) Proposed streets; (3) The location and dimension of, if applicable: (A) The entrances and exits on the site, (B) The parking and circulation areas, (C) Loading and services areas, (D) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation; and (4) The location and type of outdoor lighting; and (5) The location of all structures and their orientation. (Ord. 86-23 51 (part) , 1986 ; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . Chapter 18 . 142 HOME OCCUPATIONS Sections: 18 . .142.010 Purpose . 18 . 142.020 Exemptions . 18 . 142.030 Administration and approval process. 18 . 142.035 Permit_ renewal--Applicability. 18 . 142.040 Expiration of approval--Extensi.on of time revocation . 18 . 142. 050 Approval criteria . 1.8 . 142 . 060 Approval and compliance for a business license. 18 , 142 .070 Time limit and revocation. 18 . 142. 080 Application submission requirements . 18 . 142 .010 Purpcse . (a) It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate home occupations in residential, commer- cial and industrial zones in a manner that will ensure that the use is: (1) A secondary, lawful use to the primary residen- tial use of the premises upon whcih they are found; and (2) Not disruptive of the residential area . (b) The standards contained in this vhapter are in- tended to assure that home occupations will be compatible and consistent with the residential uses and will not have a detrimental effect on the nei;hborinq properties. (Ord. 84-73 §1 (Fxhibit A (part) ) , 1984 ; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A (part) , 1903) . 18 . 142.020 Exemptions. Garage sales are exempt from the provisions of this chapter . (Ord . 83-52 Exhibit A (part) , 1983) . 314-1 ] 1a (Tigard 8/ 15/ 86) 1a . 142 . 030--18 . 142 .040 18 . 142.030 Administration and approval process. (a) The applicant of a home occupation proposal shall be the occupant of the property. (b) A preapplication conference with city staff is required in accordance with Section 18 . 32 .040 . (c) Due to possible changes in state statutes, cr regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the preapplication conference is valid for not more than six months. (1) Another preapplication conference is required if any variance application is submitted six months after the preapplication; (2) Failure of the director to provide any of the information req'.rired by this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standard, criteria or requirements of the ap- plication. (d) The director shall approve, approve with condi- tions or deny any application for a home occupation. The director shall apply the standards set forth in Section 18. 142. 050 when reviewing an application for a home oc- cupation. (e) Notice of the director' s decision shall be given as provided L)y Section 18 .32 . 120 . The decision of the director may be appealed in accordance with Section 18 . 32- .310 (a) . (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . 18 . 142 . 035 Permit renewal--Applicability. (a) Home occupation permits issued under the provisions of this code shall expire after one year and an application for renewal of the permi* shal.!. be field with the city to conr.inue lawful operation of the home occupation business . The permit renewal application shall be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 18 . 142.040 . (b) Home occupation permits which receilred approval prior to November 1983 but may be nonconforming as deiined in Section 18 . 132 .090 (d) (1 ) shall be renewed annually. The permit renewal application, shall be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 18 . 142- .040 . (c) Home occupation businesses whicl existed without a valid home occupati.ora permit prior to November 1983 shell apply for a home occupation permit under the provisions of this chapter . The original. permit shall be valid for ono year and shall be renewed annually under the provi: iors of Section 18 . 142 .040 . (Ord. 85-32 §3 (Exhibit 8) , 1995) . 13 . 142. 040_ Expiration of approval--Extension: of t;me revocation. (a) Approval of a home occupation by the director shall be effective for a one -year period. (b) The director shall renew the permit upon: l 314- 120 (Tigard ` 86) 18 . 142 .050 (1 ) Application and payment of a fee by th-, appli- cant; (2) Finding that: (A) All of the conditions of approval have been satisfied, (B) There has been no change in the original application approved by the director, (C) There have been no changes in the facts ur applicable policies on which the approval was based, (D) The applicable approval. criteria in Section 18 . 142 .050 are satisfied. (c) The director shall give notice of the renewal as provided by Section 18 .32 . 120 and the decision m�., be appealed as provided by Section 18 . 32. . 310 (a) . (d) The director may revoke a home occupation approval if the conditions are not satisfied as provided by Section 18 . 32 .250 (f) . (Ord . 83-52 Exhibit A (part) , 1983) . 18 . 142. 050 Approval criteria . (a) The use shall be a lawful use which shall be carried on by the occupants of the dwellings . 314- 120a Crigai-d 2 8r,) 18 .142.060--18 . 142 .070 r (b) The home occupation shall be operated entirely within: (1) The dwelling ..nit and the use and the storage of material and products sliall not occupy more than twenty- five percent of the gross floor area . (c) The use shall be a secondary use to the primary use of the house as a dwelling . (d) There shall be no exterior indication o'L th4 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 the address of the home occupation may be displayed. (e) 'There shall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products on the premises. Indoor storage of material or products shall not exceed .he limitations impose(_1 by the provisions of the Building, Fire, Health and Housing Codes. (f) The use shall not include any retail sales other than telephone sales. (g) The use shall not involve direct sales or service from the property necessitating customer traffic to the resi- dence . (h) The home occupation shall iict produce any noise or obnoxious odors, viorations , glare, fumes u: elec:.rical inter- ference detectable to normal sensory percepti(d: outside the structure . (i) There shall be no other employees on the premises other than those who are permanent residents of the dwellir.o . (j ) The use shall not require any additional parking other than that which is required for the residence. (Ord . 83-52 Exhibit. A(part), 1983) . 18 . 142.060 Approval and compliance for a business license . No business license will be issued for a home occupation until the home occupation application is approved and the applicant certifies that the home occupation will be operated in strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the condi- tions of approval . (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A (part) , 1983) . 18 . 142 .070 Time limit and revocation. (a) The direct-or may approve a home occupation apple at on subject to a specific time period at the termination of which there shall be a re- newal application to determine if all of the conditions and provisions of this chapter have been satisfied. The permit shall be renewed if all of the conditions have been satisfied. (b) The director may revoke a home occupation approval if the conditions are not satisfied as provided by Section 18 . 3.2 . 250 (f) . (Ord . 83-52 Exhibit A (part) , 1983) . 314-121 (Tigard 4 54 ) 18 . 142.080--18 . 144 .020 18 . 142.080 Application submission requirements . An application shall be made on forms provided by the director and shall be accompanied by: (1) Three copies of the necessary data or narrative which explains how the proposal conforms to the standards in Section 18 . 142.050; (2) A list of names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within two hundred fifty feet of the site; (3) The required fee. (Ord. 86-23 51 (part) , 1986; Ord. 83-52. Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . Chapter. 18 . 144 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES* Sections : 18 . 144 .010 Purpose. 18 . 144 .020 Definition. 19 . 144 .030 Applicability of provision. 18 . 144 . 040 Administration and approval process . 18 . 144 .050 Expiration of approval--Standards for extension of time. 18 . 144 .060 Modification of approved plans. 18. 144 . 070 Approval criteria. 18 . 144 . 080 Application submission requirements. 18 . 144 .010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to. (1) Establish criteria for regulating the type, _oi:c and location of accessory structures in residential zonin,t districts; (2) Allow the property to be more useful while not altering the residential character of the principal structures; and (3) Allow for accessory structures within commercial and industrial zoning districts. (Ord . 85-07 §2 (Exhibit P(part) ) ; 1985) 18 . 144 . 020 Definition. "Accessory structure" me MIS .1 subordinate structure located on the lot, the use of which is clearly incidental to and associated with the principal structure . Where an accessory structure is attached to the principal structure, in a substantial manner, as by a roof , such accessory structure shall be considered as a part of the principal structure. Examples o accessory structure_: ' Prior history: Ord . 83-52 as amended by Ords. 84-20 and 84-50 . 314-122 (Tigard 3 11,. StO r r