Loading...
HOP2002-00010 H0P2002 - 0001O MOOS SALON 120 DAYS = 6/13/2002 CITY o TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER Case Number: HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT(HOP)2002-00010 Case Name: APPEAL OF MOOS SALON Name of Owner: Sooaul Moos Name of Applicant: Same as owner Address of Applicant: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon 97223 Address of Property: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S104CD, Tax Lot 04300. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. THE CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANTS PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE HEARINGS OFFICER HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 13, 2002 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. Item on Appeal: > On March 26, 2002, the Director issued a decision to approve, subject to conditions, a request for approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six (6) clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9AM to 5PM, Tuesday through Saturday. On April 9, 2002, an appeal was filed alleging the Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations, that the proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone, that the proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations, that the impact study was inadequate, and that conditions related to ADA Compliance and the Department of Cosmetology Approval cannot be enforced independently of one another. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. Action: > 0 Approval as Requested I I Approval with Conditions 0 Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: El Owners of Record Within the Required Distance I l Affected Government Agencies IA The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator El The Applicants and Owners Final Decision: THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION OF THE CITY AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 29, 2002: The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at(503) 639-4171. BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Sopaul Moos for a ) FINAL ORDER home occupation permit for an in-home hair salon ) in the R-7 zone at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace ) HOP 2002-00010 in the City of Tigard,Oregon ) (Moos) A. SUMMARY 1. On January 23, 2002, Sopaul Moos(the"applicant")filed an application for approval of a home occupation permit for a hair salon in the home occupied by herself,her husband and their four children at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace(the "Property"). The applicant will be the sole operator and employee of the home occupation. The primary activities of the home occupation include shampooing,cutting,coloring and treating hair. The home occupation will operate not more than Tuesday through Saturday from 9 AM to 5 PM. The applicant will serve not more than six clients per day. The home occupation will be conducted primarily in what is labeled on the building plans as a den and in an adjoining bathroom,which together(including an area of hallway between them)contain roughly 286 square feet. To reach this area,clients will walk through a side door into the garage, through a rear door to out of the garage and along an elevated deck on the rear elevation of the 7800-square foot home to reach an exterior door to the den.Other than the parking and movement of clients,no signs or other outward appearances of a business use are proposed. Clients will park in the 41-foot wide concrete driveway between the garage and SW Benchview Terrace. Some changes to the house may be required to accommodate the home occupation,such as installation of one or more wider doors and/or ramps over door jambs along the route to the den and a shampooing sink in the bathroom. See Exhibit E.' 2. City staff found the application was complete on February 12,2002. The City mailed written notice of the application to owners of property consistent with Tigard Community Development Code(the"CDC") 18390.040.C. The City received 28 letters and numerous telephone calls in response to the notice(Exhibit C). All of the responses opposed the application. Nevertheless on March 26,2002,the planning manager approved the home occupation permit subject to six conditions of approval, based on the findings and conclusion in a written decision(Exhibit A),and sent notice of that decision consistent with CDC 18.390.040.E. 3. On April 9,2002,Candace White and Donnajo("Dee-J")Putzier(the "appellants")filed an appeal of the planning manager's decision consistent with CDC 18390.040.G.1 and 2. The appellants raised five issues in the written appeal. 4. Tigard Hearings Officer Larry Epstein(the "hearings officer")conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the appeal. At the public hearing,the applicant,her husband and City staff recommended the hearings officer affirm the planning manager's decision. Ten persons testified orally against the application. Some of these and other witnesses also testified in writing against the application. The hearings officer closed the public record at the end of the hearing and took the matter under advisement. The principal disputed issues in this case include the following: 1 When the application was filed,the applicant proposed to conduct the home occupation principally in an area on the lower floor of the house with access from a side door. Because that area exceeded the maximum area permitted for a home occupation,the applicant modified the application in mid-March to identify the den and adjoining bathroom on the main floor as the principal location of the home occupation. a. Whether the applicant complied with applicable requirements for posting a notice of the hearing on the Property(CDC 18.390.050.C.1.d and C.2); b. Whether the proposed use is permitted in the R-7 zone as a home occupation(CDC 18.130.020.C.4.b and 18.742.040.A.9 and Table 18.510.1); c. Whether modifications to the application after it was deemed complete are significant changes that require a new application to be filed(CDC 18.390.080.D.4); d. Whether the application contains a sufficient impact study(CDC 18.390.040.B.2.e); e. Whether the purpose of the home occupation chapter(CDC 18.742.010) is relevant to the application, and,if so,how; f. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not cause odors detectable beyond the property line,considering the Environmental Performance Standards of Chapter 18.725(CDC 18.742.040.A3); g. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will be conducted entirely within the dwelling and will not exceed the maximum area limits for a home occupation,and how that area is calculated in this case(CDC 18.742.040.A.4); h. Whether the home occupation will result in the storage of toxic or flammable materials in amounts that exceed limitations imposed by provisions of the relevant codes or that,in the judgment of the Fire Marshal,pose a dangerous risk(CDC 18.742.040.A.4 and 7); i. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not require more on-or off-street parking other than that normally required for a residence and will not monopolize on-street parking on SW Benchview Terrace(CDC 18.742.040.A.8 and 18.742.050.A.2.c); j. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not cause excessive traffic(CDC 18.742.050.A.2.c)or violate visual clearance standards where the driveway intersects Benchview Terrace(CDC 18.795); k. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not be detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents(CDC 18.385.020.B3 and 18.742.060.B.3); 1. Whether the Americans With Disabilities Act("ADA")and regulations of the Oregon Board of Cosmetology are relevant to the application,and if so,whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will comply with the relevant provisions of those regulations; and m. Whether additional or modified conditions of approval are warranted to ensure the proposed use is operated consistent with the representations of the applicant and the relevant approval standards(CDC 18.385.020.0 and 18.742.060.C). 5. In this final order,the hearings officer approves the home occupation permit based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 2 B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on May 13,2002. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing,the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts,bias or conflicts of interest. The hearings officer disclosed that he visited the site before the hearing and invited witnesses to question and rebut his observations. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Morgan Tracy summarized the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated April 24,2002(the "Staff Report")and the planning manager's decision of March 26,2002. He responded to the grounds for appeal. 3. The applicant and her husband, Steven Moos,testified in favor of the application. Mrs.Moos summarized her proposed use. She testified she had not done anything to determine what would have to be done to comply with the ADA. She testified she had telephoned the Oregon Board of Cosmetology and had been told her revised plan would comply with the Board's rules. She testified that the chemicals she commonly uses include bleach and dye. If the use is approved,she proposed to make whatever improvements are required to comply with the ADA and Building Code. She has not prepared any preliminary plans for improvements. Steven Moos testified the house is ADA-compliant based on his experience building an office; the doors and jambs are okay. The bathroom has a ventilated shower and can be improved with a shampoo sink. The chemicals used in the business are and will be stored in quantities typical of a household. 4. Ten persons testified against the proposed use: Candace and Richard White, Dee-J and Rick Putzier, B.J. Hall,Elizabeth and Dennis Peddicord,Greg Aube,Claudia Rosa, and James DeLoretto.2 Most of the witnesses expressed similar concerns, generally without specific reference to the CDC,including the following: a. The applicant posted the notice sign on the Property so that it could not be seen readily unless a person entered onto the Property for that purpose. A photograph of the sign was introduced into the record to support that testimony. b. The proposed use is not or should not be permitted in a single family residential zone,because it is a commercial use,more specifically a personal service use, under Table 18.510.1. • c. The applicant kept changing the application during the review process. The changes were substantial and prevented neighbors from participating effectively in the review of the application. d. The application did not include an adequate impact study. e. The application is not consistent with the purposes of the home occupation chapter. In particular,the applicant could sustain the business in leased commercial quarters,based on testimony that she has done so in the past as a commercial hairdresser. Nothing about the nature of the business makes this impractical. Also,due to 2 Other persons signed the witness list but declined the opportunity to testify when called for that purpose. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 3 traffic impact,the loss of privacy in side and rear yards of neighboring homes and the proximity of the applicant's home and the adjoining homes,the proposed use would be detrimental or disruptive to neighboring properties. Lastly the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the proposed use will comply with approval criteria and standards, including standards under the Building Code and regulations of the Board of Cosmetology, that ensure it will be conducted lawfully,particularly given the applicant's allegedly inconsistent statements(e.g.,that clients will enter through the front door of the home despite a rule to the contrary by the Board of Cosmetology). f. The applicant will store and use chemicals that are unsafe and pose a fire danger that is heightened by the presence of an adjoining greenspace. g. The proposed home occupation includes all areas where clients of the business will tread,including the back deck. The back deck is outdoors; therefore the use will not be conducted entirely inside the dwelling. Moreover clients will travel through the garage,all of which should count toward the proposed home occupation,because it is an undivided space. Similarly all of the undivided main floor should count toward the proposed use,because clients will have to walk through the adjoining hallway to move between the den and bathroom. If all of the undivided interior space through which clients will have to walk to use the home occupation is counted,the home occupation will occupy substantially more than the maximum 528 square feet allowed by CDC 18.742.040.A.4. If the common area of the house is used as a write-off for tax purposes,it should count toward the home occupation. h. Based on past experience with residential use of the Property,there will be more on-street parking for the home occupation,if for no other reason than that the cars for the home occupation will occupy driveway space that has been occupied by the vehicles owned by the applicant and the applicant's nanny,leading them to be parked on the street. i. Due to the steep slope of Benchview Terrace,a retaining wall that extends to the sidewalk in front of the Property,traffic backing out,the relatively high speed of traffic on Benchview Terrace,and the severe glare for westbound drivers on Benchview Terrace caused by the afternoon sun,any additional traffic for a home occupation will be excessive. If the use is allowed,the intersection of the driveway and Benchview Terrace should be required to comply with the visual clearance standards of CDC 18.795. j. The proposal does not comply with the ADA and rules of the Board of Cosmetology,and the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof that it will comply,given the lack of specificity in the application and allegedly inconsistent statements by the applicant. The doors leading to the garage,deck,den and bathroom are not equipped with handicap-accessible handles and are too narrow to comply with the ADA. The applicant did not show that the bathroom has adequate clearances for handicapped persons. k. Opponents expressed a lack of trust that the applicant will operate the home occupation as represented and approved,based on perceived inconsistencies in the application,complaints about past behavior by the applicant and her family unrelated to the home occupation,and concerns about growth of the home occupation over time. Also,if approved,the use could serve six clients,but that does not address how many other people may accompany those six clients,and those other people may further reduce privacy and may increase the disruption posed by the use. 1. If the home occupation is allowed,it should be subject to very clear and objective standards that are readily enforceable. Opponents objected to having to monitor HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 4 the use to ensure compliance over time and disputed the efficacy of City enforcement. One witness also argued that,because the City has approved every home occupation permit it has reviewed,City staff do not responsibly apply the approval standards. 5. In response to public testimony,Mr.Tracy conceded the CDC does not clearly address people who accompany clients or define precisely who is a"client." He suggested the hearings officer do so if the use is approved. Also he testified that the visual clearance standards apply to the intersection of a driveway and street. For a driveway wider than 24 feet,as in this case,the standards prohibit an obstruction more than three feet high within 30 feet of the outer edge of driveway in each direction. See CDC Figure 18.795.1. 6. Mr.Moos responded for the applicant. He argued that the opponents are "nit- picking"the application,and that the proposed use is insignificant. He declined the hearings officer's suggestions that either the matter be suspended pending an attempt to mediate the dispute between the Mooses and their neighbors or the record be held open to allow the applicant to supplement the evidence in support of the application. He waived the applicant's right to hold open the record for a final written argument. 7. At the conclusion of the hearing,the hearings officer closed the public record and announced that he would take the matter under advisement. C. DISCUSSION 1. CDC 18390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to hear appeals of administrative decisions. Pursuant to ORS 227.175(D) and(E),an appeal of an administrative decisions must be reviewed as a de novo matter. The hearings officer is required to conduct an independent review of the record. He is not bound by the prior administrative decision and does not defer to that decision in any way. New evidence may be introduced in an appeal,and new issues may be raised,whether or not they are raised in the written appeal. In an appeal the applicant continues to bear the burden of proof. 2. In a nutshell,the issue in this case is whether the applicant has sustained the burden of proof by providing sufficient substantial evidence showing that the proposed home occupation does or will comply with the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code.3 Because some of the approval criteria are ambiguous, their meaning is at issue.There are related procedural issues. Also witnesses dispute whether certain CDC provisions are applicable standards for the application. 3. The City must base its decision on "substantial evidence,"which is evidence on which a reasonably prudent person would rely in the conduct of a serious matter. It is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of the evidence. If,based on such evidence,a proposed use can comply with applicable approval standards using conditions of approval,the City must approve the use subject to those conditions.4 3 ORS 227.173(1)provides as follows: Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole. 4 ORS 197.522 provides as follows in relevant pare HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 5 4. The planning manager identified the applicable approval criteria for the application and applied them to the record in the case. The planning manager concluded the applicable approval standards are in CDC 18385, 18390, 18.510 and 18.742. The planning manager's decision and the Staff Report responded to the issues raised by neighbors,at least the issues relevant to the application. The hearings officer largely concurs in the identification of applicable criteria in the manager's decision and the Staff Report and in the analysis and conclusions of City staff in that report. That is,substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval standards and criteria for a home occupation,and adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will require the use to be operated as represented consistent with those criteria and standards and will prevent,reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the use consistent with the requirements of the CDC. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the manager's decision and the Staff Report as his own except as otherwise expressly provided herein. In the remaining findings,the hearings officer addresses the issues that were disputed by the witnesses for and against the home occupation. 5. Before the City can hold a hearing on an appeal of an administrative decision, the CDC requires the applicant to post a notice on the property that is the subject of the application in questions The applicant did so and filed an affidavit certifying that she did so. A photograph in the record shows the notice. Therefore there is substantial evidence in the record that the requisite posted notice was provided. a. Neighbors argued the notice was ineffective,because it could not be seen from the sidewalk. The hearings officer acknowledges the photograph shows the substance of the posted notice was not visible from the angle from which the picture was taken. However the hearings officer also notes many neighbors attended the hearing,and they were prepared,reflecting notice as a whole was effective. The hearings officer also notes the neighbors said they could read the notice if they stepped onto the applicant's property to do so. During the hearings officer's site visit,he was able to read the notice sign from the sidewalk;it was not turned away as shown in the picture. b. The hearings officer construes CDC 18.390.050.C.1.d to require the face of a posted notice sign to be visible,because such a notice serves no purpose if the public cannot see it. But the hearings officer also finds the CDC does not require the sign to be posted in any particular manner or location. It does not violate the CDC if a person must enter onto private property to read the posted notice if that can be done. In this case it could be. Although a better job could have been done to ensure the posted notice was more readily visible,the hearings officer finds that the applicant fulfilled the plain meaning of CDC 18.309.050.C.1.d by posting the sign where it was visible to the public and by filing an affidavit to this effect. The neighbors failed to show their rights were substantially prejudiced by the manner in which the notice was posted. ... A local government may deny an application that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations and that cannot be made consistent through the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval.(emphasis added) 5 CDC 18.390.050.C.1.d provides as follows: At least ten business days prior to the hearing,notice of the hearing shall be posted on the site by the applicant,pursuant to Subsection 2 below. An affidavit of posting concerning such notice shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be submitted and made part of the administrative record. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 6 6. Neighbors argued the proposed use is not permitted as a home occupation, because it is listed as a commercial use,in particular,a personal service use. See CDC 18.130.020.C.4.b. Although the proposed use is listed as a personal service use, the hearings officer finds that nothing in the CDC precludes its approval as a home occupation if it otherwise complies with applicable standards for a home occupation. a. CDC Table 18.510.1 lists"home occupation"as a permitted use in all residential zones, subject to CDC 18.742. However the CDC does not expressly allow or prohibit a hair salon(or any other specific use with the exceptions noted below)as a home occupation. To that extent,the CDC is ambiguous about whether a hair salon is permitted as a home occupation. The hearings officer relies on context,legislative intent and rules of statutory construction to resolve the ambiguity. b. CDC 18.742.040.A.9 lists uses prohibited as a home occupation.6 Based on the absence of any other provisions of the CDC addressing the issue,and relying on rules of statutory construction,the hearings officer construes the CDC to allow any use as a home occupation other than the uses listed in CDC 18.742.040.A.9,provided the use complies with the other applicable approval standards for a home occupation. If the City Council had intended to prohibit personal services as a home occupation,it would have said so in CDC 18.742.040.A.9. Because it did not do so, the hearings officer finds that use is not prohibited as a home occupation notwithstanding it is listed as a commercial use. c. If the interpretation urged by the neighbors was adopted,no commercial use could be permitted as a home occupation,which is inconsistent with the context of CDC 18.742 and the legislative intent expressed in the purpose statement for the home occupation chapter. That intent is to"[p]ermit residents an opportunity to use their homes to engage in small-scale business ventures..." d. The hearings officer acknowledges the purpose statement cited in part immediately above continues as follows: " ...which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters,or because the nature of the activity would make it impractical to expand to a full-scale enterprise." i. Because virtually any business could be conducted in leased commercial space and could be expanded,it is difficult to discern the City Council's intent in this provision. ii. The hearings officer finds the portion of the purpose statement quoted in "d"above does not reflect a legislative intent that a home occupation is allowed only if it cannot be conducted in leased space or cannot be expanded. Rather the quoted language is reflected in the approval criteria for a home occupation,which contain standards that limit the intensity of a home occupation(e.g.,to six clients per day). Council must have acted with the understanding that a use that complies with CDC 18.742.040, et seq.,is not intensive enough to be sustained in leased commercial quarters and cannot be expanded excessively. 6 CDC 18.742.040.A.9 provides: The following uses are not allowed as home occupations: a. Auto-body repair and painting; b. On-going mechanical repair conducted outside of an entirely-enclosed building; c. Junk and salvage operations; d. Storage and/or sale of fireworks. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 7 iii. If Council wanted an applicant for a home occupation to show a proposed use could not be sustained in commercial quarters and could not be expanded to a "full-scale" enterprise,both of which are vague and inherently problematic as approval standards,it would have expressly required an applicant for a home occupation to show that. Because Council did not do so,the hearings officer finds whether a home occupation could be conducted in leased quarters and could be expanded to a full-scale enterprise is not relevant to whether a proposed home occupation is permitted as such.7 7. The neighbors argued the applicant should have been required to file a new application,because she made substantial changes to the application after it was complete. a. The hearings officer acknowledges the applicant changed the application after it was deemed complete by moving the home occupation from the lower floor to the main floor of the house and by changing the means of access to the proposed hair salon rooms. However the hearings officer concludes these changes are not substantial. b. The term"substantial" is not defined in the CDC. However the term "substantial improvement" is defined(CDC 18.120.030.A.135)as "any repair, reconstruction or improvement,the cost of which exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure." This reflects a legislative intent that the term "substantial"means more than incidental;that a substantial change is one that significantly changes impacts of a use. c. The changes in this case did not significantly change the use; the use is the same. Although it changed where the use is to be conducted,the use will be conducted in the same structure as proposed in the original application. Access to the proposed use changed,but that change results in a less intrusive use;instead of having clients walk all the way down the sidewalk on the west side of the house,the applicant now proposes that clients enter through the garage doors or a side door near the front of the garage. Based on the foregoing interpretation and a brief review of cases where this issue has arisen,8 the hearings officer finds the changes in this case are not substantial. 8. The neighbors argued that the application did not contain an adequate impact study,because there is no traffic impact analysis.9 The planning manager found an impact study was not warranted,because all public systems necessary for the proposed use exist, and the impact of the proposed home occupation on those systems is negligible. 7 The hearings officer notes that some jurisdictions require just such an inquiry. For instance,the City of Gresham expressly requires an applicant for a home occupation to show that the proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the home occupation section. Tigard could require the same,but it does not do so. 8 See,e.g.,Pekarek vs. Wallowa County,33 Or LUBA 225, 1997;and Ash Creek Neigh.Ass'n vs. City of Portland,_Or LUBA_,(LUBA No.92-057,September 15, 1992). 9 CDC 18.390.040.B.2.e provides that a Type II application shall: Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address,at a minimum,the transportation system, including bikeways,the drainage system,the parks system,the water system,the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact,the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large,public facilities systems,and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 8 a. The hearings officer finds that the submission and adequacy of an impact study are not approval criteria,per se. That is,CDC 18390.040.B contains requirements for the contents of an application. Generally those requirements should be fulfilled so that there is adequate substantial evidence in the record based on which the City can make the requisite findings for approval. However an applicant can decide not to submit information required by the CDC. See ORS 227.178(2). The issue in deciding whether to approve an application on its merits is not whether the application is complete,but is whether the record contains adequate substantial evidence based on which the necessary findings for approval can be made. Often,if an application does not contain everything the local code requires it to contain,the necessary findings cannot be made or supported. However the failure of an application to include all required contents does not mean the application fails to comply with any applicable approval standard,per se. b. Therefore the hearings officer finds that it is not directly relevant to any applicable approval standard whether the application in this case does or does not include an impact study as required by CDC 18.390.040.13.2.e. 9. The neighbors argued that the proposed use does not comply with the purpose statement of CDC 18.742,because the use could be conducted in leased quarters and could be expanded. The hearings officer addressed this issue above to some extent. In response to this argument,the hearings officer finds that the purpose statement of CDC 18.742 is not an applicable approval standard for the application. The purpose statement may be relevant in construing ambiguous provisions in CDC 18.742.020,et seq.,because it is part of the context of those provisions and reflects the legislative intent of City Council in adopting this section of the code. The hearings officer will refer to the purpose statement when it is relevant to construction of ambiguous provisions of the code. 10. Neighbors argued the proposed use will cause odors detectable beyond the property line. The applicant responded that the proposed use will not cause such odors, because of its low intensity and its use of chemicals of a kind and in amounts common to a household. The applicant's husband testified that there is a ventilated shower stall in the bathroom where chemicals associated with the hair salon would be used. A fan will convey odors up and away from surrounding homes. a. The hearings officer notes this issue is relevant under CDC 18.742.040.A.3 and 18.725.030.D.10 b. The hearings officer also notes the record does not contain objective evidence about the impact of the amount of chemicals likely to be used in the home occupation or an analysis of like uses elsewhere from which the hearings officer could draw conclusions about the impact on this site. However neither does the record contain 10 CDC 18.742.040.A.3 provides: There shall be no offensive noise,vibration,smoke,dust,odors,heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line resulting from the operation.Home occupations shall observe the provisions of Chapter 18.725,Environmental Performance Standards; CDC 18.725.030.D provides: Odors. The emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable ay any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors in prohibited. DEQ rules for odors(340-028-090)apply.(emphasis in original) HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 9 substantial evidence that it is reasonably likely the amount and nature of chemicals to be used in the home occupation will result in odors that are detectable to a person of reasonable sensitivity at the property line. c. The hearings officer is familiar generally with the potential impact of odors from a hair salon simply as a pedestrian walking past the entries of commercial hair salons in downtown Portland. When the door to such establishments is open,often the smell of chemicals is noticeable and can be relatively overwhelming to a person who is not commonly exposed to such chemicals. The hearings officer's experience is admittedly incidental and non-expert,but,in the absence of better evidence,it leads the hearings officer to conclude that such an impact is possible in this case. Because the property line is only five feet from the space where the hair salon will operate,fumes associated with the use of chemicals in that business could be discharged through a window or fan into the atmosphere in a manner that results in odors that can be detected at the property line. The hearings officer does not conclude such impacts will occur;but they are possible. d. Due to the relatively low intensity of the proposed use,and the correspondingly low volume of chemicals applied in the home occupation,the hearings officer concludes that odors detectable at the property line are not reasonably likely. However,in the absence of additional evidence to that effect,the hearings officer finds that a condition of approval is warranted to address this issue. The planning manager should promptly investigate any complaints from neighbors that odors emanate from the Property. If the planning manager concludes odors detectable at the property line originate on the Property,the planning manager should issue an order suspending the use of chemicals in the home occupation until the applicant demonstrates that such odors will not occur in the future. Suspension should be subject to appeal to the hearings officer, but should be effective when received by the applicant;provided the planning manager shall serve notice of suspension by certified mail or by delivery of such notice to the applicant in person. 11. The neighbors argued that the proposed use will not be conducted entirely within the dwelling, because clients of the use will walk out-of-doors on an elevated deck from the garage to the den where the principal work of the salon will occur,contrary to CDC 18.742.O40.A.4.11 The planning manager construed CDC 18.742.O4O.A.4 to apply only to the area where the home occupation actually is conducted rather than to the route between the parking area and primary activity area for the home occupation.12 The hearings officer finds the term"operated" is vague. Therefore the hearings officer must construe it. In so doing,the hearings officer relies on the context of the provision. a. The purpose statement of a section provides context for ambiguous provisions within a given section. In this case,the purpose for the home occupation chapter includes a statement that the chapter is intended to ensure that a home occupation is conducted"in a manner that is not detrimental or disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents." b. A use cannot operate unless people can get to it. To that extent the route between the parking for a use and the primary operations of a use are part of those 11 CDC 18.742.040.A.4 provides in relevant part as follows: The home occupation shall be operated entirely within the dwelling unit and a conforming accessory structure... 12 At page 3 of the Staff Report,the planning manager states"[tlhe business activity is limited those areas of the house where the business is actually conducted,and not the route to those area." HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 10 operations. If use of a route from the parking area to the area where the business is conducted results in detrimental impacts or disruption to neighbors,the hearings officer finds that is relevant to whether the operation of the home occupation complies with CDC 18.742.040.A.4. c. In this case the route will take people out-of-doors after they have entered the garage. Although hair will not be cut outdoors,it is the passage of people(i.e., strangers who are not guests of the residents of the dwelling but are clients of the business),that neighbors argue cause disruption. That is,they reduce the privacy of the adjoining decks and yards of the neighbors'homes by exposing those neighboring features to the view of business clients. The hearings officer finds this is disruptive and detrimental to the privacy of neighbors'homes. d. The disruption caused by business clients using the deck could be remedied by installing a barrier that prevents views from the deck to the neighbors east and west of the site. Such a barrier may have to extend around the rear of the deck as well as its sides to achieve visual isolation. If such a barrier is installed, clients' use of the deck would not be detrimental to the privacy of the neighbors. Such a barrier could be required as a condition of approval. If such a condition is imposed,the home occupation will not violate that portion of CDC 18.742.040.A.4 that requires the use to be conducted entirely within the dwelling. e. For what it is worth,if business clients entered the dwelling through the front door,that would not be detrimental or disruptive to neighbors'reasonable expectations of privacy. That is,neighbors have no right to privacy in front yards that are readily visible to passersby. If business clients entered the business through the front door of the dwelling or through a door that adjoins the front of a dwelling(such as the side door to the garage in this case),that would not be a disruptive or detrimental impact of the operation of the use. However in this case,the rules of the Board of Cosmetology require a separate entry to the hair salon(OAR 817-020-0011(2)(d)),and that forces business clients to use the rear deck to access the home business,because there is no other means of access that complies with the rule unless the Board of Cosmetology issues a written statement allowing an exception to the general rule in this instance,and the applicant provides a copy of that written statement to the City for verification. 12. Neighbors argued that the proposed use will exceed the maximum area allowed for a home occupation if that area is calculated to include any undivided space through which business clients must pass,(i.e.,the garage, the deck and the main floor area through which clients must pass to go between the den and the bathroom).13 The planning manager applied the maximum square footage standard only to the area where the home occupation actually is conducted,(i.e.,the den,the bathroom and a small area of hallway between them). The hearings officer finds the term"business activity" is ambiguous. Therefore the hearings officer must construe it. In so doing, the hearings officer relies on the context of the provision. a. Based on the foregoing discussion,which considers the context provided by CDC 18.742.010.A.2,the hearings officer finds the term "business activity" includes movement of clients from a parking area to the primary place of the business when 13 CDC 18.742.040.A.4 provides in relevant part as follows: The total area which may be used in the accessory building for either material product storage and/or the business activity shall not exceed 528 square feet. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 11 such movement causes a detrimental impact or disruption to neighboring properties or residents. b. The hearings officer finds that moving clients through an interior space, whether divided or undivided,does not cause a detrimental impact or disruption,because there are no off-site impacts associated with such movement. Therefore the garage and main floor area of the home(exclusive of the den,bathroom and a reasonable area between them) should not count toward the area of the business activity. c. However the use of the rear deck for movement of clients between the garage and the den does have a disruptive impact for the same reasons discussed above. Therefore the rear deck should count toward the area of the business activity unless the applicant provides a barrier to views east and west. Without such a visual barrier for the deck,the total area of the business activity exceeds 528 square feet. 13. Neighbors argued that the proposed home occupation will involve the use of chemicals that are hazardous and increase the potential for fire danger. The hearings officer finds this issue is relevant under CDC 18.742.040.A.4 and 7.14 a. The applicant's husband testified that the home occupation will involve use of and will store chemicals in quantities that are typical of a household. Although there is no objective evidence to support his testimony,neither is there any substantial evidence to the contrary. If the use is approved,the hearings officer can impose a condition of approval to prohibit storage of more than a certain amount of chemicals so as to ensure compliance with limits imposed by the relevant codes,and compliance with that standard could be verified by inspection. Therefore the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will or can comply with the relevant part of CDC 18.742.040.A.4 dealing with this issue,subject to such a condition of approval. b. Exhibit B is a letter from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue("TVFR")to the effect that the proposed home occupation does not pose a hazard due to fire or explosion greater than that posed by a typical dwelling. The hearings officer infers from this statement that the proposed use does not pose a dangerous risk. Therefore the applicant sustained the burden of proof under CDC 18.742.040.A.7. 14. Neighbors argued that the proposed use will cause excessive on-street parking, because it will consume two of the four spaces available for vehicles in the driveway of the home and will monopolize on-street parking. The hearings officer disagrees. a. A single family home is required to provide one off-street parking space (CDC Table 18.765.2). The applicant provides four spaces in the driveway and four to six spaces in the garage. Therefore there is ample parking for the home occupation and the residential use of the Property. 14 CDC 18.742.040.A.4 provides in relevant part as follows: ... The indoor storage of materials or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the building,fire,health and housing codes; CDC 18.742.040.A.7 provides in relevant part as follows: There shall be no storage and/or distribution of toxic or flammable materials,and spray painting or spray finishing operations that involve toxic or flammable materials which in the judgment of the Fire Marshal pose a dangerous risk to the residence,its occupants,and/or surrounding properties... HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 12 • b. The home occupation does not force the applicant,her nanny or other residents of the home to park on the street, although they are legally entitled to do so. The neighbors'complaints about on-street parking by the applicant,her family and guests are not relevant to the application for the home occupation and do not show the home occupation would violate CDC 18.742.040.A.8 or 18.742.050.A.2.c. 15. Neighbors argued that the addition of any traffic to Benchview Terrace as a result of the home occupation would be excessive, and that the driveway does not comply with visual clearance standards. The hearings officer disagrees with the first of those arguments and finds there is not enough evidence to resolve the second of those arguments. a. If the use is limited to six clients per day(and the hearings officer clarifies that a client means one or more persons arriving and departing in one vehicle),then the use will generate not more than twelve vehicle trips per day. That number of trips is not excessive,given the street carries more than 3000 vehicle trips per day in the vicinity of the Property,and the street does not exceed its engineered capacity or cause any intersection to violate level of service standards or maximum volume to capacity ratios. The glare caused by the setting sun for drivers of westbound vehicles is not caused or exacerbated by the proposed use, and it is not relevant to whether the traffic impact of the proposed use is excessive. Neither does the speed of traffic make twelve additional trips excessive. b. It is not clear from substantial evidence in the record whether the intersection of the driveway and Benchview Terrace complies with the visual clearance standards of CDC 18.795. There are relatively small walls that appear to be within thirty feet of the east edge of the driveway along the Benchview Terrace frontage. It is not clear whether those walls exceed a height of three feet. If they exceed that height,a condition of approval could require the applicant to remove or lower the walls so that they comply. If they do not exceed that height,they do not violate the visual clearance standard even though they extend to the sidewalk,unless the City finds the slope of the street to the east warrants a more restrictive standard for this driveway intersection. A condition of approval could ensure that the driveway does or will comply with CDC 18.795. 16. Neighbors argued that,due to the cumulative impacts of the use on the privacy of adjoining homes, the safe use of Benchview Terrace by vehicles and pedestrians,the lack of definitive limits on the use,the alleged behavior of the applicant and her husband, children,nanny and friends unrelated to the home occupation,and other perceptions of and fears about the home occupation,the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the home occupation will not be detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents. This is relevant under CDC 18385.020.B3 and 18.742.060.B.3.0 Curiously neither the planning manager's decision nor the Staff Report address this standard precisely. a. The hearings officer is not persuaded that behaviors in which the neighbors allege the applicant and her family have engaged in the past are relevant to this application,even if there was substantial evidence to support such allegations. These issues are better left to mediation or other means not related to land use permitting. The hearings officer also is not persuaded that concerns about potential impacts(e.g.,impacts on Benchview Terrace)are appropriate bases for denial of the permit application if there is 15 CDC 18.385.020.B.3 and 18.742.060.B.3 are identical. Each provides that a Type II home occupation: Is undertaken in a manner that is not detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 13 no substantial evidence in the record to show that such concerns are reasonably likely to be borne out in fact. The hearings officer appreciates the frustration the neighbors have about the proposed use. No doubt,they do not want anyone in the neighborhood to conduct a home occupation that involves clients coming to a property. They could have provided for such a prohibition through deed restrictions that can go beyond the protection afforded by zoning and can be enforced privately. But the hearings officer concludes the law allows the home occupation in this case,subject to appropriate conditions. Action on the permit application cannot be based on popularity. b. The hearings officer finds that,in addition to the potential for detrimental impacts and disruption due to odors and loss of privacy of neighbors'properties, there is a potential for disruption if people other than the applicant's client are on the Property while the applicant and the client are engaged in hair care. The applicant did not propose to provide care for anyone other than clients. Therefore the permit should authorize the home occupation to allow only the person(s)who is/are receiving hair care by the applicant(and the immediately preceding and/or immediately succeeding client)to be on the Property. Any individuals needed to reasonably accommodate disabilities of the client also should be permitted to accompany the client. This generally would exclude children who are not clients. Unsupervised children could pose a hazard to themselves and a disruption to neighbors. Exceptions are warranted for babies being nursed by the client and others whose health or other circumstances warrant that they accompany the client,provided such other persons shall remain in the vicinity of the client at all times. This condition minimizes the intensity of the use and ancillary impacts. c. The hearings officer also appreciates the frustration of the neighbors in having to be the first line of defense against violations of the permit. The City does not have a lot of resources devoted to enforcement. As is common elsewhere,enforcement is complaint-driven. If neighbors believe the applicant is violating a condition of the permit, they should contact the City and advocate for timely enforcement. d. To facilitate the enforcement process,the hearings officer finds that the permit should be subject to administrative review with the potential for appeal to the hearings officer to verify that the applicant is conducting the home occupation consistent with the conditions of approval. To that end the applicant should be required to submit an application for such a review of conditions within one calendar year after the effective date of this final order(i.e.,after a final decision by the highest court to whom appeal of this decision is taken,if any). The application should contain substantial evidence that the applicant is conducting the home occupation consistent with the conditions of approval of this decision. The purpose of that review is not to reconsider the issuance of the permit. The purpose is to verify the applicant continues to comply with the conditions of approval of this final order and to determine whether any additional conditions may be warranted to ensure such compliance. If the applicant is not complying with the conditions of approval of this decision,the result of the administrative review may be revocation or suspension of the permit or imposition of additional or modified conditions. 17. Neighbors argued the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the proposed home occupation will comply with the ADA and Board of Cosmetology regulations. Conditions of approval of the planning manager's decision required such compliance. See conditions 2 and 3 of Exhibit A. a. The hearings officer finds that the ADA and the regulations of the Board of Cosmetology are not relevant approval standards for a home occupation permit,because the ADA and Board of Cosmetology regulations are not identified in the CDC as approval standards, and compliance with those standards is not necessary to show the proposed use HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 14 will comply with the approval standards listed in the CDC. See ORS 227.173(1)cited in footnote 3 above. The City does not rely on compliance with the rules of the Board of Cosmetology to fulfill any requirement of the City's approval standards. b. However under other provisions of the City Code, (i.e., provisions implementing the Uniform Building Code),the applicant is required to comply with the ADA. The hearings officer finds such compliance is feasible. The applicant may have to remove and replace doorways so they are wide enough;may have to remove,replace or alter door jambs so they are not an obstacle to the disabled; may have to replace door handles;and may have to remove or alter fixtures in the bathroom to provide adequate clearance for the disabled in wheelchairs. Nothing precludes these improvements. The applicant can do all of them. Whether it is cost efficient for the applicant to do so and whether it best protects the value of the house for purposes of resale is not relevant to the application. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed home occupation permit does or will comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code,provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state,and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein,and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter,the hearings officer hereby approves HOP 2002-00010(Moos),subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Before the applicant begins use of the Property for a hair salon,the applicant shall submit a copy of the following to the Tigard Planning Division: a. The final inspection of the Property from the Tigard Building Department to verify all aspects of the hair salon business,including access from the driveway to the den and adjoining bathroom, comply with State Building Codes,including ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act)requirements;or submit a written statement from the Tigard Building Department that such an inspection is not necessary to ensure compliance with those standards. The applicant shall consult with the Building Department to determine what modifications will be needed to ensure that the proposed use will comply. b. Certification of the hair salon from the Health Licensing Office of the State of Oregon Board of Cosmetology. In addition the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a copy of any notice or inspection report the applicant receives from the Board of Cosmetology without ten(10)calendar days after the applicant receives such notice or inspection report. c. A business license issued by the City of Tigard. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 15 2. Also before the applicant begins use of the Property for a hair salon,the applicant shall: a. Install a minimum six-foot high sight-obscuring barrier along the east and west sides of the deck and along as much of the north side of the deck as is necessary to substantially obscure and block direct views from the deck on the Property to the decks of adjoining lots to the east and west of the Property. This condition shall not apply if the Board of Cosmetology authorizes the applicant in writing to access the hair salon by means of the front door to the dwelling,and the applicant limits client access to that door;provided,the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a copy of such authorization if granted by the Board of Cosmetology. b. Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning manager that the intersection of the driveway on the Property and Benchview Terrace complies with the visual clearance standards of CDC 18.795. The planning manager may conclude that the slope of the street to the east warrants a more restrictive standard for this driveway intersection as provided by CDC 18.785.030.C. 3. The home occupation business shall occur only in the den and adjoining bathroom. Clients may enter the home business only through the side door or garage doors of the garage and along the rear deck or,if permitted by the Board of Cosmetology, through the front door. 4. The home occupation shall continue to comply with CDC 18.742 and the conditions of approval of this final order at all times. 5. Vehicle parking for the home occupation shall occur only in the driveway. 6. Signs and/or employees for the Home Occupation are prohibited,unless the applicant applies for and receives approval of such changes through a Type II Home Occupation process. 7. The planning manager shall promptly investigate any complaints from neighbors that odors emanate from the Property. If the planning manager concludes odors detectable at the property line originate on the Property,the planning manager shall issue a written order suspending the use of chemicals in the home occupation permit the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the planning manager that such odors will not occur in the future. The planning manager shall serve notice of suspension by certified mail or by delivery of such notice to the applicant in person. The applicant shall suspend the use of chemicals in the home occupation immediately upon receipt of an order to that effect from the planning manager; provided, the applicant may appeal the suspension order by filing an appeal as provided in CDC 18390.040.G(i.e., as for a Type II decision). The home occupation may continue to operate without use of chemcials pending a final decision on a timely appeal of a suspension order. 8. The applicant may serve not more than six clients per day from Tuesday through Saturday,inclusive,between the hours of 9 Am and 5 PM. A client is a person who receives hair care from the applicant. A client and all HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 16 • those accompanying the client as allowed herein shall arrive and depart in not more than one motor vehicle. Only clients are permitted on the Property in conjunction with the home occupation;provided,the following additional persons may accompany the client: any persons needed to reasonably accommodate disabilities of the client,babies being nursed by the client,and others whose health or other circumstances warrant that they accompany the client,provided such other persons shall remain in the vicinity of the client at all times. 9. The applicant shall not store on the Property chemicals in amounts in excess of those permitted by the Uniform Building Code,fire/life safety codes or the housing code,and the planning manager may inspect the Property to verify compliance with this condition of approval. 10. Within one calendar year after the effective date of this final order(i.e.,after a final decision by the highest court to whom appeal of this decision is taken,if any),the applicant shall file an application with the City for a review of the conditions of approval of this final order pursuant to a Type II process,provided,a pre-application conference is not required. The application should contain substantial evidence that the applicant is conducting the home occupation consistent with the conditions of approval of this decision. If the applicant is not complying with the conditions of approval of this decision,the result of the review of conditions may be revocation or suspension of the permit or imposition of additional or modified conditions. DA MO this 28th day of Ma 2002. 1 . r ALA, iri I•. _ - Larry Epstein, r sq., , 11147 City of Tigard ' •ari gs i ficer • HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 17 yrif -"Niv wimer"— NA Ariar�. ��f��aNit? CITY of T I G A R D + • ,10VA . Al* O[OORAPAIC iAFORMATION 0T . Z 41 0T4A ift 1111111111 f�I VICINITY MAP LialMiami /d al ♦ 'Iw a► mo Nom in ir, ♦ m ��. - . am - NOP2002-00010 le *V Willi 11110 i MI 41* l 4 411111M AIL. III ld ►,,r Illi i 1111111M1 MOOS SALON WAIIIIArimi..11111111Wrallriff&11 lk wir Vrill 1 fa% rrr • Ai 1.11.40 A* - ALH. *�e-•• hi $111 Sw e_rvci�vi6nt t.'A a.' 4 OIL IIPI P\e s'% i FP JAW .41‘ 4% .7x\ 464 & 4*-44V 440,s034* .11111111110P' -4, S ...,:‘ 11111_ .; • a 11.1 1 V'irt.1,7,f*:''AYL(*s.A- 1111 42,..;,,, 0,4',4, ,::%;�r, ''* 41 P"4 g i I II1V AA 4- 1,8 itit01‘ A-' %I I ll NI 111 i i forCET E 2!1# OA tPyy N , 4wor)tv,1,„ ), �•�3�j ■ : e I euu..Liii A ..... ias vell ,,,PPN a e<0.4 4.6p4 .11, 1iSF 0t4NO RCl,r ,*„;5,,, ,, _, ,, .=i.d ) 9yrAr � *, ' ?{; ..,,,, i A. iiiiiiiiiiiiktin mot 46 � - T4gard AmMep 7414� N t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIB 0 200 400 600 Fee1 i t^H TfSR f)R S I1-p , �` 1^e 402 teat \'C Applo _ 4 c)4,,, ii mookr.* 114 411 go gra . Tsa lri `+ �la`' - VIEW f � IjIlk �I— .4' lie' 41p _r— T ���.� ■� Z City of Tigard r� m tJ HOODVISTA LNtr Information an thio map It(or general loeetlon only and r11111 �� ALPINE VIE .iimi -� ahauld be verltlad withgtha Development Servleee Olvleion, ` �LEAH l .e �410* 111101111 1312$SW Hai Blvd ul AL- . •• � Tigard,OR 97223 —��) ERp41/4 . (503)639.4171 .1 `I / f http nwm.cogardAr,ua Community Development + t ( Plot date:Feb 14,2002;C:Magic\MAGIC43.APR NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (HOP) 2002-00010 a'►! CITY OF TIGARD MOOS HOME-OCCUPATION Communi !, 3e eke t it Setter runty:. DBA; MOOR SALON 120 DAYS = 6/13/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: MOOS HOME OCCUPATION FILE NO.: Home Occupation Permit (HOP) HOP2002-00010 APPLICANT: Sopaul Moos OWNER: Steven & Sopaul Moos 13783 SW Benchview Terrace 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval fora Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9 AM to 5 PM Tuesday through Saturday. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-7; Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 (PD): Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a • minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. The PD overlay permits some flexibility to the underlying development standards. LOCATION: The subject site is located at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that,the City of Tigard Community Development Directors designeehast APPROVED the above request subject to; certain conditions Of<approval; The findings_and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section V. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 1 OF 10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED,THE STAFF CONTACT SHALL BE MORGAN TRACY IN THE PLANNING DIVISION AT(503Y 6391-4171; 1. The applicant shall certify that the areas used for the home occupation business will be limited to that shown on the revised site plan. 2. The applicant/owner shall consult with the Building Department to determine what modifications will be needed to ensure that the proposed use will comply with State Building Codes, including ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. The business shall not be in operation until either the Building Department acknowledges that no modifications are required, or until final building inspection approval has been issued. 3. The applicant/owner shall receive proper certification from the Health Licensing Office of the State of Oregon Department of Cosmetology prior to operating the business. Copies of the certification shall be submitted to the City prior to operation of the business. 4. All Home Occupation standards discussed in this decision and detailed in the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.742 must be complied with at all times. 5. The applicant/owner shall direct any customers who visit the site to park in the driveway and not utilize on street parking. 6. There shall be no signs, or employees for the Home Occupation, without reapplication through the Type II Home Occupation process. SECTION III. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The City mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site providing them an opportunity to comment. The City received a large number of responses, including several phone calls and twenty-eight letters in opposition to the proposed salon. The issues raised during the comment period include: 1. Additional traffic/dangerous existing street condition. a. 3 bus stops on one side of street require children to cross street. Incline, limited visibility make it difficult to see kids crossing. b. 3,000 vehicles per day, average speed 35 mph (25 speed limit). c. Minimal lighting, and no crosswalks d. Grade is 8% and increases to 13-15% downhill. RESPONSE: The street is designated as a neighborhood route in the City's Transportation System Plan. The addition of up to 12 trips per day (6 customers travelling to and from the site) will not result in failing levels of service, nor is seen as a significant increase (0.4%) in vehicle trips. The majority of the concerns related to traffic are of a general nature and apply to any driver utilizing the street and have no specific bearing on the proposed Home Occupation business. It would additionally be inappropriate to restrict traffic below the level allowed in the ordinance. 2. Fire danger. a. Salon uses flammables (hair sprays, peroxides, dyes) and prolonged use of appliances (dryers, curling irons, etc.) b. Proximity of greenway, difficulty of fire suppression. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 2 OF 10 RESPONSE: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was contacted regarding the proposed Home Occupation and concludes that the business does not create a fire hazard that is more significant than a typical home use, see Agency Comments later in this report. Several neighbors commented that the TVFR had responded with emergency vehicles three times to this address in February and December. These responses were triggered by the automated fire alarm system in the house and the new owner's unfamiliarity with the system. There have been no other reported responses since the initial three calls. There is an undeveloped greenway between homes on Benchview Terrace and Hillshire Drive that has caused several neighbors to worry about fire spreading from the subject site to their homes. As TVFR has determined that the proposed hair salon use is not at increased risk for fire, the probability of fire spreading from this site is equal to the probability of fire spreading to this site. 3. Vehicle traffic pollution, noise pollution, litter, general noise, odors, excessive parked cars will impair livability of nearby homes. RESPONSE: Customers are required to park in the driveway, so there should be no impact to the available on street parking. Noise must be kept to a minimum and be in compliance with the noise limits set forth in the Tigard Municipal Code. Additionally, this type of business is not normally associated with noise producing activities above and beyond what is typically associated with a single-family residence. Similarly, odors are not expected to be beyond what is normally associated with a single-family dwelling. If code limits were exceeded, the owner would be required to comply or be cited into court. The City cannot restrict the use for possible violations that have not occurred. It is the owner's responsibility to abide by the law or else risk citation. 4. Defies the purpose of the ordinance to allow"small scale business ventures which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters." There are specific salon spaces that are available for small start up ventures. RESPONSE: While it has been noted that the applicant has had an established business practice, the limitations imposed by the home occupation rules de facto cause the business to be a small scale venture. Most professional salons service many more than 6 clients per day, and most employ more than one stylist. If the proposed use exceeds these limitations, then the use will have to relocate to commercial space. However, as proposed, the use does not violate the purpose of the Home Occupation provisions. 5. Use is not allowed in R-7 zone per use table. Classified as"Personal Service" use. RESPONSE: The proposed use is classified as a "Home Occupation"which is listed as a restricted use in the R-7 zone, subject to the requirements of the Home Occupation ordinance. While the use is of a personal service nature, the home occupation rules allow a wide range of services and sales, with the specific exception of"auto-body repair and painting", "on-going mechanical repair conducted outside of an entirely enclosed building", "junk and salvage operations", and "storage or sale of fireworks". Other personal service uses that are typical Type II home occupations include piano teaching, acupuncture, massage, and counseling. 6. This type of business requires a steady flow of customers visiting the site versus the typical home business where the proprietor visits the clients. RESPONSE: The home occupation rules limit the number of customers to six per day. There is a distinction between Type I and Type II home occupations. Type I home occupations involve no employees or customers coming to the site, and are much more limited in scale. These home based businesses are granted permits "over the counter." Type II Home Occupations, because they allow for up to one employee and six customers per day, are thereby more conspicuous, HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 3 OF 10 require a more thorough review. While the proposed use is different than home "office"type businesses with no on-site clients, it is similar in nature to the other personal service uses listed above where clients come to the site. 7. No impact study was included. RESPONSE: The fact that no impact study was included with the application, as mandated by 18.390, was an oversight. The applicant was contacted and informed that an impact study was necessary. The applicant has since fulfilled this requirement. Discussion of the impact study is later in this decision. 8. Security. Lack of adequate police patrols, no fences. Strangers (clients) make monitoring the situation more difficult. RESPONSE: The clients are only permitted to visit the site between 9 AM and 5 PM and will park on the driveway. Any suspicious activity should be reported to the Tigard City Police Department as with any suspicious activity around any home. 9. Signage will detract from the character of the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The Home Occupation rules allow for a sign up to 1.5 square feet, which must be either attached to the structure or placed in a window. The applicant has stated that no sign will be used. 10. Size of rooms and related spaces exceeds 528 s.f. and there are no walls designating the 528 s.f. limits of the business space. RESPONSE: The code specifies that"the home occupation and associated storage of materials and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the combined residence and accessory structure gross floor area, but in no case shall the portion of the home occupation occupying the accessory use exceed 528 feet." This is discussed in greater detail in Section IV. 11.Additional Department of Cosmetology requirements: a. separation from residence with solid walls. b. Separate basin sinks for hair washing c. Different disposal methods for hazardous materials RESPONSE: These are requirements of the State Board of Cosmetology and are enforced by the Health Licensing Office (HLO) division. An annual inspection is performed by the HLO to ensure compliance with these standards. Staff contacted the HLO to discuss these concerns, nevertheless, to ensure that it is at least feasible to have a home based salon. The downstairs areas shown in the applicants site plan have doors that can be closed to separate the business from the residence. Whether the clients can walk from a segregated area (the salon)through an unsegregated area (the hallway)to get to another segregated area (the bathroom) is a question for the HLO to decide. The HLO did note that standard disposal of cosmetic supplies into trashcans for general pick up was acceptable. 12. Separate entry required by state cosmetology dept. a. forces users to go down"unsafe" stairs, no handrail, steep, and unlit. b. Clients must go around 3/4 of house exterior, 5 feet from neighbors house, to reach separate entrance. c. Entrance is a sliding door(is this code legal?) HOP2002-00010TTYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 4 OF 10 REPONSE: The separate entry is a requirement of the State Board of Cosmetology, however, in this instance the separate entry will dictate that the clients must use a stairway that may not meet Building Code standards. Staff contacted the Health Licensing Office, who administers the Board of Cosmetology rules to see if there was an exception process to this rule. There is not. The City ensures compliance with the building code. As a result of this discovery, the applicant has modified the proposed location of the business space to the entry-level floor where clients will enter through the garage and proceed to the study. While this may satisfy some issues with the building code, it may create problems for the Board of Cosmetology. To ensure that the proposed use is in compliance, the applicant will be required to provide documentation from the building division and from the Board of Cosmetology. 13. Multiple Building Code issues related to existing structure. RESPONSE: The building codes are administered by the City of Tigard. To fully address the concerns that were expressed, staff will require the applicant to consult with the building department, and make modifications as necessary to bring the use into compliance with State Building Codes. Any modifications must be complete and approved prior to operating the business. 14. Impacts to sewer system from chemical dumping RESPONSE: There is no evidence that significant amounts of chemicals related to the business will be dumped in the sewer. Nevertheless, the types of chemicals associated with a hair cutting business will not adversely impact the capacity or capability of the sewer system. 15. Salon is not defined as to the extent of the business, types of services, etc. RESPONSE: So long as the services provided do not violate local, state, or federal law, are not one of the four prohibited uses for Home Occupations, and meet the criteria discussed below, then the exact type of salon is irrelevant. However, the applicant was asked to provide clarification to assist the City in accurately identifying the types of home based businesses in the city. The applicant has stated that she will be cutting hair. In general, many of the concerns expressed were speculative in nature. The code specifies criteria and limitations on the Home Occupation use which have been determined to mitigate or prevent external impacts normally expected from home based businesses. There are other code provisions (both from the development code and the municipal code) that speak to continued compliance with environmental performance standards (noise, vibrations, and odors), parking, and garbage. The City cannot deny a proposal that meets the requirements of its codes on the basis that the proposed use may not meet other code requirements in the future, or that the possibility exists, in certain circumstances, that a violation will occur. The decision that is issued as part of this review is a determination that the proposal, as proposed, does not violate the City's development code. If subsequent violations are found to exist, the city may revoke the Home Occupation license, and the applicant must wait one year before reapplying for a new license. It should also be noted that the granting of a Home Occupation Permit only authorizes that the use may occur. It does not preclude the applicant from complying with all other relevant local, state, and federal requirements. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 5 OF 10 In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has submitted an impact study. Sanitary Sewer:The applicant states that there will be no impact to the sewer system, as the home is already connected to adequate sewer. Water Supply:The applicant indicates that cutting hair will not have an impact on the water supply. Storm Drainage:The applicant notes that proper storm drainage has already been established and will not be changed. Schools: The applicant states that"because what I plan to do is so low key and inobtrusive [sic], it will be just as if I were living in my home and having a friend over. There will be no impact on the area's schools." Power-Telephone-Cable TV: Private utilities are existing and adequate to serve the proposed use. Parks: There are no parks near the site. Therefore there is no impact expected to parks. Noise Impacts: The applicant notes that there will be only one car at the house at a time, therefore limiting noise from cars. The hair cutting will occur inside so there will be no noise associated with the salon. Transportation: The applicant states that"since only one car at a time will be at my house, there will be no impact on transportation." Staff finds that since this is an existing developed parcel with public facilities that meet City standards, there are no impacts that require mitigation. The addition of up to 12 trips per day is an insignificant increase to the total capacity of SW Benchview, a fully improved street. The development is served by public water. Sewer service is present and no improvements are necessary.There is an approved public storm drain system,and the proposed use will have no effect on this system, as the use proposes no additional impervious area. Schools are not impacted as the use does not contribute to the enrollment demand. Parks, like schools are unaffected by the presence of this use. Therefore,this standard is satisfied. Section 18.742.040 states that all home occupations except those that have proven non- conforming status, shall observe the following criteria in addition to the standards established for Type I and Type II uses described in 18.742.050: Home occupations may be undertaken only by the principal occupant(s) of a residential property; The proposed Home Occupation is being undertaken by the property owner who is a principal occupant of the property. There shall be no more than three deliveries per week to the residence by suppliers; The applicant has indicated there will be no delivery of products or supplies to the residence. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 6 OF 10 There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line resulting from the operation. Home occupations shall observe the provisions of the Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) Chapter 18.090, Environmental Performance Standards; No offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, etc. are anticipated based on the proposed Home Occupation business since it will be conducted indoors and involves no manufacturing or assembly. The home occupation shall be operated entirely within the dwelling unit and a conforming accessory structure. The total area which may be used in the accessory building for either material product storage and/or the business activity shall not exceed 528 square feet. Otherwise, the home occupation and associated storage of materials and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the combined residence and accessory structure gross floor area, but in no case shall the portion of the home occupation occupying the accessory use exceed 528 square feet. The indoor storage of materials or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the building,fire, health and housing codes; Twenty-five percent of the home size is 1,950 square feet; however, the maximum area the code allows is 528 square feet to be used for a home occupation. The applicant has proposed to use approximately 500 square feet of the 7,800 square foot residence for the home occupation. Based on comments and concerns received from neighbors, Staff performed a site inspection on March 8, 2002 to verify the size of the proposed business space. Upon closer inspection of the building permit records, staff noted that the other areas accessory to the home occupation pushed the total square footage to approximately 770 square feet. The applicant's original location for the salon was downstairs and would not satisfy ADA requirements. Because of these two issues, the applicant has proposed to locate the salon space upstairs. On March 20, 2002 staff again visited the site to verify the size of room proposed for the use. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the size and location of the rooms to be used for the business. These areas total 285 square feet. The applicant will need to certify that the revised areas shown will be the only areas used for the home occupation business. FINDING: The size limitations for Home Occupations are satisfied as shown on the revised site plan. CONDITION: The applicant shall certify that the areas used for the home occupation business will be limited to that shown on the revised site plan. A home occupation shall not make necessary a change in the Uniform Building Code use classification of a dwelling unit. Any accessory building that is used must meet Uniform Building Code requirements and be in conformance with TCDC Chapter 18.144 of this title; No changes to the dwelling are proposed which would reclassify the occupancy type of the structure. One letter received during the comment period specifically questions a number of building code issues. To ensure that building codes are satisfied, the applicant shall consult with the Building Department to determine what modifications will be needed to ensure that the proposed use will comply with State Building Codes, including ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act)requirements. The business shall not be in operation until either the Building Department acknowledges that no modifications are required, or until final building inspection approval has been issued. More than one (1) business activity constituting two or more home occupations shall be allowed on one property, only if the combined floor space of the business activities does not exceed 25 percent of the combined gross floor area of the residence and accessory structure. Each home occupation shall apply for a separate home occupation permit. NOTE: The Tigard Business Tax HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 7 OF 10 requires payment for only one (1) Business Tax if the same owner is operating more than one approved business at the same location. Although payment for each separate business is not required, it is required that all names of the businesses' which are currently in operation at that location be specifically listed on the Business Tax Certificate and be visibly posted at the business location. There are no other Home Occupations approved for this site, therefore, this criterion does not apply. There shall be no storage and/or distribution of toxic or flammable materials, and spray painting or spray finishing operations that involve toxic or flammable material which in the judgment of the Fire Marshall pose a dangerous risk to the residence, its occupants, and/or surrounding properties. Those individuals which are engaged in home occupations shall make available to the Fire Marshal, for review, the Material Safety Data Sheets which pertain to all potentially toxic and/or flammable materials associated with the use; No storage or distribution of toxic or flammable materials is necessary for the proposed use, and the Fire Marshall has indicated that the materials in use for this proposed salon do not pose a dangerous risk to the residence, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. No home occupation shall require any on or off-street parking other than that normally required for a residence; The applicant has stated in her impact statement that clients will park in the driveway. This will be required as a condition of approval to ensure that on street parking is not detrimentally affected. FINDING: On-street parking will be affected by the addition of client's visits if no limitations are imposed. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall direct any customers who visit the site to park in the driveway and not utilize on-street parking. The following uses are not allowed as home occupations: (a) Auto-body repair and painting. (b) Ongoing mechanical repair conducted outside of an entirely enclosed building. (c) Junk and salvage operations. (d) Storage and/or sale of fireworks. The proposed Home Occupation does not involve any of the above uses, and will be a hair salon use only,therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. There shall be no exterior storage of vehicles of any kind used for the business except one commercially licensed vehicle of not more than three-quarters ton GVW which may be parked outside of a structure or screened area; No exterior storage of vehicles is proposed or anticipated, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. There shall be no storage of materials, goods, and equipment unless screened entirely from view by a solid fence. Storage shall not exceed five (5) percent of the total lot area and shall not occur within the front yard or the required side yard setback; No outdoor storage of materials, goods or equipment is proposed or anticipated, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 8 OF 10 In addition to the general approval criteria, Type-II home occupations allow the following according to the TDC chapter 18.142.050: (a) One non-illuminated sign, not exceeding 1.5 square feet, which shall be attached to the residence or accessory structure or placed in a window; (b) No more than one outside volunteer or employee who is not a principal resident of the premises; (c) No more than six daily customers or clients. Customers and clients may not visit the business between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. and shall not generate excessive traffic or monopolize on-street parking; (d) Storage of materials, goods, and equipment which is screened entirely from view by a solid fence. Storage shall not exceed five (5) percent of the total lot area and shall not occur within the front yard or the required side yard setback. The applicant has indicated that there will be no signage. There will be no outside employees related to the Home Occupation business. The applicant has indicated that there will be up to, but not more than six customers visiting the site per day. The hours of operation for the business will be between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday. Parking will occur in the driveway. As previously stated, no storage of materials is proposed or anticipated. Therefore these standards are met. SECTION V. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 26,2002 AND EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 10, 2002 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. HOP2002-00010/TYPE It MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 9 OF 10 • THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON APRIL 9, 2002. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at(503) 639-4171. 74B- March 26, 2002 P £74 Y: Morga racy DATE Associate Planner cen- March 26, 2002 APPROVED BY: Richard H. Bewers7 DATE Planning Manager lAcurpin\morgan\workspacethopiNhop2002-00010(moos)\hop2002-00010 staff report.doc HOP2002-00010fTYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION(IN HOME SALON) PAGE 10 OF 10 .,i— :r .—...., - - 1 (5)3/0 X 5/0 a O.OVER W/' _ 1'i. j • : (57 3/0 X 3/F7 I XD.OVER \ \ . /1 F • i 4 G DECK - I *14•,''' ''. /� F I m • 3.0 3 `;.,, - W/�y'WONDER BD.•. ;R •.-.,i�, _.. .............•..0.-,�OM /12'PAVERS 0 R / \ ` ...r a DECEIVED _ • _ Qr�a _ _ � :. �: f. Vl X WD L-L.. —N2 ... W.Y M IIW M1. „.<,....: _.— .— _ _,�_ _ _. . I — — 10',©' ,C2._g• X 12-II' e a• :1-41:1 do YIww•M 1•' '"'>r N .,7 _. f `007 A 0♦ - 3 Q:Y „, 9 �..esnn .uta>. / { 5/0 6& L. m 3 Q_ _ _+ xn� \Q LEC > _ 6 X 12 - TR4N501 ABOVE �• _ vv PRE-FAQ METAL INSERT s - — t— — — 'i - -! sl C� FIREP'LACE W/GGMB. XI '� - 4/0 X 4/0 FXD. / ,�- PLA 1 1 N 1 ' � / AIFR VENT AND 20' >1 2 0 X 4/0 Sll.EA. IDE H RECE99E \ % • FLUSH MIARBLE NEARTN I y VENTED ±'• /� , m i [FIrREBOX TO BE 8' X 5/0 ATRIUM DR I 'fF`.'• 1• �'-_'-- o \ I .1m I 2 STORY .C4BOYE HEARTH) a (TEMP> I. 110 VOLT ''' .. /`\ 6474'X 9'G .Vh1.( LUSH) I LL ( QO .(SEE T11f I I-L TE — - \ s�1! - J F.4M I L Y TES + _ --•: (TE(M�2P�. -�__ 6FLUSH) �.Pi 7` -- -- -- -nl/ 20/b X 13/6 ' �� N � (� j e a.} ' eG /L R.C. ` i 9UB•0 I /0 X`16// . i7 .1” _._ / RIDGE DI `� \ ,- -— c .. _ . _ !10'CLG.> r. \^J,) POINT.Oh -;1. X s3I Q tI (MAX OF s eOTT .S' ° DEN f=" 1�uu t- I� a r 14/0 X 16/6 . -`` V \' �l _ 1'X'1114. PARALLAM EIM. a I L 12/0 X 13/4 ./�".�.... X -BEARING .._�- �---- (l0'CI-G.) .,, .-ti, N STRUCTUF r" -..--.?"4-q- 4 q -.. S —.� 0 12'4 STRUCTURAL -le ' \ - — _ 5,1 t IIIYYY n ¢ COLUMNS C/W ,p, \ (oJ GLG•.7 -I y 4 X 12 ND �� 00 I • , CAP 4 BASE TYP '-'• \ SHADED AREA ' — — ° "I OR FLUSV, L /��4•.••��►P�� ! CLG.) 2'-2' 2'-0' 8'-8' II MEMBER.° j.Oa i ) t�'Q4"• \\ _ 'X'e ���.' .� I I OF 3'X Bt ,I7�. v 2'-6' `. ` 51 , y OO f�=jr ///. Q �aJ 4j� /// `',,11 CIIP I pPROVID x • rc_ A { Ili�1 0 ��til n 1`\ -x l'I' \ 6 1 I OFDTHE BI • y �``m��//^` I , /,,` V�(/�r��/ m jb` 111 BUILT-IN /',/i. � .,:�/I/�� \ • /,N 1`, III a PANTRY, .1, , � 1� i 1;;, \ Ni \� io el- - v \ I /// %L /,/_ QQI 111 ' .1I• II° 1 �, „1 \111 4 v USE K'TYPE'X'GYP,BD. / I - C I k. .. i `i \, l /i h,11 ..t 1�,� I I 2 d i . _ i 4 1 BUTLII}ffi' (9'CLG.) x I I I ' / IIItL.1�vI vs WALL-; r X +''.: ON ALL GLGS.,WALLS, / X b >\\ • \ t )0<,EXPOSED SMUG'''.MGRS. ? / R - .►. PANffYT /,.111.,\`�. ,.._. t1 \" , Ii, I 9 �o a / 4 .,� rylll. \4\ it -\// i y. -S X,, __ •3'TOPPING SLAB OYER `C/14 �'•i +l •16 \ PART.TO 4�Ij .. .'j���\� �,f��"41"r :•ART.TO 42' vI r _ //ter %1. �•. Ji `:.L �. .. a ib MIL.OVER vAPORPIB.BARRIER +�, { O 4'x 12 ` /�� _�.� :'L. \ `ermxilm111110i? �/�"3' 1.111111111111.-,..% T a, 24P.T. • I 15'-I' - 3'-8' y I'-9'/ I-----j ILS' (9'-b'CLG` �� ?Q'4 � -1 ���''L�M1 � ,'i •�: '(92-b GL i���'.•.��1�� 1 OVER 2 X 12 P.••1 12' L 9 J \ G O.C.(MAX SPAN011-0') fff / \ \\\ \ 1 4 1'.i/ . r- - -{-- 1,,,,st� • 4�� y; P 1 i \4\\\ d\\\ 5�s'X 10'77'.GL.BM.. - /7/+ /,.I \` 4/•:::..V,.r f.. L ,, 1 4'-2' 1, ' s'..., !��\ .SHADED.AREA ,/ ,'/r I \\ 0 l X / qt---.( --71` \\..\\ \`r-� .(S'CLG,) - F`��/ 10 y/;/ I • \\����:�,�. I -- SEE ROOF FRAMING ''` 1 \ \ �`\ ����) ,„/".„-" i/ I \\ 45, 3A.. PLAN FOR TRUSS LAYOUT ^p A 1 _,A— _ 1 _ — — 1 \\\� �� _. b X.12.7 i Q_./ , I 1 - f;Y C�,4R,4C�E I I: 1 5_4>• 10'=�r 1 ( �,_d' 4-0' S'-10' ' I t- I 10'-0' _LI .0 'l .. - -_3 ,� m + IYe STRUCTURAL UL.LISTED DIRECT I 6J +.� 40/4 X 22/44 *' A' 1 0 I COLUt'•NS C/W Ile I VENT GAS FIREPLACE I X 9 - p(1�y I 1•�(G �, CAP 4 BASE TYP. 11)( WI COMB.AIR VENT I 201 I 0'^. 13/6 X 13/2 •/- I aI I a - ,� { FLUSH TILED HEARTH. � � a 9 6474'X 1613.24F G.L.HDR - I i0 .- INSTALL AS PER MFR'S I EC T (10'CLO.) a x I FOYER I - 1 •• 2 STORY I SPEC'S AND CODE 11 r--- 1 6 X 6 POST 01.1/ 0 , / • 4/1�:'' CC16 COL.CAP (C��, )� I ''Y I - / j ING $cI, >= t,n,. ,V� ------ ------ - -- ;ice\ /i��/ 15/0,X 15/2 C it 4u - I"---� 1 - - - - , , 444;11,01-::- I �O S• 2'FRAMict -8/0 FRENCH DRS. r,. 0 (10'CLG) ,'/ cilT- �ti� OFFS,.T -441 0 ,/ ' o A� �� I 2/6 X 6/0 FXD.W/ .0 `,'vtw (s.Q �� ��N I 2/0 TRANSOM a _ 7 Q71 I v 1n2/6X6/O FXD.W/ e LL---- - - -_— \fp+ QC/IDC --II-~ I I/6 TRANSOM EA.SIDE 1 , p c< I - I6/0 X 8/0 O.H.DR I . `.4�,�' 0, (VERIFY CLEAR) `Sr I s-'/ �,y� (��Di dJ/ V� 1 (NTN t- --- ------ 5'/s'X161/•24FGL.BM. ------ �.c NIVI - \ •\ • '" 4/0..8/0 S.N. Y4 I 16/0 X 8/0 O.N.DRi. I x — !3� EENT, - A-L APPROVAL Const 4-, , - —--I _ 3,j:x72 GL:. --- ,L --1 ` -- CITY OF TICi /for Za9Z ...0d0I° �: I • BYE? DATE 3CiOZ REVISED Q • _ C. _ UPPER FLOOR k' , 10'-6' 9'-b' I0'-6' • 10'-6' / 1I'-6' 2 6' 9'-6' 2 6' , '16'-0' _ /- MAIN FLOOR Si4 LOWER FLR if a;.'.. --• -. _0. / 42'-0' y ).: �`' - /- .TOTAL AREA I . . CITY of TIGARD �Aririmmow r . ,.ee_'a ZOEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM 13 ♦ ♦ 'liti' in ii AI VICINITY MAP ii S13111! J 4vir,i/MINIF *jell , HOP2002-00010 • lop * 1jir, win aik i MOOS SALON 4fifirArs `.,.. .. • .v,/. 4‘0sfo1140 iPi SBP • �p� g„V BENCHvi. . 0W11 . Ia.*r......i.. 4.4kt AA 1 1 iii. _ S fw' �'ApLQR FFAH , „ . 1,41-17 101.-k,, , .Orgardill : , .444 ii„. „, ear ,,,m,„, , .._,,,., , '(' Gs \\,,,, 4411.111,.., �, H. _ .„,,,,,,,2,.,,,,,,,,›.1 ,1!� Mis4ww•e � � � TLETOE DR S �� • Qlj ly &dAr,011ia 1. �t •. `,euu I b 1, IIIII 11 C ..: 4 '1d4.9�1NIYARr W>.� ,.* ��� eE¢r ecrro Hu,, a DY)f�k'iM .{?t4 '{ . 4110, 10. .,.,..,iii „vi f ,,, HILLSHIRE DR • Tigard Area Map ♦t • IlLOrN 11111/1111111111111111Yr* C II. -1-C*, , . . 0 200 ® 400 800 Feet (�� iiir-th. 1" 402 feet VIA `IM• T� , c . G� �,1P41 -11111111101 E �I t VIEW �� W QJIIIIIIIIII W • riii o ,SII+ N City of Tigard --A11111 . V �� . ALPINE VIEMil. Ill° HOOD VISTA LN Informetlon on this map is for general location only and 01 � , ill should 6e verified with the Development Services Division. �• t-, ', =.' 13125 SW Hall Blvd 111 Q, J SW LEAIf TFC . ,ALP \ r. , a Tigard,OR 97223 • i- .. R utv 4 Ili - (503)839-4171 1 / 24 < / httr./Awm.ei tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Feb 14,2002;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR MEETING RECORDS CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MONDAY- MAY 13, 2002 - 7:00 PM AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 "APPEAL" OF MOOS SALON HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (HOP) 2002-00010 ITEM ON APPEAL: The appellants have requested review of the City's approval for a Type II Home Occupation Permit to allow an in-home salon based on several particular issues as enumerated in their letter of appeal received April 9, 2002. These issues are summarized as follows: • The Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations; • The proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone; • The proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations; • The impact study was inadequate; and • Condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance) and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval) cannot be enforced independently of one another. LOCATION: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. ZONE: R-7 (PD): Medium-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. 2.2 OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2002-00002 REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use Approval to expand the facility by 5,000 square feet for administrative offices and classrooms, and expand the main sanctuary by 580 square feet for a total expansion of 5,580 square feet. LOCATION: 12256 SW 135th Avenue; WCTM 2S104AB, Tax Lot 04700. ZONE: Low Density Residential and High Density Residential within the comprehensive plan, and R-4.5 and R-25 in the zoning code. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 2 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MAY 13, 2002 - 7:00 PM TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item must sign-in on the appropriate sign-in sheets. PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171 , Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: ➢ Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and ➢ Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1 ) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 1 OF 2 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Larry Epstein, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: April 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Moos Salon (HOP 2002-00010)Appeal Candace White and Donnajo "Dee-J" Putzier, neighbors of the proposed Home Occupation, have filed an appeal with the City of Tigard in regard to the approval of the Home Occupation Permit. The appellants have requested your review of the City's approval based on several particular issues as enumerated in their letter of appeal received April 9, 2002. These issues are summarized as follows: 1. The Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations; 2. The proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone; 3. The proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations; 4. The impact study was inadequate; and 5. Condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance) and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval) cannot be enforced independently of one another. The subject site is located on the west side of SW Benchview Terrace, between SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Greenfield Drive within the R-7 residential zone. The Notice of Decision and record is attached for your review. 5/13/2002 Public Hearing-Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 1 of 4 RE: HOP2002-00010/Moos Salon Home Occupation Appeal The appellants argue that the Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations. The City's position is as follows: Purpose statements are not substitutes for the applicable review criteria. These statements act to guide decision makers when a particular circumstance arises that is not specifically addressed by the review criteria or when amendments to the codes are proposed. In this particular case, the appellants argue that the purpose statement for home occupations to "permit residents an opportunity to use their homes to engage in small scale business ventures which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters..." should be applied as a criterion to which the subject application does not meet. The City does not use purpose statements as evaluation criteria as they are not clear and objective standards. The purpose statement is merely a guiding principle for adopting the implementing criteria. If the appellant's believe the criteria do not achieve the purpose, then code amendments are the proper avenue for recourse. The appellants argue that the proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone. The City's positions is as follows: Any lawful commercial activity that is conducted from residentially zoned or residentially used property is subject to the requirements of the home occupation rules with two important distinctions. Garage sales, sales of produce grown on site, and hobbies that do not result in payment are exempt from the requirements of the home occupation chapter. Auto-body repair and painting, mechanical repair conducted outdoors, junk and salvage operations, and storage or sale of fireworks are completely prohibited as home occupation uses. So long as the person conducting the business resides in the dwelling, it is not relevant whether the dwelling is in a single family, multi family, or commercial zone. If the standards of a home occupation cannot be met, i.e. more than one outside employee, or greater than 6 client visits per day, then the use must be conducted from an appropriately zoned and properly developed property. The appellants argue that the proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations. The City's positions is as follows: The appellant's argument is based partly on the fact that the applicant proposed to use rooms on the opposite side of the house from the proposed entry. While the rooms total 285 square feet, the route to these rooms passes through much larger rooms and the appellants argue that these areas need to be included in the business area square footage. Staff disagrees. The criteria states "The total area which may be used in the accessory building for either material product storage and/or the business activity shall 5/13/2002 Public Hearing-Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 2 of 4 RE: HOP2002-00010/Moos Salon Home Occupation Appeal not exceed 528 square feet. Otherwise, the home occupation and associated storage of materials and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the combined residence and accessory structure gross floor area, but in no case shall the portion of the home occupation occupying the accessory use exceed 528 square feet." The business activity is limited to those areas of the house where the business is actually conducted, and not the route to those areas. Staff believes that including the route through a dwelling to the business activity areas was not the original intent of the space limitation, and furthermore, has not interpreted or applied this standard in this manner to previous Home Occupation applications. The appellants argue that the impact study is inadequate. The City's positions is as follows: The impact study is a requirement for any Type II application. There is no set threshold for how detailed the impact study need be. Staff reviewed the impact study and made findings based on the applicant's information, as well as from professional opinion and prior application experience. The impact study is a tool that is used primarily to justify public infrastructure improvement requirements. The public systems are existing and the streets are fully improved. There is no rational nexus between the proposed use and the park system or schools. A more thorough impact analysis was deemed unnecessary. Finally, the appellants argue that Condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance) and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval) cannot be enforced independently of one another. The City's position is as follows: The City is not the responsible agency for enforcing the Department of Cosmetology rules; this is a function of the State. However, based on the concerns expressed through the public comment period, staff felt it was important to assure that the business was in prima fade compliance with the State's requirements. The appellants argue that the Department of Cosmetology will issue a facility license prior to an on site inspection, even if the facility does not meet the State's requirements. It is the responsibility of the applicant, not the City, to ensure that the business is conducted in compliance with State law. The City may require documentation that the State has licensed the facility in accordance with their rules. The City administers the State Building Code, and is, therefore, responsible for ensuring compliance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. When a dwelling will be utilized for commercial business, and members of the general public will be conducting business on the site, the building codes require that an accessible route be provided. This means that adequate width through doorways is available, that ramps be provided for changes in grade, and certain hardware be used to facilitate easy access. 5/13/2002 Public Hearing- Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 3 of 4 RE: HOP2002-00010/Moos Salon Home Occupation Appeal \wr The appellants argue in part that if the applicant makes the necessary modifications to bring the dwelling into compliance with ADA requirements, but upon inspection by the Department of Cosmetology it's found that the route does not comply with the state's rules, then the applicant will be in non compliance. The City agrees. However, in that case, the applicant will be in violation of the State's rules, and it will be up to the State to enforce. If the State's enforcement results in a different route that is no longer accessible, the applicant would be in violation of the City's requirements. The appellants seem to make the claim, although not expressly, that any modification to the dwelling should occur after the State has determined the proposed facility is in compliance. This is beyond the scope of authority granted through the Home Occupation permit rules. In summary, staff believes that the proposed Home Occupation permit satisfies the general approval criteria and standards of Section 18.742.040, and that the appeal should be denied. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A— Notice of Decision Exhibit B —Agency Comments Exhibit C— Neighborhood Comments Exhibit D—Appeal Filing Form Exhibit E—Applicant's Submittal 5/13/2002 Public Hearing-Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 4 of 4 RE: HOP2002-00010/Moos Salon Home Occupation Appeal CITY OF TIGARD Community Deve[opment Shaping (Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dick Bewersdorff DATE: March 1, 2002 SUBJECT: Moos Home Occupation Request A significant number of neighboring property owners have expressed concerns about Steven and Sopaul Moos' request for approval of a home occupation permit to conduct a home occupation at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace. These concerns have been coming into City Hall through letters and e-mail. One e-mail was sent directly to the City Council at City Hall and was forwarded to the staff member who is reviewing the application to determine if the application meets the approval criteria. Neighbors' objections range from increased traffic, traffic speed, dangerous driving conditions, hair sprays, flammable and toxic chemicals, peroxides, potential for trespass, odors, noise, excessive parked cars, litter, 911 calls to the residence, and running a business in a residential zone. While Type II home occupations are allowed if all criteria are met, there are times such as this, where the possibility of such a business operation creates considerable neighbor concern. The home occupation requested is a hair salon. The house is a 7,800 square foot dwelling with the salon to be 500 square feet. This is a Type II home occupation because the desire is to have customers come to the location. The application process calls for notification to all property owners within 500 feet, and then a Director's Decision, scheduled to be issued on March 19, 2002. This Decision is mailed to property owners. Appeals are heard by the Hearings Officer with subsequent appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The decision is not one that can be appealed to the Council. HOP2002-00010 Page 1 of 2 Moos Salon Ise The standards for this type of home occupation include: 1. May be undertaken only by the principal occupants of the residential property; 2. There shall be no more than three deliveries per week; 3. There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare at or beyond the property line. These are measured by the environmental performance standards of Chapter 18.725 and those of the municipal code; 4. The home occupation must be operated entirely within the dwelling unit or conforming accessory structure and the total area shall not exceed 528 square feet; 5. Shall not make necessary a change in the Uniform Building Code classification of the dwelling; 6. More than one business activity is allowed as long as the combined square footage does not exceed 528 square feet; 7. There shall be no storage and/or distribution of toxic or flammable materials and spray painting or finishing operations that involve toxic or flammable materials which in the judgement of the Fire Marshall pose a dangerous risk to the residence, its occupants, and/or surrounding properties; 8. No home occupation shall require any on or off street parking other than normally required for the residence; 9. There shall be no exterior storage of vehicles of any kind except that one commercially licensed vehicle of not more than three-quarters ton gross vehicle weight may be parked outside of a structure or screened area. In addition, Type II home occupations allow: 1. One non-illuminated sign, not exceeding 1.5 square feet; 2. No more than one outside volunteer or employee; 3. No more than six daily customers or clients. Clients may not visit the business between the hours of 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM and shall not generate excessive traffic or monopolize on-street parking; 4. Storage of materials, goods, and equipment must be screened and not be in front or side yards. The Moos' application indicates there will be no deliveries, 6 clients, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Tuesday through Saturday within a salon room of 500 square feet, and no sign. Notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet. We are now receiving comments due to the notice. We will evaluate the comments as related to the criteria of the development code and issue a decision. Staff will be contacting the Board of Cosmetology and conducting a site visit prior to issuing a decision. The decision is scheduled to be issued the third week in March if all the analysis is completed by that time. is\curpin\dick\memos\moos home occupation.doc HOP2002-00010 Page 2 of 2 Moos Salon REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE • SOUTH DIVISION COMMUNITY SERVICES • OPERATIONS • FIRE PREVENTION Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue March 6, 2002 Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Salon Home Occupation Dear Morgan, As per our conversation, conducting a salon business in a home does not create a fire hazard that is more significant than a typical home use. Please contact me at(503)612-7010 with any additional questions. Sincerely, Eric T. McMullen Eric T. McMullen Deputy Fire Marshal 7401 SW Washo Court,Suite 101 •Tualatin,Oregon 97062•Tel.(503)612-7000•Fax(503)612-7003•www.tvfr.com .4 ' Foe Ho- 01102001 ...:.::.. t....:.'vimC -:; :>E'.DEN M :brrorrer or Orme! MOOS repertyAddress 13783 SW Benchview Terr fp/ Tigard city Washington State OR Zip Code 97223 :ower or client Washington Mutual Bank sr lc rar ns. sr • Bedroom V Bedroom gli Bath •mill .111111 12.5. iib'Rm Bath Bedroom Bedroom I Upper loves w WW V {r r r Living Rm s / r wrk v Kitchen _.._ tri''' • 2< P+�y Stain coni .„/�c'k Main Staircase IT v 2f-- r Mair Level Dining Rm 21' Garotte Entry Using Rm !"-...._._.. ----- -- 2L5 / r tr 2C t f r r r H. rr r< r wr . /� 2tr Recreation Rm S v_ O Bonus Rm„/„........ 17 // Reasatlon Rm tO.Syta� 1 WW1 11.6' Bath ` Bonus Rm I rr , Bat` I Kttchei, S UMME4 /J.S r _rt./�� (Y. S'�y� 11.5 Daylight Bsmt 115 rt Exercise R �a""a Media Rm C i"1 r� (Lower) Daylight Bsmt 4- wr r rr rr ;.mac ,�»;,. - :..,. ,- ,... ,.�... ... ,.., ......,.�: Ril�E�1��.;:tea\a:�::; � - - Geci�at -`` -�vc�, � it<:?:`.,.... ,.. -- �+��y+i�'-�",��2`.::, -tee:-MA Limp Area Oayfight Bsmt 1 63.0 X 9.0 = 567.0 Daylight Bsmt 1 2454 235 25.5 X 6.0 = 153.0 42.0 X 14.0 = 588.0 Daylight Bsmt 2 948 203 340 X 4.0 = 136.0 8.0 X 2.0 = 16.0 First Floor 2454 235 6.0 X 2.0 = 12.0 41.3 X 1.0 = 41.3 Second Floor 2144 273 60.5 X 13 0 = 786.5 14.6 X 6.0 = 87.6 Stairs -226 56 63.0 X 9.0 = 567.0 8.0 X 2 0 = 16.0 Total 7774 1002 42.0 X 14.0 = 588.0 3.1 X 10.9 = 33.7 8.0 X 2.0 = 16.0 3.1 X 54 = 16 7 Garage/Carport 41.3 X 1.0 = 41.3 Total 2453.8 Ank IF N O yy V �.' Y�O N H RY-'-', N CV . L M CV Rcn N N O p O W w; U 1-1Z 4.1 D+ H w a w z p4 0 w A ,� a O `: w 41 o w44 1-4 ,� , lire A 01 o w w if:) Q x w H a] w O t w Pa 5t ti, H O t � o x ', "' , + Z a +� Ai N O O NMil - N N O i '- ,..0040.04„,„_-- = r -. E„ STAIRWAY FROM DRIVEWAY DOWN 14 STAIRS TO DECK TO ENTER PROPOSED SALON EXIT/ENTRANCE NOTE: NO HANDRAIL OR LANDING EVERY 3 STEPS - POSSIBLE OVER NEIGHBORS EASEMENT AS BUILT NOW R i. E K, PROPOSED ENTRY BY GARAGE AND NEIGHBORS HOUSE DPlOliTURILES DOWN FROM GROUND LEVEL FOR ENTRANCE 411116 Aillbi ,,640., L. :;111,4 Irt. F• . A 'e. , . , . ., ,AItt Rip, ' ''' ''lliria' c''"", ry m 02/24/2002 " 02/24/2002 FRONT DOOR ENTRY, STEEP GRADE, NO HANDRAILS PROTECTING DEEP POND STAIRWAY DOWN F;1 GARAGE TO PROPOSED ENTRY FOR SALON Iorf : 111111111 4 V , . , _ „ ,,,,„4. .,,,,,zw,..„...„,..,,,,,,,,,,„„... „„„,, x. ,, 02/24/2002 02/24/2002 ENTRY INTO MOOS RESIDENCE — NOTICE A POND WITH NO HANDRAIL OR PROTECTION MOOS RESIDENCE — PROPOSED ENTRY ON LEFT SIDE FOR CHILDRENI, VISITORS OR CLIENTS Qa.L +� .+,-.m.....*..-. .+ .........+"'""..". "'" Ire^'Pty '^ sch 'ywy.s 11 "`, o i ,4. I iii,- - , op •,, ...... «er ' i. bra• ���� d 33'° i"..., .,, .,, 0 f 41101.6"*- 02/24/2002 02/24/2002 PROPOSED ENTRY BETWEEN MOOS AND NEIGHBORS CLOSE UP OF UNSAFE POND IN ENTRY s, • NA ; 1, ii., ♦ A !> rp 4 fir. # 12,6 0. ,r A" r, uI,t `W vt W s " i x fi f j , b :xy osoii) JP' L i �.14- 1 ba � k ! tyt f µ roPS 5 t `33 g ,3 & M: • . . ¢ '°9 ' y 2n��ri5}raul ��^�` ,". '"Ys fi '. 1P a Art ,,,,,N ,_„,,,, ,,,,,,,r,,,, 4„., i..„,,,,,,,,,. y { 7it, 1 • [Ato. . .. dlpa 4 P , 1111 02/24/2002 02/ a TOP VIEW OF PROPOSED ENTRY - NO HANDRAILS NO LIGHTING VERY STEEP TOP VIEW FROM GARAGE GROUND LEVEL OF ENTRY PROPOSED UP AGAINST NEIGHBORS PROPERTY LINE 14 STAIRS TOTAL 0•h 11414114, 4110111/ 44,11 02/24/2002n. b SAME STAIRWAY SAME STAIRWAY I 11111111111 i 02/23/2002 02/24/2002 Board of Cosmetology_817_C ~` Page 1 of 4 OREGON SECRETARY OF STAB *MON, ° OregonState Archives1.11:••v. - :y: MIMEO km » :,uwxaiffa 1.1 The Oregon Administrative Rules contain OARs filed through January 15, 2002 HEALTH LICENSING OFFICE, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY DIVISION 20 LICENSING AND OPERATION OF A FACILITY 817-020-0005 Issuance of Facility Licenses A facility license may be issued if the applicant: (1)Is at least 18 years of age, as required in ORS 690.055(1)(a); (2)Has registered with the Corporation Division and received an assumed business name prior to applying for a facility license (unless doing business under the full name of the owner); (3)Files an application on prescribed forms with the Board and pays the required application and license fees. If the facility is owned by a corporation, the application must state the name of and the form must be signed by the corporate officer; (4) Complies with all applicable rules and regulations of the Board and other state agencies; and (5) Certifies the application information is correct. (6) The premises where services are performed by solely independent contractors who are registered by the Board shall be required to be licensed as a facility. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.165 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.165 Hist.: BH 2-1978, f. & ef. 11-29-78;BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f & cert. ef. 7-1-88; BH 1-1992, f 6-1-92, cert. ef. 7-1-92;BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f. 5-12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817_020.html 2/23/02 Board of Cosmetology_817_C Page 2 of 4 817-020-0011 Facility License Criteria (1)Applicants for a facility license shall: (a)Provide a map or directions to the facility if it is located in a rural or isolated area. (b)Meet the specifications for building, fire and plumbing codes as specified in OAR 817-010-0007 and comply with exit and fire standards established by the Building Codes Agency and Office of the State Fire Marshal. (2)Applicants for a facility license located within a residence shall: (a)Have an identifying house number or a sign which is easily visible from the street and indicates the location of the facility; (b)Maintain equipment the Board requires for all facilities; (c) Comply with all applicable regulations in accordance with OAR 817-010-0007; (d)Provide an entrance to the facility that is separate from the entrance to residential living areas; and (e)Maintain separation between the residential living area and facility by solid walls extending from floor to ceiling, with connecting doors kept closed during hours the facility is in operation and/or serving clients as required in ORS 690.205(2). (3) A practitioner who supervises the performance of services in the facility must have a current valid Oregon certificate. (4)Facilities shall comply with the administrative rules of the Board concerning health, safety, and sanitation pursuant to ORS 690.055(1)(b). (5) The cleanliness and sanitation of any common area used by or provided for separately licensed facilities or independent contractors located at one premises is the responsibility of each license and/or registration holder on that premises. (6)Violations found in a common area will be cited against all holders of facility licenses and independent contractor registrations at the premises, unless a contractual agreement exists which indicates specific responsibility for the sanitation of a common area within the premises. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.205 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.205 Hist.: BH 2-1978, f. & ef. 11-29-78; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1-88; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94;BH 1-1996, f 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f. 5-12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 817-020-0012 Criteria for Operating a Facility http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817_020.html 2/23/02 Board of Cosmetology_817_C Page 3 of 4 A facility owner or license holder shall: (1)Allow the Board's enforcement officer to inspect the facility when it is open for business. (2)Abstain from obstructing or hindering the normal progress of the inspection, threatening or exerting physical harm, or enabling another individual or employee to impede the inspection process. (3) Contact the Board in writing to make arrangements for an inspection if the Board has been unable to perform an inspection after one year because the facility was closed. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.225 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.225 Hist.: BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84;BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1-88; BH 2-1990, f. & cert. ef. 10-29-90; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96 817-020-0015 Facility Licensing Requirements (1)A facility owner or license holder shall meet the requirements of a new facility (refer to OAR 817- 020-0011) and submit a new facility application and required fees when any of the following conditions exist: (a)A facility is purchased from the current or previous owner, partnership or corporation. Facility licenses are not transferable from person-to-person or from business-to-business; (b) There is a change in the legal ownership, partnership or holding of a facility regulated under ORS 690 and OAR 817, such as: (A)A partner(s) or co-owner(s)is added to the existing facility license; or (B)A partner(s) or co-owner(s)is removed from the existing facility license, including change in ownership status due to death of facility owner(s), or spouse listed as a co-owner on the Board's records. (c)An existing facility moves or relocates to a new physical address. Facility licenses are not transferrable from location-to-location. (2)Facility license holders who close a business regulated under ORS 690 and OAR 817 shall: (a)Inform the Board office in writing within five(5)business days of the closure of the facility; (b)Inform the Board office in writing prior to reopening the facility, when the same individual listed as the owner on file with the Board office reopens the facility while the license is still current. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.165 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.165 Hist.: BH 2-1978, f. & ef. 11-29-78; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1-88;BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 2-1996, f. 6-28-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; Renumbered from 817-020- 0025 & 817-020-0030 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817_020.html 2/23/02 ,� Board of Cosmetology_817_0 Page 4 of 4 817-020-0305 Licensed Health Care Facility (1)Health care facilities licensed under ORS 442, are exempt from facility license requirements as stated in ORS 690.025(2)if services are provided to residents only. (2)No person acting individually or jointly with any other person shall establish, conduct, maintain, manage or operate a facility defined in ORS 690.005(7)without a license issued by the Board of Cosmetology. Licensed health care facilities defined in ORS 442.015(14) shall comply with the Board's licensing, safety and sanitation rules if services regulated under ORS 690 are administered to the general public (3) The Board may inspect those areas of a licensed health care facility where services are performed if alleged licensing or safety/sanitation violations are reported. The Board may investigate the facility in response to a complaint. The Board may report the safety and sanitation conditions and results of inspection or investigation to the Oregon State Health Division and/or other appropriate agencies. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.015, ORS 690.025, ORS 690.035, ORS 690.055, ORS 690.165, ORS 690.205 & ORS 690.225 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.015, ORS 690.025, ORS 690.035, ORS 690.055, ORS 690.165, ORS 690.205, ORS 690.225 & ORS ORS 442 Hist.: BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. e£ 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. e£ 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f. 5- 12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 The official copy of an Oregon Administrative Rule is contained in the Administrative Order filed at the Archives Division, 800 Summer St.NE,Salem,Oregon 97310.Any discrepancies with the published version are satisfied in favor of the Administrative Order. The Oregon Administrative Rules and the Oregon Bulletin are copyrighted by the Oregon Secretary of State. "Terms and Conditions of Use Alphabetical Index by Agency Name Numerical Index by OAR Chapter Number Search the Text of the OARs Questions about Administrative Rules? Link to the Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS) Return to Oregon State Archives Home Page http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817_020.html 2/23/02 Board of Cosmetology_817_G ^ Page 1 of 3 OREGON SECRETARY OF STAT ' Oregon State Archives i pasig•........•v ::::::::••. .v}xv: d]bYf LOOOYf .33.Y.J�•• ..::::.....::::} :::i::::i:<:iii:} %-iii i .iiia {xx:ir ..::xxx»xxxxv:xx:�xx:.xx�:w::xxx::x:�x__x»xxx: .....x•• f hilt ::::::.:::r:i:H:.xxxx -:::xxx:xxx:xxxxx uxxxwy�x{;;{»{;+{{:.v.:� ::::....:.�.s::•...:v::.x::::vv:::v:'' �`�........ .p''�]xxtiy'.♦yw':::n:v:':��� _.;};_�.i'._:1."iiia'{;_.l: .....??{::::::... :....::::... ... ....�.•.:....vv::..•...... ..• ��l!lqq�� ai::<iiiiiii::i(L iii:<i: The Oregon Administrative Rules contain OARs filed through January 15, 2002 HEALTH LICENSING OFFICE, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY DIVISION 60 CHEMICAL USE AND STORAGE 817-060-0010 Client Protection (1)When administering chemical services to a client, all practitioners, as defined in ORS Chapter 690, shall follow safety procedures which prevent eye, nail, hair, or skin injury to clients or damage to the clothing of clients. (2)When an employee/employer relationship exists employees shall comply with ORS 654 and OAR 437-002-0360(25), 29 CFR 1910.1030, OAR 437-002-0360(35), and 29 CFR 1910.1200. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Stats. Implemented: ORS 654, ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Hist.: BH 1-1983(Temp), f. & ef. 10-4-83; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84;BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1- 88; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. of 7-1-94;BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; Administrative Correction 1-15-98 817-060-0020 Chemical Storage (1)For the purposes of this section, the following terms are being used as defined by OAR 437,Division 2, General Occupational Safety and Health Rules subdivision (z) Toxic and Hazardous Substances (29 CFR 1910.1200) as amended and in effect November 2, 1999; (a) Corrosives; (b)Flammables(aerosol, gas, liquid, and/or solid); http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS 800/0AR_817/817_060.html 2/23/02 . Board of Cosmetology_817_0 Page 2 of 3 (c) Oxidizers. (2)For purposes of this section "hazardous" and "segregated in storage" are defined as follows: (a) "Hazardous" means capable of causing an unplanned, uncontrolled reaction which could present a hazard to practitioners or clients by explosion, fire, release of toxic gases or by-products, or physical or chemical burns; and (b) "Segregated in storage" means that potentially hazardous chemicals and materials are separated(so as to prevent their mixing with one another through leakage, spillage or breakage)by an adequate distance or through the use of physical barriers such as partitions or separate shelving arrangements. (3)All facilities, independent contractors and practitioners using chemicals in providing services to clients shall store the chemicals safely to avoid fire, explosion and bodily harm to clients and practitioners: (a)Flammable chemicals shall be stored remote from potential sources of ignition(e.g., the pilot light of a hot water tank); and (b)Chemicals which could interact in a hazardous manner(e.g., oxidizers, corrosives and flammables) shall be segregated in storage, in areas where surrounding air temperatures do not exceed 140 degrees Fahrenheit: (A) Chemical containers holding one gallon or less may be stored in the same area or in the same storage cabinet with materials with which they could react, if one of the following conditions is met: (i) Containers of reactive chemicals are separated by location or sufficient distance (i.e., at least 12 inches apart or on different shelves)to prevent their reaction; or (ii) Glass bottles of reactive chemicals are treated to make them break-resistant(e.g., resin-coated) or are stored in rubber buckets or sleeves, or are stored with a partition separating them. (B)Chemicals which are highly reactive or stored in containers greater than one gallon must be stored in separate cabinets, in safety-valve containers, or in locations isolated from other chemicals; (C) Chemicals may be stored in containers which the Oregon Department of Transportation has approved for the shipping of those chemicals; and (D) Chemically related waste or refuse and chemically dampened or saturated towels must be placed in the appropriate fire-retardant containers as stated in OAR 817-010-0060. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.165, ORS 690.205 & ORS 654 Hist.: BH 1-1983(Temp), f. & ef. 10-4-83; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1- 88; BH 2-1990, f. & cert. ef. 10-29-90; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f 5-12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 817-060-0030 Use,Handling and Disposing of Chemicals http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817_060.html 2/23/02 Board of Cosmetology_817_o Page 3 of 3 (1)Practitioners who use chemicals in order to provide services to clients shall mix those chemicals in a dispensing area which has adequate ventilation. (2)When mixing chemicals in this area, practitioners shall: (a)Not mix chemicals near an open flame or an electrical device; and (b)Remove all chemically saturated towels and waste from the work and storage area and place them in covered, fire-retardant containers. (3)All chemicals shall be disposed of according to manufacturers instructions and in accordance with local and state environmental requirements. (4) Cosmetic products containing hazardous substances which have been banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in cosmetic products are prohibited on the premises of facilities. (5)Products are prohibited from being used in a manner that is disapproved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (6)A practitioner shall not use any product containing compounds or substances characterized as hazardous or harmful to humans by Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and/or random product testing. (7) Smoking by either the client or practitioner during any phase of chemical service, i.e. mixing, application, processing, or use of any potentially explosive chemicals, is strictly prohibited. This prohibition includes smoking by the client inside the facility while any phase of a chemical service is being performed. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Hist.: BH 1-1983(Temp), f. & ef. 10-4-83; BH 4-1984, f & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1- 88; BH 1-1992, f. 6-1-92, cert. ef. 7-1-92; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94;BH 1-1996, f. 5-31- 96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f. 5-12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 The official copy of an Oregon Administrative Rule is contained in the Administrative Order filed at the Archives Division, 800 Summer St.NE, Salem,Oregon 97310.Any discrepancies with the published version are satisfied in favor of the Administrative Order. The Oregon Administrative Rules and the Oregon Bulletin are copyrighted by the Oregon Secretary of State. Terms and Conditions of Use Alphabetical Index by Agency Name Numerical Index by OAR Chapter Number Search the Text of the OARs Questions about Administrative Rules? Link to the Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS) Return to Oregon State Archives Home Page http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817_060.html 2/23/02 FROM :RJ DELORTO "1 FAX NO. :480 657 3234 F■rp. 24 2002 09:45PM P2 ,.. N O o sa a e % r r Orr P0 4, i h € p $ Ti 1 MI 1/11110111111/1 ii 4 . P► ti V)i X14 1 , / ' 0.11 h r g ; ' f2 I ii: . 13/. A •—• (3 (96° lxi 4/8 Jill Ili ... / P K. i ii 4 -4 r''' A-- 9,- t 1 - it L s., 11 11 PO r 11 d"114 id -- ^ ;r5,5 / 1 ill 1 le 15 1;1718 6,11).Ili i q I., d it I ► '.;.• r J J/ igi i "e ri a "lir ''''' i .cilv4i _..e 174 f L HY tc ei ir pl : 4 1 i!„ -g - o ct-r; 0 e 1 '; , 1 1 1 , ,1111 to n A ! '-' 3 t, i - m liii t4 :'41•i 41'V' 4, 4'4 , il,•A' ' 4'.r r•e• .1....___ _.._._n.0 k A' k m.d i 24. ' ., f4, { m S 111 II I11 IIIX _T� 111i. ll q Ijl ijI lips h 1 I z x a rva+eTa•a oa. 1 t ni 1 3 r �"" 1! tri.er4cMn..4'" 1 1 11• t ,,, 11 II II jl M Is I y 11 p H SIX H _ I; 1 t$ i # / ���II iii r, rr 1� 1' rm. /b ! I V RI t h AN� �t� II 4 ti —�.--,: „i 1 ' , 1 �11 x iri II 1 E• ! I 121 Si J 1 ; 11 1 jIj d L 11 1'T" '' I 1' I )y i ,0 6 ix.,iW OG 1 r • a 1 95a -�+ H li tel as '''' lit.i ! 'tt) 0 11 I .A P. Q .i . , ..-.1,.11 I ��+ !I :5 s ,,.. t .4 Y E -n 5 IIx `JI i1li i , i ,Ilff. 1 1 I 114 II k it j II IR Ir 1 _ u ,• sX40 A' � _ _ ' �:� Memow o. Ki :ti• C -,. ,, wy t I " ' 1 _ � ' 1 Y Mt'� V C 1iel1 ;'i; 1i * U 1 10\ , . . A•M .s..r • Il7 4•4/4 I•••••••• ..•.. ,o-.Lr id.,,/I•r-.� • ., 1,` .t-,a I' .s•,r y .9••S '7174d3ls wwww `J it•ilk --- w - _ x�aa 1' a,x e ! / , — I f ffi I I 1-.-. ..ill"L �[ 1 g x.«.raar an.a x t •r I -fir I ` `�„,, xel 0 '� 67' . i4waTb. aa �'! ,� �rH4).__Hijat 'h �^ i . 6 21.14 'h 0 . i I ir K I If 1:VF.r gl .1..s 144 ' MCI w • �)E o,c ( l ?Di f 'a� ars xE 1 ` . 11 — vo.m.sixa�axt ( •g !llama 4Nrretiva.Ni Y.M / "4_1 ': 0 /” r q fLJ . Fo'wa .,IMMO I Y1d-siurraiC'G[� o____ `I � \;—lr wt t t� l 11 0 • A •• �^.~ ti1,�` <! g ii , 1 ♦ I ` i i fI 1 &;;;i February 18, 2002 RECEIVED PLANNING FEB 21 2002 CITY OF TIGARD Planning Division Attention: Morgan Tracy 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit(HOP) 2002-00010 i i — Ms. Tracy: My only concern to the above mentioned permit is that there are no Moos Salon signs displayed anywhere regardless if stationary or temporary. This includes in the house, front or backyard, and street. Also,no one should be allowed to wave signs to traffic advertising the salon. If signs are allowed, then I object to the city of Tigard approving this permit. Sincerely, 0,Qiik Carol Loop 13714 SW Hillshire Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 Morgan Tracy- Moos Salon application- r—Nchview Terrace Page 1 From: <Minkieaube@aol.com> { To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/27/02 9:34AM Subject: Moos Salon application- Benchview Terrace RECEIVED Dear Mr. Tracy, FEB 2002 My wife and I, as homeowners on Benchview Terrace, Tigard, are writing in opposition to the application for a variance in land use ordinances relating CITY®F TIGARD to the above-referenced property on the following bases: LANNING/ENGINEERING - Referring to the "use table"found in section 18.510.030 A and B, we understand that there is no definition of a "salon"business. As we understand what activities a salon business commonly engages in, there is no support for classifying the applicant's business as anything but a commerial, personal service business, which under the use table is clearly prohibited. -This business requires a steady flow of customers into a residential neghborhood rather than the typical home business where the proprietor travels to the customer outside the neighborhood. - We also question the apparent decision to forego a required impact study. As we are sure you have realized by now from the comments of others, there is serious concern among the neighbors and parents with the applicant's business traffic interfering with the safety of school children waiting for, boarding and disembarking school buses. As parents of a small child, this is of particular concern for us. There are also other concerns which have a legal basis for objection, but I have not had the opportunity as of yet to fully research these given the short response date. These areas include plans, permits, and/or support for commercial waste disposal associated with the activities, neighborhood security issues regarding identifying legitimate versus suspicious traffic, the record of commitment exhibited by the City of Tigard to follow up on abuses in land use variances, and the potential devaluation of neighboring residential property because of this unusual activity. I am an attorney and I do intend to further research these legal issues, but wanted to get our concerns as property owners on your record ASAP. Respectfully, Gregory and Karen Aube 13843 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard (503-521-8192) CC: <dputzier@providence.org>, <BEARREV@aol.com>, <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, <RPutzier@msn.com>, <Minkieaube@aol.com>, <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, <ns.everton@gte.net>, <dpnews@earthlink.net>, <mkrosa@juno.com>, <josephha@easystreet.com>, <RWhite1589@aol.com> Page 1of1 February 17, 2002 Morgan Tracy, You may not know but SW Benchview Terrace has better than 3000 one way auto trips per day. Tigard's connectivity theory really works. It is our belief that businesses that attract people and cars should be confined to areas other than neighborhoods. We don't have traffic lights, crosswalks or handicapped parking. We do have a nice neighborhood and it should stay that way. The permit says that they can handle up to six clients per day. It is our opinion that the six could turn into twelve. There will be vendors, suppliers and sales reps. that will also want to visit this home business. If I were you, I would visit the site. Notice the slight incline of the hill and how it blocks your sight as you back out of the driveway onto Benchview. The lastest traffic survey stated that the average speed of the cars traveling on Benchview was 35 mph and some travel faster. With more cars than necessary backing out of that driveway, you could be asking for trouble. As a final thought looking in the newpaper this last Sunday, there seems to be lots of commercial space available for lease or rent. Regards, Mike & Suzanne Benner file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00008.HTM 2/19/02 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING Feb. 23, 2002 13768 SW Benchview Ter Tigard, Ore. To the City of Tigard Community Development Program As a nearby neighbor of the proposed business application for 13783 SW Benchview Ter., we would like to offer our strong objections to this plan. This is a residential neighborhood and a business of this type would be completely unacceptable. Benchview is already a busy street. The home in question has limited parking.. The proposed customers would have to park on the street making the traffic problems even worse. Although we are aware we have other homes with businesses on Benchview,these are businesses that go to their customers. A salon is a business that has their customers come to them. A salon is a business that is successful by increasing their customers,services,and staff. This is a very nice upscale neighborhood. Let's keep it that way. 1 Sincerely, , � s V RECEIVED PLANNING FEB 2 8 2002 Coo::C CARD Feb. 25, 2002 13768 SW Benchview Terrace To Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard, Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. We live at 13768 SW Benchview Ter., across the street from 13783 SW Benchview Terrace, the site of the proposed salon business. Although we have already written a letter last week to the planning commission, we would like to add a few adddional comments following a neighborhood meeting recently held on the proposed business permit. In our last letter we didn't address the safety issues concerning the traffic on SW Benchview. This street is indeed a very busy street. A business of this type on Benchview would increase the amount of traffic on a already busy street. Deliveries, cutomers, operators would need to park on the street. Many times their attention would be directed trying to find the adddress, causing a traffic hesitation. We who live one this street find many of the cars drive at least thirty to forty miles per hour, regardless what signs are posted. This is a main cut through to I-5 and SW Pacific Hwy. This traffic always increases when students are out of school or on vacation. Many times the cars shift gears to race down the hill. A danger but difficult for police to patrol Driving out of our driveway is often a problem. The traffic comes over the brink of a hill from the four way stop. When pulling out from the driveway, there is no way of knowing if there is a car coming down the hill. Adding cars parked along the street would make an additional hazard . And one of our biggest concerns is the danger to the school children in the area..There are several school bus routes on Benchview. One of the stops is just outside our house on Benchview and Brim. The driver is very cautious when picking up or dropping off the children. He always uses his red lights and stop signs. Some of the children have to cross the street in front of the bus. Between the heavy traffic, speed, and sunlight blocking the view, cars parked along the street would cause a big problem. As we have said before the house in question has limited parking and will have to have cars and deliveries parking on the street. A successful business of this type depends on increasing it's number of customers, staff and services. We sincerely request you DENY the Land Use Application,Home Occupation Permit (HOP 2002-00010) at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace. Sincerely, G. Russell and Helen Case if 7 ^ Page lof1 Dear Morgan, Attached is a letter stating our opposition to the pending home occupation permit for the Moos Salon HOP 2002-00010. I will also be hand delivering a hard copy of this letter to your office prior to Thursday. I do not understand how a commercial business consisting of personal services and retail sales can be granted a license to operate under a Type II application when such business is clearly not permitted in the R-7 zoning district pursuant to the city development code. I would also like to know if an impact study for this application is available at your office for public inspection. Regards, RECEIVED Nancy Everton 2 6 2002 13737 SW Benchview Terrace CITY OF TIGARD email: ns.everton@gte.net 'LAIVNFEBING/ENGINEERINt file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00010.HTM 2/26/02 H4, 171,d . February 24, 2002 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2002 iz 6 Morgan Tracy Associate Planner CITY OF TIGARDJ City of Tigard- Community Development PLANNING/ENGINEERING 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Tracy, Reference: HOP 2002-00010 Moos Salon This letter is in response to the "Notice of Pending Land Use Application" which we received concerning the application for a home occupation permit (file number 2002- 00010). We hereby express strong opposition to an approval of such permit based on the following criteria and concerns. First and foremost, an in-home salon, which is a personal service and retail business, is STRICTLY PROHIBITED in the R-7 zoning district under 18.510.1 of the municipal community development code. Clearly, allowing such a business to operate within our neighborhood is not consistent with protecting the livability of the existing residential neighborhood. Apart from the zoning restrictions, which should serve to protect the existing neighborhood, we voice the following concerns regarding this application: 1) We, personally, have small children who get on and off the school bus on Benchview Terrace. As it now stands, there are at least 3 different bus routes that go down this busy street, loading and unloading children, many of whom must cross Benchview. Due to the incline of Benchview Terrace, it is very difficult to see cars traveling along this street and, likewise, it is very difficult for drivers to see kids crossing the street. Based on a previous study of Benchview Terrace, we already have more than 3,000 vehicles each day traveling this street at an average speed of 35 mph(the limit is 25 mph). Please do not add to the endangerment of our neighborhood families by adding retail/commercial traffic. 2) Fire danger from chemicals, other flammable waste materials (e.g. Hair sprays, hair peroxides and dyes, etc.) and prolonged use of electric appliances (dryers, curling irons etc.) is also a grave concern to us. Just behind the applicants home is a forest greenway. This greenway runs behind several homes along Benchview Terrace, including ours. It is inevitable that some chemicals will be used in a salon. Furthermore, in the few short months that these residents have occupied this home (less than 6 months), it is our understanding that fire crews have been called to this home on at least 2 occasions already. This is very frightening since our homes are very close together and very close to the trees; this poses a dangerous risk to several residents in the surrounding homes. 3) Noise, odors and excessive parked cars are another concern to us. Obviously, the customers who visit the salon will park their vehicles along Benchview Terrace. Once again, the traffic on this street has already reached dangerous levels for any children playing outdoors. Furthermore, encouraging multiple strangers to drive through the neighborhood compromises the safety of our homes and our children. It will be impossible for the residents to monitor stranger activity once a commercial business has opened. Accordingly, this business will substantially impair the livability of homes nearby. Finally, aside from our concerns and the zoning guidelines, Chapter 18.742.010 describes the purpose of home occupation permits as that, which is to allow "small-scale business ventures which could NOT be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters". The salon business is not unique and there are many in the area that operate successfully within a commercially zoned area. Furthermore, many local salons offer the service provider(stylist)the ability to rent or share space within an existing salon setting. I submit that this individual could easily find an affordable setting for this venture that is not within a residential zone. Furthermore, 18.742.010 A2 states that the home occupation must be conducted in a manner that is NOT DETRIMENTAL OR DISRUPTIVE IN TERMS OF APPEARANCE OR OPERATION TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND RESIDENTS! Based on the issues noted above, this business would be detrimental, disruptive and DANGEROUS to nearby residents and children. Please give careful considerations to our concerns. We strongly oppose the issuance of this HOP and truly believe that such a business operation would not only violate the applicable zoning laws, but would also endanger our children and our property. Very truly yours, /1) a t i i\lafvo Steve and Nancy Everton 13737 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 ;./FW/). 13641 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon 97223 February 16, 2002 RECEIVED Mr. Morgan Tracy ` 2 0 2002 Planning Division CITY OF TIGARD City of Tigard PLANNING/ENGINEERING 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit 2002-0010 "Moos Salon" 13783 SW Benchview Terrace, Tigard, Oregon Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your February 14, 2002 letter soliciting neighborhood comments on the above referenced permit for a home based business. We have resided at 13641 SW Benchview Terrace for the past 7 years. While we do not oppose the owner of the above referenced property engaging in a home based business, we are both very concerned about any exterior signage that would identify the above referenced address as anything more than a residence. The Hillshire area is a residential neighborhood, not a commercial district. Should the applicant desire any exterior, yard or window signage to advertise or direct clients to their location, they should locate their business elsewhere. We are assuming that since the applicant is filing for a business permit for a single family residence that they do intend to identify their business location with exterior signage. We would ask that the Planning Division consider the residential character of the neighborhood in reviewing this application. As property owners, we are concerned about any decrease in property values that could result from the City of Tigard authorizing a retail commercial operation in our neighborhood. In granting a zoning variance, we expect the City of Tigard to see no other surrounding property value is negatively impacted as a result of the City's decision to grant this permit. As explained in the City's letter, R-7 zoning is designed for residential, civic and institutional uses exclusively. We request that any permit issued by the City as a variance to R-7 zoning take into account any negative impact on property values and include restrictions barring the applicant against any permanent or temporary exterior, yard or window signage for their business. Sincerely, Scott and Cecelia Granger c 2/t6/077. Page 1 of 1 Dear Mr. Tracy: I had previously written you a letter regarding this application. Since that time a vast amount of additional information has become available about this proposed business. I am writing to urge you and the Planning Division to DISAPPROVE this application. Serious questions about the effects of this commercial retail business on neighborhood traffic, parking, type of business, effects on surrounding property values, and legal access to the business portion of the residence under Oregon State law. I am extremely concerned that your department is reportedly bypassing the normal traffic impact studies that would generally accompany this type of application. I am also concerned that approval of this application by the City of Tigard as an exception to the zoning under which all of us purchased our properties would open the City of Tigard to civil liability under Oregon land use laws in case a reduction in property values could be attributed to this commercial retail business. Please see that all these concerns are researched and addressed if you decide not to decline this application outright. The Hillshire and Benchview Terrace area is a RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. My wife and I purchased our home with the intent that we would be living in a RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. I will be unable to attend the hearing on this matter due to occupational commitments that will keep me out of town on the hearing date. Please see that this letter is provided to the hearing board. Please reply to this email to verify receipt. Thank you. Scott C. Granger 13641 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00008.HTM 2/26/02 Morgan Tracy- Disapprove Home Occup"on Permit 2002-00010: Moos Salon Page 1 1/14 From: "Granger, Cecelia" <cecelia.granger@intel.com> To: "'morgan@ci.tigard.or.us"' <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/28/02 1:14PM Subject: Disapprove Home Occupation Permit 2002-00010: Moos Salon 28 February 2002 Scott and Cecelia Granger 13641 S.W. Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223-5670 • Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit 2002-00010 Moos Salon - 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Dear Mr. Tracy: My husband and I have lived on S.W. Benchview Terrace for over 6.5 years. We have previously written to you to express our opposition and objection to the proposed granting of a permit for an in-home"salon"at the above address. It is my understanding that you have received other correspondence from similarly concerned Tigard citizens, likewise expressing their objections to the proposed granting of a permit for the occupants of 13783 S.W. Benchview to operate a "salon" in their residence. I am not going to reiterate all the excellent points made in missives previously sent to you by other Tigard citizens, but I will reiterate our vigorous opposition to the granting of a permit to operate a commercial retail business within the confines of a residential neighborhood. It has been conveyed to us that you have expressed a concern that, should the application to run this "salon"be declined by the City of Tigard, the applicant will take legal action. Considering the other objections that have been raised, citing residential zoning concerns, fire safety, environmental impact, traffic impact, safety of neighborhood children, etc., I would think the City would be more concerned about potential legal actions arising from claims that the City was negligent in its failure to fully consider the various risks and concerns raised by its citizens in regards to this application. Please do not allow the threat or presumption of legal action on the part of the applicant, to override the many well-reasoned objections raised by property-owners in this RESIDENTIALLY-ZONED AREA. Concern for the safety of the residents, and for the safety of their properties, and the preservation of value of those properties, should be paramount in your decision-making process. Perhaps other in-home businesses have been allowed in Tigard, but the Benchview/Hillshire Estates area is a unique one, and decisions to grant these types of permits should be made with full consideration of the unique issues in each case. It is not clear to us how the unique issues can be fully comprehended, and a fully informed decision made, without the required impact study, which we understand you have arbitrarily decided not to conduct, at least to this point. Additionally, as others have stated, the applicant does not demonstrate a financial hardship in the ability to lease commercial property for her enterprise, nor Morgan Trny- Disapprove Home Occur"on Permit 2002-00010: Moos Salon Page 2 is there any shortage of available and very affordable commercial property in the surrounding area. It is our earnest hope that you will take into consideration the data and inputs you have received from us and other citizens of our fair city, and DECLINE the above-referenced application for a permit to operate an in-home"salon". Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Cecelia Granger for Scott and Cecelia Granger 13641 S.W. Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223-5670 (503)579-3463 CC: "Granger, Cecelia" <cecelia.granger@intel.com> Y Joseph B Harrison, Jr 13621 SW White Cedar Place , Tigard , Oregon 97223 zfij Tel:(5031 579-6205 email: ioseahhac easystreet.com '_ RECEIVED PLANNING February 25, 2002 FEB Mr. Morgan Tracy 2 7 2002 Associate Planner CITY -:CARD City of Tigard—Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Notice of Pending Land Use Application(Feb. 14, 2002) Home Occupation Permit(HOP)2002-00010 Moos Salon @ 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300 Dear Mr. Tracy; I wish to express objection regarding this Type II Home Occupation permit application. I have reviewed the Community Development Code chapters your notice refers us to, as well as the Oregon State Regulation for Cosmetology. I find several areas for concern: 1. Traffic safety-increased vehicle traffic and/or parking. Re: 18.742.010.A.2 I8.742.040.A.8 SW Benchview Terrace is a heavily used residential street. Recent traffic surveys estimate usage at over 3000 vehicles/day with an average speed of 35mph. The posted speed limit is 25mph. The section of the street in question has a steep, curving incline making it difficult for drivers backing out of their driveways or being seen by those passing by. Further, increased parking on the street by clients, delivery trucks, sales representatives, etc.,will further impede visibility and therefore safety. This residence is between two established school bus stops, roughly 100 feet from each. 2. Fire Hazard and storage of flammable liquids& supplies. Re: 18.742.040.A.7 The potential for fire greatly concerns me. The commercial business indicated in the application involves chemical and other supplies, which can be highly flammable. This residence is in a row of single-family dwellings which backup to a steep,wooded ravine. There is a similar row of homes on the other side of this ravine(SW Hillshire Dr.). Wall-to-wall easements between these homes average 10 feet, making access by firefighting and emergency personnel very difficult and dangerous. Should a fire occur and spread to this ravine we could have great lose Joseph B Harrison, Jr 13621 SW White Cedar Place , Tigard , Oregon 97223 Tel:(5031579-8205 email: iosephha(c�easystreet.com of life and property. There already have been 3 fire department responses to this residence since November, 2001. Disposal of hazardous waste material resulting from normal operations of this business is another area of concern. I have experience in manufacturing management where I was specifically responsible for the safe and proper storage and disposal of hazardous waste,adhering to OSHA regulations. I do not see sufficient space or facilities for their proper handling at this property. I would certainly expect your impact study to specifically address this issue thoroughly. 3. Residential zoning—prohibited use. Re: 18.510.030.A&B Table 18.510.1 —Use Table Inspecting the use table referenced I find that the code very clearly prohibits commercial and industrial use in an R-7 zoned area. I believe salon would ordinarily be considered a commercial, personal service business. It therefore, by definition, is not permitted and as such this application should be denied straight away. Please help me understand how this salon could be defined otherwise. In the interest of our neighborhood, I therefore respectfully urge you to deny approval and issuance of this permit. Resp t /., , `+S� / z.(17.A4e.:40ej Josep Lesle Harrison cc: Bill Monahan, Tigard City Manager Paul H, Richards, Chairman, Oregon State Board of Cosmetology RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING Planning Division February 20, 2002 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard Oregon 97223 Attention: Morgan Tracy Dear Morgan, I am strongly opposed to the pending land use application for a home occupation permit 2002-00010 under file name Moos Salon. There are several concerns that come to mind. 1. How will the extra parking be controlled?And by whom? 2. How will you monitor the use of the restricted operation to ensure it stays in compliance with the application? 3. How will an already congested neighborhood accommodate more traffic flow? 4. How will the disposal of toxic solutions frequently associated with a salon be handled? 5. Does this really fall within the designated R-7 zoning guidelines and the CC&R's associated with our neighborhood? I hope that you will make the best choice for our neighborhood and decline the request for this home occupation permit. Best regards, 92,t/Lig Richard Inukai Morgan Tracy- Moos Salon at 13783 SV‘'''enchview Terrace '~ Page 1 From: Dale E McNeil <dalemcneil@juno.com> !'a To: <Morgan@CI.Tigard.OR.US> Date: 2/26/02 9:31 PM Subject: Moos Salon at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace We live in the Hillshire/Benchview neighborhood. We oppose the issuing of a license to do business in a home (HOP 2002-00010) Moos Salon at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace, Tigard, OR 97223. We believe this business to be inappropriate for our neighborhood violating the R-7 zoning code. We respectfully request the license for the salon be denied. Dale and Dona McNeil, 13957 SW Mistletoe Dr., Tigard, OR 97223 telephone (503) 579-1721 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2002 CITY OF TIGARD 'LANNING/ENGINEERING February 26,2002 Dennis&Elizabeth Peddicord RECEIVED ,b 13696 SW White Cedar Pl. Tigard,OR 97223 � f 503-579-1999 FEB 2 7 200_ CITY OF TIGARD Morgan Tracy PLANNING/ENGINEERING Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-579-1999 Re: Notice of Pending Land Use Application(Feb. 14, 2002) Home Occupation Permit(HOP)2002-00010 Moos Salon @ 13783 SW Benchview Ter., Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Tracy: We wish to object to the application for a Type II Home Occupation Permit for Moos Salon. We live directly across the street from this home,and have several concerns about this business operating in the home of the Moos family. Although our home faces White Cedar Place, we are on the corner with more of our property footage along Benchview Terrace than faces White Cedar. Most of our rooms are oriented towards the back of the house to take advantage of the view; and also situates our kitchen window, bedroom, and our patio and deck looking directly out at the Moos residence. One of our main concerns is the traffic problem on Benchview Terrace. We have a very heavy traffic situation on this street,with many of the residents of other neighborhoods on Bull Mountain using this street as a way to access the Walnut and Scholls Ferry Rd. areas. Many drivers exceed the 25mph speed limit, at all times of the day and night. We have several school buses which stop on our street to pick up and let off children. Two such stops are in close proximity to the Moos residence. One is at Brim&Benchview,and the other at White Cedar and Benchview. More traffic trying to access this location could present a danger to the children who use these buses. The Moos residence is near the crest of the hill and because the hill is quite steep, drivers coming up the hill cannot see the area near their driveway, also partly because of the way their front porch wall juts out all the way to the sidewalk. Parking on the street and backing out of the driveways has always been difficult for all residences on Benchview,but is particularly a hazard at this location. We have viewed from our windows, several traffic incidents in which people had(near miss)problems over the years. Another factor hampering the traffic on this street is that, in the spring and summer,the afternoon sun blinds drivers who are coming up the hill. We have experienced this problem ourselves,and it is extremely difficult to see the road at all at this point of the hill. Additional parkers at this area would be a hazard, whether using the street or the driveway. Page 2/Peddicord letter/Moos Home Occupation Permit 2002-00010 We bought this home in this neighborhood because of the great view and the fine homes in this area. We object to any type of signage that advertises a business on the premises. We definitely feel that it cheapens the fine residential character of the neighborhood,and would not enjoy looking out our windows to see a business sign in our neighbors yard, ruining our view, no matter what the size of the sign. We also would despise having a view from our kitchen window of all the comings and goings of Mrs. Moos' customers, salespeople, and deliveries, with all the inherent traffic problems they most certainly will create. The other concern with this, is that she will be operating her business on Saturday, which is a day that we like to entertain on our deck and patio. Again,the view of this business operation in progress,does not give us the type of atmosphere in which to enjoy the outdoor spaces of our home. If she has the right to have an employee in this home business,we can surmise that six customers a day may very well turn into twelve customers per day or more. It seems that with other situations like this; once a permit has been issued there is no one to monitor this and very little done if those limits are exceeded. The access and egress to the proposed business would most likely be down a steep stairway on the side of the house. This stairway does not have a handrail and seems unsafe for a business entrance access. Mrs. Moos,herself, has said that entrance would be through her front door, and this also seems inappropriate for a business such as a salon,which,I would think, should have a separate entrance for its customers. We would like to know why a business such as this, which is obviously rendering personal services is being considered in a R-7 zone. It is our understanding that a business offering personal services would fall under a general retail zone and not fit into a residential zone. Other concerns that we have are fire danger--this house backs onto a steep ravine and could be a difficult problem for firefighters to gain access to address a fire situation in the back of the home. This greenway area in the back of the house could also be a potential brush fire problem in the summer as the brush and grasses there become very dry. We also wonder about the safe storage and disposal of all the flammable chemicals that are used in this type of business. We have personally observed firetrucks dispatched to this house on three different occasions in the last few months. We request that an impact study be done as is usually required. We also would like a specific definition of the business known as a"Salon"--all inclusive of the specific services that would be offered at this business and those that would not be provided. In closing, we request that you consider our thoughts on the negative effects that this business would bring to our neighborhood, and we insist that you apply the correct zoning application for a personal services type business, as we feel this does not comply with R-7 zoning. It seems to us that this business would fit better into a commercial setting. There is a lot of commercial space available for reasonable rates at this time. Respec fully, ...,. Dennis&Elizabeth Peddicord c: Board of Cosmetology Tigard City Council Members Tualatin valley Fire & Rescue Morgan Tracy- Moos salon HOP 2002-00 ''� Page 1 re614$12# fr 10'1 From: <rputzier@msn.com> .`% To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/28/02 7:13AM Subject: Moos salon HOP 2002-00010 Dear Mr. Tracy, I continue to be troubled by a comment you made during our meeting, and while I believe it is addressed in the letter we sent in opposition to the approval of the permit, I want to make my case more explicit. You commented that denying her a permit would violate her right to have a home occupation business. I would like to make clear that she does not have a"right"to have a home occupation business, it is a privilege. As the rest of the homeowners in this neighborhood, Ms. Moos has a right to use her property in accordance with the rules and regulations of a residence. Should she choose to use her property for another use, such as a business enterprise, she must get permission (thus, the word permit)from the city to do so. It is my understanding that when exercise of her privilege violates my right as a property owner, my right prevails. In this case, my inherent right to use my property in accordance with R-7 residential zoning regulations is clearly violated by the business use she proposes. Thus, she should not be granted permission for a variance if this would be to my detriment. Thank you again for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, Dee-J Putzier 13799 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 CC: "Bert&Susy Waugh" <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, "Cathy& Mike Satterlee" <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, "Dennis & Liz Peddicord" <dpnews@earthlink.net>, "Jo Harris" <josephha@earthlink.com>, "Karen & Greg Aube" <Minkieaube@aol.com>, "Mary Howell" <mary.howell@med.va.gov>, "Mike & Klaudia Rosa" <mkrosa@juno.com>, "Ralph VanHorn" <BEARREV@aol.com>, "Rick& Candi White" <RWhite1589@aol.com> • February 27, 2002 RECEIVED Rick and Dee-J Putzier FEB 2 8 2002 13799 SW Benchview Terrace ` Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit 2002-00010 Moos Salon-13783 SW Benchview Terrace Dear Mr. Tracy, This letter is in opposition to the above referenced application for an in home beauty salon. As specified in the notice,these comments will address the relevant criteria used to make a decision,as well as issues/concerns believed to be important to the decision-making process. At the outset,I believe this application should be declared null and void because it did not meet all of the requirements specified in 18.390.040B2e. This section clearly states that the application shall include an impact study. When we requested a copy of the impact study,we were told that one had not been required. It is my understanding of legal terminology that the word shall has the full force and effect of "must",and is inconsistent with the concept of discretion. We fail to understand why the process went forward without this requirement. It is also of concern to us that you do not seem to be too concerned about this obvious deficiency. Second, it is my understanding that zoning ordinances were established with the specific intent of imposing restrictions upon the use of land within certain boundaries. One of the major purposes was to separate residential and commercial enterprises in an effort to promote the health and security of residents, prevent disorder, facilitate the enforcement of fire,traffic and other regulations, protect residents from industrial creep,and preserve a more favorable environment in which to raise children. Departures from zoning regulations are granted as a measure to avoid overly harsh results of a particular zoning regulation. The residential zoning status of this neighborhood was not imposed on the applicant. In fact, she is a relative newcomer to the area, having moved into the house on October 31, 2001. Thus,the usual rationale for granting a variance does not seem to be relevant to this situation. 18.742.010 states that a variance is made to "permit residents an opportunity to use their homes to engage in small-scale business ventures which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters". In this particular case,the applicant has been a 1 licensed hairdresser since 1991,with an established clientele. She has sustained the business venture in commercial quarters,and told us that the reason she is requesting a permit is because her clients have asked her to come back into the business. Clearly,this is not the situation for which the home occupation permit was intended. She is not a start-up business, but seeks to use this permit to have a commercial enterprise in her "spacious" home. She has also indicated on her application that she will have six (6)clients per day Tuesday through Saturday. Given that each client will consume at least an hour's worth of time,this does not seem to be a part-time or small-scale business venture for her. She intends to run a full-time business out of her home. The second section of the purpose statement indicates that the business is to be conducted in a manner that is not detrimental or disruptive to neighboring properties and residents. As the neighbor whose property butts up against the stairway clients will use to access the business,there is no question that this will be detrimental and disruptive to the use of our property. There are only ten (10)feet between the walls of our respective houses on the side of the property, which gives clients access to the separate entrance that is required by the Board of Cosmetology for businesses of this nature. The stairs are only five (5)feet from our decks and inches away from our back yard. To have strangers traipsing up and down those steps on an hourly basis five days a week,one of which is a weekend day, is extremely distressing. Because of the proximity of the houses to the lot line,which the city of Tigard allows,there is no way to buffer this intrusion. The separate entrance requirement coupled with the lack of any access other than adjacent to our back yard and decks create a conflict with the intent of the R-7 zoning standards. At six (6) clients a day,there will be 120 uninvited,unwanted "guests" per month in our back yard. It means that we no longer have the privacy and serenity that we thought we had when we purchased the property,and makes us an ipso facto home occupation business as well. Clearly, if this permit is issued, we are unable to use our property in the manner in which it was intended to be used-as a residential property. If this does not meet the requirement of detrimental or disruptive,I do not know what does. 18.742.040A.3. states that there shall be no offensive noise, vibration,dust,or odors...at or beyond the property line resulting from the operation. Unless you can guarantee us that the clients will be making no noise or throwing up dust as they descend the stairs and creating no vibrations as they hit the wood deck,then this is a clear violation of this portion of the code. The expectation is that normal residential use would be limited to the members of the household; she clearly expects to have up to six clients per day based on her application. This translates into a minimum of 12 (down and back up)additional trips, more if you count the number of people who usually accompany the individual client to a beauty salon appointment. If you have ever been in a salon or close to one when a permanent is being given,you know the extremely obnoxious odor that is inherent in that activity. All of these sounds and odors waft into the greenway and are easily carried beyond the property line. To think that this will not adversely impact our property is ludicrous. Who gets to decide if it is offensive? Usually,the person wanting the permit has the burden of proving it won't be offensive. We should not have to defend our right to not have commercial activity in our residential zone. 2 In the winter months,which in Oregon are many,the stairs used to gain access to the business will need to be well lighted. This will,again, have a direct impact on our property and our ability to use our property. Those lights will beam directly onto our decks and into our family room. Anything short of that kind of lighting will be a safety hazard for people negotiating the stairs. 18.742.040A.4. states that the entire square footage of the business shall not encompass more than 528 square feet. We happen to know that the square footage of the floor on which she is seeking to carve out her business is in excess of 2000 square feet. We are also aware,and have given you the relevant codes,that the Board of Cosmetology requires that the business space be separated from the residential space by floor to ceiling walls. Yet, when we questioned you about this,you indicated that you had not done, nor had you planned to do an inspection of the property to see if she meets this requirement. It seems to us that this is not only a prudent thing to do, but would be imperative to see if this requirement was met. We would certainly expect to find that type of information in any discussion of the evidence upon which the decision was made. Again,does she not have the burden of proving that she is not using more than 528 of the 2000+ square feet on that floor? We were able to point out to you that she has indicated the sauna as part of the 528 square feet,yet the only way to get into the sauna is through the exercise room, which she has not indicated as part of the square footage. The code clearly indicates that this area should also be counted as part of that total. We request that a site visit be made so that a careful measurement of all areas can be conducted. 18.742.040A.7. states that there shall be no more on or off street parking than that normally required for a residence. It is our understanding that the usual number of parking spots for residential purposes is two. If there is any overlap of clients at all,which there is more likelihood than not, she will exceed this number. The two clients constitute her limit, with her nanny taking up the third space. At the current time, her full-time nanny parks in front of our house,taking up one of the two spaces allotted to us. Even without the added congestion of clients,most of their guests and visitors park in front of our house because it is easier to traverse the distance from our property to their entrance than to negotiate the steep hill in front of their house to their entrance. This can only be expected to increase when six clients per day are added to the mix. As for the other relevant issues and concerns,we would like to start with basic safety. There is absolutely no legal way for us to protect our side and back yards from any type of trespassing or vandalism on the part of Ms. Moos' clients. Because of the slope of the hill, the side and back yards cannot be seen from the street. Thus,the usual police patrols are virtually useless for detecting any activity in these areas. In addition,the"salon" will be positioned on the opposite side of the house from the side her clients will be using to gain access. Thus,she is unable to have any kind of deterrent effect on her clients,or visualize any activity that would occur in our yard. The second safety issue is one regarding school bus stops. In the course of one block, there are two school bus stops on Benchview that are directly opposite the applicant's house. The children boarding these buses must cross the street to do so. Given the incline 3 of the street, it is very difficult to see the bus, let alone the children until one is almost on top of them. Add to that the sun which blinds most of us during the summer months, and you have a recipe for disaster. In the 2000 traffic study that was conducted on Benchview Terrace, the average speed of drivers up and down the hill was 37mph. This is a 25mph zone. You only add to the risk of danger when you create a commercial enterprise directly opposite these stops. There are no crosswalks, no identified intersections near the stops, and only one stop sign a block away that drivers frequently do not obey. Third,we are very concerned about fire safety in our greenway. Those of us who live here have chosen the greenway for its many benefits. We are also acutely aware of the potential risks involved with a stray match or cigarette butt. Because we have a vested interest,we are all very careful about what activities take place close to the greenway. We do not expect, nor have businesses in commercial areas seen,the same kind of care from clients. It would not take too much, given that she will have hazardous waste and chemicals on the premises,to ignite the woods and natural debris of the greenway. Should this happen, it will be the fire department's worst nightmare. Given the proximity of the houses to each other and the slope of the hill,access to the area by fire fighting equipment and rescue personnel is very restricted. If this were zoned commercial,which it is not,there would be many more restrictions placed on the business than will be imposed by this permit. We are already aware that they have had three fire department responses to their residence since December. Why would we even think of adding flammable chemicals, more traffic,and clients who smoke to this mix? The only access to the separate entrance to the business (which is required by the Board of Cosmetology) is down a set of concrete stairs that have no handrail,are not lighted,are not covered,are slippery when wet,and butt up against the adjoining property line. We have been informed by you that the applicant does not need to meet the same requirements for life safety issues that a commercial business would be required to meet. The likelihood of someone slipping, falling,and sustaining a serious injury is quite high. The potential liability this creates for us is something we do not intend to assume. We have, in good faith, protected ourselves from the usual residential situations. We do not willfully assume responsibility or liability for a commercial enterprise that the city has forced upon us by issuing a permit for a business that has no other option for access. Lastly,we find it extremely distressing that we are placed in the position of defending our current residential zoning status, while the applicant has merely filled out an application (incomplete at that!)and paid a fee in order to obtain a variance. By your own admission, there has been tremendous opposition to this application and the approval of a permit,yet you indicated that 90%of these applications go through anyway. 18.390.040C.2. states that the goal of the notice to relevant parties is to invite them to participate early in the decision-making process. By definition,the word participate means to share in,or enjoy in common,yet we do not get any sense that we are being allowed "to share" in anything. In fact, it seems quite the opposite. All of the letters that we have seen in opposition to this application have quite eloquently spoken to the relevant criteria. If we were truly participating in the decision-making process,these would count for something. However, today,you indicated that the objections put forth are not enough. When queried about 4 what evidence would be considered enough for denying the application,you could not supply an answer. Once again,the applicant has had to supply nothing in support of her request for a variance to the existing zoning,while the avalanche of opposition to the variance and defense of the current zoning seems to hold no sway. In every sense of the words,this does not seem to be fair or just. We were under the impression that the city had a duty to protect the property interests of the majority of its residents, not cater to a select few. We continue to wonder, in the absence of any clarifying statements to our earlier queries, what conditions rise to the level of meeting the standard for denying a permit. We have a sense that as opposition mounts,the bar continues to be raised. If the act of obtaining a variance from the existing zoning is a mere formality,then the entire application process and solicitation of comments is a mockery. It also means that there is no residential/commercial distinction, but, in fact,every piece of property in Tigard is inherently both. This will be news to residents who believe that property is inherently residential,and that variance means a license to engage in an act contrary to the usual rule. We should not be put in a position to defend our usual and customary use. Today,you alluded to the fact that you were concerned about possible legal action on the part of the applicant should you not grant the permit. It is frightening to think that our city can be so easily intimidated by one individual. it is our sincere hope that the city would not be held hostage by such possibilities and judge each application on its merits. We recognize your concern about previous decisions to approve this type of business in a residential area. We are also painfully aware that each neighborhood and potential business dwelling have their own set of characteristics that make it more or less likely that a permit would be granted. If that were not so,then why go through the sham of gathering evidence and pretend that there is a decision point. In this case,the house design and state regulations for this type of business make it impossible for clients to access the business without intruding on our privacy. The street incline, property incline,and greenway have inherent potential for serious life safety issues. We have lived in many other houses where this is not the case. We expect that the city would also be able to make the distinction. We strenuously object to the approval of this application for permit,and request that you seriously consider the merits of all opposition received as evidence that this situation is not similar to other applications you have previously approved. Respectfully, "‘r:jci71"-- C;4"4-'). Rick Putzier Dee-J Putzier cc: Mayor James Griffith Councilor Brian J. Moore Councilor Ken Scheckla Councilor Craig Dirksen Councilor Joyce Patton 5 Morgan Tracy- HOP 2002-00010 Moos fin Page 1 cccia Zlt4/o2 From: <RoodALRood@aol.com> To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/28/02 4:11 PM Subject: HOP 2002-00010 Moos Salon Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard Feb. 28, 2002 Dear Mr. Tracy, We would like to state our opposition to the granting of the above-cited HOP. We believe it would be detrimental &disruptive to neighboring properties under Community Development Code Chapter 18.742.010. SW Benchview bears a heavy traffic load for a neighborhood in R-7 zoning. Having up to six customers a day at this home would certainly increase this problem. The traffic on Benchview often ignores the 25 mph speed limit, does not properly obey the stop signs and is oblivious to neighbors pulling out of driveways, children crossing the street& buses picking up &dropping off children. The steepness of the hill also makes this street more prone to problems. We saw this on SW Hillshire last Summer when a truck driver was killed by his runaway trailer. More cars parking on the street would also make visibility an issue. We believe an impact study should be part of this application. Other issues which concern us about this application are the use of square footage beyond the 528 square feet provided for in 18.742.020, the fire safety to the neighborhood given that chemicals would be sold and stored there, the calls the fire department has already made to the home and the safety of the children in the home. We urge you to reject this application. Sincerely, Andy L. Rood Terry M. Rood, Esq. 13779 SW Hillshire Dr. Tigard Or 97223 Vf February 24, 2002 RECEIVED Michael & Claudia Rosa FEB 2 7 2002 . 13707 SW White Cedar Place Tigard Oregon 97224 CITY OF TIGARO ' LANNING/ENGINEERING Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard Oregon 97223 Re: Home Occupation Permit(HOP) # 2002-00010 Dear Mr. Tracy, We are highly opposed to the approval and issuance of the Home Occupation permit listed above. We are very concerned about the negative impact that this issuance will have on the quality of life that many of us have made in the Bull Mountain area. We have chosen this area as our home to raise our families away from the everyday activity of the retail, and faced paced life of downtown City living. The exclusive and private feeling that we have come to know has attracted such high profile people as former Portland Trail Blazers Brian Grant and Jermaine O'Neill. They chose our neighborhood,just as we did, for it's quiet and private appeal. Many of us moved to the Bull Mountain area to escape from the hustle and bustle of City life. By issuing the permit, The City of Tigard compromises the serenity of our neighborhood,the security of our families, and many other issues that need to be addressed. We have listed several negative impacts to our neighborhood that are in question. We would like to know how the City of Tigard will insure that the neighborhood will not unnecessarily suffer as a result of this action. Security: How will the City insure that, with the increase of traffic into our subdivision,there will be adequate police patrols and response to handle potential problems?We already show signs of some vandalism because of the lack of Police patrols on Bull Mountain. Many of the properties do not have fences and rely on neighbors to remain vigilant for improper or questionable activity. Not knowing who is parked in a neighborhood only adds to the stresses of family security. I am in the Security and Fire business and have seen the best and the worst that this type of environment can bring to a neighborhood. Fire: I know through experience that a Salon will be storing highly flammable and toxic chemicals. We are concerned that the proposed Salon will be next to a Greenway that runs up the canyon between the homes. 1 What code inspections, impact studies, or life safety measures have been provided to protect against loss or injury to persons or property or the surrounding neighborhood. How does the City plan to insure the protection of the nearby homes within the neighborhood when the proposed location will be storage accelerants that will feed and spread a fire quickly? What has been done to reduce the amount of false alarms that have already occurred at the site? Who will pay for the increased costs to respond to fire and life safety issues at this site? Our tax dollars are already spread thin to support essential community services without creating additional "at risk"environments to expose the neighborhood to potential loss. Will our property insurance rates increase due to the proximity to this salon operation? (During the past few months the Tigard Fire Department has responded to several calls to this address increasing disruption of the neighborhood) Safety, Traffic and visibility due to steep grade of Benchview Terrace There are school bus stops on Benchview Terrace that are already challenged by vehicles parked on the roadway. There is a school bus stop at almost every corner leading up and down Benchview Terrace. Additional parked vehicles may impair or impede drivers,thus increasing the likelihood of accidents of a pedestrian or a child being struck. How will our children be assured safety if there are additional vehicles parked on the roadway? How are we to know that a parked vehicle with a person inside is normal or abnormal activity? Will it be safe for our children and grandchildren to play outside as they do today with the increase of retail traffic into our neighborhood? The negative impact of sun, glare, reduced visibility, already impair safe ingress and egress for those who have driveways directly onto Benchview Terrace, added traffic to a retail location will create additional risk. There is minimal lighting and no provision for crosswalks in this residential neighborhood. We have asked the City, on numerous occasions,to do something to reduce the speed up and down Benchview Terrace. We suggested several speed bumps but were told that the hill was too steep for them. (Grade at the site increases from 8%to as high as 13-15%as you travel downhill. Posted speed limit is 25MPH. Most recent speed surveyed by City of Tigard(2000) registered in excess of 37MPH based upon the 85%rate). How will the City regulate speed and traffic and pedestrian safety in our area? Vehicle traffic pollution, noise pollution and litter: With the increase in traffic come noise pollution, vehicle pollution, and litter. Who will be responsible for insuring the noise and pollution levels are not exceeded within our neighborhood? Who will be responsible for the increase in roadway deterioration on Benchview Terrace and surrounding roadways'? Who will be responsible to insure that our neighborhood is not overrun with litter and the inherent pollution issues that follow a retail type business? 2 -'� Signage: We live in a prestigious, exclusive residential neighborhood. I fear that the displaying of a retail sign on the front of the property will negatively impact the resaleability of the properties in our neighborhood. This is not a retail neighborhood, but a residential neighborhood. What are the signage standards for this type of business? Who approves the signage? Unfortunately, we feel that many of these issues will fall onto the neighbors and neighborhood to police. This would also lead to an increase in taxpayer dollars to pick up the tab for many of the public safety, maintenance, enforcement issues that will arise from the issuance of the above listed permit. We are very interested to review the required impact study that should have been completed upon receipt of the permit application. Perhaps answers to my questions listed will be answered. Any new commercial /retail business is required to address fire and life safety issues, pollution and environmental impact issues, traffic and parking issues, etc. before permits and business licenses are issued allowing business activity to commence. Could you also clarify the Residential zoning-prohibited use listed under Residential Zoning Districts R-7 table 18.E 10.030 A&B. This strictly prohibits the introduction of a commercial business into a residential neighborhood. Who protects our residential neighborhood from the negative impact it may suffer as result of skirting standard business practices and requirements in allowing a potentially harmful retail business operation to commence in a residential area....who will protect the neighborhood property owners? What is the value of R-7 zoning if it allows retail business exceptions without accountability destroying the integrity of R-7 residential use? We are highly opposed to the issuance of the Home Occupation Permit(HOP)#2002-00010. We urge you to deny the above listed application to preserve our residential neighborhood. With kind regards, Michael & Claudia Rosa aAti,tta)7iielaN CC: Bill Monahan, Tigard City Manager Paul H. Richards, Chairman, Oregon State Board of Cosmetology Jeffrey D. Johnson, Fire Chief, Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue 3 @TY) February 17, 2002 Planning Division at the City of Tigard RECEIVED PLANNING 13125 SW Hall Blvd FEB 21 2002 Tiger, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD ATT: Morgan Tracy Dear Morgan Tracy; As residents of Bull Mountain within 500 feet of proposed development HOP 2002-00010, file name Moos Salon, type 11 Home Occupation permit, We are opposed to this Application and cannot understand why this area which is zoned as residential has to be defended as such. We wonder if the proposed annexation of Bull Mountain to the City of Tigard will allow for these proposed infractions of rules already in place? Please consider this written comment as a definite "No" from us concerning this permit. Sinc rely, (21 arles and Suzanne se 13596 SW Mint Place Tigard, OR 97223 RECEIVED February 28, 2002 RECEIVED k si ATV FEB 28 no? CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Or 97223 Re: Home Occupation Permit 200200010 Moos Salon 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Dear Mr. Tracy: We are writing to you in opposition to the application which was submitted to the City of Tigard for a"Salon"to be operated in a residential neighborhood. It is our understanding that in order for this variance in land use be denied we must site concrete evidence that approval for this home based business is in direct violation of the Home Occupation Laws. As citizens of the City of Tigard we find this very disturbing as we have entrusted the Mayor, City Council Members and the employees such as yourself in the Community Planning Development to make decisions for the common good of all of the residence within our city. Our home is located on the corner of Benchview and Mistletoe. As we are able to see down Benchview, we have watched traffic increase significantly since the addition of the Brownstone Homes located at the bottom Benchview and Gaarde Road. We are now watching another development,Pacific Crest, whose entrance is an extension of Mistletoe Drive, and will add another 63 homes to our neighborhood. A business would only add traffic to a highly used thoroughfare which also serves as many bus stops for Tigard's public students. This information would of been revealed had a traffic impact survey been completed. We feel that an overall impact study is imperative prior to the approval of this permit and would appreciate the results mailed to us. We have read over the Home Occupation Criteria 18.742 as well as the Administrative Rules from the Oregon Board of Cosmetology and find there to be some discrepancies. We question which criteria for operating a facility will this salon be held accountable to. Here is an example to which we refer: Tigard: 18.742.40 A.4 The total area for the business activity shall not exceed 528 square feet. (Will the city required an inspection of the facility to confirm that the "Salon" meets the criteria of the Board of Cosmetology) Board of Cosmetology: 817-020-0011 1.E Maintain separation between the residential living area and facility by solid walls extending from floor to ceiling, with connecting doors kept closed during hours the facility is in operation and/or serving clients as required in ORS 690.205(2) We question which administrative body will enforce these codes if a violation should occur. We are sure that the city has a legal department which will explore all laws governing this type of business. Perhaps one area that might be researched is whether the correct zoning was applied for. The City of Tigard has many different commercial properties available for a salon. We hope that Ms. Moos would choose to find one in which her business could continue to grow. As residents of this neighborhood,we ask you to please consider carefully all the implications this type of business establishment would have on everyone. Please allow us to keep our residential neighborhood such as it is. GILL a a Michael and Neeltje Satterlee 13851 S.W. Mistletoe Drive Tigard, OR 97223 503-521-9625 Larry & Barbara Simonemeier �`- 13721 S.W. B.nchview Terrace c Tigard, Oregon 97223 RECEIVED PLANNING February, 24, 2002 FEB 2 7 2002 Morgan Tracy Ci ice; O'A RD Associate Planner, City of Tigard-Community Development 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon, 97223 Dear Mr. Tracy: We are writing in reference to the notice we received regarding the Home Occupation Permit Application (HOP)2002-00010, submitted by Moos Salon to be located at 13783 S.W. Benchview Terrace for an in-home salon. As residents of Benchview Terrace, we are very much opposed to the granting of a permit by the City of Tigard for an in-home salon. We chose to buy a home in this area in July of 1996, because it provided an up scale, strictly residential setting in a secure and serene setting with a greenbelt. Until now, we have enjoyed the peace of a very nice residential neighborhood. We fear that the granting of this permit will create a negative effect on this fine Bull Mountain neighborhood, creating safety concerns causing property values to decrease. We have many concerns regarding this permit, but it appears from our interpretation of Title 18.510.030 Table of Uses of the Community Development Code, that personal services are specifically not permitted in an R-7 zoning area. An in-home salon certainly qualifies as selling personal services, i.e., hair treatment,manicures, facials, and massages, etc. We are amazed that given this criteria alone that the application is being considered. Title 18.742.010 Purpose,which states ..."suffering a hardship for a venture which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters". This home is a 7000 plus square foot property in a very up-scale neighborhood, and the applicant hardly qualifies as "suffering a hardship for a venture which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters". The applicant's husband is a physician and the couple employs a full time Nanny to watch their 4 children. Given the availability of reasonably priced commercial property for lease in down town Tigard and the surrounding area, an in-home salon is certainly not justified. Under Title 18.742.40 General Approval Criteria and Standards Section A.4,this is a multi (4) level residential property and the floor on which the applicant plans to"locate" her business has 2000 square feet, considerably more than the 528 square feet limited by code. Further,the Board of Cosmetology requirement for an in-home salon is that the salon area be separated by solid walls from the rest of the home with adjoining doors to the home to be kept closed. The applicant has indicated that access to the business would be via the front door of the residence and down a flight of stairs. I understand this access does not meet code for public entrance because there is no landing at the top of the stairs leading to the lower floor. Additionally, the front entrance is strictly forbidden by the Board of Cosmetology regulation, 817-020-0011(2)(d)that require a separate entrance. 2 The outside entrance to the area would be down 13 very steep, narrow concrete steps with no handrail which are not covered or lighted and would not meet ADA regulations. This outdoor entrance would also be disruptive to the neighboring property owners, because the two houses are separated by a ten feet, wall to wall, and the stairs are located on the property line between the two residences. Not only would there be customers frequenting the home, but also vendors and sales representatives and delivery people who would also be entering the home, five feet from the back yard and deck of the neighboring home, thus infringing on their privacy rights. See section A.3 Offensive Noise and Glare. Additionally under Title 18.741.40 section A.8..."there shall be no street parking other than that normally required for a residence". For an R-7 residence, that number is two cars. There is no way with 6-12 clients per day plus sales representatives and vendor deliveries that only two cars would be parked at any time. Given the mailbox access for six homes located directly across the street, parking is very limited in this area. Our concern is that customers to the salon would park in front of other homes on the street, thus interfering with their parking allocation for friends,etc. and/or they would park in front of the mailboxes, which prevents the mail from being delivered. Traffic on Benchview is already a problem, with over 3000 one way auto trips per day. Further,there are at least 3 or 4 school bus routes that also make a minimum of 2 trips per day with school children crossing this very busy street. Additional cars in the area will further exacerbate the traffic and safety issues which already exist. This property is located at place on the street where traffic coming up this steep street cannot clearly see persons or traffic at this location, especially in the afternoon when the sun is shinning and drivers are blinded by the glare. Safety is already a major concern for children and residents along this busy street due to the amount of traffic and the high speeds at which people travel up and down this steep hill. By its very nature, a hair and nail salon uses hazardous and flammable solutions and materials, thus, raising concerns about fire safety as well as environmental issues related to storage and disposal of products. We are also concerned about proper venting of noxious fumes that will be generated by this type of business. This residence along with all of the houses on the same side of the street, back up to the greenbelt, which drops into a steep ravine, thick with natural undergrowth and trees. Given the fact that since the applicant and her family moved into the residence on October 31, 2001,there have been fire trucks called to the residence on 2 or 3 occasions. A fire at this residence could be a real threat to all of the others located along the green belt. Clearly, this applicant has applied for a permit to operate a"personal service"business that has no place in this otherwise strictly residential neighborhood. We have lived here for six years and other than the traffic issues that exist, it has been a peaceful neighborhood where residents live in peace and serenity with nature, including deer and other creatures that come out of the greenbelt behind our homes. We know when strange cars are parked in the area and watch out for each other's homes and safety. Bringing 3 strangers and strange cars into this neighborhood will cause suspicion and unrest and concern for the safety of our children and grandchildren who play in our yards. In essence, approval of this application brings unnecessary individuals into an otherwise relatively secure neighborhood in a day and time in our history when security is more an issue than it has ever been in the history of this country. Given the general criteria and standards for application cited in the Community Development Code,we sincerely request that you deny this application for a Type II Home Occupation permit for an in-home salon. We believe this application is in violation of the Community Development Code and should be denied. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sin`rely, Larry&Barbara Simonsmeier Cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon, 97223 State of Oregon Board of Cosmetology 700 Summer NE, Suite 320 Salem, Oregon, 97301 RECEIVED PLANNING y� FEB 2 8 2002 ñZ' . fl'!la - / j CITY OF TEGARQ r (-- al ( L CL _ e X11 .„..,14.',4aLe,Z7) _24-e-- ?ems 62, e 69002 -60o/e ...1_,(_Le glawie — /12eie „jai:4,1u, ail, ki -, it-el-, , _ __. I.x----1A--e-d n .,---d-ce-a-,--zed---z-iiai,,,,--iit,94e-e 0, e&,_21z--eZe .L16-11 ,,,,,i/A1eitb-r-tt, ,,e---- ' 4ta614/%te..4.) 7 lik& ,,,„&-ex/ ,t _,Ai ,,a_tn ,a,-- di :eels - ,-.> r k-4,1 - J q6 ,--1 .1c a4 ,,,r/ k. f;c4 - Ld p i : / ... .. F/ iL/ e` __ .. _ ._. ..... . '1----- - ' ..,,eld „"eti/,,,Zietipc-e9-1&11 ' , ijcia4,2 r2 ,A' 4.. .It 11 1 l'2"C-ii,eZe-1-,(.3, ‘ 4 , „, / r ./. '1,„(__ 1 ' 'if_ i (., Ca , _OIL JZ.44,11,--4.>ei -26-' ,42;t4l) CI 411-ela./..-i_Li4) &,1 .0 / L.,(PL, 77 1J a : VjJt(j1J / , i&Z,J /L d ,,,/iii,...,,ei-r z , . ea,a_- i_, , ,, n,;'-d-2-d--1,\7;t44-114 A ef' / ,,, / - ,1. I-// 'IaC.1C2O/zti ; tt � : ce-.0 „ice a _ sz J ' " u ..,-- f ILIA' A oPri. ft" .-J 4_,Z., ,,-a ' 11,1411aE .. L/91 ''' /4/4;e1 7/0-eC/. ' /-1--ii /a / gl(,. &-4,17‘-e-6--)c,,, ..Z.e , z),6-6L .,/iza-41-t.f-thecil -, .",/ .4e--)2 y ink_ 4 eai , zi_te,L4 _ „ a,..7,1 6-ay ,A v-i' Lizei,--L 4 MRk A6-77/2, ,L_--tskt-(zlci, 2-"ze51/ /- e/i'i ' ,,� ��_ ,40 /Liu? rte. ,.,, 1_, a L g le, 0 ike,(7 arc ��� F a ifi-Zt2 -, ''J.ZLA,A6 40-'( a ne ,. a."6-1< � JeACt-de Cc/I-PA-L-11 62”144016(--ti-ja-li jiLE /9,/a k,/e)t_. Alzt 1.4"Aci. e0 4>ft oyL,,ms: ant r Vacji , 1 \ _.1e,14,0(44-, • 5u r 13q31) - LL) na v i-eu) Ter, F Tiocraci , C R .a3_ 5 79- a3c1 I + �iamn�l I�pllf�l'' CITY OF TIGARD March 1, 2002 11_1.EGON Larry &Susan Trachi 13930 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Trachi and Ms. Trachi: Thank you for your recent letter regarding an application for a Home Occupation Permit for Moos Salon. Your letter was also forwarded to the Community Development Department staff. Staff will evaluate the application and the comments received from property owners as they consider and make a determination whether the application meets the requirements of the Development Code. This staff decision is sent to property owners. That decision can be appealed to the Hearings Officer with a further appeal available to the Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have further concerns or questions about process, please contact Community Development Director Jim Hendryx at 503-639-4171, Ext. 309. Sincerely, / William A. Monahan City Manager c: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner I:\ADM\BILL\MEMOS\MOOS HO REQUEST-TRACHI.DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 RECEIVED PLANNING RALPH & CORALLE VAN HORN 13632 SW WHITE CEDAR PLACE FEB 2 8 2002 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 503 579 5350 bearrev@aol.com CITY 0' "PG R© MORGAN TRACY,ASSOCIATE PLANNER CITY OF TIGARD-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Ref.HOP 2002-00010 Moos DEAR MR.TRACY, We hereby record our opposition to the referenced HOP. A review of Residential Zoning Districts: 18.510 City of Tigard codes reveals that a "Personal Services" business such as Moos Salon (hair styling,nails,facials etc.)would fall in the category ofGeneral Retail and would not be a permitted use ofthis R7 property.See Use Table 18.510.1.It seems that the HOP must be denied on that basis alone. We believe that a traffic study and an environmental impact study should be required ofthe applicant.The traffic on Benchview Terrace in front of 13783 is very high. I believe that COT recorded nearly 3000 one way trips per day.The School District has indicated that about ten different school bus routes are in use at this point and that the buses stop within about 100 feet on each side of this address. Busing starts about 7:00 thru 9:00 am restarts about 2:30 pm thru 5:00 pm.Increased use ofon street parking on Benchview would create more traffic hazards then currently exist and could lead to a serious accident. The view from the windshields of cars traveling both east and west on Benchview is limited by setting and rising sun and the fact that the road curves in such a way that a driver's view in impeded. More on street parking would only aggravate this situation. In checking with the COT fire department we learned that they have responded to alarms at this address.Further on street parking could cause problems for fire response. We understand that Mrs.Moos has stated that parking would be in the driveway and not the street but we feel that she would not be in a position to enforce that.Some times mothers bring their children to a salon and this could increase the number ofpeople at Moos home and the potential for auto accident. We also feel that the possible toxic wastes from a Salon dumped into the sewer system would be a hazard. As we understand the purpose of HOP it is to provide an opportunity for small ventures that could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters. This area is made up of homes in a price range of $600,000 to a million.Public record shows that the Dr and Mrs.Moos paid $1,000,000 for their home.We don't feel that they fit the intent ofHOP and that this usage would devalue all of our homes. Please decline the HOP for this property. Yours truly, �-! 1- / RALi IFVAN HORN CORAL VAN HORN Copies to Paul Richards, Chair, Oregon State Board of Cosmetology and Bill Monahan,City Manager COT Morgan Tracy-Moos Salon Benchview ^ Page 1 From: <RWhite1589@aol.com> To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> RECEIVED Date: 2/27/02 8:26AM Subject: Moos Salon Benchview FEB 2 7 2002 Mr. Tracy, CITY OF TIGARD Thank you for your time yesterday. Having left our meeting feeling fairly LANNING/ENGINEERING "safe" in terms of at least I thought you were open-minded and listening to our concerns while you attempt to make your decision based on facts. I came home to a disturbing message from another neighbor who claims to have spoke with you after our meeting only to be told by yourself and/or Mike, a city engineer, that you indeed will be approving this application, as is, because the City of Tigard is afraid of another lawsuit such as the one that happened at A-Boy. This highly disturbs us since this situation has nothing to do with A-Boy and the City should NOT be partial to the applicant and not the homeowners. The lawsuit with A-Boy was all about the City taking away their property rights for the pathway. I assure you that if you grant this application, you again will be taking away the property rights of the neighbors, by allowing a pathway into our private yards. The Moos'will not be the only seeking legal counsel should you continue down this"path"! I do not believe that this conversation could have taken place as the neighbor has stated and would appreciate clarification on your part. We understand that you have a legal responsibility to represent both sides fairly. We feel we have given you and the City of Tigard ample opportunity to defend yourself legally with the issues we have provided. Candace White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 CC: <dputzier@providence.org>, <BEARREV@aol.com>, <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, <RPutzier@msn.com>, <Minkieaube@aol.com>, <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, <ns.everton@gte.net>, <dpnews@earthlink.net>, <mkrosa@juno.com>, <josephha@easystreet.com> CITY OF TIGARD March 1, 2002 OREGON Richard and Candace White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard,OR 97223 Dear Mr. White and Ms. White: Thank you for your recent letter regarding an application for a Home Occupation Permit for Moos Salon. Your letter was also forwarded to the Community Development Department staff. Staff will evaluate the application and the comments received from property owners as they consider and make a determination whether the application meets the requirements of the Development Code. This staff decision is sent to property owners. That decision can be appealed to the Hearings Officer with a further appeal available to the Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have further concerns or questions about process, please contact Community Development Director Jim Hendryx at 503-639-4171, Ext. 309. Sincerely, William A. Monahan City Manager c: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Morgan Tracy,A.E80Cia a Manlier I:\ADM\BILL\LETTERS\MOOS HO REQUEST-WHITE DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 I Morgan Tracy-One more thing Page 1 Z/Z4/oZ *t7 From: <RWhite1589@aol.com> To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/28/02 9:19AM Subject: One more thing Mr. Tracy, Dee-J spoke with the Board of Cosmetology this morning and felt the information she gathered would be helpful to you as you make your decision. Ms. Sopaal Moos is currently licensed as an Independent Contractor at the Classic Touch Salon in Portland. Key word here is CURRENTLY, therefore when you stated your case about how the COT(City of Tigard) likes to help people who are starting a business, by allowing them to work in their home ... obviously this rationale doesn't apply to Ms. Moos and this case. Again, this proves that she is currently licensed and practicing at the Classic Touch Salon with an established clientele. This also proves that there is no hardship in this case as well. Also, speaking the Board, Dee-J learned that the State only does an inspection one time during a calendar year and that they could issue her a license before they inspect the premises, therefore the main responsibility of seeing that the building codes are met, will fall directly on the COT once she begins to practice in her home. Thank you for your time. Candace White CC: <dputzier@providence.org>, <BEARREV@aol.com>, <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, <RPutzier@msn.com>, <Minkieaube@aol.com>, <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, <ns.everton@gte.net>, <dpnews@earthlink.net>, <mkrosa@juno.com>, <josephha@easystreet.com>, <Bsimonsmei@aol.com> Morgan Tracy- moos application - HOP 7'6 -00010 Page 1 ry @ RECEIVE® From: <RWhite1589@aol.com> `>"" To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/27/02 8:13AM FEB 2 7 2002 Subject: moos application - HOP 2002-00010 CITY OF TIGARD Mr. Tracy, FLANNINC3/ENGINEERING Thank you for your time with us yesterday, following is the point I wanted to convey in a more clear way during our meeting. The point I was trying to make is that the application is for a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Yes, Commercial businesses have been approved in the past in R-7 zones. Yes, these business may have met the interpreted requirements of the zoning codes. However, these applications should all be determined on a case by case basis. It is required by State regulations that the access to a Salon business is through a separate entrance/exit. The ONLY access point to the home for this proposed business is at the rear of the house, forcing the access of clientele pedestrian traffic around and adjacent to the private and open rear yard of the neighbor. This requirement is in conflict with the intentions of the original R-7 zone requirements which are set as standards for livability in a residential zone. To give approval to one side you diminish the privacy of the other. The original R-7 standards should always supersede the other if the intended use of the commercial application violates the privacy of another as in this case. Other houses may have worked or not worked for this type of application. When you allow public pedestrian traffic to leave the cities right-of-way you must insure the privacy and protection of the original zone requirements for all... It is not the cities fault, nor is it the neighbors fault that this house is designed in such a way that the only access point encroaches onto the privacy of others. If she wanted to teach Piano lessons and enter through the front door, that would not encroach on the privacy of the rear private yard area, and may in a gray world seem somehow appropriate for use as people come and go on an hourly basis. If the house had a second entrance from the street, it may also have worked. If the house were at a corner with a side entrance, again from the public right-of-way, it may have worked. A salon license has specific requirements for access as imposed by State Regulations. The application shows the only route of access is going to conflict with the intent of the original rights of the neighbors R-7 zone standards. The original rights and zoning should prevail. Please consider this additional issue as well as all others when making your final decision to deny this application. I believe this clearly allows the city the 'legal out'you are most likely looking for to address why you may have allowed this type of application in the past, and why it should not occur at this specific location. Thank you again for your attention to this matter, Richard L. White 13817 S.W. Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon 503.590.0209 CC: <BEARREV@aol.com>, <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, <RPutzier@msn.com>, Morgan Tracy- moos application -HOP.'"'6449_-00010 At Page 2 <Minkieaube@aol.com>, <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, <ns.everton@gte.net>, <dputzier@providence.org>, <dpnews@earthlink.net>, <mkrosa@juno.com>, <josephha@easystreet.com> 04/1 .hut February 26, 2002 Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard - Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Pending Land Use Application for Moos Salon Home Occupation Permit (HOP) 2002-00010 Moos Salon @ 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Dear Mr. Tracy; We would like to express our objection to this application for a "Moos Salon" in a residential neighbor. Upon reviewing the application and reading the requirements necessary for a permit, it is noted that many things are missing or incomplete on this application. • "A traffic impact study shall be done..." yet we were told by Diane Parkes at the City of Tigard yesterday, that you, yourself made the decision to forgo that required study. What gave you that authority and why would you not require the study be done on one of Tigard's most notoriously dangerous and busiest street due to the steep incline and blinding sun? "Shall" as defined is: As used in statues, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. (page 1375 law dictionary) • Nowhere on the application has the word "SALON" been defined. Again, this word can take on many a meaning and yet you never required the applicant to specify in writing what her intentions were for this neighborhood. "Salon" defined as: (the American heritage dictionary) 1. A large room, such as a drawing room, used for receiving or entertaining guests 2. A periodic gathering of people of social or intellectual distinction 3. A hall or gallery for the exhibition of works of art 4. A commercial establishment offering a product or service of fashion, including hair treatment, nails and facials. Since you did not require Ms. Moos to specifically define in detail what her intentions were - this application should be void due to incomplete information provided. A salon is too broad of a definition for a residential permit. Nothing currently states that she is limited to one or more of the above-mentioned definitions, therefore the City of Tigard could technically be licensing her for an open ended business with no definitions. If you have ever visited this home site, you would notice that this home backs up against a serious sloped hillside, which is covered with very large trees. A home fire could be very detrimental to at least 35 homes that back up to the same greenway as the Moos residence does. Since they moved into this home November 1, 2001, they have had 3 fire department responses! Public record shows that TVFR has responded with a truck in December and twice already for this month of February. All three times were due to smoke detector issues in the home. This alone brings great concern to those of us who live next to this house. As a former Washington County 911 dispatcher, I can tell you that it is very uncommon for a single residence to have that many fire calls in such a short time period. Either they have wiring issues already which is cause for great concern now, let alone with more equipment or hazardous material for a salon - or they prove to be irresponsible in being able to do the smallest of home maintenance such as changing a smoke detector's battery. Either scenario does not bode well for a home business and poses a threat to all of their neighbors. There also have been four police calls to this residence over this past year. We attribute this to the alarm system, yet the wiring still could be in question. Another problem we see with the original application is the fact that she applied for a Type II Home Occupation is that she is saying that she will be providing what is defined as "personal services" which is not categorized under the type of permit originally applied for. Personal services are clearly defined under a "Commercial permit" and therefore not allowed at all in an R-7 residential neighborhood. Again, this application should be voided immediately. In the current application filled out by Ms. Moos on 01-29-02, at least some of the questions were answered incorrectly. 1. Will you have any paid employees or subcontractors working in the home in conjunction with the business who are not residents of the home? The applicant answered NO - this was answered incorrectly as the applicant currently has at least one full time employee, a nanny, taking care of their four children Monday - Friday. Again, this application was filled out incorrectly therefore should be voided. 2. Will the business generate any noise - which can be heard outside of the structure? The applicant answered NO - yet the added traffic and clients will most definitely add noise, especially since the applicant plans to have their clients enter the residence through a back door which requires the customers to enter the greenway and jeopardizes our privacy. Other serious issues and concerns consist of safety. The proposed entrance/exit that Ms. Moos is stating will be used for her clients consists of coming off of a driveway, down the left side of their home (see pictures), down a steep-sloped embankment, down 14 concrete stairs that have no handrail or significant lighting therefore putting the clients and neighbors at risk for serious injury and lawsuits. They are unable to add a handrail at this time as they are already encroaching on the neighbor's property to the left and will cross over the property line. Please note in the enclosed pictures how steep this lot is and the wooded trees that back up to the deck that they are proposing their clients use to enter. As a safety issue, what will prevent a client from throwing lighted material, such as a cigarette, into their backyard, which is a greenway and causing a fire. It should also be mentioned that while the City of Tigard is trying to promote anyone who is trying to start a new business, by starting out small and in the home and yet hoping that the homeowner would have enough sense to lease a space commercially when the business expands. It is our belief that Ms. Moos already is an established stylist since she has been licensed in the State of Oregon since 1991. This is not a new stylist starting out small as you are trying to encourage. So in closing, we believe it would be in everyone's best interest to deny this application for a salon in the Hillshire/Benchview neighborhood. The facts are clear that issuing a license for this type of business puts all of us in jeopardy of losing our privacy, safety and security. Furthermore, this violates the R-7 zoning code, which specifically states no commercial application is allowed, this being defined as a commercial application due to personal, non-tangible services being rendered. There is plenty of commercial space available in this County and we encourage Ms. Moos to seek that as a solution to conduct her already established business. We, the citizens of this city, depend on our City of Tigard employees to protect us all. You have a responsibility to be non-partial and interpret the codes as written. Please do not continue to be defensive of the applicant as we found yesterday. We all have a right in this City to voice our concerns and be heard before a judgment has been made. Richard and Candace White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 503.590.0209 cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager State of Oregon, Board of Cosmetology 13125 SW Hall Blvd 700 Summer NE, Suite 320 Tigard, OR 97223 Salem, OR 97301 i jai � Moos Salon 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Building issues with this residence • Allowed to build a retaining wall in the front of the house which was built in an easement • Allowed to build a stairway down to side yard with no required hand rails or landing pads — every 3rd stair is required a handrail or landing • Issues in basement—full kitchen installed including stove - not allowed Was a waiver signed for a non-use of second residency? Second kitchen • Rooms that don't meet egress in the basement were/are being used for bedrooms —they have closets with no windows or emergency exits should fire start • Unprotected ponds with deep water in the front yard and entry way with no required protection —4 kids are living in this house currently • Plan shows the proposed door for exit/entrance, as being a slider is this legal? • No wall definition between rooms to contain hazardous materials or limit the business to 528 sqft. • No separate basins for salon business as required in State ordinances— have they applied for permit to change the residence plumbing? • Off street parking already used by nanny full time basis • Ms. Moos has told neighbors that she plans to have all clientele coming through front doors. Does the interior stairs leading to basement have a required landing? • Neighbor has ordered a survey to confirm that the proposed wall and stairway is indeed in their property which does not belong to the Moos' • Requirements of a public sauna? Does this require separate showering facilities? • ADA requirements? Who will enforce these? This is the reason you are prohibited from zoning residential to commercial —the area is gray and they want to be able to enforce their rights which is impossible for residential It is one thing working in your home as a professional — It's another turning your home into a commercial setting and performing personal services for clientele on an hourly basis RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING 13555 S. W. Brim Place Tigard, OR 97223-5667 February 19,2002 Mr. Morgan Tracy City of Tigard Planning Division File Number: HOP 2002-00010 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard File Name: Moos Salon Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Morgan: This is in response to the request for approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon at 13783 S. W. Benchview Terrace. 1. The property at issue is zoned as a medium density residential district. It is not zoned as a commercial district. 2. Although the home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six clients per day it is unlikely that this proposed commercial enterprise will be content to limit itself to that number. This request appears to be merely the forerun- ner of other requests for exceptions to the current zoning regulations. A disapproval of the request at this stage may well head off further ill consid- ered future requests. 3. The property is located on a steep hillside. Client parking can be expected to be on the street. Since Benchview Terrace is a through street and since there are numerous lots currently being developed at the foot of Benchview the traffic flow can be expected to increase over time. Street parking,even for the limited number of clients now being proposed,will be an unneeded safety hazard and annoyance. 4. The character of the neighborhood will be altered once this type of commercial use is permitted resulting in a possible reduction of property values and subsequent loss of tax revenues. The request is inappropriate and ill advised. I urge that this request not be approved. Yours truly, PI Bradford W. Wild Shirley E. Wild Morgan Tracy- Re: Moos Salon BenchviE Page 1 i6cci 3/1/etwa A- PARTAFTHrFtelic, RaaCRP l tRectweol a (oSG•kc«41416.4' eco From: <RWhite1589@aol.com> To: <Morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 3/1/02 10:21 AM Subject: Re: Moos Salon Benchview Mr. Tracy, Rick and I are very familiar with residential building, the planning involved and understand that decisions have to be made that are not always favorable to both sides. Unfortunately, while we are in support of new construction and growth, occasionally instances like this appear and in this case, we feel very strongly against what Ms. Moos is trying to do to the neighborhood and our real estate investments. We do however very much appreciate your conduct throughout this fact finding process. We found you very accessible through meetings, emails and phone calls and felt that you honestly listened to our position in our meeting Tuesday. Thank you very much for you attention to this. It's been a very long 14 days.A lot of emotion and research went into our objections. Good luck with your fact finding mission and we understand that someone is going to be unhappy with your decision. Please let us know if you need for us to do any further research that could help our case. Either way, I hope that the rest of our neighbors treated you with the respect you deserve as a fellow human being. Have a good weekend and thank you again for your attention. Sincerely, Candace and Rick White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, Or 97223 503.590.0209 JJ.T A" 1,Rf OF THE REZD? (&c'p i4fTaX Geouses1"r6Rbp alfriRe ) February PLANNING 27, 2002 MAR 01 2002 To: Mr. Morgan Tracy CITY Cr TlGARp City of Tigard, Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 From: Candace White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Moos Salon @13783 SW Benchview Terrace Morgan, I am enclosing a copy of the letter that I wrote today to the State of Oregon Board of Cosmetology. This is for your file and information only. Thank you. February 27, 2002 State Board of Cosmetology 700 Summer NE Suite 320 Salem, OR 97301 Attn: Mr. Paul Richards, Chairman Re: Application to the City of Tigard for a Home Occupation Permit to operate a Salon at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Applicant: Ms. Sopaal Moos Mr. Richards, We urge the State of Oregon to become involved in the decision to license Ms. Moos' personal residence to become a salon. This is a high-end, residential area, not conducive to the traffic or impact that a salon would produce. Enclosed are copies of the residence,the proposed entry and a letter that was submitted to the City of Tigard.The neighbors are in agreement and are highly involved with preventing the City of Tigard from issuing this permit. As far as the State of Oregon Board of Cosmetology should be concerned,there are a number of issues that do not meet the criteria of her using her current residence as a salon: • Separate exit/entrance—this dwelling is not conducive to allowing the regulation to be enforced without causing serious concern for the other neighbors by violating private rights and with regard to the safety of any clients that will visit this home. You will notice by the enclosed pictures and diagram,that this home is on a severely sloped lot. Ms. Moos has told the City of Tigard that the clients will be entering on a bottom floor level which requires the client to go down 14 concrete stairs that currently have no handrail or landing as required by the City of Tigard for residency.The clients are then expected to walk approximately 75 feet to the proposed entrance.This entrance is shown on the building record as being a sliding glass door. We have great cause for concern for this matter as Ms. Moos has clearly stated to neighbors that she intends to bring her clients through the front door of her home which is in clear violation of what the State requires.There also is no adequate lighting for these clients on this deck or stairway. • In your own regulations, it states that areas not being used for the salon purpose must be sectioned off with completed walls to divide the residential section and her business. Yet, according to her floor plan,there is no sectioning between these areas. • Separate sinks/basins for washing hair.There are no separate sinks other than the basins already installed in the bathroom,which is our understanding, not allowed to be used for this purpose.The other sink in this area is the 2nd kitchen in the residence, which they are not purposing is part of the business since they are only allowed 528 to this business. No permit has been obtained for any plumbing modifications for a separate sink. This floor consists of 2453 square feet and is not correctly portioned off to legally run this salon according to your regulations and requirements. • In question is the issue of parking.We have heard,yet can not find,that the Board requires off street parking for her clients,yet the City of Tigard is requiring that her clients park in the driveway. If this is true,this again is a violation. • According to public record,the Moos residence has had 3 (three)fire truck calls and actual responses in two months. One is recorded in December and two so far for the month of February.These responses were not for medical reasons,which lead us to believe that there could be wiring problems in the house. We do not feel it is in anyone's best interest to allow a business with equipment and wiring such as a sauna to be permitted to happen in a residence with a high fire risk, as this residence appears to possibly be. We,the citizens of this area are asking you to seriously reconsider whether or not it would be in the best interest for all of us if Ms. Moos were to be licensed to run a salon out of her home.We believe there are fire, life and safety issues that need to be addressed before this is allowed to happen which could result in injury. While we respect that Ms. Moos has been licensed through the State of Oregon since 1991,we would prefer that she kept her profession where it was intended to be and that is in a commercial setting where she can be regulated and forced to meet the requirements that the other salons are meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Richard and Candace White 13817 SW Benchview Ten-ace Tigard,OR 97223 503.590.0209 cc: Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 SWIOD2DI N0I,I,VDI3I ,L0NI / 9I\II'IIVIAi ....., AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING . CITY OF TIOARD Community Development Shaping Better Community I, Patricia L. Luns orcr; being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of figardd, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(s)Below) ❑x NOTICE OF Flum_ORDER FOR: HOP2002-00010/MOOS SALON I 5/13/2002 AMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) (Date of Public Hearings) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ® Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A",and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit'B",and by reference made a part hereof, on May 28,2002,and deposited in the United States Mail on May 28,2002, postage prepaid. ' I --1 - - 2,---77-7- ,i7e--Z---/ (Person tha ' epared Notice) SaltE OE oEGoN ) County of Was ington )ss. City of Tigard ) ,� S )/ Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 31 day of 2 , 2002. 2 s` � - OFFICIAL SEAL a-. F , DIANE M JELDER tS `, ,�+ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ,/J COMMISSION N0.326578 6,.....„. / f t _....,AL.,_ / _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 , I ,I' , ' I : I I ' , My Commission Expire !XHMI 120 DAYS = 6/13/2002 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER Case Number: HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT(HOP)2002-00010 j Case Name: APPEAL OF MOOS SALON Name of Owner: Sopaul Moos Name of Applicant: Same as owner Address of Applicant: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon 97223 Address of Property: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S104CD, Tax Lot 04300. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. THE CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANTS PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS,COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE HEARINGS OFFICER HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 13, 2002 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. Item on Appeal: > On March 26, 2002, the Director issued a decision to approve, subject to conditions, a request for approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six(6) clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9AM to 5PM, Tuesday through Saturday. On April 9, 2002, an appeal was filed alleging the Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations, that the proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone, that the proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations, that the impact study was inadequate, and that conditions related to ADA Compliance and the Department of Cosmetology Approval cannot be enforced independently of one another. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. Action: > 0 Approval as Requested © Approval with Conditions 0 Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: 11 Owners of Record Within the Required Distance II Affected Government Agencies © The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator © The Applicants and Owners Final Decision: THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION OF THE CITY AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 29, 2002. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at(503) 639-4171. BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Sopaul Moos for a ) FINAL ORDER home occupation permit for an in-home hair salon ) in the R-7 zone at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace ) HOP 2002-00010 in the City of Tigard,Oregon ) (Moos) A. SUMMARY 1. On January 23, 2002, Sopaul Moos(the"applicant")filed an application for approval of a home occupation permit for a hair salon in the home occupied by herself,her husband and their four children at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace(the"Property"). The applicant will be the sole operator and employee of the home occupation. The primary activities of the home occupation include shampooing,cutting,coloring and treating hair. The home occupation will operate not more than Tuesday through Saturday from 9 AM to 5 PM. The applicant will serve not more than six clients per day. The home occupation will be conducted primarily in what is labeled on the building plans as a den and in an adjoining bathroom,which together(including an area of hallway between them)contain roughly 286 square feet. To reach this area,clients will walk through a side door into the garage, through a rear door to out of the garage and along an elevated deck on the rear elevation of the 7800-square foot home to reach an exterior door to the den. Other than the parking and movement of clients,no signs or other outward appearances of a business use are proposed. Clients will park in the 41-foot wide concrete driveway between the garage and SW Benchview Terrace. Some changes to the house may be required to accommodate the home occupation, such as installation of one or more wider doors and/or ramps over door jambs along the route to the den and a shampooing sink in the bathroom. See Exhibit E.t 2. City staff found the application was complete on February 12,2002. The City mailed written notice of the application to owners of property consistent with Tigard Community Development Code(the "CDC") 18390.040.C. The City received 28 letters and numerous telephone calls in response to the notice(Exhibit C). All of the responses opposed the application. Nevertheless on March 26,2002,the planning manager approved the home occupation permit subject to six conditions of approval,based on the findings and conclusion in a written decision(Exhibit A), and sent notice of that decision consistent with CDC 18.390.040.E. 3. On April 9, 2002,Candace White and Donnajo("Dee-J")Putzier(the "appellants")filed an appeal of the planning manager's decision consistent with CDC 18.390.040.G.1 and 2. The appellants raised five issues in the written appeal. 4. Tigard Hearings Officer Larry Epstein(the "hearings officer")conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the appeal. At the public hearing,the applicant,her husband and City staff recommended the hearings officer affirm the planning manager's decision. Ten persons testified orally against the application. Some of these and other witnesses also testified in writing against the application. The hearings officer closed the public record at the end of the hearing and took the matter under advisement. The principal disputed issues in this case include the following: t When the application was filed,the applicant proposed to conduct the home occupation principally in an area on the lower floor of the house with access from a side door. Because that area exceeded the maximum area permitted for a home occupation,the applicant modified the application in mid-March to identify the den and adjoining bathroom on the main floor as the principal location of the home occupation. a. Whether the applicant complied with applicable requirements for posting a notice of the hearing on the Property(CDC 18390.050.C.1.d and C.2); b. Whether the proposed use is permitted in the R-7 zone as a home occupation(CDC 18.130.020.C.4.b and 18.742.040.A.9 and Table 18.510.1); c. Whether modifications to the application after it was deemed complete are significant changes that require a new application to be filed(CDC 18390.080.D.4); d. Whether the application contains a sufficient impact study(CDC 18.390.040.B.2.e); e. Whether the purpose of the home occupation chapter(CDC 18.742.010) is relevant to the application,and,if so,how; f. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not cause odors detectable beyond the property line,considering the Environmental Performance Standards of Chapter 18.725(CDC 18.742.040.A.3); g. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will be conducted entirely within the dwelling and will not exceed the maximum area limits for a home occupation,and how that area is calculated in this case(CDC 18.742.040.A.4); h. Whether the home occupation will result in the storage of toxic or flammable materials in amounts that exceed limitations imposed by provisions of the relevant codes or that,in the judgment of the Fire Marshal,pose a dangerous risk(CDC 18.742.040.A.4 and 7); i. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not require more on-or off-street parking other than that normally required for a residence and will not monopolize on-street parking on SW Benchview Terrace(CDC 18.742.040.A.8 and 18.742.050.A.2.c); j. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not cause excessive traffic(CDC 18.742.050.A.2.c)or violate visual clearance standards where the driveway intersects Benchview Terrace(CDC 18.795); k. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not be detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents(CDC 18.385.020.B3 and 18.742.060.B.3); 1. Whether the Americans With Disabilities Act("ADA")and regulations of the Oregon Board of Cosmetology are relevant to the application,and if so,whether the applicant sustained the.burden of proof that the home occupation will comply with the relevant provisions of those regulations; and m. Whether additional or modified conditions of approval are warranted to ensure the proposed use is operated consistent with the representations of the applicant and the relevant approval standards(CDC 18.385.020.0 and 18.742.060.C). 5. In this final order,the hearings officer approves the home occupation permit based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 2 B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on May 13,2002. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing,the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex pane contacts,bias or conflicts of interest. The hearings officer disclosed that he visited the site before the hearing and invited witnesses to question and rebut his observations. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Morgan Tracy summarized the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated April 24,2002(the "Staff Report")and the planning manager's decision of March 26,2002. He responded to the grounds for appeal. 3. The applicant and her husband, Steven Moos,testified in favor of the application. Mrs. Moos summarized her proposed use. She testified she had not done anything to determine what would have to be done to comply with the ADA. She testified she had telephoned the Oregon Board of Cosmetology and had been told her revised plan would comply with the Board's rules. She testified that the chemicals she commonly uses include bleach and dye. If the use is approved,she proposed to make whatever improvements are required to comply with the ADA and Building Code. She has not prepared any preliminary plans for improvements. Steven Moos testified the house is ADA-compliant based on his experience building an office;the doors and jambs are okay. The bathroom has a ventilated shower and can be improved with a shampoo sink. The chemicals used in the business are and will be stored in quantities typical of a household. 4. Ten persons testified against the proposed use: Candace and Richard White, Dee-J and Rick Putzier, B.J. Hall,Elizabeth and Dennis Peddicord, Greg Aube,Claudia Rosa, and James DeLoretto.2 Most of the witnesses expressed similar concerns,generally without specific reference to the CDC,including the following: a. The applicant posted the notice sign on the Property so that it could not be seen readily unless a person entered onto the Property for that purpose. A photograph of the sign was introduced into the record to support that testimony. b. The proposed use is not or should not be permitted in a single family residential zone,because it is a commercial use,more specifically a personal service use, under Table 18.510.1. c. The applicant kept changing the application during the review process. The changes were substantial and prevented neighbors from participating effectively in the review of the application. d. The application did not include an adequate impact study. e. The application is not consistent with the purposes of the home occupation chapter. In particular,the applicant could sustain the business in leased commercial quarters,based on testimony that she has done so in the past as a commercial hairdresser. Nothing about the nature of the business makes this impractical. Also,due to 2 Other persons signed the witness list but declined the opportunity to testify when called for that purpose. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 3 traffic impact,the loss of privacy in side and rear yards of neighboring homes and the proximity of the applicant's home and the adjoining homes,the proposed use would be detrimental or disruptive to neighboring properties. Lastly the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the proposed use will comply with approval criteria and standards, including standards under the Building Code and regulations of the Board of Cosmetology, that ensure it will be conducted lawfully,particularly given the applicant's allegedly inconsistent statements(e.g.,that clients will enter through the front door of the home despite a rule to the contrary by the Board of Cosmetology). f. The applicant will store and use chemicals that are unsafe and pose a fire danger that is heightened by the presence of an adjoining greenspace. g. The proposed home occupation includes all areas where clients of the business will tread,including the back deck. The back deck is outdoors; therefore the use will not be conducted entirely inside the dwelling. Moreover clients will travel through the garage,all of which should count toward the proposed home occupation,because it is an undivided space. Similarly all of the undivided main floor should count toward the proposed use,because clients will have to walk through the adjoining hallway to move between the den and bathroom. If all of the undivided interior space through which clients will have to walk to use the home occupation is counted,the home occupation will occupy substantially more than the maximum 528 square feet allowed by CDC 18.742.040.A.4. If the common area of the house is used as a write-off for tax purposes, it should count toward the home occupation. h. Based on past experience with residential use of the Property,there will be more on-street parking for the home occupation,if for no other reason than that the cars for the home occupation will occupy driveway space that has been occupied by the vehicles owned by the applicant and the applicant's nanny,leading them to be parked on the street. i. Due to the steep slope of Benchview Terrace,a retaining wall that extends to the sidewalk in front of the Property,traffic backing out,the relatively high speed of traffic on Benchview Terrace,and the severe glare for westbound drivers on Benchview Terrace caused by the afternoon sun ,any additional traffic for a home occupation will be excessive. If the use is allowed,the intersection of the driveway and Benchview Terrace should be required to comply with the visual clearance standards of CDC 18.795. j. The proposal does not comply with the ADA and rules of the Board of Cosmetology,and the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof that it will comply,given the lack of specificity in the application and allegedly inconsistent statements by the applicant. The doors leading to the garage,deck,den and bathroom are not equipped with handicap-accessible handles and are too narrow to comply with the ADA. The applicant did not show that the bathroom has adequate clearances for handicapped persons. k. Opponents expressed a lack of trust that the applicant will operate the home occupation as represented and approved,based on perceived inconsistencies in the application,complaints about past behavior by the applicant and her family unrelated to the home occupation,and concerns about growth of the home occupation over time. Also,if approved,the use could serve six clients,but that does not address how many other people may accompany those six clients,and those other people may further reduce privacy and may increase the disruption posed by the use. 1. If the home occupation is allowed, it should be subject to very clear and objective standards that are readily enforceable. Opponents objected to having to monitor HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 4 • the use to ensure compliance over time and disputed the efficacy of City enforcement. One witness also argued that,because the City has approved every home occupation permit it has reviewed,City staff do not responsibly apply the approval standards. 5. In response to public testimony,Mr.Tracy conceded the CDC does not clearly address people who accompany clients or define precisely who is a"client." He suggested the hearings officer do so if the use is approved. Also he testified that the visual clearance standards apply to the intersection of a driveway and street. For a driveway wider than 24 feet,as in this case,the standards prohibit an obstruction more than three feet high within 30 feet of the outer edge of driveway in each direction. See CDC Figure 18.795.1. 6. Mr. Moos responded for the applicant. He argued that the opponents are "nit- picking"the application,and that the proposed use is insignificant. He declined the hearings officer's suggestions that either the matter be suspended pending an attempt to mediate the dispute between the Mooses and their neighbors or the record be held open to allow the applicant to supplement the evidence in support of the application. He waived the applicant's right to hold open the record for a final written argument. 7. At the conclusion of the hearing,the hearings officer closed the public record and announced that he would take the matter under advisement. C. DISCUSSION 1. CDC 18390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to hear appeals of administrative decisions. Pursuant to ORS 227.175(D) and(E), an appeal of an administrative decisions must be reviewed as a de novo matter. The hearings officer is required to conduct an independent review of the record. He is not bound by the prior administrative decision and does not defer to that decision in any way. New evidence may be introduced in an appeal,and new issues may be raised,whether or not they are raised in the written appeal. In an appeal the applicant continues to bear the burden of proof. 2. In a nutshell,the issue in this case is whether the applicant has sustained the burden of proof by providing sufficient substantial evidence showing that the proposed home occupation does or will comply with the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code.3 Because some of the approval criteria are ambiguous, their meaning is at issue.There are related procedural issues. Also witnesses dispute whether certain CDC provisions are applicable standards for the application. 3. The City must base its decision on "substantial evidence,"which is evidence on which a reasonably prudent person would rely in the conduct of a serious matter. It is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of the evidence. If,based on such evidence,a proposed use can comply with applicable approval standards using conditions of approval, the City must approve the use subject to those conditions.4 3 ORS 227.173(1) provides as follows: Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole. 4 ORS 197.522 provides as follows in relevant part: HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 5 4. The planning manager identified the applicable approval criteria for the application and applied them to the record in the case. The planning manager concluded the applicable approval standards are in CDC 18385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. The planning manager's decision and the Staff Report responded to the issues raised by neighbors,at least the issues relevant to the application. The hearings officer largely concurs in the identification of applicable criteria in the manager's decision and the Staff Report and in the analysis and conclusions of City staff in that report. That is,substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval standards and criteria for a home occupation,and adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will require the use to be operated as represented consistent with those criteria and standards and will prevent,reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the use consistent with the requirements of the CDC. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the manager's decision and the Staff Report as his own except as otherwise expressly provided herein. In the remaining findings,the hearings officer addresses the issues that were disputed by the witnesses for and against the home occupation. 5. Before the City can hold a hearing on an appeal of an administrative decision, the CDC requires the applicant to post a notice on the property that is the subject of the application in question.5 The applicant did so and filed an affidavit certifying that she did so. A photograph in the record shows the notice. Therefore there is substantial evidence in the record that the requisite posted notice was provided. a. Neighbors argued the notice was ineffective,because it could not be seen from the sidewalk. The hearings officer acknowledges the photograph shows the substance of the posted notice was not visible from the angle from which the picture was taken. However the hearings officer also notes many neighbors attended the hearing,and they were prepared,reflecting notice as a whole was effective. The hearings officer also notes the neighbors said they could read the notice if they stepped onto the applicant's property to do so. During the hearings officer's site visit,he was able to read the notice sign from the sidewalk;it was not turned away as shown in the picture. b. The hearings officer construes CDC 18.390.050.C.I.d to require the face of a posted notice sign to be visible,because such a notice serves no purpose if the public cannot see it. But the hearings officer also finds the CDC does not require the sign to be posted in any particular manner or location. It does not violate the CDC if a person must enter onto private property to read the posted notice if that can be done. In this case it could be. Although a better job could have been done to ensure the posted notice was more readily visible,the hearings officer finds that the applicant fulfilled the plain meaning of CDC 18.309.050.C.1.d by posting the sign where it was visible to the public and by filing an affidavit to this effect. The neighbors failed to show their rights were substantially prejudiced by the manner in which the notice was posted. ... A local government may deny an application that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations and that cannot be made consistent through the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval.(emphasis added) 5 CDC 18.390.050.C.1.d provides as follows: At least ten business days prior to the hearing,notice of the hearing shall be posted on the site by the applicant,pursuant to Subsection 2 below. An affidavit of posting concerning such notice shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be submitted and made part of the administrative record. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 6 6. Neighbors argued the proposed use is not permitted as a home occupation, because it is listed as a commercial use,in particular,a personal service use. See CDC 18.13O.02O.C.4.b. Although the proposed use is listed as a personal service use, the hearings officer finds that nothing in the CDC precludes its approval as a home occupation if it otherwise complies with applicable standards for a home occupation. a. CDC Table 18.510.1 lists "home occupation"as a permitted use in all residential zones,subject to CDC 18.742. However the CDC does not expressly allow or prohibit a hair salon(or any other specific use with the exceptions noted below)as a home occupation. To that extent,the CDC is ambiguous about whether a hair salon is permitted as a home occupation. The hearings officer relies on context,legislative intent and rules of statutory construction to resolve the ambiguity. b. CDC 18.742.O4O.A.9 lists uses prohibited as a home occupation.6 Based on the absence of any other provisions of the CDC addressing the issue,and relying on rules of statutory construction,the hearings officer construes the CDC to allow any use as a home occupation other than the uses listed in CDC 18.742.04O.A.9,provided the use complies with the other applicable approval standards for a home occupation. If the City Council had intended to prohibit personal services as a home occupation,it would have said so in CDC 18.742.O40.A.9. Because it did not do so,the hearings officer finds that use is not prohibited as a home occupation notwithstanding it is listed as a commercial use. c. If the interpretation urged by the neighbors was adopted,no commercial use could be permitted as a home occupation,which is inconsistent with the context of CDC 18.742 and the legislative intent expressed in the purpose statement for the home occupation chapter. That intent is to"[pjermit residents an opportunity to use their homes to engage in small-scale business ventures..." d. The hearings officer acknowledges the purpose statement cited in part immediately above continues as follows: " ...which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters,or because the nature of the activity would make it impractical to expand to a full-scale enterprise." i. Because virtually any business could be conducted in leased commercial space and could be expanded,it is difficult to discern the City Council's intent in this provision. ii. The hearings officer finds the portion of the purpose statement quoted in"d"above does not reflect a legislative intent that a home occupation is allowed only if it cannot be conducted in leased space or cannot be expanded. Rather the quoted language is reflected in the approval criteria for a home occupation,which contain standards that limit the intensity of a home occupation(e.g.,to six clients per day). Council must have acted with the understanding that a use that complies with CDC 18.742.040, et seq.,is not intensive enough to be sustained in leased commercial quarters and cannot be expanded excessively. 6 CDC 18.742.040.A.9 provides: The following uses are not allowed as home occupations: a. Auto-body repair and painting; b. On-going mechanical repair conducted outside of an entirely-enclosed building; c. Junk and salvage operations; d. Storage and/or sale of fireworks. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 7 iii. If Council wanted an applicant for a home occupation to show a proposed use could not be sustained in commercial quarters and could not be expanded to a "full-scale" enterprise,both of which are vague and inherently problematic as approval standards,it would have expressly required an applicant for a home occupation to show that. Because Council did not do so,the hearings officer finds whether a home occupation could be conducted in leased quarters and could be expanded to a full-scale enterprise is not relevant to whether a proposed home occupation is permitted as such.7 7. The neighbors argued the applicant should have been required to file a new application,because she made substantial changes to the application after it was complete. a. The hearings officer acknowledges the applicant changed the application after it was deemed complete by moving the home occupation from the lower floor to the main floor of the house and by changing the means of access to the proposed hair salon rooms. However the hearings officer concludes these changes are not substantial. b. The term"substantial"is not defined in the CDC. However the term "substantial improvement" is defined(CDC 18.120.030.A.135)as "any repair, reconstruction or improvement,the cost of which exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure." This reflects a legislative intent that the term"substantial"means more than incidental; that a substantial change is one that significantly changes impacts of a use. c. The changes in this case did not significantly change the use;the use is the same. Although it changed where the use is to be conducted,the use will be conducted in the same structure as proposed in the original application. Access to the proposed use changed,but that change results in a less intrusive use;instead of having clients walk all the way down the sidewalk on the west side of the house, the applicant now proposes that clients enter through the garage doors or a side door near the front of the garage. Based on the foregoing interpretation and a brief review of cases where this issue has arisen,8 the hearings officer finds the changes in this case are not substantial. 8. The neighbors argued that the application did not contain an adequate impact study,because there is no traffic impact analysis.9 The planning manager found an impact study was not warranted, because all public systems necessary for the proposed use exist, and the impact of the proposed home occupation on those systems is negligible. 7 The hearings officer notes that some jurisdictions require just such an inquiry. For instance,the City of Gresham expressly requires an applicant for a home occupation to show that the proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the home occupation section. Tigard could require the same,but it does not do so. 8 See,e.g., Pekarek vs. Wallowa County,33 Or LUBA 225, 1997;and Ash Creek Neigh.Ass'n vs. City of Portland,_Or LUBA ,(LUBA No. 92-057,September 15, 1992). 9 CDC 18.390.040.B.2.e provides that a Type II application shall: Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address,at a minimum,the transportation system, including bikeways,the drainage system,the parks system,the water system,the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact,the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large,public facilities systems,and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 8 a. The hearings officer finds that the submission and adequacy of an impact study are not approval criteria,per se. That is, CDC 18390.040.B contains requirements for the contents of an application. Generally those requirements should be fulfilled so that there is adequate substantial evidence in the record based on which the City can make the requisite findings for approval. However an applicant can decide not to submit information required by the CDC. See ORS 227.178(2). The issue in deciding whether to approve an application on its merits is not whether the application is complete,but is whether the record contains adequate substantial evidence based on which the necessary findings for approval can be made. Often,if an application does not contain everything the local code requires it to contain, the necessary findings cannot be made or supported. However the failure of an application to include all required contents does not mean the application fails to comply with any applicable approval standard,per se. b. Therefore the hearings officer finds that it is not directly relevant to any applicable approval standard whether the application in this case does or does not include an impact study as required by CDC 18.390.040.B.2.e. 9. The neighbors argued that the proposed use does not comply with the purpose statement of CDC 18.742,because the use could be conducted in leased quarters and could be expanded. The hearings officer addressed this issue above to some extent. In response to this argument,the hearings officer finds that the purpose statement of CDC 18.742 is not an applicable approval standard for the application. The purpose statement may be relevant in construing ambiguous provisions in CDC 18.742.020,et seq.,because it is part of the context of those provisions and reflects the legislative intent of City Council in adopting this section of the code. The hearings officer will refer to the purpose statement when it is relevant to construction of ambiguous provisions of the code. 10. Neighbors argued the proposed use will cause odors detectable beyond the property line. The applicant responded that the proposed use will not cause such odors, because of its low intensity and its use of chemicals of a kind and in amounts common to a household. The applicant's husband testified that there is a ventilated shower stall in the bathroom where chemicals associated with the hair salon would be used. A fan will convey odors up and away from surrounding homes. a. The hearings officer notes this issue is relevant under CDC 18.742.040.A.3 and 18.725.030.D.1° b. The hearings officer also notes the record does not contain objective evidence about the impact of the amount of chemicals likely to be used in the home occupation or an analysis of like uses elsewhere from which the hearings officer could draw conclusions about the impact on this site. However neither does the record contain 10 CDC 18.742.040.A.3 provides: There shall be no offensive noise,vibration,smoke,dust,odors,heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line resulting from the operation. Home occupations shall observe the provisions of Chapter 18.725,Environmental Performance Standards; CDC 18.725.030.D provides: Odors. The emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable ay any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors in prohibited. DEQ rules for odors(340-028-090)apply.(emphasis in original) HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 9 substantial evidence that it is reasonably likely the amount and nature of chemicals to be used in the home occupation will result in odors that are detectable to a person of reasonable sensitivity at the property line. c. The hearings officer is familiar generally with the potential impact of odors from a hair salon simply as a pedestrian walking past the entries of commercial hair salons in downtown Portland. When the door to such establishments is open,often the smell of chemicals is noticeable and can be relatively overwhelming to a person who is not commonly exposed to such chemicals. The hearings officer's experience is admittedly incidental and non-expert,but,in the absence of better evidence,it leads the hearings officer to conclude that such an impact is possible in this case. Because the property line is only five feet from the space where the hair salon will operate,fumes associated with the use of chemicals in that business could be discharged through a window or fan into the atmosphere in a manner that results in odors that can be detected at the property line. The hearings officer does not conclude such impacts will occur;but they are possible. d. Due to the relatively low intensity of the proposed use,and the correspondingly low volume of chemicals applied in the home occupation,the hearings officer concludes that odors detectable at the property line are not reasonably likely. However,in the absence of additional evidence to that effect,the hearings officer finds that a condition of approval is warranted to address this issue. The planning manager should promptly investigate any complaints from neighbors that odors emanate from the Property. If the planning manager concludes odors detectable at the property line originate on the Property,the planning manager should issue an order suspending the use of chemicals in the home occupation until the applicant demonstrates that such odors will not occur in the future. Suspension should be subject to appeal to the hearings officer, but should be effective when received by the applicant;provided the planning manager shall serve notice of suspension by certified mail or by delivery of such notice to the applicant in person. 11. The neighbors argued that the proposed use will not be conducted entirely within the dwelling,because clients of the use will walk out-of-doors on an elevated deck from the garage to the den where the principal work of the salon will occur,contrary to CDC 18.742.040.A.4.11 The planning manager construed CDC 18.742.040.A.4 to apply only to the area where the home occupation actually is conducted rather than to the route between the parking area and primary activity area for the home occupation.12 The hearings officer finds the term"operated" is vague. Therefore the hearings officer must construe it. In so doing,the hearings officer relies on the context of the provision. a. The purpose statement of a section provides context for ambiguous provisions within a given section. In this case,the purpose for the home occupation chapter includes a statement that the chapter is intended to ensure that a home occupation is conducted"in a manner that is not detrimental or disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents." b. A use cannot operate unless people can get to it. To that extent the route between the parking for a use and the primary operations of a use are part of those 11 CDC 18.742.040.A.4 provides in relevant part as follows: The home occupation shall be operated entirely within the dwelling unit and a conforming accessory structure... 12 At page 3 of the Staff Report,the planning manager states"[t]he business activity is limited those areas of the house where the business is actually conducted,and not the route to those area." HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 10 operations. If use of a route from the parking area to the area where the business is conducted results in detrimental impacts or disruption to neighbors, the hearings officer finds that is relevant to whether the operation of the home occupation complies with CDC 18.742.040.A.4. c. In this case the route will take people out-of-doors after they have entered the garage. Although hair will not be cut outdoors,it is the passage of people(i.e., strangers who are not guests of the residents of the dwelling but are clients of the business),that neighbors argue cause disruption. That is,they reduce the privacy of the adjoining decks and yards of the neighbors'homes by exposing those neighboring features to the view of business clients. The hearings officer finds this is disruptive and detrimental to the privacy of neighbors' homes. d. The disruption caused by business clients using the deck could be remedied by installing a barrier that prevents views from the deck to the neighbors east and west of the site. Such a barrier may have to extend around the rear of the deck as well as its sides to achieve visual isolation. If such a barrier is installed, clients'use of the deck would not be detrimental to the privacy of the neighbors. Such a barrier could be required as a condition of approval. If such a condition is imposed,the home occupation will not violate that portion of CDC 18.742.040.A.4 that requires the use to be conducted entirely within the dwelling. e. For what it is worth, if business clients entered the dwelling through the front door,that would not be detrimental or disruptive to neighbors'reasonable expectations of privacy. That is,neighbors have no right to privacy in front yards that are readily visible to passersby. If business clients entered the business through the front door of the dwelling or through a door that adjoins the front of a dwelling(such as the side door to the garage in this case),that would not be a disruptive or detrimental impact of the operation of the use. However in this case,the rules of the Board of Cosmetology require a separate entry to the hair salon(OAR 817-020-0011(2)(d)),and that forces business clients to use the rear deck to access the home business,because there is no other means of access that complies with the rule unless the Board of Cosmetology issues a written statement allowing an exception to the general rule in this instance,and the applicant provides a copy of that written statement to the City for verification. 12. Neighbors argued that the proposed use will exceed the maximum area allowed for a home occupation if that area is calculated to include any undivided space through which business clients must pass,(i.e.,the garage,the deck and the main floor area through which clients must pass to go between the den and the bathroom).13 The planning manager applied the maximum square footage standard only to the area where the home occupation actually is conducted,(i.e.,the den,the bathroom and a small area of hallway between them). The hearings officer finds the term "business activity" is ambiguous. Therefore the hearings officer must construe it. In so doing,the hearings officer relies on the context of the provision. a. Based on the foregoing discussion,which considers the context provided by CDC 18.742.010.A.2, the hearings officer finds the term "business activity" includes movement of clients from a parking area to the primary place of the business when 13 CDC 18.742.040.A.4 provides in relevant part as follows: The total area which may be used in the accessory building for either material product storage and/or the business activity shall not exceed 528 square feet. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 11 such movement causes a detrimental impact or disruption to neighboring properties or residents. b. The hearings officer finds that moving clients through an interior space, whether divided or undivided,does not cause a detrimental impact or disruption,because there are no off-site impacts associated with such movement. Therefore the garage and main floor area of the home(exclusive of the den,bathroom and a reasonable area between them) should not count toward the area of the business activity. c. However the use of the rear deck for movement of clients between the garage and the den does have a disruptive impact for the same reasons discussed above. Therefore the rear deck should count toward the area of the business activity unless the applicant provides a barrier to views east and west. Without such a visual barrier for the deck,the total area of the business activity exceeds 528 square feet. 13. Neighbors argued that the proposed home occupation will involve the use of chemicals that are hazardous and increase the potential for fire danger. The hearings officer finds this issue is relevant under CDC 18.742.040.A.4 and 7.14 a. The applicant's husband testified that the home occupation will involve use of and will store chemicals in quantities that are typical of a household. Although there is no objective evidence to support his testimony,neither is there any substantial evidence to the contrary. If the use is approved,the hearings officer can impose a condition of approval to prohibit storage of more than a certain amount of chemicals so as to ensure compliance with limits imposed by the relevant codes,and compliance with that standard could be verified by inspection. Therefore the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will or can comply with the relevant part of CDC 18.742.040.A.4 dealing with this issue,subject to such a condition of approval. b. Exhibit B is a letter from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue("TVFR")to the effect that the proposed home occupation does not pose a hazard due to fire or explosion greater than that posed by a typical dwelling. The hearings officer infers from this statement that the proposed use does not pose a dangerous risk. Therefore the applicant sustained the burden of proof under CDC 18.742.040.A.7. 14. Neighbors argued that the proposed use will cause excessive on-street parking, because it will consume two of the four spaces available for vehicles in the driveway of the home and will monopolize on-street parking. The hearings officer disagrees. a. A single family home is required to provide one off-street parking space (CDC Table 18.765.2). The applicant provides four spaces in the driveway and four to six spaces in the garage. Therefore there is ample parking for the home occupation and the residential use of the Property. 14 CDC 18.742.040.A.4 provides in relevant part as follows: ... The indoor storage of materials or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the building,fire,health and housing codes; CDC 18.742.040.A.7 provides in relevant part as follows: There shall be no storage and/or distribution of toxic or flammable materials,and spray painting or spray finishing operations that involve toxic or flammable materials which in the judgment of the Fire Marshal pose a dangerous risk to the residence,its occupants,and/or surrounding properties... HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 12 b. The home occupation does not force the applicant,her nanny or other residents of the home to park on the street,although they are legally entitled to do so. The neighbors'complaints about on-street parking by the applicant,her family and guests are not relevant to the application for the home occupation and do not show the home occupation would violate CDC 18.742.040.A.8 or 18.742.050.A.2.c. 15. Neighbors argued that the addition of any traffic to Benchview Terrace as a result of the home occupation would be excessive,and that the driveway does not comply with visual clearance standards. The hearings officer disagrees with the first of those arguments and finds there is not enough evidence to resolve the second of those arguments. a. If the use is limited to six clients per day(and the hearings officer clarifies that a client means one or more persons arriving and departing in one vehicle),then the use will generate not more than twelve vehicle trips per day. That number of trips is not excessive,given the street carries more than 3000 vehicle trips per day in the vicinity of the Property,and the street does not exceed its engineered capacity or cause any intersection to violate level of service standards or maximum volume to capacity ratios. The glare caused by the setting sun for drivers of westbound vehicles is not caused or exacerbated by the proposed use,and it is not relevant to whether the traffic impact of the proposed use is excessive. Neither does the speed of traffic make twelve additional trips excessive. b. It is not clear from substantial evidence in the record whether the intersection of the driveway and Benchview Terrace complies with the visual clearance standards of CDC 18.795. There are relatively small walls that appear to be within thirty feet of the east edge of the driveway along the Benchview Terrace frontage. It is not clear whether those walls exceed a height of three feet. If they exceed that height,a condition of approval could require the applicant to remove or lower the walls so that they comply. If they do not exceed that height,they do not violate the visual clearance standard even though they extend to the sidewalk,unless the City finds the slope of the street to the east warrants a more restrictive standard for this driveway intersection. A condition of approval could ensure that the driveway does or will comply with CDC 18.795. 16. Neighbors argued that,due to the cumulative impacts of the use on the privacy of adjoining homes, the safe use of Benchview Terrace by vehicles and pedestrians, the lack of definitive limits on the use,the alleged behavior of the applicant and her husband, children,nanny and friends unrelated to the home occupation,and other perceptions of and fears about the home occupation,the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the home occupation will not be detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents. This is relevant under CDC 18385.020.B3 and 18.742.060.B.3.15 Curiously neither the planning manager's decision nor the Staff Report address this standard precisely. a. The hearings officer is not persuaded that behaviors in which the neighbors allege the applicant and her family have engaged in the past are relevant to this application, even if there was substantial evidence to support such allegations. These issues are better left to mediation or other means not related to land use permitting. The hearings officer also is not persuaded that concerns about potential impacts(e.g.,impacts on Benchview Terrace)are appropriate bases for denial of the permit application if there is 15 CDC 18.385.020.B.3 and 18.742.060.B.3 are identical. Each provides that a Type II home occupation: Is undertaken in a manner that is not detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 13 no substantial evidence in the record to show that such concerns are reasonably likely to be borne out in fact. The hearings officer appreciates the frustration the neighbors have about the proposed use. No doubt,they do not want anyone in the neighborhood to conduct a home occupation that involves clients coming to a property. They could have provided for such a prohibition through deed restrictions that can go beyond the protection afforded by zoning and can be enforced privately. But the hearings officer concludes the law allows the home occupation in this case,subject to appropriate conditions. Action on the permit application cannot be based on popularity. b. The hearings officer finds that,in addition to the potential for detrimental impacts and disruption due to odors and loss of privacy of neighbors'properties, there is a potential for disruption if people other than the applicant's client are on the Property while the applicant and the client are engaged in hair care. The applicant did not propose to provide care for anyone other than clients. Therefore the permit should authorize the home occupation to allow only the person(s)who is/are receiving hair care by the applicant(and the immediately preceding and/or immediately succeeding client)to be on the Property. Any individuals needed to reasonably accommodate disabilities of the client also should be permitted to accompany the client. This generally would exclude children who are not clients. Unsupervised children could pose a hazard to themselves and a disruption to neighbors. Exceptions are warranted for babies being nursed by the client and others whose health or other circumstances warrant that they accompany the client,provided such other persons shall remain in the vicinity of the client at all times. This condition minimizes the intensity of the use and ancillary impacts. c. The hearings officer also appreciates the frustration of the neighbors in having to be the first line of defense against violations of the permit. The City does not have a lot of resources devoted to enforcement. As is common elsewhere,enforcement is complaint-driven. If neighbors believe the applicant is violating a condition of the permit, they should contact the City and advocate for timely enforcement. d. To facilitate the enforcement process,the hearings officer finds that the permit should be subject to administrative review with the potential for appeal to the hearings officer to verify that the applicant is conducting the home occupation consistent with the conditions of approval. To that end the applicant should be required to submit an application for such a review of conditions within one calendar year after the effective date of this final order(i.e.,after a final decision by the highest court to whom appeal of this decision is taken,if any). The application should contain substantial evidence that the applicant is conducting the home occupation consistent with the conditions of approval of this decision. The purpose of that review is not to reconsider the issuance of the permit. The purpose is to verify the applicant continues to comply with the conditions of approval of this final order and to determine whether any additional conditions may be warranted to ensure such compliance. If the applicant is not complying with the conditions of approval of this decision,the result of the administrative review may be revocation or suspension of the permit or imposition of additional or modified conditions. 17. Neighbors argued the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the proposed home occupation will comply with the ADA and Board of Cosmetology regulations. Conditions of approval of the planning manager's decision required such compliance. See conditions 2 and 3 of Exhibit A. a. The hearings officer finds that the ADA and the regulations of the Board of Cosmetology are not relevant approval standards for a home occupation permit,because the ADA and Board of Cosmetology regulations are not identified in the CDC as approval standards, and compliance with those standards is not necessary to show the proposed use HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 14 will comply with the approval standards listed in the CDC. See ORS 227.173(1)cited in footnote 3 above. The City does not rely on compliance with the rules of the Board of Cosmetology to fulfill any requirement of the City's approval standards. b. However under other provisions of the City Code, (i.e., provisions implementing the Uniform Building Code),the applicant is required to comply with the ADA. The hearings officer finds such compliance is feasible. The applicant may have to remove and replace doorways so they are wide enough;may have to remove,replace or alter door jambs so they are not an obstacle to the disabled; may have to replace door handles;and may have to remove or alter fixtures in the bathroom to provide adequate clearance for the disabled in wheelchairs. Nothing precludes these improvements. The applicant can do all of them. Whether it is cost efficient for the applicant to do so and whether it best protects the value of the house for purposes of resale is not relevant to the application. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed home occupation permit does or will comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code,provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local,state,and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein,and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter,the hearings officer hereby approves HOP 2002-00010(Moos),subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Before the applicant begins use of the Property for a hair salon,the applicant shall submit a copy of the following to the Tigard Planning Division: a. The final inspection of the Property from the Tigard Building Department to verify all aspects of the hair salon business,including access from the driveway to the den and adjoining bathroom, comply with State Building Codes,including ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act)requirements;or submit a written statement from the Tigard Building Department that such an inspection is not necessary to ensure compliance with those standards. The applicant shall consult with the Building Department to determine what modifications will be needed to ensure that the proposed use will comply. b. Certification of the hair salon from the Health Licensing Office of the State of Oregon Board of Cosmetology. In addition the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a copy of any notice or inspection report the applicant receives from the Board of Cosmetology without ten(10)calendar days after the applicant receives such notice or inspection report. c. A business license issued by the City of Tigard. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 15 `. 2. Also before the applicant begins use of the Property for a hair salon,the applicant shall: a. Install a minimum six-foot high sight-obscuring barrier along the east and west sides of the deck and along as much of the north side of the deck as is necessary to substantially obscure and block direct views from the deck on the Property to the decks of adjoining lots to the east and west of the Property. This condition shall not apply if the Board of Cosmetology authorizes the applicant in writing to access the hair salon by means of the front door to the dwelling, and the applicant limits client access to that door;provided,the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a copy of such authorization if granted by the Board of Cosmetology. b. Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning manager that the intersection of the driveway on the Property and Benchview Terrace complies with the visual clearance standards of CDC 18.795. The planning manager may conclude that the slope of the street to the east warrants a more restrictive standard for this driveway intersection as provided by CDC 18.785.030.C. 3. The home occupation business shall occur only in the den and adjoining bathroom. Clients may enter the home business only through the side door or garage doors of the garage and along the rear deck or,if permitted by the Board of Cosmetology, through the front door. 4. The home occupation shall continue to comply with CDC 18.742 and the conditions of approval of this final order at all times. 5. Vehicle parking for the home occupation shall occur only in the driveway. 6. Signs and/or employees for the Home Occupation are prohibited,unless the applicant applies for and receives approval of such changes through a Type II Home Occupation process. 7. The planning manager shall promptly investigate any complaints from neighbors that odors emanate from the Property. If the planning manager concludes odors detectable at the property line originate on the Property,the planning manager shall issue a written order suspending the use of chemicals in the home occupation permit the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the planning manager that such odors will not occur in the future. The planning manager shall serve notice of suspension by certified mail or by delivery of such notice to the applicant in person. The applicant shall suspend the use of chemicals in the home occupation immediately upon receipt of an order to that effect from the planning manager;provided, the applicant may appeal the suspension order by filing an appeal as provided in CDC 18390.040.G(i.e., as for a Type II decision). The home occupation may continue to operate without use of chemcials pending a final decision on a timely appeal of a suspension order. 8. The applicant may serve not more than six clients per day from Tuesday through Saturday,inclusive,between the hours of 9 Am and 5 PM. A client is a person who receives hair care from the applicant. A client and all HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 16 those accompanying the client as allowed herein shall arrive and depart in not more than one motor vehicle. Only clients are permitted on the Property in conjunction with the home occupation;provided,the following additional persons may accompany the client: any persons needed to reasonably accommodate disabilities of the client,babies being nursed by the client,and others whose health or other circumstances warrant that they accompany the client,provided such other persons shall remain in the vicinity of the client at all times. 9. The applicant shall not store on the Property chemicals in amounts in excess of those permitted by the Uniform Building Code,fire/life safety codes or the housing code,and the planning manager may inspect the Property to verify compliance with this condition of approval. 10. Within one calendar year after the effective date of this final order(i.e.,after a final decision by the highest court to whom appeal of this decision is taken,if any),the applicant shall file an application with the City for a review of the conditions of approval of this final order pursuant to a Type II process,provided,a pre-application conference is not required. The application should contain substantial evidence that the applicant is conducting the home occupation consistent with the conditions of approval of this decision. If the applicant is not complying with the conditions of approval of this decision,the result of the review of conditions may be revocation or suspension of the permit or imposition of additional or modified conditions. DA. this 28th day of Ma 2002. 01°- I I r A A At-.4 rigid Larry Epstein, r sq., , I•� City of Tigard -ari•gs icer HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 17 . 7,4, nimpw.- wir 4i cr "I: sta ,:-■■■■■■' Ina' - •._. CITY of TIGARD '' _ . • . . . ,. , OF000.APNIO INPO0.MATION 8V8TFM '• ♦Loft, /■■a Ham u �.ir VICINITY MAP g .. we . • ,''A al . �m HOP2002-0000 I/ ft wileferm. .1 al , •�■■■sw ft- .e■•. ■ 4/ „„.4I1 I/i/' MOOS SALON 1. rrailha �i AN (dell/ . litWA411111rigir0 411111110 o • •� p' e gW B NCHVIEW 4 4 Os\,s, � 4' ' dby .4 ', ta.. 0#4, ditk ei . ' ' , 101Z. ** '�. ' 4..urar 041,1 f6P.Kr"y'�,` u`! t otic h d+�x}1.1:: rii„ t ,„ .17,,,_ .,1 ligir*4 M�STIET•E D' B S p '�i ISS i* #,,A.# 110.1110, willhow Phuf4 + Ni�A >;o S . �z 00 ,., , ,, , ,,,;,,„_ 7 INN TV ILLSHIRE DR ,, , iiik• -- Tigard Area Map ' hllUluilti► ttot4A1.111A 111111h N UIIIIUIIi. wa4' ______ •: •: 11rMI 0 200 • 400 800 Feet 9re 402 feet � ♦. WmFs _■ bit WVIEW�� ,,1Im M• T - . Eimal tx A � ,tri N City of Tigard . HOODVISTA LN Information on this map Is for general location only and �� should be vedAed vAth the Development Services Division. s111,1411*411101 , ., '/1� 13125 SW Hell Blvtl . EAH TALP ► r /4 Tigard,OR 97223 :� 503 639.4171 mum t ■lir-D �'/ __ llllllllllllll1.1111 -� hltp7/vrnw.cltlgard.or.us Community Development Plot date: Feb 14,2002;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR 10 EASY STEPS TO RESOLUTION A Note From the Mayor 1. TALK DIRECTLY, Conversation with the people directly involved in the The City of Tigard recognizes that mediation services issue of concern is the first step to resolution.Meet face to face or speak over the phone to explain your concern in a positive and respectful manner. Don't offer benefits to our citizens — a FREE alternative to assume that the other person is aware of your concern.Help them to handle disputes between parties. After careful understand that a problem exists and invite them to help you find a solution consideration, we chose too offer these services through you both can live with. ff g the existing program at the City of Beaverton. This 2.CHOOSE A GOOD TIME. Find a convenient moment to bring up your allows Tigard citizens to take advantage of mediation 11/41<A1M� ��1 + �` concern,and allow enough time for a thorough.discussion.Try to talk in a .' quiet place where you can both be comfortable and uninterrupted.Consider a services immediately. Once Tigard has trained time when the other person will be most receptive.Don't ambush someone as mediators, Tigard may set up its own program. �„ryr,�, `� they leave or arrive home from work. 3.PLAN AHEAD. Think about what you want to say in advance.You may , ��want to write out your concerns and questions to use as a guide.Try to explain ,.. iI/your perspective—the problem as you see it—and how it affects you. f.4.44) I // 4. BE CALM AND FOCUSED. Antagonizing the other cr personernonly s makes City of Tigard -der for him or her to hear you and understand your concerns.Focus on Jim Griffith,Mayor you have observed and how it affects or impacts you.Remain open to hear a different perspective than your own. IhI e d iati o n 5. AVOID BLAME AND ACCUSATIONS. Don't interpret the other person's behavior:"You are blocking my driveway just to make me mad!" Instead,give information with a focus on your own feelings:"When cars block my driveway,I get angry because I can't get to work on time." Hours of OperationPro gra m 6. LISTEN. Give the other person a chance to explain his or her view, describe their own concerns,and share their own feelings. Try to listen and The Dispute Resolution Center at the City of understand their perspective. Beaverton is open Monday-Thursday 7. SHOW THAT YOU ARE LISTENING. Although you may not agree 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.;Friday 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. with what the other person is saying,tell them that you hear their concerns and that you are glad to be discussing the problem together. Listening does not mean that you agree with the speaker's point of view.In order to find a For more information or referral solution you must first fully understand the problem. call the City of Tigard 8. TALK IT ALL THROUGH. Once you start,get all the issues and at 503-639-4171 feelings out in the open. Don't ignore the part that seems too"difficult"or "minor."Your resolution will be durable if everyone's issues are considered and addressed. • Police Crime Prevention Officer WORK ON A SOLUTION. When you have discussed all the concerns 503-684-4997,x220 1 ,tare a common understanding of the issues you can begin to focus on a suction.Two or more people cooperating to find a creative solution are much more effective than one person demanding that the other make a change.Be • Code Compliance Specialist specific,and include timelines for all tasks. Ex:"I will turn my music off at 503-639-4171,x314 midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings.""I will buy the fence on Wednesday and you will bring your tools on Thursday morning so we can make the repairs." Services provided through 10. FOLLOW THROUGH. Agree on when and how you will check in with Beaverton Dispute Resolution Center each other to monitor your progress. Communicate immediately about any 4755 SW Griffith Drive changes,or if your solutions are not having the desired results. PO Box 4755 A program designed to help NOW CONGRATULATE YOURSELF for working together to resolve the Beaverton,OR 97076-4755 individuals and businesses problem! 503-526-2523 resolve disputes through the services L \ of trained volunteer revised 7/20/01 mediators. What is Mediation? How Does Mediation Work? Why Try Mediation? Mediation is a negotiation process p o 1. An individual or business involved m ® • Fast,efficient, and satisfying Q Q where people involved in a dispute L. in a dispute contacts the Dispute G L meet with a neutral person(a mediator) ^- Resolution Center. The problem is � • Simple solutions and work together to solve the presented to an intake specialist _ problem. who then forwards the issue to a • Preserve relations mediator. A mediator does not decide who is right or wrong in a • Save time and money disagreement,or force any of the disputing parties to 2. A mediator will contact the complainant first,and reach agreement. During mediation, it is the then all other person(s)involved in the dispute,to • Compromise and have it your way responsibility of the disputing parties to develop and understand the concerns,identify issues involved mutually agree upon a realistic solution to their and explain the process. • Diffuse problem situations disagreement. Mediation aids them in this process. Over 90 percent of the people who come to mediation 3. After your initial discussion with the mediator, Mediation resolves disputes before they reach a 1( are able to solve their own problems, without the you may choose to work out a resolution on your of seriousness that requires the use of police, intervention of the courts. People who reach own (see "10 Easy Steps to Resolution"). Many attorneys or the courts. agreement at mediation are twice as likely to keep people find that with helpful information and a those agreements than those who go to court. little encouragement,they CAN resolve problems Mediation allows parties to create their own solutions themselves. to problems. If no agreement is reached at the mediation session, all legal options are still available to the disputing 4. When all parties involved in the dispute have Mediation resolves disputes quickly, with the parties. agreed to participate in mediation,a mediator will potential for more creative and satisfying results than assist the parties in resolving their disputes. The are often available through the courts. What Issues are Handled by the mediator will not decide who is right or wrong, Dispute Resolution Center? he/she will only help the parties to negotiate an Mediation preserves and improves valuable personal agreement on their own. and professional relationships. Neighborhood disputes including: • Fences and Trespassing 5. If an agreement is not reached, the Center will Mediation is FREE! assist parties in exploring other options of dispute • Property Maintenance resolution. ( • Vandalism • Students and Teachers What Happens if an Agreement • Landlords and Tenants Who are the Mediators? is Not Reached Through Mediation? • Manufactured Dwelling Parks • Consumers and Merchants Dedicated community members who are 1. The Center will assist parties in exploring other professionally trained by the City of Beaverton under options. • Money or personal property claims the guidelines set by the Oregon Dispute Resolution • Contract disputes Commission. 2. There are no consequences, legal or otherwise, • Harassment for either party in conjunction with mediation. • Landscaping and Trees • Noise • Pets Sopaul & Steven Moos HOP2002-00010 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 MOOS SALON Douglas B. Hollis Dennis & Elizabeth Peddicord PO Box 2441 13696 SW White Cedar Place Manhattan Beach, CA 90267-2441 Tigard, OR 97223 Carol Loop Rick & Dee-J Putzier 13714 SW Hillshire Drive 13799 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Mike & Suzanne Benner Andy & Terry Rood 13748 SW Tanoak Ct. 13779 SW Hillshire Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Russell & Helen Case Michael & Claudia Rosa 13768 SW Benchview Terrace 13707 SW White Cedar Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Steve & Nancy Everton Charles & Suzanne Royse 13737 SW Benchview Terrace 13596 SW Mint Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Scott & Cecelia Granger Michael & Neeltje Satterlee 13641 SW Benchview Terrace 13851 SW Mistletoe Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Joseph B. Harrison, Jr. Larry & Barbara Simonsmeier 13621 SW White Cedar Place 13721 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Richard Inukai Larry & Susan Trachi 13923 SW Mistletoe Drive 13930 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Dale & Dona McNeil Ralph & Coralie Van Horn 13957 SW Mistletoe Drive 13632 SW White Cedar Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 • Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Craig Smelter PO Box 1467 Tualatin, OR 97062 Harold and Ruth Howland 13145 SW Benish Tigard, OR 97223 Kevin Hogan 14357 SW 133rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 Jon Sirrine 12761 SW 133rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Judith Anderson 16640 SW Jordan Way King City, OR 97224 Beverly Froude 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard, OR 97224 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 CITY OF TIGARD - WEST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (pg. I of I) (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT West.doc) UPDATED: December 27, 2001 Candace & Richard White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Bradford & Shirley Wild 13555 SW Brim Place Tigard, OR 97223-5667 Gregory & Karen Aube 13843 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 B.J. Hall 13740 SW Fern Ridge Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Greg Aube 13999 SW Hillshire Drive Tigard, OR 97223 James DeLoretto & Mary West 12879 SW Ridgefield Lane Tigard, OR 97223 +.2S104CD-11200 2S104CD-02700 ALLEN GARY W&SUSAN J CASTAGNA ROBERT J&SUSAN A 13849 SW MISTLETOE DR 13612 SW HILLSHIRE DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-07200 2S 104CD-10200 ALLERS MARK&JENNIFER CERBONE ROBERT 13533 SW BRIM PL 13611 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-04600 2S 104CD-03800 AUBE GREGORY R&KAREN H CHAU LEN T& 13043 SW BENCHVIEW TER NGUYEN KIEU-SUONG TIGARD,OR 97223 13663 SW BENCHVIEW TER TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-01100 2S 104CD-09600 BALDWIN RICK J&PATTI A CHELF WILLIAM E JR& 13817 SW BOXELDER ST TRACI A TIGARD,OR 97223 13730 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-03900 2S109BA-05200 BARNES DAVID M&LYDIA J CHEN CHI-CHAO&CHARLEEN S 13705 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13789 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-07900 2S 104CD-01600 BENNER MICHAEL&SUZANNE J CHESNEY JOSEPH L&LINDA M 13748 SW TANOAK CT 13995 MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-02300 2S 104CD-06100 BLANCHARD GEORGE 0 CLEVELAND DAVE& 13698 SW HILLSHIRE DR MOLLIE TIGARD,OR 97223 13639 SW WHITE CEDAR CT TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00400 2S104CD-09700 BLANKENMEISTER PAUL B& COLLINS RICK 0 TRUST& MUELLER SHELLEY COLLINS JEAN E TRUST 13645 SW BLUE GUM CT 13718 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-02400 2S 104CD-07000 BULL DANIEL E&JILL L COOK ROBERT FRANK&TERESE JUST 13680 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13577 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-06800 2S 104CD-06600 CASE G RUSSELL&HELEN R TRS COPE HAROLD F&JUDITH A 13768 SW BENCHVIEW TER 13674 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 � 2S 104CD-09000 2S 104CD-03000 CROXFORD JUDY LYNN GRIFFITH WILLIAM ROBERT& 13531 SW MINT PL CHERYL L TIGARD,OR 97223 13564 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-04700 2S104CD-06200 DARBY JOHN RICHARD HARRISON JOSEPH B JR&LESLEY A 13867 SW BENCHVIEW TER 13621 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-02500 2S 104CD-01800 DIXON DANIEL E&DEBRA A HERLAMBANG HIRO/MIKA Y& 13654 SW HILLSHIRE DR DEW'SINTA TIGARD,OR 97223 13796 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-09201 2S 104CD-01900 EDDY BONNIE D HOLLIS DOUGLAS B 13574 SW MINT PL 13784 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-07600 2S 104CD-00800 ESSIEH MATTHEW S&EMMANUELLA E HOOD RICHARD L&LINDA L 13564 SW BRIM PL 13623 SW HILLSHIRE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-04100 2S 104CD-02900 EVERTON STEVEN&NANCY HOWELL JOHN T&JOYCE R 13737 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13578 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-08000 2S 104CD-04800 FARMER A B&BETTE JEAN TRS INUKAI RICHARD M 13725 SW TANOAK CT 13923 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-01300 2S 104CD-08900 GRAHAM TIMOTHY S KEMP KAREN A&CARL W 13755 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13549 SW MINT PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-03700 2S 104CD-10000 GRANGER SCOTT C&CECEILIA Y LAFORTUNE MARIO A 13641 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 13652 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-06000 2S 104CD-11400 GREENE RALPH E JR& LL&F INVESTMENT CO YEMOTO MARJORIE K 13930 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 13663 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-03100 2S104CD-06900 LOOMIS MARK M&DIANA L NYBERG CLEVE F&DEBRA A 13542 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13599 SW BRIM PLACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02200 2S104C0-04300 LOOP CURTIS A AND CAROL M O'NEAL JERMAINE 13714 SW HILLSHIRE DR C/O CSI CAPITOL MANAGEMENT TIGARD,OR 97223 445 BUSH ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94108 2S104CD-01500 2S104CD-08800 MARTZ GRACE TR OLSEN GORDON A&RHONDA 13781 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13567 SW MINT PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00500 2S104CD-02800 MCFALL TIMOTHY G&ROBIN L OLSZEWSKI JAMES J 13679 SW BLUE GUM CT 13590 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-10100 2S104C0-06700 MCKINNEY FRANK D&LISA M PEDDICORD DENNIS L&ELIZABETH 13620 SW TRACY PL 13696 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01700 2S104CD-09800 MCNEIL DALE E& PLAVIN MARGARET W TRUSTEE DONA DEAN 13706 SW TRACY PL 13957 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09900 2S104CD-04400 MICICH ETHAN&JENNIFER PUTZIER RICHARD A&DONNAJO 13684 SW TRACY PL 13799 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 . TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-08700 2S104CD-11100 MINER MICHAEL S& RAMEY JEFFERY C TR& SCHLICK KRISTINE K RAMEY KATHLEEN M 13853 SW BOXELDER ST 13817 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00900 2S104CD-00600 NEWBURY RONALD D&JONI A REID STEVEN W&LISA R 13649 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13652 SW BLUE GUM CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104C0-05900 2S104CD-01400 NICKOLICH THEODORE R&NAOMI R ROOD ANDY L 13685 SW WHITE CEDAR PL 13779 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-05300 2S104CD-00300 ROSA MICHAEL K&CLAUDIA A TORGESON KEVIN K&DEBRA R 13707 SW WHITE CEDAR CT 13559 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S704CD-09300 2S104CD-02000 ROYSE CHARLES P&SUZANNE M TOSONI MARCO E& 13596 SW MINT PL BRIENZA ANN MARIE TIGARD,OR 97223 13762 SW HILLSHIRE DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S104CD-05700 2S104CD-11300 SATTERLEE MICHAEL J AND TRACHI LARRY A&SUSAN J CO-TRS NEELTJE W 13930 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13851 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104C0-04000 2S104CD-06400 SIMONSMEIER BARBARA L& VANHORN RALPH&CORALIE LARRY M 13632 SW WHITE CEDAR PL 13721 SW BENCHVIEW TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09400 2S104C0-09100 SMITH BRYAN F VANLANINGHAM DIANE MARIE PO BOX 2315 13552 SW MINT PL LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01200 2S 104CD-06500 SMITH MICHAEL WAYNE&KATHERINE WAUGH BERT E JR&SUSAN B 13820 SW BOXELDER ST 13658 SW WHITE CEDAR CT PORTLAND,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01000 2S104CD-04200 SPENCER HARRY&ANN MARIE WHITE LAURENCE E&KARLA K 13675 SW HILLSHIRE DR 137,59 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00700 2S104CD-04500 STAHL FRANCES& WHITE RICHARD L& HAYES SUSAN E CANDACE J 13591 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13999 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-06300 2S104CD-07100 SWEARINGEN VERNON R& WILD BRADFORD W&SHIRLEY E BETTY L 13555 SW BRIM PL 13620 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104C0-02600 2S104CD-00201 SWENSEN KURT S AND BARBARA K WINCH BRADFORD S&KELLY R 13636 SW HILLSHIRE DRIVE 13553 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-08100 WOODEN GARY R&CAROLE 13602 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-07800 WRIGHT ROBERT G 13580 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-07700 WRIGHT ROBERT GALEN 13580 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02100 ZENNER TODD A&CHERYL A 13740 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 SOPAUL MOOS 13783 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OF TIGARD Community Deve(opment Shaping BetterCommunity I, Patricia L. Lunsford being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of'2igar Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(s)Below) ® NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: H0P2002-00010/"APPEAL" OF MOOS SALON (5/13/2002) File NoiName Reference) (Date of Public Hearing) City of Tigard Planning Director g Tigard Hearings Officer — Tigard Planning Commission _ Tigard City Council A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibi["A",and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"11",and by reference made a part hereof, on April 22,2002,and deposited in the United States Mail on April 22,2002,postage prepaid. 2 , , (., , :,_ r i sTYZ// /---- (Person that pared Notic- SZX1EOFOREGON ) County of Washington )ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the a� day of C , 2002. j__ # '.. OFFICIAL SEAL . _,), '"`_%J� DIANE M JELDERKS ' 1 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ' ' COMMISSION NO.326578 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 ( 7/4 I f / / ' I T ' ' I : I I ' 4; I , My Commission Expir 7 03 EXR NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: x THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. .:A CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping (Better Community PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY. MAY 13, 2002 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (HOP) 2002-00010 FILE NAME: APPEAL OF MOOS SALON APPLICANT: Sopaul Moos OWNER: Same 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 ITEM ON APPEAL: On March 26, 2002, the Director issued a decision to approve, subject to conditions, a request for approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six (6) clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9AM to 5PM, Tuesday through Saturday. On April 9, 2002, an appeal was filed alleging the Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations, that the proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone, that the proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations, that the impact study was inadequate, and that condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance) and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval) cannot be enforced independently of one another. LOCATION: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessoryresidential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEWCRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT W .. 1TEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOS_._) ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (254) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (254) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MORGAN TRACY AT(503)639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. IIIIII 'v � CITV of TIGARD allt AP ' /-- _ m =MIMI VICINITY MAP mr.,6.11iii go EN o..— _TE: H0P2002-000 I 0 - 6 ,IW MOOS SALON ‘4 %4P r, 40. r r lir v.* * 141 I & „, 46 ... 0• 4 hr. SW:. VCHVIE;VJ 11 r 14',4$4--'...-40;4411...10-*LItiPv'4' ie 4 , L �. ., � ,r, ib . - • , _ . ..„ ro. i,- 7,,-,i\-: 7 I ny Aivs* -„- r. i-_---,,__ s'mpar, „„ --. � I vr', sl sTili II groNr ,,,,441,ii,. iier 10.1. �• � e Ia tem—.�. E e,_ /-- - SHIRit E /'� ' neebaeauae I,. .i f ' � N L L al tI o oco FIinN Tnq o� • _� Ti / I .e, - [ - ' . ''' ' ii gillorft. IN WI 4..,. 4, MT —1.164/414: . City f Tigard III OODV�STA LN--' on M r�••4 W AL' V S el .a sbeulG balveneUM1Wln 355WVHaIlaNElS nicea DlWalon. eq � 11111.1 A r 7 nn neam,oe5131 1 .. a e. .el,loeb.,..a EXIIP Sopaul & Steven Moos 13783 SW Benchview Terrace HOP2002-00010 Tigard, OR 97223 MOOS SALON Douglas B. Hollis Dennis & Elizabeth Peddicord PO Box 2441 13696 SW White Cedar Place Manhattan Beach, CA 90267-2441 Tigard, OR 97223 Carol Loop Rick & Dee-J Putzier 13714 SW Hillshire Drive 13799 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Mike & Su-zartrie Benner Andy & Terry Rood 13748 SW Taaoak Ct. 13779 SW Hillshire Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Russell & Helen Case Michael & Claudia Rosa 13768 SW Benchview Terrace 13707 SW White Cedar Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Steve & Nancy Everton Charles & Suzanne Royse 13737 SW Benchview Terrace 13596 SW Mint Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Scott& Cecelia Granger Michael & Neeltje Satterlee 13641 SW Benchview Terrace 13851 SW Mistletoe Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Joseph B. Harrison, Jr. Larry & Barbara Simonsmeier 13621 SW White Cedar Place 13721 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Richard Inukai Larry & Susan Trachi 13923 SW Mistletoe Drive 13930 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Dale & Dona McNeil Ralph & Coralie Van Horn 13957 SW Mistletoe Drive 13632 SW White Cedar Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 • Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive,#4 Tigard, OR 97224 Craig Smelter PO Box 1467 Tualatin, OR 97062 Harold and Ruth Howland 13145 SW Benish Tigard, OR 97223 Kevin Hogan 14357 SW 133rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 Jon Sirrine 12761 SW 133rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Judith Anderson 16640 SW Jordan Way King City, OR 97224 Beverly Froude 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard, OR 97224 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 CITY OF TIGARD-WEST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (pg. I of I) (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT West.doc) UPDATED: December 27, 2001 Candace & Richard White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Bradford & Shirley Wild 13555 SW Brim Place Tigard, OR 97223-5667 Gregory & Karen Aube 13843 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR- 97223 EXHI 2S 104CD-11200 2S 104CD-02700 ALLEN GARY W&SUSAN J CASTAGNA ROBERT J&SUSAN A 13849 SW MISTLETOE DR 13612 SW HILLSHIRE DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-07200 2S 104CD-10200 ALLERS MARK&JENNIFER CERBONE ROBERT 13533 SW BRIM PL 13611 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-04600 2S 104CD-03800 AUBE GREGORY R&KAREN H CHAU LEN T& 13043 SW BENCHVIEW TER NGUYEN KIEU-SUONG TIGARD,OR 97223 13663 SW BENCHVIEW TER TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-01100 2S 104CD-09600 BALDWIN RICK J&PATTI A CHELF WILLIAM E JR& 13817 SW BOXELDER ST TRACI A TIGARD,OR 97223 13730 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-03900 2S 109BA-05200 BARNES DAVID M&LYDIA J CHEN CHI-CHAO&CHARLEEN S 13705 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13789 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-07900 2S 104CD-01600 BENNER MICHAEL&SUZANNE J CHESNEY JOSEPH L&LINDA M 13748 SW TANOAK CT 13995 MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-02300 2S 104CD-06100 BLANCHARD GEORGE 0 CLEVELAND DAVE& 13698 SW HILLSHIRE DR MOLLIE TIGARD,OR 97223 13639 SW WHITE CEDAR CT TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-00400 2S 104CD-09700 BLANKENMEISTER PAUL B& COLLINS RICK 0 TRUST& MUELLER SHELLEY COLLINS JEAN E TRUST 13645 SW BLUE GUM CT 13718 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02400 2S104CD-07000 BULL DANIEL E&JILL L COOK ROBERT FRANK&TERESE JUST 13680 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13577 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-06800 2S 104CD-06600 CASE G RUSSELL&HELEN R TRS COPE HAROLD F&JUDITH A 13768 SW BENCHVIEW TER 13674 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-09000 2S 104CD-03000 ,CROXFORD JUDY LYNN GRIFFITH WILLIAM ROBERT& 13531 SW MINT PL CHERYL L TIGARD,OR 97223 13564 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-04700 2S104CD-06200 DARBY JOHN RICHARD HARRISON JOSEPH B JR&LESLEY A 13867 SW BENCHVIEW TER 13621 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-02500 2S 104CD-01800 DIXON DANIEL E&DEBRA A HERLAMBANG HIRO/MIKA Y& 13654 SW HILLSHIRE DR DEW!SINTA TIGARD,OR 97223 13796 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-09201 2S 104CD-01900 EDDY BONNIE D HOLLIS DOUGLAS B 13574 SW MINT PL 13784 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 10400-07600 2S 104CD-00800 ESSIEH MATTHEW S&EMMANUELLA E HOOD RICHARD L&LINDA L 13564 SW BRIM PL 13623 SW HILLSHIRE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-04100 2S 104CD-02900 EVERTON STEVEN&NANCY HOWELL JOHN T&JOYCE R 13737 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13578 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 10400-08000 2S10400-04800 FARMER A B&BETTE JEAN TRS INUKAI RICHARD M 13725 SW TANOAK CT 13923 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S10400-01300 2S104CD-08900 GRAHAM TIMOTHY S KEMP KAREN A&CARL W 13755 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13549 SW MINT PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 10400-03700 2S 10400-10000 GRANGER SCOTT C&CECEILIA Y LAFORTUNE MARIO A 13641 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 13652 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-06000 2S 104CD-11400 GREENE RALPH E JR& LL&F INVESTMENT CO YEMOTO MARJORIE K 13930 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 13663 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 _S104CD-03100 2S104C0-06900 .LOOMIS MARK M&DIANA L NYBERG CLEVE F&DEBRA A 13542 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13599 SW BRIM PLACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02200 2S104CD-04300 LOOP CURTIS A AND CAROL M O'NEAL JERMAINE 13714 SW HILLSHIRE DR C/O CSI CAPITOL MANAGEMENT TIGARD,OR 97223 445 BUSH ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94108 2S 104C0-01500 2S 104CD-08800 MARTZ GRACE TR OLSEN GORDON A&RHONDA 13781 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13567 SW MINT PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-00500 2S 104CD-02800 MCFALL TIMOTHY G&ROBIN L OLSZEWSKI JAMES J 13679 SW BLUE GUM CT 13590 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-10100 2S 104CD-06700 MCKINNEY FRANK D&LISA M PEDDICORD DENNIS L&ELIZABETH 13620 SW TRACY PL 13696 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-01700 2S 104CD-09800 MCNEIL DALE E& PLAVIN MARGARET W TRUSTEE DONA DEAN 13706 SW TRACY PL 13957 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09900 2S104C0-04400 MICICH ETHAN&JENNIFER PUTZIER RICHARD A&DONNAJO 13684 SW TRACY PL 13799 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-08700 2S 104CD-11100 MINER MICHAEL S& RAMEY JEFFERY C TR& SCHLICK KRISTINE K RAMEY KATHLEEN M 13853 SW BOXELDER ST 13817 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00900 2S104CD-00600 NEWBURY RONALD D&JONI A REID STEVEN W&LISA R 13649 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13652 SW BLUE GUM CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-05900 2S 104CD-01400 NICKOLICH THEODORE R&NAOMI R ROOD ANDY L 13685 SW WHITE CEDAR PL 13779 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-05800 2S 104CD-00300 .ROSA MICHAEL K&CLAUDIA A TORGESON KEVIN K&DEBRA R 13707 SW WHITE CEDAR CT 13559 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-09300 2S 104CD-02000 ROYSE CHARLES P&SUZANNE M TOSONI MARCO E& 13596 SW MINT PL BRIENZA ANN MARIE TIGARD,OR 97223 13762 SW HILLSHIRE DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 104CD-05700 2S 104CD-11300 SATTERLEE MICHAEL J AND TRACHI LARRY A&SUSAN J CO-TRS NEELTJE W 13930 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13851 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-04000 2S104CD-06400 SIMONSMEIER BARBARA L& VANHORN RALPH&CORALIE LARRY M 13632 SW WHITE CEDAR PL 13721 SW BENCHVIEW TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-09400 2S 104CD-09100 SMITH BRYAN F VANLANINGHAM DIANE MARIE PO BOX 2315 13552 SW MINT PL LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01200 2S104CD-06500 SMITH MICHAEL WAYNE&KATHERINE WAUGH BERT E JR&SUSAN B 13820 SW BOXELDER ST 13658 SW WHITE CEDAR CT PORTLAND,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-01000 2S 104CD-04200 SPENCER HARRY&ANN MARIE WHITE LAURENCE E&KARLA K 13675 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13759 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-00700 2S 104CD-04500 STAHL FRANCES& WHITE RICHARD L& HAYES SUSAN E CANDACE J 13591 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13999 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-06300 2S 104CD-07100 SWEARINGEN VERNON R& WILD BRADFORD W&SHIRLEY E BETTY L 13555 SW BRIM PL 13620 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-02600 2S 104CD-00201 SWENSEN KURT S AND BARBARA K WINCH BRADFORD S&KELLY R 13636 SW HILLSHIRE DRIVE 13553 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-08100 WOODEN GARY R&CAROLE 13602 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-07800 WRIGHT ROBERT G 13580 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-07700 WRIGHT ROBERT GALEN 13580 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-02100 ZENNER TODD A&CHERYL A 13740 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday May 13. 2002 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and the rules of procedures adopted by the Hearings Officer. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7)days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT[HOPI 2002-00010 ➢ APPEAL OF MOOS SALON < ITEM ON APPEAL: On March 26, 2002, the Director issued a decision to approve, subject to conditions, a request for approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six (6) clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9AM to 5PM, Tuesday through Saturday. On April 9, 2002, an appeal was filed alleging the Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations, that the proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone, that the proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations, that the impact study was inadequate, and that condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance) and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval) cannot be enforced independently of one another. LOCATION: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPUCANT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THIS AFFIDAVIT AND RETURN IT TO THE CITY AT THE ADDRESS BELOW, ACCOMPANIED BY A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE SITE. City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-8189 In the Matter of the Proposed Land Use Applications for: Land Use File Nos.: HOP2002-00010 Land Use File Name: MOOS SALON I, _ cchd /w(r` , do affirm that I am (represent) the art initiatinginterest in a land ( p ) p Y use pr posal affecting the land located at (state the approxim to locations) IF no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) 13` 83 5 1 U and did personally post notice of the Public Hearing on the proposed land use application(s) by means of weatherproof posting in the general vicinity of the affected territory, a copy of said notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the S day of April, 2002. gnature of Person Wh�Performed Posting (In the presence of the Notary) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF 00e7qA- ) County of W4S1: 4.g.f ) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the zr day of /41/2%i L , 20 02. . E _...CQfr, t3SfIF= 3:23409 COMMISSION IC 1 ,2003 ..SZ4.44..c...ce,L.,j(2:s.-104— NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON �OTARY PURL V';-C3REGON � My Commission Expires: , ``�/3,,2Cke h:\login\patty\masters\affidavit of posting for applicant to post public hearing.doc NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. A CITY OF TIGARD Community'Development S[iapingA Better Community PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER,AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, MAY 13, 2002 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (HOP) 2002-00010 • FILE NAME: APPEAL OF MOOS SALON APPLICANT: Sopaul Moos OWNER: Same 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 ITEM ON APPEAL: On March 26, 2002, the Director issued a decision to approve, subject to conditions, a request for approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six (6) clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9AM to 5PM, Tuesday through Saturday. On April 9, 2002, an appeal was filed alleging the Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations, that the proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone, that the proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations, that the impact study was inadequate, and that condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance)and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval)cannot be enforced independently of one another. LOCATION: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessoryresidential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEWCRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF)NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT VvKiTTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOQ ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 97..763DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A (6)ST INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25 ) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (5) PEREI ALABLE GE, ORFOT HE CURRENT RATEINSPECTION ATOCHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MORGAN TRACY AT(503)639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD,TIGARD, OREGON 97223. -„--- ea •.1••••,•/ 3 •.z cirvof0,,to ft' t ;:••,,�. \��`,:� VICINITY MAP Iimie II HOP2002-00010 ,, , .1k 1 .T ,, .- MOOS SALON 4 4t*,i 0 *A 0 Sri% ' ,. 4: 4 A ls.' tatP7 ,g *VP. . .AP 4 I g /640 '4# 41 ,k0 4111 ab A %'' ,.- *tile a III • A ,,,&4 ,* II 4 t- '---417/I ' 41n inli **. • -...76.- 1 .„...__, ,_....._ t, miiiimillbff# 1 11/ INIIIIIIIIIIn 141,.14TiR nR J�d 411 , _� a zoo zoo mo s«i 03«t : • 7. 1iil SUM II: Asi —44 •. MONO WI . Erb, Crty of Tigard � AI--, ,, W °°°""`"lip: 7., NDe.•bm.p swvba0wm. �-�^ _/ _ Rrss sx xw mw Qw 1 O cn ry IV U.i i:.p, i ytl 1 ce 'o E. C� C)' --- ...1........ CO crl CO v CD 2-Xr 2 Q- �. N Cn a) IN m- = 4H•£1I£\ !co -s' Q HWZOI '- ' CD 6]CDH))H yl--i£-t 0 C) CLCCD CI J rn)3 3 ! •' G y ITI m G-U 7' r Fri O£ * pi: --i ZJ -4 CD -+ U3 H .0 in 34 I "3 NQ N • Do �, NI riRi W< XUi E7 G n 4,.. J., N� f ..... ..‘ -77, D " . xi v U£ £T ! o ._1, m -i 0 0-,3: X4/1 Is- xl OI- ‹.-::m o " ::-*- \,. Ui F? 1 s ill ttt :::- 0 VI CD 114 til -o N. 0 8 w II Ill C) tti ************* 0 I° ., 0 0 g AD ifid 5. t7. c :71 > Pa al -< 4;60.etriDearlififj- xf 01 al 0 C:3 W M -n - <.z vi? 0 ' —I --1 xi 1 13 0 > r— > co I— > 73 -.4 r" Z 0 kl" 03 Z a r:Z 2 D G) 0 co •,- 2 -, xc.o0mc.) - 5 0 X 6 1:11 rn 0 -rj, c) C) rn cop"- ›.• 0 x co .4: rn ,- 't1 GO -1:) l'4,1 c...) x m 2° •-I r- NO 0 Z5 N.) )7, Z 1:1111) XI > CD Z •. 1 D:j CD CD " Et+ 6) • fill et.112 i•ilY1 : ••••I = "•:••••. ...••-- art otexpil-65 ... ..7.-- HLOZOZ _ 6)01-i X11-1 '-- - >1".-1E-I .x...........0'-.-.'-"—"'".-•.---....-""'-' — 11,4111243 = "..:- 0 XI 4 - _ — Cil 0 J3 ::.... .7 XI 73 -1 , -•: - fl i<;"::,...,\ n1 EV 1-i Z.:- -i -0 M 3,0 i\ --, v•-7 1 --'- 73 ILI 0 Ili CD :, -:e 1 ....." Z an: HilLi C ;‘; 0; . 0'Z w tri Cr• x 4 ni 4 111 21-• --- ‘-' XI Lu -10 33 01-. ---• .7.-" ...... CAI* MU! Z vt i i 1:3 0 --- -g ......- DJ ••• ... Z.— 4 .":•-• N. 1 k 111 - 0 z..-• DJ tit -Ni .--- .. i r A AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING „ CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping Better Community I, cpatricia L. Lunsford being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of7igard, 'Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appopnate Box(s)Below) ❑x NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: HOP2002-00010/MOOS SALON HOME OCCUPATION 0 AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference) y City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A",and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B",and by reference made a part hereof, on March 26,200Z and deposited in the United States Mail on March 26,2002, postage prepaid. / , / (Person t•: Pre - -d .tice STATE OAF ocGo r ) County of Washington )ss. City of >•gard ) 54— Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the o� day of C-74 , 2002. ,...,'A.,, OFFICIAL SEAL w ''- DIANE M JELDERKS .v"=, NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON `,� ' ' COMMISSION NO.326578 /( .�% MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 I Q NO 'I' '' ' � ; 1 OF EGO My Commission Expire . //7/7. 3 EXiirr NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (HOP) 2002-00010 �; r 'i MOOS HOME OCCUPATION CITY TIGARD ComCITY Development Shaping f Better Community DBA: MOOS SALON 120 DAYS = 6/13/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: MOOS HOME OCCUPATION FILE NO.: Home Occupation Permit (HOP) HOP2002-00010 APPLICANT: Sopaul Moos OWNER: Steven & Sopaul Moos 13783 SW Benchview Terrace 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9 AM to 5 PM Tuesday through Saturday. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-7; Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 (PD): Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. The PD overlay permits some flexibility to the underlying development standards. LOCATION: The subject site is located at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in the full decision, available at City Hall. All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (25 ) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 26, 2002 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 10, 2002 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1 may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. l THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON APRIL 9, 2002. I Questions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Morgan Tracy at (503) 639-4171, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. r----7iiiiiipw -wall CITY OI TIGARD • . F_ �J VICINITY MAP I ` 11 .. I ,--_,/e7, .loan az �r mei • HOP2002-000I 0 he;JJ �A MOOS SALON �i ak'IP NVIIIFF -op-fip, .....,eiiiiii,,, wi ,„, 67 N 'S 4 --f ,• .. �N _ - 1 7- ^:.,y - '-',''',1100740,017 ----,`-'. g „,, -,/e r:-•;,, I, . ION i I --6,-,v, 1, y 11117‘4. 1 ' gill ' .' -',:ti ! ,_ri'\,- , S�7 LTSHIR1(1'''/ -/ 'c'S.)-44,4111` it•Av,"4,\ --'. . ,-: , , I 1 F_,E.ft �T40040 *b...••map • , /--- -\, 0 IIII AA i ii, N -7 I 41 ,0 . tea..., L - . ■• _- J F o1 City of Tigard v p� �L--y ' i 1 lOrAmAlb......ft _i ' . CITY of TIGARD,' ' ' i ., ZGEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ♦ ♦ _ �� `,�- VICINITY MAP ii♦ ,•illi �• ■ • RainNM ■ i41 I . H0P2002-00010 III ■ • ....,.._4 �^ japP11111101 MOOS SALON iA. .,_ as, irgisAWS4gvieV ,a0,04".,ulaS 1010� ' W BENC V 4*W S H IEW . V* •‘'‘;S • 0P illrAally4* \' eAS, %. .<4111211t0 .4. ., ,* illiv '40 -- 111. aillr111111IOW am ..a 111,f I • ,, i t\\\"' •4 .4411 , , itk/1.ETOE DR . � 1 ' � �� OODSHI- 3uu '` ' ' , g-::': 1111§ii Ail ■ A ���� �� . . - ,�i ' z. Hr�MIrA R3 . . uW.■■ _��aGNLR 4"kh" R6 Valli 11111k * #114. 01 'Ci: - ._. W HILLSHIRE DR . Tigard Area Map ' a ■����■i♦ `Alai . N IIIIIIIIMIIIIM y VP HIrH TOR n V R 0 200 400 600 Feet IIIIIIIkr4 1"=402 feet M• Tiiiii E� � 4.411fikk ramEAbwk,. Allkiltsw A SI , a. ,, -� ,',:II.!I, �� .� ■■ . .MC1ty of Tigard . ■■.. ALPINE VIE , HOODVISTA LN Information on this map is for generallocationonly and. should be io nont withthes for g ment ServicesDivision.�. • `lil ' ' 13125SW Hall BlvdSW LEAH TF � ALP ► t r r Tigard,OR 97223 RJ v�Q11111111% . (503)639-4171 r- . ¢Y / httpriwww.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Feb 14,2002;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR 57.. . — -!..%•>, --I " 0 CI — < Z b — < 1.7N —'c''' —441 — 10 C:7 0 0 APAA ‘.. a We, c‘' ln o -9, „ 4 ../-CO 17TO -.r...i_ 4 7(..., •A 0 kr.' 44) ° dca --it ip? A ........ 1.•E 11 Z ..** H 1.11 0 1 **** I fi)CD I-1 Ja H !jk 7.-- xi 1-,--i£-1 7 ... 7.: 33%.1111D..0 5 ..* 0 1-1.0 3 -- (.4 0 43 D -_. o E i• i - — .7. -I 1-4 '-. ' •,,,,i 4: r., •,,,L,\-▪. c .4 z rn-4 '' -0 ........ - 73 fu 0 Tu —.. Z Ili I ill Ri . i WC XW . • -i 1 H .1:1 ui =._. 0 in n1 0 Cr E 4:I - 1 "-:— n . -I -1 7:--• z m z 1- III -40 . 01- - Tfil- T1113‘ 0 0 I . .. . . ._ •. , . 1 -... • .... 0 .'•5‘. . I AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING °�` CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping Better Community I, Patricia L. Lunsforc4 being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City ofTigarWashington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(s)Below) ❑x NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: HOP2002-00010/MOOS SALON HOME OCCUPATION D AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A",and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B",and by reference made a part hereof, on March 26,2002,and deposited in the United States Mail on March 26,2002,postage prepaid. Ottef/.71__ (Person th repared otic STATE OF ocGoN ) County of Washington )ss. City of zgard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3 s day of , 2002. s:.' OFFICIAL SEAL• ---=‘—' ': DIANE M JELDERKS *" ,1" NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON �/ i ;�/ 1 ' ' COMMISSION NO.326578 _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 I 1 I 1 ' MY Commission Emir.rr. ©O$ Fo3CTIP NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (HOP) 2002-00010CI OF TIGARD MOOS HOME OCCUPATION Community Development Shaping f Better Community DBA: MOOS SALON 120 DAYS = 6/13/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: MOOS HOME OCCUPATION FILE NO.: Home Occupation Permit (HOP) HOP2002-00010 APPLICANT: Sopaul Moos OWNER: Steven & Sopaul Moos 13783 SW Benchview Terrace 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9 AM to 5 PM Tuesday through Saturday. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-7; Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 (PD): Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. The PD overlay permits some flexibility to the underlying development standards. LOCATION: The subject site is located at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 25104CD, Tax Lot 4300. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 1 OF 10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED,THE STAFF CONTACT SHALL BE MORGAN TRACY IN THE PLANNING DIVISION AT(503) 639-41.71. 1. The applicant shall certify that the areas used for the home occupation business will be limited to that shown on the revised site plan. 2. The applicant/owner shall consult with the Building Department to determine what modifications will be needed to ensure that the proposed use will comply with State Building Codes, including ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. The business shall not be in operation until either the Building Department acknowledges that no modifications are required, or until final building inspection approval has been issued. 3. The applicant/owner shall receive proper certification from the Health Licensing Office of the State of Oregon Department of Cosmetology prior to operating the business. Copies of the certification shall be submitted to the City prior to operation of the business. 4. All Home Occupation standards discussed in this decision and detailed in the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.742 must be complied with at all times. 5. The applicant/owner shall direct any customers who visit the site to park in the driveway and not utilize on street parking. 6. There shall be no signs, or employees for the Home Occupation, without reapplication through the Type II Home Occupation process. SECTION III. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The City mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site providing them an opportunity to comment.. The City received a large number of responses, including several phone calls and twenty-eight letters in opposition to the proposed salon. The issues raised during the comment period include: 1. Additional traffic/dangerous existing street condition. a. 3 bus stops on one side of street require children to cross street. Incline, limited visibility make it difficult to see kids crossing. b. 3,000 vehicles per day, average speed 35 mph (25 speed limit). c. Minimal lighting, and no crosswalks d. Grade is 8% and increases to 13-15% downhill. RESPONSE: The street is designated as a neighborhood route in the City's Transportation System Plan. The addition of up to 12 trips per day (6 customers travelling to and from the site) will not result in failing levels of service, nor is seen as a significant increase (0.4%) in vehicle trips. The majority of the concerns related to traffic are of a general nature and apply to any driver utilizing the street and have no specific bearing on the proposed Home Occupation business. It would additionally be inappropriate to restrict traffic below the level allowed in the ordinance. 2. Fire danger. a. Salon uses flammables (hair sprays, peroxides, dyes) and prolonged use of appliances (dryers, curling irons, etc.) b. Proximity of greenway, difficulty of fire suppression. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 2 OF 10 RESPONSE: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was contacted regarding the proposed Home Occupation and concludes that the business does not create a fire hazard that is more significant than a typical home use, see Agency Comments later in this report. Several neighbors commented that the TVFR had responded with emergency vehicles three times to this address in February and December. These responses were triggered by the automated fire alarm system in the house and the new owner's unfamiliarity with the system. There have been no other reported responses since the initial three calls. There is an undeveloped greenway between homes on Benchview Terrace and Hillshire Drive that has caused several neighbors to worry about fire spreading from the subject site to their homes. As TVFR has determined that the proposed hair salon use is not at increased risk for fire, the probability of fire spreading from this site is equal to the probability of fire spreading to this site. 3. Vehicle traffic pollution, noise pollution, litter, general noise, odors, excessive parked cars will impair livability of nearby homes. RESPONSE: Customers are required to park in the driveway, so there should be no impact to the available on street parking. Noise must be kept to a minimum and be in compliance with the noise limits set forth in the Tigard Municipal Code. Additionally, this type of business is not normally associated with noise producing activities above and beyond what is typically associated with a single-family residence. Similarly, odors are not expected to be beyond what is normally associated with a single-family dwelling. If code limits were exceeded, the owner would be required to comply or be cited into court. The City cannot restrict the use for possible violations that have not occurred. It is the owner's responsibility to abide by the law or else risk citation. 4. Defies the purpose of the ordinance to allow"small scale business ventures which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters." There are specific salon spaces that are available for small start up ventures. RESPONSE: While it has been noted that the applicant has had an established business practice, the limitations imposed by the home occupation rules de facto cause the business to be a small scale venture. Most professional salons service many more than 6 clients per day, and most employ more than one stylist. If the proposed use exceeds these limitations, then the use will have to relocate to commercial space. However, as proposed, the use does not violate the purpose of the Home Occupation provisions. 5. Use is not allowed in R-7 zone per use table. Classified as "Personal Service" use. RESPONSE: The proposed use is classified as a "Home Occupation"which is listed as a restricted use in the R-7 zone, subject to the requirements of the Home Occupation ordinance. While the use is of a personal service nature, the home occupation rules allow a wide range of services and sales, with the specific exception of"auto-body repair and painting", "on-going mechanical repair conducted outside of an entirely enclosed building", "junk and salvage operations", and "storage or sale of fireworks". Other personal service uses that are typical Type II home occupations include piano teaching, acupuncture, massage, and counseling. 6. This type of business requires a steady flow of customers visiting the site versus the typical home business where the proprietor visits the clients. RESPONSE: The home occupation rules limit the number of customers to six per day. There is a distinction between Type I and Type II home occupations. Type I home occupations involve no employees or customers coming to the site, and are much more limited in scale. These home based businesses are granted permits "over the counter." Type II Home Occupations, because they allow for up to one employee and six customers per day, are thereby more conspicuous, HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 3 OF 10 require a more thorough review. While the proposed use is different than home "office" type businesses with no on-site clients, it is similar in nature to the other personal service uses listed above where clients come to the site. 7. No impact study was included. RESPONSE: The fact that no impact study was included with the application, as mandated by 18.390, was an oversight. The applicant was contacted and informed that an impact study was necessary. The applicant has since fulfilled this requirement. Discussion of the impact study is later in this decision. 8. Security. Lack of adequate police patrols, no fences. Strangers (clients) make monitoring the situation more difficult. RESPONSE: The clients are only permitted to visit the site between 9 AM and 5 PM and will park on the driveway. Any suspicious activity should be reported to the Tigard City Police Department as with any suspicious activity around any home. 9. Signage will detract from the character of the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The Home Occupation rules allow for a sign up to 1.5 square feet, which must be either attached to the structure or placed in a window. The applicant has stated that no sign will be used. 10. Size of rooms and related spaces exceeds 528 s.f. and there are no walls designating the 528 s.f. limits of the business space. RESPONSE: The code specifies that"the home occupation and associated storage of materials and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the combined residence and accessory structure gross floor area, but in no case shall the portion of the home occupation occupying the accessory use exceed 528 feet." This is discussed in greater detail in Section IV. 11. Additional Department of Cosmetology requirements: a. separation from residence with solid walls. b. Separate basin sinks for hair washing c. Different disposal methods for hazardous materials RESPONSE: These are requirements of the State Board of Cosmetology and are enforced by the Health Licensing Office (HLO) division. An annual inspection is performed by the HLO to ensure compliance with these standards. Staff contacted the HLO to discuss these concerns, nevertheless, to ensure that it is at least feasible to have a home based salon. The downstairs areas shown in the applicants site plan have doors that can be closed to separate the business from the residence. Whether the clients can walk from a segregated area (the salon) through an unsegregated area (the hallway) to get to another segregated area (the bathroom) is a question for the HLO to decide. The HLO did note that standard disposal of cosmetic supplies into trashcans for general pick up was acceptable. 12. Separate entry required by state cosmetology dept. a. forces users to go down "unsafe" stairs, no handrail, steep, and unlit. b. Clients must go around 3/4 of house exterior, 5 feet from neighbors house, to reach separate entrance. c. Entrance is a sliding door (is this code legal?) HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 4 OF 10 REPONSE: The separate entry is a requirement of the State Board of Cosmetology, however, in this instance the separate entry will dictate that the clients must use a stairway that may not meet Building Code standards. Staff contacted the Health Licensing Office, who administers the Board of Cosmetology rules to see if there was an exception process to this rule. There is not. The City ensures compliance with the building code. As a result of this discovery, the applicant has modified the proposed location of the business space to the entry-level floor where clients will enter through the garage and proceed to the study. While this may satisfy some issues with the building code, it may create problems for the Board of Cosmetology. To ensure that the proposed use is in compliance, the applicant will be required to provide documentation from the building division and from the Board of Cosmetology. 13. Multiple Building Code issues related to existing structure. RESPONSE: The building codes are administered by the City of Tigard. To fully address the concerns that were expressed, staff will require the applicant to consult with the building department, and make modifications as necessary to bring the use into compliance with State Building Codes. Any modifications must be complete and approved prior to operating the business. 14. Impacts to sewer system from chemical dumping RESPONSE: There is no evidence that significant amounts of chemicals related to the business will be dumped in the sewer. Nevertheless, the types of chemicals associated with a hair cutting business will not adversely impact the capacity or capability of the sewer system. 15. Salon is not defined as to the extent of the business, types of services, etc. RESPONSE: So long as the services provided do not violate local, state, or federal law, are not one of the four prohibited uses for Home Occupations, and meet the criteria discussed below, then the exact type of salon is irrelevant. However, the applicant was asked to provide clarification to assist the City in accurately identifying the types of home based businesses in the city. The applicant has stated that she will be cutting hair. In general, many of the concerns expressed were speculative in nature. The code specifies criteria and limitations on the Home Occupation use which have been determined to mitigate or prevent external impacts normally expected from home based businesses. There are other code provisions (both from the development code and the municipal code) that speak to continued compliance with environmental performance standards (noise, vibrations, and odors), parking, and garbage. The City cannot deny a proposal that meets the requirements of its codes on the basis that the proposed use may not meet other code requirements in the future, or that the possibility exists, in certain circumstances, that a violation will occur. The decision that is issued as part of this review is a determination that the proposal, as proposed, does not violate the City's development code. If subsequent violations are found to exist, the city may revoke the Home Occupation license, and the applicant must wait one year before reapplying for a new license. It should also be noted that the granting of a Home Occupation Permit only authorizes that the use may occur. It does not preclude the applicant from complying with all other relevant local, state, and federal requirements. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 5 OF 10 In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has submitted an impact study. Sanitary Sewer: The applicant states that there will be no impact to the sewer system, as the home is already connected to adequate sewer. Water Supply: The applicant indicates that cutting hair will not have an impact on the water supply. Storm Drainage: The applicant notes that proper storm drainage has already been established and will not be changed. Schools: The applicant states that"because what I plan to do is so low key and inobtrusive [sic], it will be just as if I were living in my home and having a friend over. There will be no impact on the area's schools." Power-Telephone-Cable TV: Private utilities are existing and adequate to serve the proposed use. Parks: There are no parks near the site. Therefore there is no impact expected to parks. Noise Impacts: The applicant notes that there will be only one car at the house at a time, therefore limiting noise from cars. The hair cutting will occur inside so there will be no noise associated with the salon. Transportation: The applicant states that "since only one car at a time will be at my house, there will be no impact on transportation." Staff finds that since this is an existing developed parcel with public facilities that meet City standards, there are no impacts that require mitigation. The addition of up to 12 trips per day is an insignificant increase to the total capacity of SW Benchview, a fully improved street. The development is served by public water. Sewer service is present and no improvements are necessary. There is an approved public storm drain system, and the proposed use will have no effect on this system, as the use proposes no additional impervious area. Schools are not impacted as the use does not contribute to the enrollment demand. Parks, like schools are unaffected by the presence of this use. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Section 18.742.040 states that all home occupations except those that have proven non- conforming status, shall observe the following criteria in addition to the standards established for Type I and Type II uses described in 18.742.050: Home occupations may be undertaken only by the principal occupant(s) of a residential property; The proposed Home Occupation is being undertaken by the property owner who is a principal occupant of the property. There shall be no more than three deliveries per week to the residence by suppliers; The applicant has indicated there will be no delivery of products or supplies to the residence. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 6 OF 10 There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line resulting from the operation. Home occupations shall observe the provisions of the Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) Chapter 18.090, Environmental Performance Standards; No offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, etc. are anticipated based on the proposed Home Occupation business since it will be conducted indoors and involves no manufacturing or assembly. The home occupation shall be operated entirely within the dwelling unit and a conforming accessory structure. The total area which may be used in the accessory building for either material product storage and/or the business activity shall not exceed 528 square feet. Otherwise, the home occupation and associated storage of materials and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the combined residence and accessory structure gross floor area, but in no case shall the portion of the home occupation occupying the accessory use exceed 528 square feet. The indoor storage of materials or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the building,fire, health and housing codes; Twenty-five percent of the home size is 1,950 square feet; however, the maximum area the code allows is 528 square feet to be used for a home occupation. The applicant has proposed to use approximately 500 square feet of the 7,800 square foot residence for the home occupation. Based on comments and concerns received from neighbors, Staff performed a site inspection on March 8, 2002 to verify the size of the proposed business space. Upon closer inspection of the building permit records, staff noted that the other areas accessory to the home occupation pushed the total square footage to approximately 770 square feet. The applicant's original location for the salon was downstairs and would not satisfy ADA requirements. Because of these two issues, the applicant has proposed to locate the salon space upstairs. On March 20, 2002 staff again visited the site to verify the size of room proposed for the use. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the size and location of the rooms to be used for the business. These areas total 285 square feet. The applicant will need to certify that the revised areas shown will be the only areas used for the home occupation business. FINDING: The size limitations for Home Occupations are satisfied as shown on the revised site plan. CONDITION: The applicant shall certify that the areas used for the home occupation business will be limited to that shown on the revised site plan. A home occupation shall not make necessary a change in the Uniform Building Code use classification of a dwelling unit. Any accessory building that is used must meet Uniform Building Code requirements and be in conformance with TCDC Chapter 18.144 of this title; No changes to the dwelling are proposed which would reclassify the occupancy type of the structure. One letter received during the comment period specifically questions a number of building code issues. To ensure that building codes are satisfied, the applicant shall consult with the Building Department to determine what modifications will be needed to ensure that the proposed use will comply with State Building Codes, including ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. The business shall not be in operation until either the Building Department acknowledges that no modifications are required, or until final building inspection approval has been issued. More than one (1) business activity constituting two or more home occupations shall be allowed on one property, only if the combined floor space of the business activities does not exceed 25 percent of the combined gross floor area of the residence and accessory structure. Each home occupation shall apply for a separate home occupation permit. NOTE: The Tigard Business Tax HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 7 OF 10 requires payment for only one (1) Business Tax if the same owner is operating more than one approved business at the same location. Although payment for each separate business is not required, it is required that all names of the businesses' which are currently in operation at that location be specifically listed on the Business Tax Certificate and be visibly posted at the business location. There are no other Home Occupations approved for this site, therefore, this criterion does not apply. There shall be no storage and/or distribution of toxic or flammable materials, and spray painting or spray finishing operations that involve toxic or flammable material which in the judgment of the Fire Marshall pose a dangerous risk to the residence, its occupants, and/or surrounding properties. Those individuals which are engaged in home occupations shall make available to the Fire Marshal, for review, the Material Safety Data Sheets which pertain to all potentially toxic and/or flammable materials associated with the use; No storage or distribution of toxic or flammable materials is necessary for the proposed use, and the Fire Marshall has indicated that the materials in use for this proposed salon do not pose a dangerous risk to the residence, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. No home occupation shall require any on or off-street parking other than that normally required for a residence; The applicant has stated in her impact statement that clients will park in the driveway. This will be required as a condition of approval to ensure that on street parking is not detrimentally affected. FINDING: On-street parking will be affected by the addition of client's visits if no limitations are imposed. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall direct any customers who visit the site to park in the driveway and not utilize on-street parking. The following uses are not allowed as home occupations: (a) Auto-body repair and painting. (b) Ongoing mechanical repair conducted outside of an entirely enclosed building. (c) Junk and salvage operations. (d) Storage and/or sale of fireworks. The proposed Home Occupation does not involve any of the above uses, and will be a hair salon use only, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. There shall be no exterior storage of vehicles of any kind used for the business except one commercially licensed vehicle of not more than three-quarters ton GVW which may be parked outside of a structure or screened area; No exterior storage of vehicles is proposed or anticipated, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. There shall be no storage of materials, goods, and equipment unless screened entirely from view by a solid fence. Storage shall not exceed five (5) percent of the total lot area and shall not occur within the front yard or the required side yard setback; No outdoor storage of materials, goods or equipment is proposed or anticipated, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 8 OF 10 • In addition to the general approval criteria, Type-II home occupations allow the following according to the TDC chapter 18.142.050: (a) One non-illuminated sign, not exceeding 1.5 square feet, which shall be attached to the residence or accessory structure or placed in a window; (b) No more than one outside volunteer or employee who is not a principal resident of the premises; (c) No more than six daily customers or clients. Customers and clients may not visit the business between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. and shall not generate excessive traffic or monopolize on-street parking; (d) Storage of materials, goods, and equipment which is screened entirely from view by a solid fence. Storage shall not exceed five (5) percent of the total lot area and shall not occur within the front yard or the required side yard setback. The applicant has indicated that there will be no signage. There will be no outside employees related to the Home Occupation business. The applicant has indicated that there will be up to, but not more than six customers visiting the site per day. The hours of operation for the business will be between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday. Parking will occur in the driveway. As previously stated, no storage of materials is proposed or anticipated. Therefore these standards are met. SECTION V. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 26, 2002 AND EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 10, 2002 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 9 OF 10 • THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON APRIL 9, 2002. I Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. March 26, 2002 PREPARE BY: Morga racy DATE _...__ Associate Planner March 26, 2002 APPROVED BY: Richard H. Bewers'ao' DATE Planning Manager i:\curpin\morgan\workspace\hopii\hop2002-00010(moos)\hop2002-00010 staff report.doc HOP2002-00010/TYPE II MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 10 OF 10 ��� ' /6777 Q ' • CITY of TIGARD �J � �a.„ • o O � . Z GE00 RAPHIO INFORMATION SYSTEM ' ' DI VICINITY MAP ♦ ♦ * 1111111 • ♦ ♦ �WW Wg #141 ��ai' SIN ♦ 11■■ JOINaWarANIIRHIIIIiii H0P2002-000 i o 4* /* volit&Fpl MOOS SALON AV../Allitalgri" *i wok ( WrillIPI/dIFY0Pr ,PO 0- lik. sA,, ,,.. IliwI 4 „,I A: iumBENC SW HVIEW s_-4, . ,.0, \4 00 4.11,114* a .44''' •4 o.,„,-„„ 7„,,,,,,.A ,.,.RD ...... t. vk.,7 . EhR • a* we(.. 1 A,,,„r4 t, u`... - tr7lEToE°** .J%� F �' �>a'"DR AV� I g' ��� ** (fAc'41.1147 4 .1 OODSKI LIA auu ..- ¢ m y Rom RD 61111 II „,,,i visai— IF Tigard Area MaH&#rarNua�.: o�rK..n :RP., woo na , •1417..V11111 NHILLSHIRE DRmikikk . p111111 1 N lit * 1111111111111111111/* , N1f;H TOR DR Iry . , 0 200 400 600 Feet Q 1 402 feet IFP4II y VIbir EW PIN ,. ` 111616T' ■ EGA f --- W /_[ -j . G� 111 ■■ ■ M City of Tigard `' ALPINE VIE , HOODVISTA LN Information on this map is for general location only end 11111 th-__ should be verified with the Devalo moot Services Divisionc. j . � sotos � 13125 SW Hall Blvd 1 L AHT ALP ► r r Tigard,OR 97223 �,�a (503)639-4171 i '_____. r� Q4 C http://www.cltigarctor.us Community Development Plot date:Feb 14,2002;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR EXHIF 1 3 Sopaul & Steven Moos HOP2002-00010 13783 SW Benchview Terrace MOOS SALON Tigard, OR 97223 Douglas B. Hollis Dennis & Elizabeth Peddicord PO Box 2441 13696 SW White Cedar Place Manhattan Beach, CA 90267-2441 Tigard, OR 97223 Carol Loop Rick & Dee-J Putzier 13714 SW Hillshire Drive 13799 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Mike & Suzanne Benner Andy & Terry Rood 13748 SW Tanoak Ct. 13779 SW Hillshire Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Russell & Helen Case Michael & Claudia Rosa 13768 SW Benchview Terrace 13707 SW White Cedar Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Steve & Nancy Everton Charles & Suzanne Royse 13737 SW Benchview Terrace 13596 SW Mint Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Scott & Cecelia Granger Michael & Neeltje Satterlee 13641 SW Benchview Terrace 13851 SW Mistletoe Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Lesley & Joseph B. Harrison, Jr. Larry & Barbara Simonsmeier 13621 SW White Cedar Place 13721 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Richard Inukai Larry & Susan Trachi 13923 SW Mistletoe Drive 13930 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Dale & Dona McNeil Ralph & Coralie Van Horn 13957 SW Mistletoe Drive 13632 SW White Cedar Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive,#4 Tigard, OR 97224 Craig Smelter PO Box 1467 Tualatin, OR 97062 Harold and Ruth Howland 13145 SW Benish Tigard, OR 97223 Kevin Hogan 14357 SW 133rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 Jon Sirrine 12761 SW 133rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Judith Anderson 16640 SW Jordan Way King City, OR 97224 Beverly Froude 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard, OR 97224 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 ITT OF TIGARD-WEST GT SUBCOMMITTEE (pg. I of I) (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT West.doc) UPDATED: December 27, 2001 Candace & Richard White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Bradford & Shirley Wild 13555 SW Brim Place Tigard, OR 97223-5667 Gregory & Karen Aube 13843 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 2S104CD-11200 EXrnr 3 2S 104CD-02700 ALLEN GARY W&SUSAN J CASTAGNA ROBERT J&SUSAN A 13849 SW MISTLETOE DR 13612 SW HILLSHIRE DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-07200 2S 104CD-10200 ALLERS MARK&JENNIFER CERBONE ROBERT 13533 SW BRIM PL 13611 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-04600 2S104CD-03800 AUBE GREGORY R&KAREN H CHAU LEN T& 13043 SW BENCHVIEW TER NGUYEN KIEU-SUONG TIGARD,OR 97223 13663 SW BENCHVIEW TER TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01100 2S104CD-09600 BALDWIN RICK J&PATTI A CHELF WILLIAM E JR& 13817 SW BOXELDER ST TRACI A TIGARD,OR 97223 13730 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-03900 2S109BA-05200 BARNES DAVID M&LYDIA J CHEN CHI-CHAO&CHARLEEN S 13705 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13789 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-07900 2S 104CD-01600 BENNER MICHAEL&SUZANNE J CHESNEY JOSEPH L&LINDA M 13748 SW TANOAK CT 13995 MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-02300 2S 104CD-06100 BLANCHARD GEORGE 0 CLEVELAND DAVE& 13698 SW HILLSHIRE DR MOLLIE TIGARD,OR 97223 13639 SW WHITE CEDAR CT TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-00400 2S 104CD-09700 BLANKENMEISTER PAUL B& COLLINS RICK 0 TRUST& MUELLER SHELLEY COLLINS JEAN E TRUST 13645 SW BLUE GUM CT 13718 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02400 2S104CD-07000 BULL DANIEL E&JILL L COOK ROBERT FRANK&TERESE JUST 13680 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13577 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-06800 2S 104CD-06600 CASE G RUSSELL&HELEN R TRS COPE HAROLD F&JUDITH A 13768 SW BENCHVIEW TER 13674 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-09000 2S 104CD-03000 CROXFORD JUDY LYNN GRIFFITH WILLIAM ROBERT& 13531 SW MINT PL CHERYL L TIGARD,OR 97223 13564 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-04700 2S 104CD-06200 DARBY JOHN RICHARD HARRISON JOSEPH B JR&LESLEY A 13867 SW BENCHVIEW TER 13621 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02500 2S104C0-01800 DIXON DANIEL E&DEBRA A HERLAMBANG HIRO/MIKA Y& 13654 SW HILLSHIRE DR DEWI SINTA TIGARD,OR 97223 13796 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09201 2S104CD-01900 EDDY BONNIE D HOLLIS DOUGLAS B 13574 SW MINT PL 13784 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-07600 2S 104CD-00800 ESSIEH MATTHEW S&EMMANUELLA E HOOD RICHARD L&LINDA L 13564 SW BRIM PL 13623 SW HILLSHIRE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-04100 2S 104CD-02900 EVERTON STEVEN&NANCY HOWELL JOHN T&JOYCE R 13737 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13578 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-08000 2S 104CD-04800 FARMER A B&BETTE JEAN TRS INUKAI RICHARD M 13725 SW TANOAK CT 13923 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01300 2S104CD-08900 GRAHAM TIMOTHY S KEMP KAREN A&CARL W 13755 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13549 SW MINT PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-03700 2S 104CD-10000 GRANGER SCOTT C&CECEILIA Y LAFORTUNE MARIO A 13641 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 13652 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-06000 2S 104CD-11400 GREENE RALPH E JR& LL&F INVESTMENT CO YEMOTO MARJORIE K 13930 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 13663 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-03100 2S104CD-06900 LOOMIS MARK M&DIANA L NYBERG CLEVE F&DEBRA A 13542 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13599 SW BRIM PLACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02200 2S104CD-04300 LOOP CURTIS A AND CAROL M O'NEAL JERMAINE 13714 SW HILLSHIRE DR C/O CSI CAPITOL MANAGEMENT TIGARD,OR 97223 445 BUSH ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94108 2S 104CD-01500 2S 104CD-08800 MARTZ GRACE TR OLSEN GORDON A&RHONDA 13781 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13567 SW MINT PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-00500 2S 104CD-02800 MCFALL TIMOTHY G&ROBIN L OLSZEWSKI JAMES J 13679 SW BLUE GUM CT 13590 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-10100 2S104CD-06700 MCKINNEY FRANK D&LISA M PEDDICORD DENNIS L&ELIZABETH 13620 SW TRACY PL 13696 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-01700 2S 104CD-09800 MCNEIL DALE E& PLAVIN MARGARET W TRUSTEE DONA DEAN 13706 SW TRACY PL 13957 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09900 2S104CD-04400 MICICH ETHAN&JENNIFER PUTZIER RICHARD A&DONNAJO 13684 SW TRACY PL 13799 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-08700 2S 104CD-11100 MINER MICHAEL S& RAMEY JEFFERY C TR& SCHLICK KRISTINE K RAMEY KATHLEEN M 13853 SW BOXELDER ST 13817 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00900 2S104CD-00600 NEWBURY RONALD D&JONI A REID STEVEN W&LISA R 13649 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13652 SW BLUE GUM CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-05900 2S104CD-01400 NICKOLICH THEODORE R&NAOMI R ROOD ANDY L 13685 SW WHITE CEDAR PL 13779 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-05800 2S104CD-00300 ROSA MICHAEL K&CLAUDIA A TORGESON KEVIN K&DEBRA R 13707 SW WHITE CEDAR CT 13559 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104C0-09300 2S 104CD-02000 ROYSE CHARLES P&SUZANNE M TOSONI MARCO E& 13596 SW MINT PL BRIENZA ANN MARIE TIGARD,OR 97223 13762 SW HILLSHIRE DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S104CD-05700 2S104CD-11300 SATTERLEE MICHAEL J AND TRACHI LARRY A&SUSAN J CO-TRS NEELTJE W 13930 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13851 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-04000 2S104CD-06400 SIMONSMEIER BARBARA L& VANHORN RALPH&CORALIE LARRY M 13632 SW WHITE CEDAR PL 13721 SW BENCHVIEW TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09400 2S104CD-09100 SMITH BRYAN F VANLANINGHAM DIANE MARIE PO BOX 2315 13552 SW MINT PL LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-01200 2S 104CD-06500 SMITH MICHAEL WAYNE&KATHERINE WAUGH BERT E JR&SUSAN B 13820 SW BOXELDER ST 13658 SW WHITE CEDAR CT PORTLAND,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01000 2S104CD-04200 SPENCER HARRY&ANN MARIE WHITE LAURENCE E&KARLA K 13675 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13759 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00700 2S104CD-04500 STAHL FRANCES& WHITE RICHARD L& HAYES SUSAN E CANDACE J 13591 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13999 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-06300 2S104CD-07100 SWEARINGEN VERNON R& WILD BRADFORD W&SHIRLEY E BETTY L 13555 SW BRIM PL 13620 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-02600 2S 104CD-00201 SWENSEN KURT S AND BARBARA K WINCH BRADFORD S&KELLY R 13636 SW HILLSHIRE DRIVE 13553 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-08100 WOODEN GARY R&CAROLE 13602 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104C D-07800 WRIGHT ROBERT G 13580 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104C D-07700 WRIGHT ROBERT GALEN 13580 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02100 ZENNER TODD A&CHERYL A 13740 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 " SOPAUL MOOS 13783 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 40 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGCITY OFTIGARD Community rDevetopment S6iapingA Better Community I, Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of�Irgard, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropnate Box(s)Below) El NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION FOR: HOP2002-000 1 0/MOOS SALON ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked EXhIbiL"A",and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on February 14,2002,and deposited in the United States Mail on February 14,2002, postage prepaid. j.4.::z.„' ay'41110' 7 111Po U �r (Person th. Prepared N. ce) STATE OP oGoN ) County of Washington )ss. City ofTigard" ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 044—day of (1/4 1rC , 2002. .`` OFFICIAL SEAL „, --,Ifs DIANE UA JELDERKS .'``.:' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.326578 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 L tt4lL- O., / ,LL My Commission En es: 40 EXHJr :r NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. NOTICE OF PENDING LANDUSE APPLICATION /trA HOME OCCUPATION PERMITCITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping Better Community DATE OF NOTICE: February 14, 2002 FILE NUMBER: HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (HOP) 2002-00010 FILE NAME: MOOS SALON PROPOSAL The applicant requests approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six (6) clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9AM to 5PM, Tuesday through Saturday. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. LOCATION: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (14) day period to submit written comments on the application to the City. THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS AT 5:00 PM ON FEBRUARY 28. 2002. All comments should be directed to MORGAN TRACY in the Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach the City of Tigard by telephone at (503) 639-4171. ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT. COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 19, 2002. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED. WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: • Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria believed to be applicable to this proposal; • Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to provide a response; • Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue. Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence. AFTER THE 14-DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: • The application is accepted by the City. • Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing a 14-day written comment period. • The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies. • City Staff issues a written decision. • Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site; all owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled to such notice. INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision are contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community Development Department. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current rate charged for this service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff indicated on the first page of this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments." ft7 17/E:./ r Y- ,+F� Ci TV o/TI CPRO 11 If'[_owl . -, , VICINITY MAP `� 4/0--...,,--77440,„,,_1—' I. ; H0P2002-00010 /.----7't ■°. �-';. ---,- + �` iv ', f MOOS SALON A b ti' ' e. ) „„. \---. N litit , ' , izz:\ 7.20.- : X%, \ \ L..- I 1 \ �, � d : � r �Msr�Er 1n,�c�_ 1 --' } �'� a =;r, yo-,,' y s . m ¢y . I H E DRIr f 1 I, 4 i4 11 ki -; N j I11 ) g464 , II . � : - n. a. I Coy of Tigard � III + , v... 11 1 vs.w.-� - ..�...... ,-.--- al_____ .., ,,,e; EXHIBIT" B 2S104CD-11200 2S104CD-02700 ALLEN GARY W&SUSAN J CASTAGNA ROBERT J&SUSAN A 13849 SW MISTLETOE DR 13612 SW HILLSHIRE DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-07200 2S104CD-10200 ALLERS MARK&JENNIFER CERBONE ROBERT 13533 SW BRIM PL 13611 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-04600 2S104CD-03800 AUBE GREGORY R&KAREN H CHAU LEN T& 13043 SW BENCHVIEW TER NGUYEN KIEU-SUONG TIGARD,OR 97223 13663 SW BENCHVIEW TER TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01100 2S104CD-09600 BALDWIN RICK J&PATE"A CHELF WILLIAM E JR& 13817 SW BOXELDER ST TRACI A TIGARD,OR 97223 13730 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-03900 2S109BA-05200 BARNES DAVID M&LYDIA J CHEN CHI-CHAO&CHARLEEN S 13705 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13789 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-07900 2S 104C0-01600 BENNER MICHAEL&SUZANNE J CHESNEY JOSEPH L&LINDA M 13748 SW TANOAK CT 13995 MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 104CD-02300 2S 104CD-06100 BLANCHARD GEORGE 0 CLEVELAND DAVE& 13698 SW HILLSHIRE DR MOLLIE TIGARD,OR 97223 13639 SW WHITE CEDAR CT TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00400 2S104CD-09700 BLANKENMEISTER PAUL B& COLLINS RICK 0 TRUST& MUELLER SHELLEY COLLINS JEAN E TRUST 13645 SW BLUE GUM CT 13718 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02400 2S104C0-07000 BULL DANIEL E&JILL L COOK ROBERT FRANK&TERESE JUST 13680 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13577 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S104CD-06800 2S104C0-06600 CASE G RUSSELL&HELEN R TRS COPE HAROLD F&JUDITH A 13768 SW BENCHVIEW TER 13674 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09000 2S104CD-03000 CROXFORD JUDY LYNN GRIFFITH WILLIAM ROBERT& 13531 SW MINT PL CHERYL L TIGARD,OR 97223 13564 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-04700 2S104CD-06200 DARBY JOHN RICHARD HARRISON JOSEPH B JR&LESLEY A 13867 SW BENCHVIEW TER 13621 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02500 2S104CD-01800 DIXON DANIEL E&DEBRA A HERLAMBANG HIRO/MIKA Y& 13654 SW HILLSHIRE DR DEW!SINTA TIGARD,OR 97223 13796 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09201 2S104CD-01900 EDDY BONNIE D HOLLIS DOUGLAS B 13574 SW MINT PL 13784 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104C0-07600 2S104CD-00800 ESSIEH MATTHEW S&EMMANUELLA E HOOD RICHARD L&LINDA L 13564 SW BRIM PL 13623 SW HILLSHIRE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-04100 2S104CD-02900 EVERTON STEVEN&NANCY HOWELL JOHN T&JOYCE R 13737 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13578 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-08000 2S104CD-04800 FARMER A B&BETTE JEAN TRS INUKAI RICHARD M 13725 SW TANOAK CT 13923 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01300 2S104CD-08900 GRAHAM TIMOTHY S KEMP KAREN A&CARL W 13755 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13549 SW MINT PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-03700 2S104C0-10000 GRANGER SCOTT C&CECEILIA Y LAFORTUNE MARIO A 13641 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 13652 SW TRACY PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-06000 2S104CD-11400 GREENE RALPH E JR& LL&F INVESTMENT CO YEMOTO MARJORIE K 13930 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 13663 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-03100 2S 104CD-06900 LOOMIS MARK M&DIANA L NYBERG CLEVE F&DEBRA A 13542 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13599 SW BRIM PLACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02200 2S104CD-04300 LOOP CURTIS A AND CAROL M O'NEAL JERMAINE 13714 SW HILLSHIRE DR C/O CSI CAPITOL MANAGEMENT TIGARD,OR 97223 445 BUSH ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94108 2S104CD-01500 2S104CD-08800 MARTZ GRACE TR OLSEN GORDON A&RHONDA 13781 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13567 SW MINT PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00500 2S104CD-02800 MCFALL TIMOTHY G&ROBIN L OLSZEWSKI JAMES J 13679 SW BLUE GUM CT 13590 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-10100 2S104CD-06700 MCKINNEY FRANK D&LISA M PEDDICORD DENNIS L&ELIZABETH 13620 SW TRACY PL 13696 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01700 2S104CD-09800 MCNEIL DALE E& PLAVIN MARGARET W TRUSTEE DONA DEAN 13706 SW TRACY PL 13957 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09900 2S104CD-04400 MICICH ETHAN&JENNIFER PUTZIER RICHARD A&DONNAJO 13684 SW TRACY PL 13799 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104C0-08700 2S104CD-11100 MINER MICHAEL S& RAMEY JEFFERY C TR& SCHLICK KRISTINE K RAMEY KATHLEEN M 13853 SW BOXELDER ST 13817 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00900 2S104CD-00600 NEWBURY RONALD D&JONI A REID STEVEN W&LISA R 13649 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13652 SW BLUE GUM CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-05900 2S104CD-01400 NICKOLICH THEODORE R&NAOMI R ROOD ANDY L 13685 SW WHITE CEDAR PL 13779 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 • 2S 104CD-05800 2S 104CD-00300 ROSA MICHAEL K&CLAUDIA A TORGESON KEVIN K&DEBRA R 13707 SW WHITE CEDAR CT 13559 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-09300 2S 104CD-02000 ROYSE CHARLES P&SUZANNE M TOSONI MARCO E& 13596 SW MINT PL BRIENZA ANN MARIE TIGARD,OR 97223 13762 SW HILLSHIRE DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 104CD-05700 2S 104CD-11300 SATTERLEE MICHAEL J AND TRACHI LARRY A&SUSAN J CO-TRS NEELTJE W 13930 SW BENCHVIEW TERR 13851 SW MISTLETOE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-04000 2S 104CD-06400 SIMONSMEIER BARBARA L& VANHORN RALPH&CORALIE LARRY M 13632 SW WHITE CEDAR PL 13721 SW BENCHVIEW TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-09400 2S104CD-09100 SMITH BRYAN F VANLANINGHAM DIANE MARIE PO BOX 2315 13552 SW MINT PL LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-01200 2S 104CD-06500 SMITH MICHAEL WAYNE&KATHERINE WAUGH BERT E JR&SUSAN B 13820 SW BOXELDER ST 13658 SW WHITE CEDAR CT PORTLAND,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-01000 2S104CD-04200 SPENCER HARRY&ANN MARIE WHITE LAURENCE E&KARLA K 13675 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13759 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-00700 2S104CD-04500 STAHL FRANCES& WHITE RICHARD L& HAYES SUSAN E CANDACE J 13591 SW HILLSHIRE DR 13999 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 23104CD-06300 2S104CD-07100 SWEARINGEN VERNON R& WILD BRADFORD W&SHIRLEY E BETTY L 13555 SW BRIM PL 13620 SW WHITE CEDAR PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02600 2S104CD-00201 SWENSEN KURT S AND BARBARA K WINCH BRADFORD S&KELLY R 13636 SW HILLSHIRE DRIVE 13553 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-08100 WOODEN GARY R&CAROLE 13602 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 104CD-07800 WRIGHT ROBERT G 13580 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-07700 WRIGHT ROBERT GALEN 13580 SW BRIM PL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S104CD-02100 ZENNER TODD A&CHERYL A 13740 SW HILLSHIRE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 ' SOPAUL MOOS 13783 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 0 � CZI cJ \� cor- > a I- 7 co �- co ç 06 ‘°q,,..".7 0 CO a d1;1 . ' A r4 1) 7—j li c-3 t. sg. '_, ti ..,..i:.:1, . :. �f' �Z—,I1 p200OO t N zmrEr i DOHDNI 1nlnDm • yN 0> 0 �' Xt ZZ -I ' , •- -4 -{ mr 7.0 - 1 A RI D tTN Z zN • -I 'CLU • O 0 0 D .0 U 73.0 Z 0 ZW • CI N •0 p a 00 I • 1 N UM. IT UI . z 1 .' ifAl\N z : 7 / \ CITY of TIGARD \ GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ./ AREA NOTIFIED :eweoaeew nwcaoaoaa mamma xwecwwoo SYrSO imus 11141 nweewm (500') mamma x1wC :. x1Wc1e071$ nlwe�wne v 1 1 nallowetei 214,,0x0 rilwcextw O , / 1 xiNCBeeew �` �# =<,wee� FOR: Sopaul Polly Moos 13 xlwceoww � rn x10{OBeRew. O ( ' n1""nue S nommen � \, xlaeew=xe RE: 1S 104CD, 4300 rilwewex0 mousy= xS ri1wCwlew n10/C0e7000 4 n1wCe0Y0w x101Cwew0 //��` - rilwcwene 'c% t 4q V x/weeenoo xluwse00 nlw0owwe V V ` nxuewlw mamas main= riucoeexe , . Property owner information is valid for 3 months from texeewww 2310{0114201 the date printed on this map. . min moo niwe4:2N �. .. ` x1N0111111eee Ili xwceol5w. riwec4lm S. xweco n4 xxeCW/eN \N,,1 20x{,4234 /''' rileec4noa xewC41e0e G 201we0we4 xwowceaa �� xlwca01e00 x104C00ff00 *• 'AN� �, 04,{44{ • *S n14c4naa 7114,{4x{ "!/ v' xlwexnw (4. ‘<c.\� MAGNUM .� mammon 2$,044114411 10 ..10 410 • monism v N if. 1S1114 8144011 x14{231:4 nwe11eww � 0 100 200 300 Feet "4"1" 1"=203 feet 41, x>,ee114ew mammax101Cwtlw nlSec111e1u 28114011111011 xlwe11o4:ee xxe114stoo City of Tigard Il Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 1A. (503)839-4171 L ( 1 http://www.a.figard.orus Cc,-nmunity Development Plot date:Jan 18,2002;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR CITY OF TIGARD Community IDeve(opment Shaping A Better Community m - ND,USE PREP AL DESC IPTIO 120 DAYS = 6/13/2002 FILE NO.: HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT TYPE II (HOP) 2002-00010 FILE TITLE: MOOS SALON APPLICANT: Sopaul Moos OWNER: Same 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six (6) clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9AM to 5PM, Tuesday through Saturday. LOCATION: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. CIT AREA: West CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: ❑ TYPE I ® TYPE II ❑ TYPE III ❑ TYPE IV DATE COMMENTS WERE SENT: February 14, 2002 DATE COMMENTS ARE DUE: February 28, 2002 ❑HEARINGS OFFICER (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ['PLANNING COMMISSION (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM ❑CITY COUNCIL (TUES.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM ®STAFF DECISION (TENTATIVE) DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 19, 2002 COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION ® VICINITY MAP ❑ LANDSCAPING PLAN ❑ ARBORIST REPORT ® SITE PLAN ❑ ARCHITECTURAL PLAN ❑ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ® NARRATIVE ❑ GEOTECH REPORT ❑ OTHER: STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner (503) 639-4171 Ext. 407 -CITY OF TIGARD RECEIVED PAWNING 4,0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JAN .1 g 2002 x'(° PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD CITY OriGARD Community ping A ty DBetev Community TIGARD, OREGON 91223 PHONE: 503-639-4111 FAX: 503-684-7297(Attn: Patty or Shirley/Planning) IQUI T OR 5.00 'OO�T I 'BP Ur WNf 'E A NG ST Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP & TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e. IS134AB, Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW and INCLUDE A MAP OF ALL LOTS FOR THE PROJECT (preferably assessor's tax map): 3 3 S ' - ( cJ-E V I e_w e R-(2--, 5 1 OL- CD -b'-E-06 c--f)--(a-D D f -H-oic)i(".:7)) INDICATE WHETHER YOU ARE REQUESTIN R 3 SETS OF LABELS: (NOTE: A minimum of 2 sets of labels will be provided to place on your 2 sets of envelopes that applicants are required to submit at the time of application submittal. If a neighborhood meeting is required and you have not yet held that meeting, you should request 3 sets) NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: SjCk 'PoLL7 S PHONE: '5c:2) c6CD> -9sThis request may be mailed, faxed, or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of your request, the contact person will be called to pick up their request in "Will Call" by their last name, at the Community Development Reception Desk. The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be pre-determined. PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE—TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Cost Description: $11 to generate the mailing list, plus $2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then, multiply the cost to print one set of labels by the number of sets requested. *EXAMPLE* * * COST FOR THIS REQUEST * * 4 sheets of labels x$2/sheet = $8.00 x 2 sets = $16.00 3 sheet(s) of labels x$2/sheet = $ x " sets = 2_sheets of labels x$2/sheet for CIT area x 2 sets = $4.00 sheet(s) of labels x$2/sheet for CIT area = x / sets = 4 GENERATE LIST = $11.00 ,L . GENERATE LIST = $It—OL TOTAL = $31.00 TOTAL = $33\` nity service or some other pun- ,,4n4,,,,..0,;' r ing. d with sec- �,,,_' u ,,1% . ,e,4";-,T, first:degree ishment. t ai , "`, "A Tigard school resource However, the system is not "&` �` ° '''' -'''- officer assigned to the middle -ee robbery staff photo by Craig Mitchelldyer of a motor quite through with the wayward school which the suspect for- the ch es juveniles once they complete STRAIGHT AND NARROW —Tigard Police youth services officer Sheryl Huiras wields merly attended followed up on are their sentences. They must par- a lot of influence on the city's teens through Peer Court and a follow-up workshop. the information,"Wolf said. that carry ticipate in a mandatory workshop The officer located the sus- ail sentenc- called"Solutions,"which is held Department in August 1997, a shop on a Saturday. charges for using alcohol, ciga- pect in his home with the gun every three or four months when year after Peer Court started, "I tell them that if they don't rettes or marijuana. and arrested him. cooperative about 20 kids have completed coordinates the program, pre- participate, the session will go The other most common The juvenile, whose name ns in Tigard their sentences. pares the court dockets and inter- three hours," Huiras said. "We crimes that lead to Peer Court was not released, was charged other men The workshop was primarily views kids and their parents. She want them to think about their include assault, curfew violation with unlawful use of a weapon, acts," Wolf developed by Sheryl Huiras, also tracks the Peer Court kids to future and the priorities in their and criminal mischief for damag- possession of a firearm in a suspects' youth services officer with the make sure that they complete life." ing property, according to public building and unlawful lent, Tigard Tigard Police Department, who their sentences. More girls than boys end up in Huiras. possession of a weapon. to request works with officer Rick Peterson Then she and Peterson,who is the Peer Court system, with "The social and economic He is lodged in the Donald astig r;on. in the Peer Court system. a DARE officer as well, lead the shoplifting being the most preva- E.Long juvenile detention cen- asl the Huiras,who joined the Police kids through the two-hour work- lent crime, followed by drug •See PEER COURT, Page A2 ter in Portland. i efforts to 4r' t" 1117-619L Tt t .- I -7-7,44e-5;✓o suspects, ; warrants " " '', ' v w - '* , t 4 . ,, d :he cr•one as ~ z ,. 'If � � '� � � ' 6 a� � � 4 g i � � � i ,uis Manuel Many neighbors in a Bull ate an in-home beauty salon. ing as well,"Putzier said. "T'hey will def- White. ilin") and Mountain subdivision plan to Dee-J Putzier, who lives next door to initely contribute to the appeals process. The permit limits the salon to 528 ent.") Moos, and her next-door neighbor They are standing behind us. There is square feet in the Moos home, with no idered dan- protest the city's approval of the Candace White, filed the appeal Tuesday tremendous opposition to this." more than six clients per day Tuesday iyone iden- enterprise morning. Moos applied in February for a home- through Saturday. No signs can be post- concealing "We're going to do what we have to occupation permit to operate a salon in ed, and no employees can be hired with- us criminal By BARBARA SHERMAN do," White said. "We will fight this. We her home, and more than two dozen out going through the application process Of the Times will get an attorney if we need to. neighbors notified the city of their oppo- again. oration on Putzier added that many of her neigh- sition to the plan. The application originally permitted uerte-Coria TIGARD—Two neighbors of Sopaul bors plan to protest the salon at the According to associate planner clients to walk down 14 outside steps Moos on Benchview Terrace on Bull appealshearing. MorganTracy, approval ed to call upcoming the of the appli- between the Moos and Putzier homes to t 503-684- Mountain are appealing the city's condi- "A number of my neighbors are inter- cation was revised three times in response cross the lower back deck and enter the tional approval of her application to oper- ested in not only appearing but in speak- to concerns brought up by Putzier and ■See SALON, Page A3 .„. , Ibert instills respect for the environment , 71,1::',„r , ► ,, � � � � r ,, mentary steward at the school,also has developed Albert, 43, was nominated for the it's worth it.We need more people in the ,,a salmon release program there.And now honor by another Deer Creek parent wildlife steward program." ' 'r of a chamber ' 4�she has her sights set on clearing a wet- Deanie Bush,who wrote,"I have been so Albert found her calling almost byl lands area behind the school that is over- impressed with her commitment to better- accident. She has a degree in psychology r: ngrown with English ivy and blackberries. ing the lives and education of all the Deer and worked in alcohol treatment pro ;. ,,RMAN In addition, Albert serves on the Creek students. . .I,and many other par- grams for two years before holding sever- ,4 , " "`r Tigard-Tualatin School District's ents,are so appreciative of all she does to al jobs in the business world. 'sr ig through a bird- PlanCom, a committee that spent more make and school and district a better When Daniel was born, she became a titled in a court- than a year formulating recommendations place." stay-at-home mom,although in 1996,she ementary School, for the $86 million bond measure on the Albert and her husband Gary are the went through the Master Gardner pro- ,,f 1 i mixture of non- May ballot that would repair and replace parents of Daniel, a fifth-grader, and gram.After that,she took the training for i April 11, 2002 ■ A3 • F� Salon: The citydid notprotect ourprivacy' r -The Tigard •Continued from Page Al onto the upper deck,walking around the entire permit residents to use their homes for busi- self-defense class far side of the house. At the request of the backside of the house to enter a den. ness ventures that could not be sustained if it IlaY" from 6:30 city, the application was revised so that "This decision not only violates our priva- were necessary to lease commercial quarter. or how to clients would enter the Moos salon through cy, it actually makes it worse for those of us •zThe city code does not protect people in Class instruction the garage and use a room on the main floor. who want privacy, because now her clients a residential zone from being overrun by ow to lessen their The day after the application was will be using an upper deck that is totally "commercial creep" and that the full-time :onfidence and approved,Putzier and White went to City Hall exposed to our yards,"she said. Moos salon is not the small-scale venture 3ht in the class to review the approved site plan. White also disputes the city's calculation of allowed by the code. end abilities.The "Lo and behold, on this site plan, we the square footage that would be used by • The salon operation is "detrimental and sated to the aired, and the noticed that the city actually did not protect clients. The city's figures indicate that the disruptive," conditions that the code is sup- he classes will be our privacy from having the Moos clients clients would use the den and attached bath- posed to prevent. 3urnham Street. entering our back yards," White said. "They room for a total of 285 square feet. ■The appeal also disputes allowing a corn- yl Huiras at the have just redirected their entry" The appeal filed by Putzier and White mercial enterprise in a residential area and According to White, under the revised includes the following points: ignoring safety and other issues. eplan, clients would enter the garage, go ■ The intent of the home-occupation sec- The hearing on the appeal is set for lCity Lions King High through the main floor of the house and out tion of the community development code is to Monday,May 13,at 7 p.m. at City Hall. figardie screenings are Greening Unit I with the Oregon Albert:`These programs are all volunteer-driven and grant funded' at( Tentative d at( visual acu- •Continued from Page Al In the meantime,Albert is the only wildlife The Oregon Department of Fish and ucoma.The steward at Deer Creek. "We're looking for Wildlife contributes 500 eggs each time. "It founded in 1959, in August 2001 awarded the Oregon program a more,"she said. doesn't look like 500 eggs until you try to bs of Oregon. $748,000 grant to develop a national model. "I think it's a wonderful program.I want- catch them to release them,"Albert said. 4 Oregon,the There now are 107 wildlife stewards,who ed to do something in the schools.Volunteers The fingerlings are put into Baggies full of Lions Eyeglasses receive 25 to 30 hours of training, with pro- are so important these days, and so much water and released in specific sites,which the II Hensleigh at grams at 500 schools, primarily in the depends on them.Teachers rely on volunteers kids study. President Bill Portland metropolitan area. The training to come in and help." "We talk about what makes a good release includes native plants, wildlife habitat Another project important to Albert is the site,"Albert said."And we talk about what all 'or J i m Griffith requirements,writing grants,summer mainte- salmon release program, in which volunteers living things need—food,water,shelter and nance, inventory, mapping a site, stages of hatch eggs and release the fingerlings into " n Month at space to raise their young. child development, building a successful rivers.area t citizens have team, student portfolios and preventing van- According to Albert, the Environmental The next 4-H Wildlife Stewards training is do so in a wide dalism. set for May 9, 10 and 11 in Wilsonville, and the physical and Protection Agency donated a$5,000 award to P y "These programs are all volunteer-driven Intel for its environmental efforts, and the participants do not need to be knowledgeable this communi- and grant-funded,"Albert said. "We combine company contributed the funds to Deer Creek on the topics,Albert said. "An interest in sci- ment ofTigard both lecture and hands-on exercises•as well as ence and nature as well as a desire to work as to use for its salmon release program. ions to exist and .,;c;�� f. o t.,•,l 1,n1.:*11. .,.ae.,., Tl,e 4,4-1;•••;...-. Patty Lunsford - Moos Appeal Mailing ' `!"'" ' d el 06/ Page 1 From: Morgan Tracy To: Patty Lunsford Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:27:38 AM Subject: Moos Appeal Mailing Two more folks that had not signed in to testify expressed that they wanted to be mailed a copy of Larry's decision: Russ and Helen Case 13768 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 Vern Swearingen 13620 SW White Cedar Place Tigard, OR 97224 , vili HE TIG 1 ARD TIGARD, OREGON VoL.46 II No.20 75 CENTS Ar Thursday, May 16, 2002 Tigers take 4 Man sews wife's clothes ■ A6 fourth at state t . _ Pint-sized writer nabs award ■ A20 .�Sportsi , } Plays at Fowler and Tigard High ■ B9 - , „, , , _. _ , ,.. :_,,- _,,, ---,,,,,,- _ - :,, --„ -- , ,, -' -, -::. ,:, ,_.„„„,„,..„,...„ ,.,,,,___. „, _,.„.„..,,,,,,, „„,,,,, „,„, _,_ ..* ,' officer to ,a aux F i ` T t. icei � Moos __,___, _ , _ , _ ....., __ _ _ . ._ .„,__-- _ . �onsfate _,, , r „, _ i __ _. _ •___.,„,, Neighbors testify against approval of beauty salon in Bull Mountain neighborhood By BARBARA SHERMAN , Of the Times v TIGARD — People shouldn't book appoint � � N M i ments quite yet at the Moos beauty salon on Bull F Mountain the opening of the salon is in limbo �'� � � pending a decision by city hearings officer Larry kb Epstein. Althoughthe city s gave conditional approval � � . � for a home-occupation permit for the business in �� � late March,two neighbors appealed the decision. v On MondayeveningEpstein presided over a - - ..".,,..4,7:01,,,,k,,,,:,... .,,,?! g tentious two-hour meeting in which people ons _ both sides of the issue complained about each � � � other's conduct. � � tZ.A T4 R� �� -WM Sopaul Moos, who lives with her husband __ Steven at 13783 S.W.Benchview Terrace,applied in February for the permit to operate a salonin her home. .'May 16, 2002 Moos: Neighbors voice I ; concerns, , , a out sa on 111 Continued from Al density residential) zone is lost "I have been out of the loop t 1 by the accessibility of strangers on this. This has been my wife s "" ` " According to associate plan- coming into our yards. I can't issue. My neighbors have been ner Morgan Tracy, the city have a barking dog, but I can the bad neighbors. They haven't received several phone calls and have the eyes of people in the come over or been welcoming. 28 letters opposing the salon,and community in my yard." Why not call us if my child is ons the decision was revised three As a trained architect, White their lawn? Every avenue of % times before it was finally pointed out that he feels the busi- attack is being used against us." approved in response to neigh- 'less does not meet Americans Epstein suggested to they bors'concerns. with Disabilities Act standards, Mooses that they talk to their The conditional approval lim- due to narrow doorways, non- neighbors and gather additional its the salon to 528 square feet in accessible door handles, and a evidence to support the applica- the Moos home, with no more small bathroom that would not tion by contacting a building STRUT: Program earns money than six clients per day Tuesday provide an adequate turning inspector about ADA compliance through Saturday.Also, no signs radius for wheelchairs. and the Board of Cosmetology may be posted, no employees Epstein responded, "I think about meeting its criteria. •Continued from Al high school,added. I like a] can be hired without going this has been a learning process Westfall said many busing through the application process `These are often tough can use and get rid of the rest.It accumulates fast." that they can donate unuse g ep for everyone." issues," he said. "If no one had One ongoing issue for the STRUT program is that cause. the again, and clients must park in Candace White complained objected to this, it would have the driveway. that the plans for the salon have � when companies donate computer hardware, they "Old computers often go According to a memo submit- kept changing and that a sign sailed through. Lots of issues don't think of the software licenses that follow the said. "The last thing Dant' ted by Tracy to Epstein on April announcing the public hearing have been raised. Some are not systems."You can't put them on a different comput- a big Dumpster. We ,,cl 24, the appeal raises five issues on the appeal was only legible to relevant, some are relevant. er,"he said."So we're always working to get them." ' believe how recyclers ured concerning the application, people on the Moos property. Some of the criteria are ambigu- Tigard High School was the first school in the what we were getting rid of These include a lack of compli- "There has been an overall ous. I have no idea what I'm state to begin to rebuild and donate computers, tion for us and them" city's lack of respect for their neigh- going to do." according to Westfall."Now 140 schools in Oregon, According to Paul de B ance with the ci s home-occu- pation criteria, exceeding the bons,"she said, citing loud noise Addressing the Mooses, including Tualatin High School,do it,"he said. services for the city, man square footage allowed, not pro- coming from the house during Epstein said, "You're in corn- The rebuilt Tigard High computers are shipped computers become obsolet viding an adequate impact study the night,numerous people park- mand here with what happens. I around the world, as well as around the Tigard- years old. and not being able to enforce ing on the street, and the Moos' can make a decision here, but Tualatin School District and other school districts as "It's usually the softwar state criteria. four children leaving their own that won't stop people from well.Northwest Medical Teams has distributed them °`It requires more and mo However, Tracy concluded property. being hurt or appeals from being in Honduras.. computers reach the end that the Planning Department Epstein, who reminded peo- filed. If you want to stop the Students n the STRUT program are participants keep track of the age of eac staff"believes that the proposed pie giving testimony to stick to process to take time to talk to in the high school's(CE)2 curriculum,which stands them before they start eac home-occupation permit satisfies the facts, responded, "I appreci- your neighbors and gather addi- for Community Experience for Career Education. the general approval criteria and ate the lack of respect for the tional evidence,'there might be Students in this alternative-study program take class- "Sometimes we switc (city code) standards, and that neighbors. I suggest using the an opportunity for you to supple- es in core subjects and work at job sites,earning cred- police detectives, for exa the appeal should be denied." ment the record." its toward graduation and receiving traditional diplo- and need new computers, pp city's mediation process." down the food chain unti The Mooses'next-door neigh- Putzier, who said that she is However, the Mooses mas. T Putzier, and A t_ Because (CE)2 students change job sites every We've donated to Tigard l bor, `ee _"pier, her lex very distraught" over the issue, declined. to leave the public four weeks, they usually alternate four weeks in the four or five years. Typica door neighbor, Candace White, told Epstein that she feels she record open for seven days as STRUT program with work at outside job sites. each year, so this was an t filed the appeal. would have to police the salon to allowed. Given the opportunity to make sure that none of the condi- "By their senior year, if they are technically ori- Westfall said that the S' Epstein,who will issue a writ- ented,they may spend four to five hours(a day)in the looking for computers. speak about her proposed salon tions were being violated. She ten decision within 10 working STRUT program,"Westfall said."Everything they do "We pick up computer and address the neighbors' con- and others also testified that the cerns, Sopaul Moos said only areas of the house that the clients days of the meeting, pointed out is outcome-based performance.All the kids are semi- summer," he said. "It we that she hadcontacted the state would walk through to get to the that if he approves the appeal, independent. This is more of a job setting than a been a good program. . Board of Cosmetology about its salon should be included in the Sopaul Moos could reapply for school setting." "These rebuilt compul requirements and would add yen- square footage for the business. another permit in a year. If he Stoner,who had some prior experience with corn- what we do. I don't even tildenies the appeal, Putzier and/or puters before joining the STRUT program in the sec- just need a little to buy pa mately if rtheov salon were ulti- About 30t people attended speak-the White could appeal his decision and semester this year,said,"I've learned a lot about Those interested in dc mately approved. hearing,with half a dozen to the state Land Use Board of parts and stuff." THS STRUT program she ing against the salon in addition Appeals. Stoner,who plans to study computer science after 431-5516. Officer hears complaints to the Whites and Putzier. Then the neighbors had their At the conclusion of the neighbors' comments, Steven opportunity to speak. Moos said,"I am chagrined with r. - "This became personal for me time to Sell your.Lome. all the discord this has created. ' when the first plan showed Much-.,of this. could :have=been Bann id people m the cotn-: in s :Iiii . resolved'with contact from the rnuntty going through the Moos' Resta yard,", said White's husband neighbors. As far as ADA corn- Brealllas* Richard. "People could look left phance, I"'Dawe a palatial home into my house and yard. I think and plenty of room to make the necessary changes. Skillets „�I 1/ ow the intent of the R-7 (medium- �- " ,�": s � $7.50 �s Annuity Hotline Pi If you own an annuity purchased between 1970 and 1996 Served with choice of B we have important information you should know.There have . toast or biscuits been recent changes in the features offered by certain annu- The Home-style Skillet ities. Call us today to see how these changes may affect you. (��,in �� e C�Se7,n Two eggs,ham,diced Inpotatoes,German Sausage, Beer • Toll Free (866) 877-8876 As a member of the top 10% of Re/Max equity bacon, green peppers John H. Nelson, &onions. Open Vice President-Financial Consultant group sales associates in 2001, Steve closed over 7 Day $6.5 million dollars in real estate transactions. Bruce A. Studer, Put his 16 years of experience to work for you! The Southwestern Skillet 11477 Vice President-Financial Consultant Two eggs, diced potatoes, Tigard, Steve Heuser, CRS, GRI green Onions,green 503 5335 Meadows Road RBC Associate Broker Pepper,Cheddar cheese, � Suite 400 Dain Rauscher Office: 503-495-3259 olives &bacon. Served RBC- Mobile: 503-680-1768 with Salsa. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 MEMBER NYSJSIPC E-mail me! equity group, Inc. Steve@tualatinhomes.com 043793.032102 046906.042502ks. „. ... .... THE TIGARD TIMES r.ReVFSI�F . A ' 'A A , „,::,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,„...,._„,. ., , 1 iLurninv I IIVILJ , , , , ,, ., lig!' L TIGARD, ORE VoL.46 ■ No. 13 75 CENTS AN EDITION OF TIMES NEWSPAPERS / ' r 1 ft v Thursday, March 2S, 2002 f h4!JApeek rs ha `. 'P €} Spring Home & Garden section •■ Inside m Plato's e right mix ' Where to hunt for Easter eggs ■ A 13 Closet Sports , THS chess team plays well ■ B8 People „.. .. II In-home salon rilesneighbors T1ga±dChan 1 . i The city approves the business on "There was a lot of concern about this applica- According to Moos,who has a nanny for her fourwdmifier ' Benchview Terrace with conditions tion,"Tracy said."A big part of it was going through children,ages 51/2,4,21/2 and 1'/2 years old,the salon the letters and the issues raised." will consist of"me by myself cutting hair." By BARBARA SHERMAN According to Tracy, the decision was revised "The neighbors will never be happy, no matter • . Of the Times three times before it was finally approved. It limits what,"she said."I have four kids,and I love cutting 11sa the salon to 528 square feet in the Moos home,with hair.I have been in business for 12 years.I gave it up 1 ,) TIGARD—The city's conditional approval of no more than six clients per day Tuesday through the last four or five years,but I was not happy.It is an in-home beauty salon in an upscale Bull Saturday. Also, no signs can be posted and no one thing that I am good at. I'm hoping to cut my I 'intain neighborhood has neighbors angry and employees can be hired without going through the neighbors'hair. salon owner excited over Tuesday's controver- application process again. "I live in a million-dollar house.My clients will sial decision. "This is a strange catch-22 decision,"Tracy said. come one by one.I will be home with my kids,and _ Sopaul Moos, who lives at 13783 S.W. "The issue is what is legitimately allowed in the it will be convenient. Between clients, I can play The three colillflu111tyvotun Benchview Terrace with her husband Steven, code. I believe the neighbors have legitimate con- with my kids. I thought this would be the greatest applied in February for a home-occupation permit to cern that hit the heart of the code. But if the appli- thing.I didn't know it would create such a problem." will be honored April 26 operate a salon in her home. cant meets the requirements of the code,then it must Leading the fight against the salon have been After the city's Planning Division mailed notices be applied equally. Dee-J Putzier, who lives next door to the Moos ay BARBARA SHERMAN , to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed "I have made two site visits to confirm the square home with her husband Rick, and her next-door Of the Times salon, it received several phone calls and 28 letters footage,and we made modifications to the proposal neighbors,Candace and Rick White. in opposition, according to associate planner that would not have been picked up except for the They initially were concerned because according TIGARD--Max Williams, Morgan Tracy. positive input of public involvement." •See SALON,Page A5 tative and community volunteer, school volunteer and wildlife act Pr bet volunteer Dean Williams wi ,'; ,, " �. . ° 's em ,� r e 5 , 4 , :m -'. TRAIL OF • the r. and Area '� - ,�,�, *i , ,,t ; . f ,, " °'' EVIDENCEg i "� .w, '. r ' Chamber of r4,,, -F' r �' ¢ ,'I b' °,z ..., b , —Tigard Commerce's 1' ''f., ,ygy y t+,� �r,!„*'" v,i.'f Y " 4 _n.� ;.3 r . v ,,,,�,> ,.. , '�' ,,:, Police motor a 'n n u' a 1 - � ;m y t N"J� P .. - officer Rod "Evening of t rte. ��. .. ;l�.3�;; .�-� „...,....,,,,,,,,,,-,..,......e."..-,,,,,,� -.s � • ., ,,,,,,,,,,,A,.....,,,,,,,..;,0,....' „x;',..... ,. ..�' _ �", , aaavavu;v� ..-a Shoebox have helped the lives of people in operation. other medical rob- reopic ar�� �cua t aauavu.v �„ ....e........,..- p p p p p Shoebox in a variety of ways: filling shoe- Ultrasoi Honduras. "It's a free lunch, said Dick Salsbury lems can show up to get help.They are just boxes, making tax-deductible donations of 'c, wrinkl, In late January, the organization sent a with Operation Shoebox. "There will be an amazing couple." face lift shipping container full of medical equip- Honduran food, and board members who In addition to helping people in supplies or funds, or volunteering in 40 Relaxin ment,clothing,stuffed animals,school sup- have gone to Honduras will share their expe- Honduras,Operation Shoebox has provided Oregon,Washington or Honduras. People can contactOperation Shoebox at Gift Ce lj.ies, walkers and crutches, and a Chevy riences. There will be music as well. We shoeboxes full of hygiene items,school sup- P C?• Free 0 Lumina sports van to Honduras.The group want people to come and learn about us and plies and toys locally,including to the Good P.O. Box 154, Marylhurst 97036, at a,cumulated the items over several months, what we do. Neighbor Center and victims of the Bonita www.operationshoebox.org. Salon of Mas Salon: `I don't want someone walking through my back yard' - Tigard Covenant 503 N3`' NEN ■Continued from Page Al Rick White, who designs cus- ment from the applicant stating application was conditionally to the original application, clients tom homes, questioned what a the impact of the proposed busi- approved, Moos said, "That's Pre Sch ,would walk down 14 outside steps salon in the neighborhood would ness on public facilities like sewer, great.I'm excited." ..11,§ • the narrow area between the do to property values."What is the water and transportation as well as On the other hand,the decision " Il gx '• ��9�\� l .)os and Putzier homes and then point of residential zoning if other noise that might be generated. does not sit well with the neigh- i Bible-based, , cross the Moos' lower back deck uses are allowed?"he said."I have "Obviously, there is more bors. Christian Pre school a • u:, to enter a door on the far side of no problem with home businesses, impact from a larger business,and "It sets a precedent,"said Rick Y 1 the house. when they are limited to an office it is usually minimal for home- 4-YF • , s * -41, White."It's disturbing.I think the 4 "I don't want someone walkingor something unobtrusive to based businesses. But the neigh- g M.W.F 9 00am, 4'.., through my backyard every hour neighbors, but with people corn- bors were right—technically,it is important thing is that citizen `fir; lookingin mywindows," said ing and going, it can be very dis- required." involvement held the Tigard plan- 3 YFAit- DSS • i turbm " Moos, who has lived in her ners to the fire.I'm happy that the Tu.Th 9:00am 01 Orn _,1 Putzier,who has lived in her home g• r� � _ , Candace White added, "It home for five months, said that city recognized that people should ., .,g _ for almost seven years. "Both of just ;our decks open onto that side of doesn't belong here. What's to she has tried to do everything by not go through our back yard. _ " p "The citydidprotect us, (503) 63 -3 � ' the house.We would have no pri- stop other people from starting the book. 11321 SW Naeve St its, i ;vacy. They would look right into home businesses? We don't want "I have great clients and a very although it would have restricted Tigard,Oregon 97221f ;our yard." to have to police her to see if she selective clientele,"she said. "I'm our rights over that of our neigh- ,\, 1 At the request of the city, the is following the rules." not running drugs.I volunteer at a bor's if we had not protested. application was revised so that The Whites,who have lived in juvenile facility giving haircuts We're glad the conditions were .salon clients would enter the their home for one year, and and teaching make-up. I'm a very set, and we appreciate the city's We will help children develop social wv _ q Putzier said that theyfelt the citygoodperson. I love teachingskills that will help them in school, -Moos house through the garage just efforts to work with us. ' wand use a room on the main floor. was supporting the applicant over and bringing out the beauty in Putzier said that she would def- teaching them cooperation,sharing. This plan must still be the neighbors throughout the people. That's what I'm good at. initely appeal the decision within ,responsibility and caring for others " _';���: process. When I don't do it,I'm miserable. ,'' . Read' cutting, c )proved by the Building the next 10 days. g' fir ', ilepartment to make certain that it "It's ridiculous that the people I feel like I've made enemies "I believe we have sufficient ''f" coloring.painting. , in a residential zone have to of m hbors. I didn't want to meets Americans WithY mei g and projects make "Disabilities Act requirements. defend it,"Candace White said. offend them. I don't understand grounds," she said. "It was dis- h y corn- "l ' One of the issues raised bythe how the values of the houses will couraging ty Tigardgr,'F 17 for a ver coons in that the ci of is ' 'w Also, the Health Licensing Office `< .plete education. of the Oregon Department of neighbors was that the code go down— I'm using one room not protecting our interests — I .Cosmetology, which requires a requires an impact study be corn- upstairs. I don't want high traffic, thought that was their job. The ' % 037328 031402 o442 separate entrance for clients,must pleted for a home-occupation per- and I won't have a sign. My cus- only person protected was the issue its certification. mit to be issued, but the city did tomers will come and go quietly." applicant. All the citizens on this "I think the city needs to take a not initially ask Sopaul Moos for On hearing the news that her hill were not protected." ALOHA look at home-occupancy permits," one. - Putzier said. "The opposition to "It is required for a type II Vac Seal this is vehement. The people who application,but we have not prac- spas Service live behind them are irate over ticed it in the past," Tracy said. • rri Iii w TuatatinJ times corn (.V W W 503-649 this. I never thought that this area "When the neighbors pointed it • • would have a commercial busi- out to us,we did require the appli- �' -maim 18365 SW T.V.Hwy, ness." cant to do it. It basically is a state- l5 We dial- f l _ 4� � . 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS HOME OCCUPATION i,‘\ TYPE II APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX:(503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Address/Location(s): / 1783 Sul e ,_e_Lv e w I6t,+--J C7 t ^Z 7-2-3 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Tax Map&fax Lot#(s): ., S -19 C b- 3 cl c7 Q-9 icP.b) Case No.(s): 1 OPO ' - 000(0 Other Case No.(s): / F Site Size: ti Receipt No.: oZ Applicant*: ZE.A.A.. ( A-400,cDate: MI O ' I Application Accepted By:3tv't ®/ Address: � 7e3 SLAJ J3,ev. City/State: T q v-� D 1�.. Zip ZZ3 Date Determin d Co plete: Primary Contact: J 09- 3 2 o1 Phone:(4—b 3) 5 �-f. 3q tf 7 Fax:67:03)(, ' .y Sc,3 Business Tax Paid? Q Yes to Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*:l (Attach list if more than one) Rev.3/5/01 islcurpinlmasterslrevised\hop2.doc CEGvw. /to©S -I-<o , i /koos Address: 13783 St ) 4-€A"riAvsc...-) Phone:e>3)74(19-Coil( City/State: 77 q�t v� 0(C_ Zip: 9r7 a-3 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant (Note: applications will not be accepted must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written without the required submittal elements) authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. [Application Form PROPOSAL SUMMARY O er's Signature/Written Authorization The owners of record of the subject property request approval of a Title Transfer Instrument or Deed Home Occupation Permit to allow (please be specific): /2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped #10 Envelopes & Copy of 500' Property vl.�e Sek l o t.� Owner List Generated by the-City .J" Fili g Fee$545.00 SPECIFICATIONS Specify whether you are using a detached building on your property and give dimensions: NIA List any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: NIA APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the"Required Submittal Elements"box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained,upon request,for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S)SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject Property. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. z DATED this day of l(ol/h.. ,20 0 61,. 6(-001 d ,A ®5 Owner's Signature Owner' Signature * • er's Si' ature �� �'is Signature 1'0 APPLY FOR A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: [CITY OF TIGARD H.O.P.TYPE II QUESTION PAGE] 1. Will you have any paid employees or subcontractors working in the home in conjunction with the business who are not residents of the home? a,. o "es (If yes, please explain): 2. Will you have customers/clients coming to your residence? n No 1 '/( �°' c. i wt iti ,Yes (If yes, how many per day?): 6 Gere�,•�$ ..(/ ) 3. Will you have deliveries or pickups made of products or supplies to yo residence?KNo pi?' 1G l �� 4 7 se A) / to I2e 4 1 I Yes (If yes, how many &what type?): j v 4. What will your hours and days of operation be? 0— -T.({ — Sot–f—. 5. Will the business generate any noise which can be heard outside of the structure? KNo n Yes (If yes, please explain): 6. How many square feet is your residence an4hpw many s are feet will be devoted(the operation of yo{r business, including storage areas? —71,g300 �DrAv„e- / ,57-13S.cf a,� rod i_ J 7. Will you have any signs or advertising visible from the exterior of the premises? o ///n Yes (If yes, please explain): 8. Please show the floor layout of your house and the area to be used for your home occupation on the graph paper on the back of this page. Please designate those areas which shall be utilized as follows: A. entirely for the home occupation; and B. partially for the home occupation. Please designate the approximate dimensions of the rooms(s)to be used for the home occupation. 3 Home occ upa-kz-) Moir cut 1+61 1 3 7 8 3 SW 13eoclivie,Nt RECEIVED Ter ii-y)pctc4 311,k d y MAR 1 4 2002 Mardi OR. (172.-2_3 5?).-3 33‘C, 9517 CITY OF TIGARD 3ack crow- &i PLANNING/ENGINEERING I Will bt eLchn.9. how- TY0 m ni hosei Lui) I bt'-- five ca s uueek ihro Gt9 Sa1-ci j ' here_ tbt) IX ppoinfilic AaL ) cne ca +wile - C6nie and park v trY1 ri tAj -the rt vvi 11 be vr6 ectr6 COerve Lk 01 siiies v Iht SYreel-. vvi 11 ver-0 quie4 ay)cl ciu3ivc,, , Thcrc , \Nil) Lc S Kt 11 Ci( neiC booy1,-)0 od aave i sse (fleri 1 I 15(kn 1-6\ nf-rC Iro pjd- -the Wier uskv-ns ) be cause thc bu„rjnr,::) on in Nu \lornt, Vvhich I3 cdrecicV con rc-kft +0 bi d cciaafe 3-ev-Ifer- jskym \iVotkr (SLQ)) j., 1\411 hcr CuitllL Nu ! not havt: ay) 6{1 pa.WUckr ,.� ,•� 2 --� 5.Urni Drain9e, Pro - 6-+rrvi arctinacte ha3 (Al read been e f-G.Ab Js he . and c vv l) fl c4 tic" rl c G1 s col() uoi I I bc bu --i vi hair oGO 0) res. dencL Sc,11 cots ccLL5-- YNil C I fah - do is \ow i‘ich ��usi � ►� vvi II b :, _ uu�- vv_Ve l Y► r ► rn hcusc CA)-.)d havi►r9 -Friclid _ C Y _r Thi _ :VAI I) be no i n'1 c•Ac.A urn -}h QYe(t's_ school s Prover-__ Tckpicne Cc Lic_ Te lcwi s t c Po )and ne,--cd - Iccfr(c, and GTE nar ' r Y- i & c-to cal pc wet-- Qnc 1 1lcph o re Sfr V IC es_ re: l c:'fiiY 1 _c rfictw e3:1- 0-6I) 3:1-0 6i) Gc p v idf1e _ +he onckvv I'lc \' - a ,sal h_ l G�1� 2 Pc(rks 1(4e're are rlc _ _parks near -hlis nt►ch boor-hL-cci ___Tic►- 6-c- \-,1 1I I 3 no LSC En') pacts 1 J eY e Wi 1) cnILI cot> _ 1%r-ne o Car- CA+ mLI he uSc Cf- _ Gl -�iV'1�iC'� )_ ±V re "rte be _ roc I rn pc c 11 Y)oi5c cc YViljIt Cu_ r2c hair_- we 'will b , noise inside= hout elocl no on ihf oLtfssic e dere_ \Ni lI be. \(-)of IripaCt : 11-ansrfafior)_ Sincf N I L C nne Car a+ a H ry e, _\v i l I_ -+Vansporia hoc) 03/05/2002 17:02 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard ljooi *** ERROR TX REPORT *:x* *************************** TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED TX/RX NO 4367 CONNECTION TEL 5036999563 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 03/05 17:01 USAGE T 00'00 PGS. SENT 0 RESULT • NG #018 BUSY/NO SIGNAL HOVI7 Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 l�-�'4017,r,Aovrbt (503) 639-4171 I/i0001H�IH������` � �I CITY OF TIGARD Fax To: Sopual Moos From: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner Fax: 503-699-9563 Pages: [Click here and type#of pages] Phone: 503-524-3947 pate: 03/05/02 Re: Type II Home Occupation Permit CC: ®Urgent ® For Review ❑Please Comment ®Please Reply ❑Please Recycle * Comments:Ms. Moos, I apologize for not raising this item sooner, however, our development code requires that the applicant prepare an Impact Study to address the potential impacts a proposal may • have on public facilities and services. I have included the requirements for the Impact Study below. Please address each of the services (i.e. transportation, bikeways, drainage system, parks, water sytem, sewer system and any noise impacts) and how the proposed use will, or will not, affect each. Also, please provide a description of the type of Salon being proposed,and what types of services will be available. I tried to contact you by phone but the number no longer works. Please call me (503- 639-4171) at your earliest convenience to arrange an inspection of the proposed Home Occupation area The inspection and impact study will be necessary before any final decision can be made. "Include.an impact study.The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and.services.The study shall address,at a minimum,the transportation system,including bikeways,the drainage system,the parks system,,the water system,the • ■ .■ ..._.-_ c‘re+fCrn 211f1 q;g4A4.17 HOP - cotil� `fin • c;vo tbo c to 4- 4000 7'1' CA,co - 0007( Wu-tt Se..(o►A C) _ AZitpaAU w f4..,, S"} veil (I °t'5 300 452-7- Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 Ai � �--11-114" Ali- CITY OF TIGARD Fax To: Sopual Moos From: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner Fax: 503-699-9563 Pages: [Click here and type#of pages] Phone: 503-524-3947 Date: 03/05/02 Re: Type II Home Occupation Permit CC: ® Urgent ® For Review 0 Please Comment IZI Please Reply 0 Please Recycle • Comments: Ms. Moos, I apologize for not raising this item sooner, however, our development code requires that the applicant prepare an Impact Study to address the potential impacts a proposal may have on public facilities and services. I have included the requirements for the Impact Study below. Please address each of the services (i.e. transportation, bikeways, drainage system, parks, water sytem, sewer system and any noise impacts) and how the proposed use will, or will not, affect each. Also, please provide a description of the type of Salon being proposed, and what types of services will be available. I tried to contact you by phone but the number no longer works. Please call me (503- 639-4171) at your earliest convenience to arrange an inspection of the proposed Home Occupation area. The inspection and impact study will be necessary before any final decision can be made. "Include an impact study.The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services.The study shall address,at a minimum,the transportation system,including bikeways,the drainage system,the parks system,the water system,the sewer system,and the noise impacts of the development.For each public facility system and type of impact,the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large,public facilities systems, and affected private property users.In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development." J nixi\ A ..:......:...:..w..i..;'f....l.}'i-..-.:..:..:.:..:�.:.._..::i:. .:�-:.�:.�:.x:::r.i .........?..........:::::::...�...-....... vitt::.-.:::::v:.�:::............-.-...-..-.....�:n...: :...- ... ... .... �N°:...,_ : 0 2011:i::::,.. r....,... : ... > Vi >4n}:}v:: u . ::::.:. i } . r >O: :r :.. . . .i. a • r•'-' . -- tg%= :: i= : ?i AERMEM : : : :} iMfi }Si?J4 � A> i/ . `Ufit•s :i : 3 :v: iX.. :::':: ::: :.: .. : :: : = :.} : i iorrower or Owner MOOS y. ropertyAddress 13783 SW Benchview Terr -- - 4 Tigard County Washington state OR zip code 97223 ander or Client Washington Mutual Bank 1e8' tr iss UM 99' Bedroom it tT Bedroom tt Bath 111111 1111111111 12.5' Utility Rm Bath Bedroom Bedroom Upper Level is V ss' s aLiving Rm to' tOd' tr Kitchen �raren;111 N" (...7T G t Pantry 2trStairs Stairs(down) _ ' T,.A .Ar ar Main Staircase cI IT •' Main Level Dining Rm It' Garage Entry Living Rm IV 22.5 MN s 6S • 20' • r - tr s 21' ti. ..r to., IP xs 7. 2B• Recreation P-m U t? Bonus Rm 10 e;....1' Recreation Rm 10.5' Stairs (f!I(�j� it. ac 11.5' Bath e Bonus Rm it Oath Kitchen Er 115' a liffllifill 11.5' Daylight Bsmt is Exercise Rm_ (Lower) 19.5' Daylight Bsmt Media Rm tea- r r n- n' ..... __• ;i.�4€E1k.}:::..,,-.::iii#MU =;;..:>>.}UM:�r.,�•-;;:-iR :€"A€C1#€A: a1t[MAI ;:==:�cvx?? �k< <=, Living Area Daylight Bsmt 1 63 0 X 9.0 = 567.0 Daylight Bsmt 1 2454 235 25-5 X 6-0 = 153.0 42 0 X 14.0 = 588.0 Daylight Bsmt 2 948 203 34.0 X 4.0 = 136 0 8 0 X 2.0 = 16-0 First Floor 2454 235 60 X 2 0 = 12.0 41.3 X 1.0 = 41.3 Second Floor 2144 273 60.5 X 13 0 = 786.5 14 6 X 6.0 = 87-6 Stairs -226 56 63.0 X 9.0 = 567.0 8.0 X 2 0 = 160 Total 7774 1002 42.0 X 14 0 = 588.0 3.1 X 10.9 = 33.7 Garage/Carport 8.0 X 2.0 = 16.0 3.1 X 5 4 = 16 7 413 X 1.0 = 41 3 Total 2453-8 11/1/01 12:17 PM - OMB No.2502-0265 A. U.S.Department of Housing B.Type of Loan and Urban Development 1.[ ]FHA 2.[ ]FMHA 3.[X]Cony.Unins. 4.[ ]VA 5.[ ]Cony.Ins. FINAL 6.File Number 7.Loan Number 200102881 010988000666887 Settlement Statement 8.Mortgage Ins.Case No. C.Note: This form is furnished to give you a statement of actual settlement costs. Amounts paid to and by the settlement agent are shown. Items marked("POC")were paid outside the closing: they are shown here for information purposes and are not included in the totals. D.Buyer/Borrower: Steven Moos,4035 SW Mercantile Drive#214,Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Sopaul P.Moos,4035 SW Mercantile Drive#214,Lake Oswego,OR 97035 E.Seller: Jermaine O'Neal,13783 SW Benchview Terrace,Tigard,OR 97223 F.Lender: Washington Mutual Bank,5335 SW Meadows Road,Ste 390,Lake Oswego,OR 97035 G.Property Location: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace,Tigard,OR 97223 H.Settlement Agent: Stewart Title of Oregon,Inc.(503)290-5500 Place of Settlement: Three Centerpointe,Suite 160,Lake Oswego,OR 97035 I.Settlement Date: 10/31/01 Proration Date: 10/31/01 er 1 43'- 5'67A4f :}rNt nc3"r 3b... ?ti 1C 9 !r ' a,�. •.SL�.SJixiq="^' ...e.r..e.:: S � _. y Y e z«1‘,1, Ss � I " 100. Gross amount due from buyer/borrower 400. Gross amount due to seller: 101_ Contract sales price 800,000.00 401. Contract sales price 102. Personal property 402. Personal property 103. Settlement charges to buyer/borrower(line 1400) 1,675.86 403. 104. 404. 105. 405. 3' c i+r4:01°A. 106. City/town taxes 406. City/town taxes 107. County taxes 10/31/01 to 7/1/02 7,887.55 407. County taxes 10/31/01 to 7/1/02 108. Assessments 408. Assessments 109. HOA Dues 409. HOA Dues 110_ 410. 111. 112. 411. Deposit to close 412. Deposit to dose 120. Gross amount due from buyer/borrower: 809,563.41 420. Gross amount due to seller: i."Ft X „ ..::�'� ��..,.:ar 2„' :11,' 201. Deposit or earnest money 10,000.00 501. Excess deposit(see instructions) 202. Principal amount of new loan(s) 640,000.00 502. Settlement charges to seller(line 14.00) 203. Existing loan(s)taken subject to 503. Existing loans)taken subject to 204. Deposit to Lender 504. Payoff of first mortgage loan 205. Deposit to Close 9,563.41 505. Payoff of second mortgage loan 206. Deposit to Close 45,000.00 506, 207. Deposit to Close 70,000_00 507. 208. Deposit to Close 35,000.00 508. 209. ( 509. '4't' ..�. P 1a °'� k:•,,�s f.v..93 Fg1,!�t .. �3}F V6' .c} . , jr To 210. City/town taxes 510. City/town taxes 211. County taxes 511. County taxes 212. Assessments 512. Assessments 213. HOA Dues 513. HOA Dues 214. 514. 215. 515. 216. 516_ 217. 517. 218. 518. 710 Z 'd E9S6-669-COS dET : TT ZO OE UeC A' erw 1 1•ntr1T �N.PK I 1 f0 eW01401 1...,,t �1 II S � III LI li III ill 111 x r, Ijl Ijl 111'3 J (1 1 2 x 11 FLA ate.•1T Ob. ! in J (;d p, „L....--- ner• r. .cma•6MA@C I i I I• f 1 p I 1I. II I 11 I 11 1: 1 4 I; M ..'._i 1 1 '� 11 Ir �1� (7V � t" < 1 7 1 i,! ... -,„4.--' 4. S Lr- - � I / I ` ; C`r� jI Ii a �C ]" 11F 1 I li I l I d IIx m « I _ J r b ItF a ly 11 1gl 1 .T,•� I , , �s.&.IIr?o�ss. II ga 11. N a€ .� le 7 k 2 H.K Ark•I..0G. Ili1 ° :1 :. 1 1 i g ` 1.4; 'r'� 4'41' ,'.Irl r, 9$ �� ; p 1 I+ } II ; Fi i d.e• Jr fe' i Gi N \ � 1 l I; i� ♦ it 5 x I 1�, 1 /� Iq z1 1 I7 /7 / I P --- , A 1, 1 p j�.rti.l�� N • �,� Q �, r y - Pi 111�.�NNT1 `f� I .. . .{, f M 1 .. ��� -----1 O ! v, 1 ESQ, e. $.K .:1` _ F'' .1:tigli51i . 1 •A I \ .•7i''� . 1 _ I `4'a WI'al.di Auie:J ''vi''`ii�4, i ' �c ,7.•,.'.Sire _ �'' 1!1 x i II?EiI• ' ' lit� �; � _ , ; ► h - . ..- V .---......1 % Il ; li .� X 4-•k' (2-.) _,x-) - gM3i x=-'----) a 4 1 I i E) ' %MU° d 1 ._.1 . 1- AYE %__I 0 --1 � �- �� ? Z x P.T.eeOt w j iI 1' ',�.�__. z x n rat aero,• •oG I 1 i �i n:o2 e g1Tif 0 lae, k a I L 1 1• l le'LOGJ 1. I ��• ,..oma S I�i�l ;o i 74 ,C iii. V11141 JJ '• 1 m• � Ir II I 1 11 _ II`• � QL EM \ GJ 111 a . ,, k=1' --.='=, 1X 11pro. ,. ,, . , - +x n.JeT.•• . . i a'1' • I 1 a „,, ,,,,,,,, 0, ',, \-fl; 1 rct 31 .1— — -Ali \ 4 J r (}� I, \ �. FK i , -----_ la aar_a+aos� ."".�+� `�"1 ero x:619(p, I aTEP FOM eWI A., y (- tr' •r-ara-.• a-.o• es'-e' 4. lov ,/ iloi ,5:1H'Ill 1 ;- Sr Ir WIN I Ii, I ... ' 11110°.' P' ' '' • 4 • • -2-- (5)S/0‘;<5/0 FXD.WI OVER W/' ......' . .4 • I • (5)3/0 X 3/0 FXD.OVER I , -, . . , - *4'.."7•0•44' :".74.:4"4,,,..:".":41, , . I. 1 I ) ". . •., r ' ) ' . ' 503 . b.,; T 4G DECK, . I *A I' . ... , ` I • 3 51/,'X 12'Cal.BM. i • .. . . .• . ,•4,144*,,,.:,,,,,.. ..;..3f.'1::*,-;:•-'';;;;,,..,;., Wi W/1 .0W°P4PE*PAVERRSBPO'F1'PR • • -.• ' • - *11 / ‘9'.v. . I i /i .••• •••• ••-••••••4••••••-4,--4.4 4,- 11-t 44 0 4(Wow i I my Me .\ \ \ .Om*w.4.0. 1..14aw 't pe.4.1411 WO..4ra • nue.I,......1 to. I i 1 -\? WIlt..1.IWA 10 OW dti,.. ni AM wee oh mod IU 0 II I ........... Li . 2 - t":;:'"werAt•*''":C°":tn";•4: „SI wor b Ow*od. le ..",.', '. ,'..: an m a I • 6 X 12 - . _.._1 rie..A.N6q5le AsovE --, _ _ _ _ _ + pn-F,403 METAL INSERT IV ...... a•I I XI • . ., lifC.,,_ .„,.. 4/0 X 4/0 FXD. '/ ' Eli; --5 .:, ,.• __ . ,,,,.,,..L.W/COMM •I I • 4) ,•i N AW•. -0. '''''-- 2'0 X 4/0 S.W.EA. -IDE 41 4. . // I i • AIM VENT AND 20' i FLUSH WARBLE HEARTH 5 Il ' 4)1 I -,t , 0 RECESSS VENTED . ., •._, Mk ZO ' 1 Ii (F1FREBOX TO BE 8. - I "' • \ I , p ,' ABOVE HEARTH) X 5/0 ATRIUM DR. I I 1 11 110 VOLT a o 1 •of ; 2 STORY •4 (TEMP) I • N 63/4'X 9'G „SM.( LUSH) \--.‘... © (SEE'MU ' .3 * ITE .44 _: - ---:/ '.... - •:411111M111111111111:' _ _ ___..-•-it I'. ,,. , E ....-- 1 NOTES'F ' 6 3' .0 •• (- c.;-. --•• (FLUSH) \fc( /1_ 1 1 OK 1-4 20/6 X 19/6 ,,t , • , • I SUB.0 I / \t.7 1 rr.c. Re)x 16/0• It/ •4 -- - -N4,- 0 • ROOF I I 1 1 (10'CLG.) • RICIGE D = . r. POINT ON •••••.', '-.3,,:', X „,, L's* 4.4 4-•••••••••444.„,,... X 0 DEN :,. 4.44 , •••••• *ft „„.., BOTTOM•9 ••••••. V 12/0 X 13/4•/- X ', ‘ts.;.I17! . '',•YY-"','"' ,,t,i,i, 14/0 X 16/4 • '-e,---1- -- . l'X'Irk'P.4re,41.LAri am --._ .1__ -......... • _ CLG.) [i SEARING ;-.. " 1,' . '''An STRUCTUF ; .39 -44.4 0 IVO STRUCTURAL ‘`..-n-.' • r- . I . - (9'9...q.) - . 1 I . .r_ w 4 X 12 HD :,, --.4.2.f•. i 'I OR FLUSH 00 ,i, CAP 4 a.eksE TYP. ••3•,_„•.. •:„. ,,,• ' . . .........../..,.,,.,...,,.!,‘,,...___,_....., 4., .,, ... ......... $44,4',0. (1,.EcLOGA74, .. , 2,._2, .2--,.07.1v, 1 Iii / 1' ii MEMBEW •4•• •..,,.. .,/ zsm I I I OF 3•X ar -.t. 4.. . •ty I.k '-'.•A ., ) ../ I 1' .•. , :. 00 /„ \00. 'Nk I/ • - .1.•... -:',.•• r .,''..'.: .... i /::::_>/ : H (PROV1D ___ 1• - :P tit,.... C4 END -MIN /,S4 OS X iv I I OF THE E31 '',.. ••. R . I [ , /'("040° BUILT-IN i..,. \ /i/ N• ' #12741its N , H I .. ///C932 • \4° '.‘•,,4 rs\ A ,;:. :. • . , ,.6-A, i , • _ ,, , . -,,,. . ... . . . \ ,,,......7 „ FTRy, (.. ,/, ,`%. •,/, ep,.. 'ii,, - ,,, ,., , it' ,,, . ,„ 7 , • -.,, . • „„... .\ ' , .• ,,,, 'I , '6Z 40-ey.„ ,-,-,. /0), 1 miry 1 ,// ..__--b6-a‘,‘,, 0 ,..• . ...,. _ .....__ 7-, .:. ---,:,k3._, - 7.- • _ , -- C.__./Hi ' I . ' ----17,--.7---- si BUTLEI451 . 'oft'. cl..p.)' -12k11.1114‘,\.\\'.;:\..s. • .- i/ - / IIIM ‘ )11 , ) I -3-C. - \• / 1 I I \ /r.r. LI y, -- 44.3d•- - 7, , :+.,•,, USE ifre TYPE'X'GYP BD. \ I ON ALL CLC.15.,WALLS,4 . // I 2 A . , /;... Ilk (A _,. A11,1141_1_ .• EXPOSED STRUCT.MBRS. l' / I 1 I UP 1.02 ? • ` 4. :PAN17rY . .. ' . : ,.....111 . \+: , .//' • -• I• - •• ..-- "..." /,' ileP Si. . I K1 b • ......,- A , ...4,'-, ....,..4.,c...., . . . . . . ....„. ,..... ,.... ,-, X / , ' 1 CI - • ' - ')11,i/i/ I- ' • ' C) D. - • • , 1 R 4 •i, . 'K' ' •3'TOPPING SLAB OVER g.;• 4 6 MIL.VAPOR BARRIER \ -•-•,-,4 X 12 am r-;---;---1) •`' \A__ C S. . 4 ...s.,- 15-l' r L.•,-,1 \I\ OVER 34'P.T.PLYWOOD r -1 ---r ..........-,..D) .:z-,,,, -- -- -4.-•=•z..: •• OVER 2 X 12 DF.•2 4 12' 3..8 / -- --A • .\ (9'-6'CLG. '• % e.1* a• / 03..6'CL .) 0.C.(MA) SPAN 11'-0 1 / •• . ‘• *".... •••'' iL ,,,, . . ', • __ .4.4 411111 1 4•**el\ ___ _.4, ____ e .••..• ,•,•,0• u: 7::Tr:--_-z.----\,s1 , ,,‘. ,,,,,,. ....... ...L....0'. ,..,,,/ .4 Ir. ,, 1,- _ ;•''.' a •--""1-r 1 \ • .-1-‘) -,.... - • .• ------ ---/72' ,/ / ..., 51/,'X101/2' .L.BM //'0. / ,•1' •\ „ Is,i**111,•44., 4,,,• V I r‘, , . . ., //, / • ...•#4.4i , .,- 0 • ;I • • \\ •SHADED.AREA ' ..-://i4..,-r,•/-•••// I ‘ s\ •••••••,ik "54': • X / ---r \\\\ , \‘ .rs'cLc.,,, I \ ••••." \ ••• :r' SEE ROCF FRAMING N .• \ k --N- '11)). /// PLAN FOR TRUSS LAYOUT n1 -•k- - - --- - - I •\\•,, ic-2.„4 ••••• .' .6 X 12.2 ..,...... , 'k 5'-4)' .'..''''"tert.2. ".".... s'-im• i I e f- • GA.RAE .1Lifr-ii t' ,f , . ---- 00. , , •fa. ,'•-•;:,''. I 4 i 12'•STRUCTURAL ---I-1---•% 40/4 X 22/4* I b I 3 . UL,LISTED DIRECT I I VENT GA9 FIREPLACE I X.4 .-.,..:: COLUMNS C DINING 1 _I 1 t5 /1.11 CAP I BASE TYP. 'X W/COMB.AIR VENT I 201 io li ;p I ., , 13/6 X 0/2 •/- -1 A__ I FLUSH TILED HEARTH 1 1 * b : ,' (IV CLG.) IS 1 X FOYER I 1 INSTALL AS PER MFRS , 1 ,„.• 1 tir T N i . SPEC'S AND CODE 1 I I in / j 6 X 6 POST W/ 6I . I .5 g 2 STORY I . .., ) .1' CC16 COL.CAP , I. I i ,,4• • ... ....•:..-- LIVING /4' -,_ /1 , .. ___ -- _ 15/0 xisr2 ./. r--i<cNtii- 1 ---_, - •-- ,.- ). , ,/ IIION*.4, 2'FRIMI 8/0 FRZNCH ORS. 1.414 4 b do.cLco / •<0.' oms T / ' # .."'"'".••••..s 4••••" / ' WO" •k13•N A ' $ I 1 I a II . , './' 9- / 2/6,X 6/0 FX17.11J/ AI 0/741 $6j. * I 2/0 TRANSOM .1 _---',---. tx0 1.4•,. ‘,40,e' 0,1415) i __- 4.- ' ' ,esc_04. ,. 1/6 TRANSOM EA.SIDE t- RC/IDC 0 16/0 X 8/0 OR DR I ,44$10,00- I 0 ' (VERIFY CLEAR) )<, \ 0' t• , -' NS A` DEL( i , -1 . _. , 5,..X 10/2'24F4G.L.em , 44;,,,* _, I, 4/0 X 8/0 SH. ei 16/0 X 8/0 O.H.DR*. , X le- (30 VENT) •• .1.1 7--, 3t, ,,,276.E.,:::- 7 7----7-- 1.---•,,,,,,,, •.. I -* 4.,. ________---- • I ' ,....6 \ REVISED g 2.-6'' • • .''±:.''4''",-i4,.-„'362,,!:‘,-,:-2'1,.4,rf4.. -r 9' ' / ' 'f I 'I , -' ' 10-6' _ ,______ -* 10-6' 10.6' 11-6 - . IE -0' / . MLUPOAPWINEERRFLFFOLLOORR _. -0. O R / - TOTAL AREA '. . ' I (5) 3/0 X 6/6 S. . 36' PIPE RAILING /� (i8" VENTS) W/ I (5)3/0 X 5/0 FXD. OVER WI (5) 3/0 X 3/0 FXD. OVER I , ic:;: ir"----, 51r8' T t G DECKING WI 34' WONDER BD. OVER '- 4?` I I r/ 12' PAvERS OVER Q u. Q i I v 10'-0' 2'_5' /- X a ; I 12'-II" ._ L 1 5/0 6/'. `L. I _ 6 X 12 1 TRAN • ABOVE I - - - _ -,�•�- -- ---- �p. ,4t-i PRE-FAB METAL 4/0 X 4/0 FXD. W/ _,J Ci •( / A j A FIREPLACE WI 2'0 X 4/0 S.H. EA. EIDE �` \ ; I AIR VENT 4 �C4)-yV V ; (_ FLUSH MARBLE �\ \� + I (FIREBOX TC 1 p 0 ABOVE HI r\ \ 6314' X 9' G.L. BM. ( LUSH) I 2 STORY r= ---- ---- ---- -------------------- 20/6XtJ6 r (I0' CLG.) IX AMILY \1.0 • I" �' ..r rr.� ,.,r 'fir In .4°. • BOTTOM • 9' ••••„, '.. 14/0 X I6/6 + 0 , �, / T' X 111.11" PARAL LAM BM. �'` ----?..0-_..4.. 12'• STRUCTURAL i`,__.ii - - -1- 4) COLUt1'S CAW \ a CAP 4 BASE TYP. .. r'�-qi\\\ (9' CLG.) 9NADEt • • ry , ti /' Ili 0#4 ICS I rrr'2 I/ III�� `� P,>ANi -r iri \,1 /// ' '� It3 / II �• i � 111V QQ � � .; I 1 L ENT i i ' \ / i -- 18R �\ti ,BT R8 (J' GLG:) X I MIN s ,:- .,,:: Ar---} . ,; r i 1 ' II `` ( 11111111111:A! li \vIt \ Ne EPART. TO 9 I r \ � issosamimmuc 1 X 12 - .r,--,-----11 .0_,\\A, C (13 l 4 , 1'S`"1' 1 , 3'-8" l'-9' J - -- �.��i :?`� + �,. 'I f ti ,� - (9'-6' CLGJ \<\` s: //,r 1 EZ:>; C' � \1\\\\ \\\ '' \ - -� 51rd' X 101r2' G.L. SM.. I \ x 4'-2. _ \\\ •\ \: 3FIAPEt�.AREA ;�. 1 01 i ,",i'AFRAGE i 1 5'-4' I -- ~ �"lPJ""1'.... +' ilL 40/4 X 22/4! I i I i , -g j ; i 12'0 STRUCTURAL. I al 0 1 DINING 1 ' -i COLUMNS C/W I ,9 1 i 1 t9 I CAP 4 BASE TYP.I CO X I s i I 13/6 X 13/2 •/- j I - j `Q �/ I I•t S' 634' X 1b r2' .4F G.L. HDR (10 CLGJ ® � j X FOYER II [ 2 STORY I IT W/ I I 6 I i . i l ) d1I u CAP `., I s 1 : tic. . . _ ___. ..... ,.... , . _ , ..:-.1 tv-teA\00- — -- -- - - - - - _ l , ___. - _ __ _____ _ _ _, vy 2" 'AO 4 w. OFFB T 8/4+1 or;.a.---7 _ _ FRENCH DRS. ( �=1w�� ��to �G ' 2/6 x 6/0 FXD. W/ 7 1 .40\1 I 2/0 TRANSOM `� Q i 2/6 X 6/0 FXD- W/ b l�\/` - 1/6 TRANSOM EA. SIDE r- Q Boat` (VERIFY CLEAR) ,S, ! , iN IP 16/0 X 8/0 O.H. DR I C. 4_— ;/ 4' 31/8' X 12' G.L. BM. , 1 10'-6' J._ 10'-6' 11'-6' 2'-6' 9'-6' 21 -0' 42'-0' 36PIPE !RAILING -� '. .Y + r�pie' T t G DCKI ,,. W1-4' WONDER ED. d' 4 „:.; 1 W/ 12' PAVERS OVER ..__ . _— -,�,_ .�..... _.._ �. • .�- ( Fes► ',�: 4/0 X 4/0 FXD. W/ ( 2'0 X 4/0 S.M. EA. EIDE $ - - t_......„/".11 - -_— �;t N --—�- - ` I-LE'p s-- S 66X12 "2hS , w y > , ...63-- (FLUSH) - ';,' :i:.;...,:,,. 0 1e�. 1 R.G. *Tn*' .''',,,..'i,-,-..., 14/0 X 16/6 1 S V 4♦ IM ` , 2'-6' , , 5'-7' ,� 00 •- x 1 I a PA1tR`aJ • 4ii 1 1 IUSE % 'TYPE "X' GYP. BD. / I Qt.' ALL CLGS., WALLS, / f / EXPOSED STRUCT. MSRS. 'd / 4 / / / " I • 3' POPPING SLAB OVER i r 6 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER OVER 344' P.T. P1,YUJOOD OVER 2 X 12 DF '2 0 12' 15'-1' I O.C. (MAX SPAN 11'-0') 1 I li, ' p X SEE ROOF FRAMING N PLAN FOR TRUSS LAYOUT (---;i aki u GARAGE E 40/4 X 22/4* I _ 1 63,E, A .1 12E ....1.10•11101111•11.1•111111101101 f • I 6 X 6 POST W/ I CC16 COL. CAP 1. 1 4(k‘tf4Cf '- .:.':.:Ix-,..,' \I t 9 ,,,,.. t.., ,..„,,,,,;,,, ,. .,, _ Gc°44 I /3C25 *1 I 16/0 X S/0 O.M.DR 1 f vS\P v 5,8',X 16'2' 24F GI.. BM. '‘' -' I 16/0 X 8/0 O.H. DR,. ;m kms' '�4, „ ' / 10'-6' i, _ 9'-6' 10'-6' (5)3/0 X 5/0 FXD. OVER W/ (5)3/0 X 3/0 FXD. OVER w _ I '� '� , �► �g Nm PIMP tore lir.upend N ITe iMr t I it1 WI.teeMbty^K1 and w+wMrt is 1M iordlliets tower,. UN r rN f4t a dM PNee h rg '�' ' loser.'weld M INR b-tty%stow I'teed " \ 4 Sti's X 12' .1 m. t re c.eenr a wit 111t PW sod;r atAacpry \ \ \ :teed,pr:elYt.6 TM-Pim Rete Red le RAW*r .. ..10......t- riii pat tr t ttu perRMi,gat' *M110 flume 't' ert, etY (rtMeard't.AO shamnA't1Mno to W Mip MRaso lit,Dosp OM of tONY*ACf01ls LIMITATION Of ' mT are propos 1h PIN.woke).for wee b K. o, : g I ` i-„ dWltlel of!Me Plan to out`spark sip.eel Wee `.,.. Q egaefiap.:end week AR wnNNuw.it Me wp eayK( 0 W o I 1 le Meets%Pored Y • � III ( (,� AM t bo reepeeAk Ir re taws fa.o. sod emelt Mytir of the iww M sun.of OP .. ��. — f:d.o. ..I.— . — — ,� .. .�.- �� pee Yee. BM CMIInKUR.nrelore top[eMtMly.OPIP X h- aN"Otte: le tee Props for errors or MAON104 etiolate. :.: L :2'- di w r aiptMp r time Aft.r tle MP dei te. �. �ow ite coy*an. loop,.1r.war.Ma 44 0 � �►' � � 0 to SAW tar..It.�+^ed•ad w toSIAM lir e*+ ili t PRE-FAB METAL INSERT 6pl FIREPLACE W/ COMB. AIR VENT AND 20' .a9 i I 0 RECESSED EXHAUST FAt FLUSH I MARBLE NEARTI-1 N i I `nl ' 'st VENTED TO THE EXTERIO (FIREBOX TO BE 8' ` I I ABOVE HEARTH) '''.1 I 5/0 ATRIUM DR I 2 STORY i I (TEMP) I 110 VOLT SMOKE DETECT FAM I L I 11 -).e-- \ \ Q (SEE 'MISCELLANEOUS NOTES' FOR OTHER SPEC t....- 20/6 X 19/6 t N ,• ROOF HIP, VALLEY pQ • LL RIDGE DOWN TO BEARIN I POINT ON WALL BELOW�,,, `r '- � (MAX OF 45' FROM VER1 ..+ ..., , X` L.d - BOTTOM •"9' `� v 1 E 12/0 X 13/4 +/- X • 1'`X'lilt' RARALLAM SM. BEARING WALL SUPPORT _._ I _. — .. (I0' CLG.) ..„1,-ii STRUCTURE ABOVE • 6f is) � • (t' CLG) - 1� -`- ( I 4 X 12 NDR • DR !1 SHAPED AREA —• -- -N- OR FLUSH FLOOR FRAMIN ..,•rAr►�p.'rri,.+�+. (9' CLG.) 2'-2' 2'-0' 8'-8' . / k 1 MEMBERS WI BUILT-up C( .'r 1 { 1 1 OF 3'X BM. WIDTH EA. ENL �'Oli III DROPPED STR CT. MEMS �N\ t''ill I ( PROVIDE COLUt1 EAGI \ Te III 6 END - MINIMUM OF WIDTH- .e. t III II of THE BEAM ) \% .IIIx • - Mill_ BUILT-IN (., \\, •4.Vii;+ 1 ' ► \ . III A ;,(,.. ,N 111 cii:ii . HI ii:F= ® 1 ; \i,1 1 ?` r . . . { ' �� A' �� � il \ 0 `1 \ �\\ )ail . ����. 14 X re _ t _ _ 1FI� t , 411014-1- r+► �,_ ,%,. ItITti CsiI --- .::::,..4.,,, .� iii I • F 1P1' V . l , ; •.l R '� fr (_ � ( �- � -ART. TO 42' N v � • vi .l� 1� • ��' J (9 -6' CL $HADED.AREA �/ + ' // I \\ .IIe11�% (9' CLG,) r>r W , .!/ I `\ •.4�.% e r.,,=. 6 X. 12 ? _= d ''• / i I \\1�,� '( r Z STRUCTURAL • - __ _ 10'-0 I �9 12COLLp�1S C 10 U.L. LISTED DIRECT CAP 4 BASE TYP. I I VENT GAS FIREPLACE i X Q i IX W/ COMB. AIR VENT 1 201 9t�!. pp I`r FLUSH TILED HEARTH . �t 0 a3 FOYE ISI ( I 1 INSTALL AS PER MFR'S 1 I 2 STORY I ; SPECS AND CODE 1 i 9 _. r !Y I hl I5/0 X 15/2 .1- / 5/0 FRENCH DRS. (I 0 (10' CLG..> / /' 0 moi , +Q, 61,_ — yi — _ _ __ \iv P flD 11( b T 0 tit ,,., -- _ DElkillt)\- `ri 4/0 X 8/0 S.H. (30' VENT) s-4,0{4., Con5tructio , .....\ ________ _ .........„, _ . ,.........,_______ . 1• REVISED 02/29/96 TP1) 1 • ^v 9'-6' 2'-6' 16'-0' UPPER FLOOR 1890 SO. FT __� , / MAIN FLOOR 2384 SQ. FT 42' @. �;'' LOWER FLR. 231! 3Q. FT ,. . TOTAL AREA 6589 SQ. FT K'.�.. 1 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ,......, . ,, ... , . .. A lk APPEAL FILING FORM °i"`„ FOR LAND USE DECISIONS TYPE II CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX' (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore,sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION ;. : Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being i Appealed: Moos Home Occupation 13783 SW Benchview Terrace How Do You Qualify As A Party?: Homeowners living within 500 feet of the applicant. . Appellant's Address: 13799 SW Benchview Terrace at:W;t:—: , ,, rrta.,..'1!-, ;,,,.. .-**A City/State: Tigard Zi .97223 P' 503 16-2276 �-, , �, Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:( . Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: April 10, 2002 A a a ,a Date Notice of Final Decision Was GivenlNarch 26,2002 Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: 4La(-ce� REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS �. ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Appeal Filing Form(completed) �-�d Filing Fee(based on criteria below) ( > (rector's Decision to(Hearings Officer $ 250.00 `�Expedited Review(deposit) $ 300.1_22s9._: ➢ Hearing Referee $ 500.00 ➢ Planning Commission/Hearing's Officer to City Council $7,745.00 (+Transcript) Signatures)of Appellant(s): SC)-LJi-ZA) hikd pi etti , ', APPEAL 1 FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS I:lcurph masters\appeal {OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) PAGE t OF The specific grounds for appeal of the decision regarding HOP2002-00010 Moos Salon are as follows: 1. 18.742.010 Purposes: The clear intent of the home occupation section of the community development code is to permit residents to use their home for business ventures which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters. Neither the city nor the applicant has adequately addressed this issue. The only rationale the applicant has given for wanting to have her salon in her home is that she wants to be near her children during the down times. She has never stated that she is unable to rent space commercially. On the contrary, she is very proud of the fact that she lives in "a million dollar home" and has a full time nanny. In fact,the structural changes she must make to comply with ADA and Board of Cosmetology requirements will necessitate a considerable outlay of money. This is someone who can afford to rent space in a strip mall or salon. She simply wants to run a commercial establishment in a residential zone for her convenience. The city has stated that if she meets the criteria set forth in 18.742.040, she can be issued a permit. Without showing that the applicant meets the intent of the purpose, it appears that our current R-7 zone is really a residential/commercial zone,with no need to apply for a variance. In a residential zone,we don't need a permit with notification of surrounding homeowners and opportunity for comment and appeal to build a house; we just need to meet the building code standards. Likewise,the city maintains that a commercial enterprise can be conducted in the same manner. Regardless of the comments that come in during the comment period or any of the other requirements of the code section,the business just needs to meet the code standards set forth in 18.742.040. This runs contrary to the entire permit process,as well as protection against commercial creep in a residential zone. The city maintains that the "home occupation rules de facto cause the business to be a small scale venture." The code does not give blanket approval for any small scale business, it CLEARLY adds the caveat- "which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters." The city maintains that a full-scale salon services many more than 6 clients per day and employs more than one stylist. This is not necessarily true. Salons can range in size from a one-person shop to a shop with many stylists, manicurists,tanning beds,etc. The majority of independent stylists, like Ms. Moos, rent their own space in an established salon, working the eight hours per day, five days per week that she has applied for. At 6 clients per day, she is working as much as she would if this were not in her home. For a stylist,this IS a full-scale business. What she is proposing to do in her home is what she has done in a commercial establishment for the past twelve years. If the applicant does not have to show the hardship designated in the section,then what IS the purpose? Likewise,the second stated purpose is to prevent the applicant from conducting the business in a manner detrimental or disruptive to the neighboring properties. The city has not addressed our concerns regarding the openness of the back yards in this development and the complete lack of privacy that would ensue from the applicant's clientele entering her "business" from the back deck. At a minimum,there would be 120 strangers (240 trips)per month looking directly into our back yard and deck area. What used to be a private, serene area would become a de facto commercial business area. In any definition of the words,this would be detrimental and disruptive. One of the major reasons to purchase property such as this is for the privacy it affords. In addition,the .. `� .-� security of our property is greatly compromised. Too many strangers get to view the secluded side of our homes and their contents. They would not have access to this area were it not for this business. Some residential areas and houses are better suited to this type of activity than this setting. There are no fences to hide the trips in and out, nor is there any way to buffer with foliage. She is not a discrete distance from her neighbors, nor is she tucked in a secluded section of the development. There is a mere ten-foot distance house wall to house wall from the nearest neighbor, who can do nothing to prevent this unwanted intrusion. There are a number of other issues that fall under the purview of detrimental or disruptive that also have not been adequately addressed by the city. One of these is the extra traffic and the associated safety issues. Backing out of the driveway onto a very busy street is an art practiced daily by those of us who live here. We are constantly surprised to find a car directly behind us as we proceed down Benchview,when we were so sure the"coast" was clear prior to backing out. Visibility is further hampered at the Moos residence by the large retaining wall that juts out to the sidewalk,thus making it difficult to see if a car is coming up the hill until you are already in the street. The city may think it has fixed the parking issue, but it has simply moved the safety hazard to a new location. This will also be addressed under the impact study section. 2. 18.510.030 Zoning Uses: It is not until R-25 that a limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted. The use table (18.510.1)lists personal services as a commercial enterprise. As such, it is not permitted in R-7 zones. There is an entire list of businesses that are not permitted in R-7 zoning. What is not clearly stated is a list of businesses that are permitted as part of the restricted use for home occupations. The restriction applied to home occupations is that they are subject to compliance with requirements in 18.742. If,as the city maintains,the rules allow a wide range of services and sales, with only a few exceptions,the business should at the very least meet the description given in the purpose section of 18.742. The city has listed piano teaching, acupuncture,massage,and counseling as other typical "personal service" home occupations. Personal,defined as "of the person, body,or physical appearance",would not apply to piano teaching or counseling. Acupuncture and massage would be personal services,and,as such,are also not permitted in R-7 zoning, no matter what has been allowed to occur in the past. To permit one commercially defined business to operate in a residential zone sets a precedent for all of the commercially defined businesses to operate in a residential zone, given that the business complies with only one section of 18.7842 - namely, 18.742.040. That section does not comprise the entire chapter. The city maintains that the precedent has been set to allow these types of businesses to operate under a Type II home occupation permit. However, the city has broken with its own precedent in building code permits on at least one occasion,and in this very neighborhood. Thus, that rationale falls short. Besides,two wrongs don't make a right; there is no excuse for continuing a poor practice. 3. 18.742.040 General Criteria: The city has not addressed our concerns about the amount of square footage devoted to this activity. In the revised plan,the city has measured the square footage at 285 SF. This includes only the den and adjacent bathroom. The problem is that the proposed entry to this area is through the garage,which should be counted as an accessory structure,and through the kitchen/nook area out to the back deck. The city has stated that they do not believe this "entry", which goes through a major portion of the home, is associated with the business activity,and therefore,does not need to be counted. Without this section of the house • being used to route clients through,the applicant would not be able to run her business. Therefore, it should definitely be counted as part of the total square footage"used" for the business activity. 4. 18.390.040 Type II Procedure: This section states that an impact study shall be submitted as part of the application. While the city did ask the applicant to provide one, it merely consists of her statement that there will be no adverse impact on anything. This "impact study" smacks of pro forma punch the ticket and is not a serious effort to document the true impact to others. There has been tremendous negative impact already. For example,the homeowners have indicated concern regarding the traffic this business will generate on an already busy street. The city has stated that 12 trips per day will not adversely impact the traffic on the street. In the absence of any measurable criteria, how does this address all of the concerns listed during the comment period? At the very least,there needs to be a discussion regarding the lack of visibility,the location of bus stops and children crossing,the speed,which is already on average 12 mph over the posted limit,and the fact that the hill is so steep that speed bumps cannot be installed. At what point does the purposeful addition of more traffic become excessive or a safety hazard? If one is already at the edge of safe, it might be only one more. 12 trips per day may not seem like much, but it adds up quickly when it equates to 60 trips a week and 240 trips a month. In addition,the city has already added to this traffic by approving the building of row houses at the bottom of the hill. The additional traffic these residents will bring also needs to be considered in the equation. This and all of the other areas listed in the impact study have not been adequately addressed with criterion referenced, evidence based data. 5. 18.390.080C4 Pre-application conferences: The last sentence in this section states that the applicant is responsible for ensuring that its application complies with all of the law (identified as federal,state, regional,and local)applicable on the day the application is deemed complete. Now that there is a revised plan for client entry,the state regulations have not been met, nor have they been addressed by the applicant or the city. The city knows that the applicant is out of compliance with the state rules at this point,with no plan for coming into compliance. They maintain that this is an area for the Health Licensing Office to enforce. Because compliance means major renovation of the kitchen/nook area of the home, with all of the proper permits issued through the city of Tigard, it would seem that the city would have a major role in this area as well. Conditions 2 and 3: It is difficult to see how the ADA rules will be followed, if the structural changes are all required,approved,and accomplished in isolation of one another. The city has stated that the applicant will be required to provide documentation that the proposed use is in compliance, however,the condition states only that she receive proper certification to operate her business. This,as stated by members of the Board of Cosmetology, consists of a blanket permit to operate for up to a year without compliance with the regulations. How will the city make sure her proposed pathway through the kitchen,which must be a hallway with floor to ceiling walls, meet the ADA requirements if they do not see the plans for remodel? To ensure complete compliance,the applicant needs to have her inspection with approval by the Health Licensing Office done prior to any permit issued by the city. We,the surrounding homeowners,are requesting a hearing to dialogue about these issues. kI/h/1ks„,,l 1' CITY OF TIGARD OREGON March 22, 2002 Sopaul Moos 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit Application Review (HOP2002-00010) Dear Ms. Moos: Enclosed, please find a copy of the floor plan for the main floor of your house. Please indicate the location of your proposed salon business and the route that customers will take through the home to reach the rooms used for the business. • Please note that the total square footage for the rooms cannot exceed 528 square feet. You will need to return the revised site plan before a decision can be issued. This is the last component before we can make our determination. Also, please be aware that the State Board of Cosmetology and State Building Codes are applicable, and that granting the home occupation permit will be contingent on be able to demonstrate compliance with those requirements as well. If you have any questions regarding your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at (503) 639-4171 ext. 407. Sincerely, �• f Morgan Tracy Associate Planner enclosure c: HOP2002-00010 Land Use file is\curpin\morgan\workspace\hopii\hop2002-00010(moos)\hop2002-00010 request for site plan.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON February 13, 2002 Sopaul Moos 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Notice of Complete Application Submittal for a Home Occupation Permit Application Review (HOP2002-00010) Dear Ms. Moos: The City has received the information necessary to begin the review of your Home Occupation permit application. As I confirmed with you on the phone, the maximum number of customers/clients will not exceed six per day, as required by Tigard Development Code Section 18.742.050(2). Staff has, therefore, deemed your application submittal as complete and will begin the review process. The estimated time for rendering a decision from the date an application is deemed complete is 5-6 weeks. If you have any questions regarding your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at (503)639-4171 ext. 407. Sincerely, ' 4"-,t— ( Morgan Tracy Associate Planner \\tig333\usr\depts\curp1n\morgan\workspace\hopii\hop2002-00004 complete.dot c: HOP2002-00010 Land Use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772