Loading...
CPA1996-00003 January 2, 1996 0yotioi, Mr.William Cox CITY OF TIGARD °' 0244 SW Califomia Street Portland, OR 97219 OREGON Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Bill: This letter is in response to your letter dated December 11, 1995. I would like to address some of the questions presented in that letter. As discussed in your pre-application conference on October 31, 1995, wetlands are not eligible for density transfer. Your letter referenced Section 18.92.030 and 18.92.020(A)(1) as the applicable criteria for density transfer, and did so correctly. Since wetlands are not one of the three sensitive lands listed in 18.92.020(A)(1), they are not eligible for density transfer. Further, Comprehensive Plan Implementation Strategy 3,which you also cited, specifically limits the transfer to 25 percent. The only way to allow a density transfer of any kind, is to list wetlands under 18.92.020(A)(1). The purpose of our October 31st pre-application meeting was to discuss the process through which such language could be added into the code. The process would be through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Ordinance Amendment application. As discussed, to submit such an application would require an extensive narrative.which addresses all Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code sections which would be amended. As the applicant, you are free to request what you think would be an appropriate percentage to transfer. Staff would recommend that the percentage requested be applied to all sensitive land areas, not just wetlands. Applications for a legislative change are permitted twice yearly. The completed application shall be submitted not more than 75 days, and not less than 45 days before the first Commission meetings in April and October. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to meet on April 8, 1996. Enclosed is an application form. The fee is $706.00. If you feel another pre-application conference is necessary to further discuss this matter, please contact Will D'Andrea to set a conference date. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at 639-4171. Sincerely, James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director Lloginturpinlvalltrodtr Enclosures (2) 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 LA@ USE APPLICATION FEE SCHEE APPEALS Director's Decision to Planning Commission 235.00 costs Planning Commission/Hearings Off.to Council 315.00 +transcript BLASTING PERMITS 125.00 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESSING Text only, Map only, or both 675.00 CONDITIONAL USE PROCESSING • Conditional Use Review 365.00 FLEXIBLE SETBACK STANDARDS 80.00 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT 80.00 HOME OCCUPATION TYPE I 10.00 TYPE II 50.00 INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 55.00 by Community Development Department LAND PARTITION Residential and Non-residential 235.00 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 50.00 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING Conceptual and detailed plan review 500.00 SENSITIVE LANDS Flood plain . . 520.00 Wetlands/Steep slopes/Drainageway 235.00 SIGN CODE EXCEPTIONS 230.00 SIGN PERMIT 0-24 sq. ft. 10.00 24-100 sq. ft 25.00 100 + sq. ft. 35.00 Temporary signs 10.00 each sign SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Under$10,000 80.00 $10,000 -$99,999 155.00 $100,000 -$499,999 315.00 $500,000 -$999,999 415.00 $1,000,000 or more 520.00 +$1 per$10,000 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT 415.00 + $5/LOT Subdivision Variance, if needed 105.00 TEMPORARY USE Director's Decision 50.00 Special exemption/Non-Profit -0- TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 0 -0- VACATIONS Streets and public access 300.00 deposit actual costs charged VARIANCE Administrative 80.00 Sign Code 230.00 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATIONS Less than 10 acres 520.00 10 acres or more 625.00 ZONE CHANGE PROCESSING Less than 10 acres 520.00 10 acres or more 625.00 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 310.00 JOINT APPLICATION PLANNING FEE 100% of highest planning fee plus 10% of all additional planning fees related to the proposal. Approved by City Council Effective 2/1/91 HtLOGMDS1s1FEESCHED • • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON .COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. OTHER CASE NO'S: RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION (A) Application form (1) l (B) Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. authorization I (C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE (pre-app check list) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* (D) Filing fee ($ ADDRESS PHONE Additional information for Compre- CITY ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes APPLICANT* (E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS PHONE location (pre-app check list) CITY ZIP (F) List of property owners and *When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization (H) Title transfer instrument (1) from the owner or an agent of the owner with written - authorization. The owners) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from to and a Zone Change from to N.P.O. Number: OR The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code City Council Approval Date: 0737P/23P Rev'd: 5/87 • • 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. 5. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. • B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. DATED this day of 19 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. (KSL:pm/0737P) I . • APPLICATION INFORMATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PART I — REVIEW PROCESS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1. Text Change This applies to amendments to the text and policies contained within the "Tigard Comprehensive Plan — Findings, Policies, and Implementation Strategies, Volume 2" or "Tigard Comprehensive Plan — REsource Document — Volume I". 2. Map Change This relates to amendments made to the land use designations which appear on the adopted Comprehensive Plan Map. This type of Plan amendment is often made in conjunction with a Zone Change which is described below. B. Zone Ordinance Modifications 1. Zone Ordinance Amendment Changes in the requirements of the Community Development Code are considered as Zone Ordinance Amendments. These modifications are typically initiated by the Planning Commission or City Council but the general public may also propose changes to the Code. 2. Zone Change This applies to amendments made to the zoning designations which appear on the adopted Zoning District Map. If the proposed Zone Change is not consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Designation, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be reviewed simultaneously. C. The application and review process involves the following steps: 1. Preapplication Conference Prior to submission of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, or Zone Ordinance Amendment, the applicant must make an appointment with the Planning Staff to discuss the proposal as it relates to the applicable requirements. 2. Public Hearing before Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the text or map and Zone Ordinance Amendments will be reviewed by the Commission and a recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Zone Changes will be approved or denied by the Commission based upon the applicable criteria. (1) V • a 3. Public Hearing before City Council The City Council shall review the Planning Commission recommendations for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Ordinance Amendments and will approve or deny the proposal based upon the applicable criteria. In the case of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change being reviewed concurrently, a zone district approved by the Planning Commission shall become effective following City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. D. Following approval, the change will be implemented by the City. PART II — APPROVAL CRITERIA A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (text change) 1. Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 2. Consistency with other Plan policies B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (map change) 1. Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 2. Consistency with other Plan policies 3. Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan, Volume 2 C. Zone Ordinance Amendment (Community Development Code) 1. Comprehensive Plan policies 2. Consistency with, other provisions of the Community Development Code D. Zone Change (Hap Change) 1. Comprehensive Plan policies 2. Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan, Volume 2 3. Consistency with other provisions of the Community Development Code E. Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines State law requires that local land use plans be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. The Goals that are relevant to the City are listed and briefly described below: 1. Goal #1: Develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to get involved in all aspects of the planning process; (2) • • 2. Goal #2: Establish a land use planning process and policy framework as the basis of all land use decisions and actions, and ensure an adequate factual data base to substantiate those decisions and actions; 3. Goal #3: Preserve and maintain agricultural lands beyond the Urban Growth Boundary of the community; 4. Goal #4: Conserve forest lands, not committed for urban uses, for strictly forest uses; 5. Goal #5: Conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources; 6. Goal #6: Maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land resources; 7. Goal #7: Protect the lives of community residents and property from natural hazard areas; 8. Goal #8: Meet the recreational needs of residents of the community, State, and visitors; 9. Goal #9: Diversify and improve the economy of the community and the State; 10. Goal #10: Provide adequate housing for the needs of the community, region and State; 11. Goal #11: Plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as the framework for urban development; 12. Goal #12: Provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system; 13. Goal #13: Conserve energy; and 14. Goal #14: Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from urbanizable to urban land uses. F. Comprehensive Plan Policies The Plan sets the policy direction related to land use and development. Different policies will apply depending upon the nature of a development proposal. G. Locational Criteria These criteria are contained within the Comprehensive Plan. They describe the locational characteristics that should exist in order to accommodate specific land use activities. (3) H. Determination of Applicable Criteria The Planning Staff will assist the applicant in order to ascertain which criteria relate to a particular proposal. r PART III — APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS • A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: 1. One application form. 2. Copies of the necessary data or narrative which explains how the proposal conforms with the applicable criteria as specified in the pre—application checklist. 3. The required fee. 4. For Comprehensive Plan map amendments and Zone Changes, the following additional information shall be submitted: a. Copies of a map illustrating the location of the property as specified in the pre—application checklist. b. One list of the names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 250 feet of the property involved. c. One Assessor's map of the property. d. One copy of the title transfer instrument (eg. deed). (KSL:bs/0755P) (4) • • /r REC'D DEC 1.2 1995 CWilliam C. Cox attorney at law Land Use and Development Consultation Project Management 2 December 11, 1995 Jim Hendryx Director of Community Development City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Comprehensive Plan Change Housing Density Transfers in Planned Developments Housing Policy 6 . 1 . 1, Implementation Strategy 3 Community Development Code Provisions 18 . 92 . 020-030 Dear Jim, This office represents ABECO a developer of multifamily residential projects. ABECO is presently undertaking to develop a project on S.W. Longstaff Street in the City of Tigard. In the process of designing the 'PUD project it has come to our attention that Tigard' s Comprehensive Plan- and Land- Use Regulations may limit the amount of density ABECO.-can transfer from an on-site . wetland. The Plan and Regulations are clear about density transferred from land within the one hundred (100) year floodplain, slopes exceeding 25% and drainageways (CDC 18 . 92 . 020 (A) (1) . CDC 18 . 92 . 030 indicates in pertinent part : A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18 . 92 . 020 (A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations : 1 . The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2 . The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if •not for these regulations; and -1- 0244 S.W. California Street • Portland, Oregon 97219 • (503) 246-5499 • FAX (503) 244-8750 • 3 . The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. " B. "All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18 . 80, Planned Development . (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) " The above quoted land use regulations seem intended to implement Comprehensive Plan Housing Policy 6 . 1 .1 which states : "THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICES AND RENT LEVELS. " That policy in turn is implemented by Implementation Strategy 3 . which states : "The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e .g. , steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred. " The ABECO site contains a wetland which is not specifically mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan or implementation strategy as being subject to the policy. The land use regulations add the term drainageway to the list of physical characteristics governed by the 25% density transfer limitation but the wetland on the ABECO site is not a drainageway. My question to you is whether the act of transferring density from a wetland, which is neither in a floodplain nor a drainageway, is limited to the 25% standard or can ABECO transfer 100% of the density from the subject wetland. If ABECO can make such a 100% transfer there is no need for a comprehensive plan change . If the answer to my question is that the proposed wetland density transfer is limited to the 25% standard I would like to know your reasoning why. In addition if that is your conclusion then please, consider this letter as a formal request for a change to those portions of Tigard' s Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations which establish and implement the 25% limitation. In making the requested changes it is our request that the 25% limitation be removed and replaced with an allowance for 100% density transfer. -2- . . • It is further my understanding that Tigard considers Comprehensive Plan changes only twice a year and the next window of opportunity is scheduled for February 1996 . If a Comprehensive Plan amendment is necessary to achieve ABECO' s goals please inform me of what formal application documents must be submitted and the deadline for their submittal to get a hearing during the February 1996 review. Thank you in advance for your courtesies . May I hear from you as soon as possible on how we need to proceed since the holidays will shorten my time availability to meet the City' s time line. Sin ,/rs, W iam C. 'ox i WCC/abh CC: Client -3- . . .• OTICE OF ADOPTI This form must be mailed to DLCD not later than 5 working days after adoption ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements Jurisdiction City of Tigard Local File # CPA96-0003/Z0A96-0004 Date of Adoption July 9. 1996 Date Mailed July 16. 1996 Date the Proposed Notice was mailed to DLCD April 26. 1996 X Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment New Land Use Regulation Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached." _Modify Comprehensive Plan text to remove language which limits onsite residential density transfer to 25%. Modify Community Development Code to allow full onsite transfer of residential density for sites with wetlands which are zoned multi-family (R-12. R-25. and R-40). Describe how the adopted amendment differs from the proposed amendment. If it is the same, write "Same." If you did not give notice of the proposed amendment, write "N/A." Same Plan Map Change From NA to Zone Map Change From NA to Location: NA Acres Involved: NA Specify Density: Previous Density NA New Density NA Applicable Goals: NA Was an Exception adopted?__ Yes X No DLCD File# DLCD Appeal Deadline • • Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment 45 days prior to the final hearing? X Yes __ No: __ The Statewide Planning Goals do not apply Emergency Circumstances Required Expedited Review Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: _City of Tigard____ Local Contact: Nels Mickaelson Phone: 639-4171 Address: City of Tigard. 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard. OR 97223 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 1. Send this Form and One(1)Copy of the Adopted Amendment to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street,N.E. Salem,Oregon 97310-0590 2. Submit three(3)copies of bound documents and maps larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches. 3. Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than five (5)working days following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings and supplementary information. 5. The deadline to appeal will be extended if you do not submit this Notice of Adoption within five working days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within 21 days of the date Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 6. In addition to sending Notice of Adoption to DLCD,you must notify persons who participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. If you need more copies of this form,please call the DLCD at 503-373-0050 or this form may be duplicated on green paper. 4.4,1).) • •Agenda Item No.3• I Meeting of S 1 1314t' TIGARD CITY COUNCIL • MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Associate Planner Nels Michealson; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Election Training City Recorder Cathy Wheatley reviewed a handout on election law pertaining to elected officials and public employees. She explained that while elected officials could support an issue or a candidate, neither staff nor appointed public officials (i.e., Boards and Commission members) could work on a campaign unless it was on their own time. She said that the state recommended that employees announce when working on a campaign that they were not representing the City and that they keep track of their time. Ms. Wheatley stated that staff has concluded that CIT facilitators did not qualify as public employees because they were elected from their membership, not appointed by the Council. She noted that staff could wear political campaign buttons. She explained that any written material prepared by staff had to be fair and impartial in representing all sides of an issue. She reviewed the criteria used to judge impartiality. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:47 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. • Executive Session adjourned and Study Session reconvened at 7:15 p.m. • Cook Park Task Force • Community Development Director Jim Hendryx reported that staff intended the Task Force to do one final review of the scope of work, as it has been revised. > Agenda Review - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 1 • City Administrator Bill Monahan noted a request from the applicant to continue the public hearing listed in Agenda Item No. 5 due to scheduling conflicts. He recommended opening the public hearing in order to continue the matter and allowing any interested parties to testify at this time if they so wished. He suggested moving this item prior to the Consent Agenda. > Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on the term "real market value" in Item No. 7 (LID). Legal Counsel Jim Coleman explained that real market value was being used in this instance. Ballot Measure 5 requires property tax assessments be based on real market value. Councilor Scheckla asked why this item was on the agenda. Mr. Monahan explained that this was intended to help staff reach a final assessment on the properties involved in the Dartmouth extension. Chuck Corrigan, who has handled the litigation on the Dartmouth extension, has recommended that the City allow a certain property owner to "Bancroft bond" in order to remove one of the impediments to this Local Improvement District (LID). 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, asked what was the status of the IGA contract with Lake Oswego. Mr. Monahan stated that they were awaiting language from Lake Oswego for an updated contract on purchasing water, but that it did not include Tigard becoming a partner through buying into the system at this time. Mr. Polans asked about the discussions involving several jurisdictions that began three months ago. Mr. Monahan stated that that discussion regarding an option to go to the Willamette River was still ongoing between Tualatin Valley, Wilsonville, Tualatin, Sherwood and Tigard. Mr. Polans asked if it would be better to partner with another city as opposed to purchasing water. Mr. Monahan replied that they would consider that question when they evaluated their options. > Mayor Nicoli explained to Martha Bishop that she signed up to testify at a public hearing this evening and therefore Council could not listen to her comments outside CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 2 • of that forum. Ms. Bishop stated that she would testify at the August 13 continuance of the hearing. The Council considered Item No. 5 at this time. 3. CONSENT AGENDA • Councilor Hunt asked to remove 3.2b and 3.4. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf to adopt Consent Agenda items 3.1, 3.2.a, 3.3 and 3.5. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: June 11, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve City/County Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Civil Forfeiture Proceeds 3.4 Adopt Fiscal Year 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management/Professional Group Employees; Formalize Direction on the Oregon Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Measure 8 and Reduce the City's Contribution to the Management/Professional Group by 1% per Fiscal Year Over the Next Three Fiscal years - Resolution No. 96- 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Cityscape Printing Bid to Community Newspapers, Inc. for FY 1996-97. • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion 3.2b Tentative Agenda Councilor Hunt referred to page 4, the item on finalizing long-range space plans. He said that he did not think the Council was doing a good job in giving staff direction regarding long-term space planning for the City Hall building. He cited the expansion of the police department, commenting that he did not know if they were including more storage space and reserving areas for elevators or stairs should they decide to add a second floor. Councilor Hunt spoke for doing overall long-range planning for space through a master plan. Mayor Nicoli stated that they would put the item on the workshop agenda for next week. Councilor Hunt questioned scheduling finalized long-range plans for Cook Park on September 13. Mr. Monahan confirmed that that was an error and stated that it would be corrected. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 3 • • J Councilor Hunt referred to the item on affordable housing. He stated that this was a particular interest of his and suggested having a • Council liaison to the people involved with affordable housing. He noted that they had said that support from the City, more than money, was most helpful to them. Mayor Nicoli appointed Councilor Hunt as the Council Liaison and asked Mr. Monahan to contact the group. Mr. Monahan commented that he received regular updates on the affordable housing activities and that it was an ongoing agenda item. He noted that the affordable housing issue also involved a review of the feasibility of creating a community housing code; staff was considering scheduling the issue in August or September. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf to approve the tentative Council Agenda with the rescheduling of Cook Park. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.4 Adopt Fiscal Year 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management/ Professional Group Employees; Formalize Direction on the Oregon Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Measure 8 and Reduce the City's Contribution to the Management/Professional Group by 1% per Fiscal Year Over the Next Three Fiscal years - Resolution No. 96- Councilor Hunt stated that he would vote "no" on this item, not because he disagreed with the contract but because he disagreed • with the communications that the Council had with the management group. He commented on the difficulty of explaining his exact reasons for voting "no" on an issue that could only be discussed in Executive Session. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Consent Agenda Item 3.4. Motion was approved by 4-1 voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted "no.") 4. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ABECO/Cox) - CPA 96- 0003/ZOA 96-0005 REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 - add language CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 4 • • to allow full transfer of density from sites with wetlands which are zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40 from the wetland area to the buildable portion of the site. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.020 to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which density can be transferred, and 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from wetland areas zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.30, 18.84, and 18.92. ZONE:N/A (Continued from June 11, 1996) a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Associate Planner Nels Michealson gave the staff report. He noted that at the last meeting staff read into the record a correction of the various sections but neglected to give a copy to the Recorder to revise the agenda. Mr. Michealson reviewed the request, noting that it would have city wide application. He reviewed Council's direction to staff at the June 11 meeting to implement the applicant's proposal and to investigate options for employing more generous density transfer on other physically constrained .. lands within all zoning classifications. Mr. Michealson reviewed the proposed ordinance that would implement the applicant's proposal with a minor modification to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The change recommended by staff would allow more flexibility in the future than what was allowed in the applicant's original proposal through its deletion of the language in the Comprehensive Plan that restricted transfers to 25%. Mr. Michealson said that staff also recommended investigating ways to make modifications to the Code to allow density transfer from wetlands zoned single family as well as from multi family zoned wetlands, and to allow a more generous density transfer on other physically constrained lands including flood plains and steep slopes. He pointed out that the land use changes would allow the public an opportunity to comment and the staff time to research the effects of these options. d. Public Testimony Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Court, King City, asked for clarification on increasing the percentage for wetlands. Mayor Nicoli - explained that Council was considering two issues: whether or not to allow the density transfer and, if they allowed it, the percentage they wanted to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 5 • • allow. Mr. Michealson stated that staff recommended transfer of the full number of potential housing units that could be built on the wetland portion of the site to the developable area of the site. He noted that the proposal was only for the multi family zoned area, not the single family zoned area. Mr. Polans asked if this situation was similar to the A-Boy problem. He asked what was the benefit to the citizens and the cost factors involved in the City Council managing wetlands, flood plains, drainage ways and steep slopes. Mayor Nicoli noted that the issue in the Dolan case involved the flood plain and access to Fanno Creek; that was not the issue under consideration tonight. William Cox, Attorney representing the applicant, ABECO, 0244 SW California Street, Portland, stated that they were in complete agreement with staffs presentation. Councilor Rohlf asked if the applicant's proposal was still only for multi family, as requested by the CITs. Mr. Cox stated that it was still only for multi family at this time but that staff reworded the language to give them more flexibility in their planning function and to follow Council direction to investigate other options. Councilor Rohlf noted the stated concern that this might become invasive in a single family area. Mr. Cox concurred that that was the common feeling among the people at the three CIT meetings he attended but pointed out that that was not a statistically sound sample from which he could necessarily draw the conclusion that the citizenry of Tigard did not want density transfer on single family; perhaps a compromise could be worked out. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Michealson recommended that the Council approve the ordinance as proposed by staff and direct staff to prepare options changing standards on other physically constrained lands. f. Council Questions Councilor Rohlf asked for clarification on the flexibility staff would get with these changes. Mr. Michealson explained that if the 25% limitation was eliminated in the Comprehensive Plan, it meant that they could make code changes without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He said that he thought that staff needed to look at how the Code was written for density transfer in conjunction with development criteria. g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 6 c1 • • • • Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-24. The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-24 by number and title. ORDINANCE NO. 96-24, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING THE REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 6.1.1, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 3, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.92.020 AND 18.92.030 TO ALLOW THE ONSITE TRANSFER OF DENSITY ON SITES WITH WETLANDS WHICH ARE ZONED R-12, R-25, AND R-40. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES REQUEST: Amend the text of police 12.2.1(2)(1a) of the Comprehensive Plan to modify the spacing and locational criteria for General Commercial land uses. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.2; Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.30; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. • • a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. He noted the applicant's request to continue the hearing. He asked for if there was any public testimony at this time. Martha Bishop requested that the date of the continuance be published. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to hold over this hearing until August 13, 1996. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - FOR A PERMIT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON, INC. - ORDINANCE NO. 96-25 Mr. Monahan presented the staff report. He explained that the agreement would allow TCI to pay the franchise fee to the City of Tigard for those properties that were outside the boundaries delineated in the current agreement between TCI and the City but which have since then been annexed into the City. This would allow the City to bring those areas formerly served through Washington County's CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 7 • • agreement with TCI into compliance with the current City of Tigard-TCI agreement. The term limit on both contracts was through 1999. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Monahan stated that the $20,000 mentioned in the agreement was the amount TCI recognized as due to Tigard, and not to the County, since the annexations; this agreement would free up that money. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-25. The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-25 by number and title. 0 ORDINANCE NO. 96-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, GRANTING TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON, INC. THE PERMIT AND RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ITS CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PAYMENT OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT IN INSTALLMENTS - ORDINANCE NO. 96-26 Mr. Monahan presented the staff report. He stated under the current ordinance there was a provision that stated that applicants under the LID process could not "Bancroft bond" their assessments if the unpaid balance on any previous assessment they had against the same property equaled or exceeded twice the assessed valuation of the property. He explained that this became a problem when the property inside an LID boundary was in a tax deferred status. This meant that the assessed valuation was extremely low and therefore the provision forbidding "Bancroft bonds" could be easily met. Mr. Monahan stated that at least one property in the Dartmouth LID had a tax deferred status; however once it was developed, its assessed value would be extremely ; therefore, staff proposed amending the ordinance. Mr. Monahan reviewed the proposed ordinance that directed the Finance Director to accept written applications for Bancroft bonding (to pay in installments as opposed to paying the entire amount at the time of assessment) as long as the unpaid balance in the assessment against the property and the new assessment would not exceed the real market value. He explained that this meant the City could accept Bancroft bonding because they could recover the full value of the assessment by taking the property if for some reason the property owner defaulted. In response to a series of questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr Monahan said that the length of time allowed for repayment of the assessment depended on the individual LIDs and would be set at the time the LID was formed by the Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 8 n - • • • Mr. Coleman stated that the normal length of a Bancroft bond was 10 to 20 years. Mr. Monahan said that there was a prepayment opportunity available, and that if the property changed hands, the City could require full payment at the time of the transfer Mr. Coleman explained that purchasers commonly required that the land be free of all liens or encumbrances. Mr. Monahan stated that the Council's decision tonight only modified the ordinance; it did not bind the Council to any particular term for a Bancroft bond. Councilor Hunt expressed concern at making an ordinance for one specific person. He noted that this ordinance change would not effect the farm deferral status on the property in question. He asked what assurance they had that another roadblock would not arise in this LID. Mr. Monahan said that there were no assurances that another roadblock would not arise for the Dartmouth LID; in fact, he expected issues to be raised over the assessment method. Councilor Hunt commented that he had been told that Metro would approve a farm deferral for the Sattler property. He asked if Metro had the authority to do that. Mr. Monahan said that Metro had no authority on assessments; that was a County function. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern over the contentiousness of this LID, and spoke for fairness to all parties involved, not just to this particular property owner. He stated that while he was in general agreement with the ordinance language, he thought it was premature to give away this "bargaining chip" without asking for something in return in terms of concession. Mr. Monahan confirmed Mayor Nicoli's comment that negotiations have broken off between all parties. He stated that he believed that this ordinance would help staff clear up the right-of-way acquisition issue and settle an issue with one property owner. Mr. Coleman pointed out that other LIDs in the City that involved properties in a tax deferral program would also be subject to this limitation, even though the ordinance was driven by a particular circumstance. Councilor Rohlf concurred but reiterated his concern that they were acting prematurely. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-26. The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-26 by number and title. ORDINANCE NO. 96-26, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.04 REGARDING PAYMENT OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT IN INSTALLMENTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 9 • • , ` Motion failed by a 3-2 roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Moore voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "no.") 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION - REVIEW COUNCIL GOALS Mr. Monahan referenced the Council Goals (see attached). He reviewed the format devised by the City Recorder. He pointed out that some goals required further direction from the Council. He asked for Council feedback. Councilor Hunt said that this was the best format he has seen.since he's been on the Council. Councilor Rohlf stated that he also liked the format. He expressed concern regarding developing Tigard's approach to working with Metro (page 5). He stated that he thought that they were still reacting to Metro and had not developed a definitive method. He said that this was an important enough goal to keep discussing until they found a method that "rang true." Mr. Monahan clarified that the term "comprehensive plan" in the long-term computer system goal (page 2) referred to a city wide computer plan, not to land use. . Councilor Rohlf asked if 30 was too many goals. Mr. Monahan noted that it was an aggressive list of goals. He said that staff wouldn't have time to complete some of the goals but that it was important to "keep the goals on the screen" to allow staff and Council to work together to define even more clearly what Council's intentions were in setting the goals. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. ADJOURNMENT: 8:46 p.m. et,Metew Catherine Wheatley, City RecOtder Attester-- Council M-e-44- I'L- - Mftor, Ci of Tigar• Date: Gyte,5-1- /3J MU CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 10 • • • I ai SF"'1ER: I also wish to receive the I ■( ete items I and/or 2 for additional services. ,, H ■C.,...plete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an I I �i •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): I • card to you. di I > ■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address U permit. 1 re •Write'Return Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery - cn I 1 r •The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date a c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. I ' 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number at I S d P 474 569 765 °C . a DEPT. OF LAND CONS. & DEV. E � E 1175 COURT ST. NE 4b.Service Type m ( ❑ Registered Certified cc co SALEM, OR 97310-0590 cI ca ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured •N i c ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD o 7.Date of Delivery li i m 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested tg ca and fee is paid) U 1 oA n , � 6( ature:(Addressd H t d P J o>, I CO PS Form 3811, December .-s4r. Domestic Return Receipt . P 474 569 765 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. . Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) Sent to DEPT OF LAND CONSERV/DEV Street&Number 1175 COURT ST NE Post Office,State,&ZIP Code SALEM, OR 97310-0590 Postage $ - Z �� O Certified Fee CO W Special Delivery -.e x Restrict:, ra •ait- U ,n H rn Return •: At Sho '!" r:) i 0 E Whom!:,';!;'eDelivsg. - O Z 2 TOTAL P%�4a�o�8fee %v. �1 S Cc) Postmark or DDate 0 LL cn • N4ATICE OF. ADOPTIO This form must be mailed to DLCD not later than 5 working days after adoption _ ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 -- .-- - See reverse side for submittal requirements ...:�.: _ Jurisdiction City of Tigard _ =Local File# CPA96-0003/Z0A96-0004 .- _. ..- .: _.wx Date of Adoption July 9. 1996 Date Mailed July 16. 1996 Date the Proposed Notice was mailed to DLCD April 26. 1996 X Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment x Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment _ New Land Use Regulation Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached." _Modify Comprehensive Plan text to remove language which limits onsite residential density transfer to 25%. Modify Community Development Code to allow full onsite transfer of residential density for sites with wetlands which are zoned multi-family (R-12. R-25. and R-40). Describe how the adopted amendment differs from the proposed amendment. If it is the same, write "Same." If you did not give notice of the proposed amendment, write "N/A." Same Plan Map Change From NA to Zone Map Change From NA - to Location: NA Acres Involved: NA Specify Density: Previous Density NA - - New Density NA Applicable Goals: NA Was an Exception adopted?__ Yes XC No DLCD File T DLCD Appeal Deadline Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment 45 days prior to the final hearing?. . .. X Yes __ No: . The Statewide Planning Goals do not apply = - __ Emergency Circumstances Required Expedited Review Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special 4 -_City of Tigard -: Local Contact: Nels Mickaelson Phone: 639-4171 Address: City of Tigard. 13125 SW Hall BW & Tigard. OR 97223 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS - . - - - ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660.Division 18 : -_ - - - - I. Send this Form and One(1) Copy of the Adopted Amendment to: - • Department of Land Conservation and Development -- - - - 1175 Court Street,N.E. _ - . Salem,Oregon 97310-0590 2. Submit three(3) copies of bound documents and maps larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches. 3. Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than five(5)working days following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings and supplementary information. 5. The deadline to appeal will be extended if you do not submit this Notice of Adoption within five working days of the final decision. Appeals td LUBA may be filed within 21 days of the date Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 6. In addition to sending Notice of Adoption to DLCD,you must notify persons who participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. . If you need more copies of this form, please call the DLCD at 503-373-0050 or this form may be duplicated on green paper. • • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND " COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN == - POLICY 6.1.1 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 3 AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.92.020 AND 18.92.030 TO ALLOW THE ONSITE TRANSFER OF DENSITY ON SITES WITH WETLANDS WHICH ARE ZONED R-12, R-25 AND R-40. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Plan and Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 11, 1996 and July 9, 1996 to • consider the proposed amendments as set forth herin; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to promote the efficient use of land zoned for multi-family while protecting wetland resources. NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Housing Section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan 6.11, Implementation Strategy 3 is amended by deleteing the language stfikethfeugh The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g., steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. _ — 2 : _ _ _ - • _ - - . e= _ _ "2. SECTION 2: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.92, "Density Computations" is amended by deleting the language in s#fikeettand adding the language underlined. 18.92.020 Density Calculation. A. Net Development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent; and c. Drainageways; and ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 1 • • • d. Wetlands; 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public right-of-way: • a. Single-family: allocate 20 percent of gross acres for public facilities; and b. Multiple-family: allocate 15 percent of gross acres for public facilities; 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. To calculate the net units per acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning district. 18.92.030 Residential Density Transfer. A. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020(A)(1)(a-c) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which could have been allowed on 25% of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2. The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. B. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020 (A)(1)(d) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R- 12, R-25, and R-40 subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations, 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. BC. All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, planned Development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 2 • • • • SECTION 3: The relevant c eferia in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 7 g , 6, , 9, 10 11 and 12; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30, 18.84. and 18.92. The amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the City Council hearing and opportunity for response were advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and Metro. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The amendments would fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan policy related to the transfer of density from physically constrained lands, specifically wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Open Space, Natural and Scenic Resources: Goal 5 requires that, adopted comprehensive plans conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This goal is satisfied. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: Goal 6 requires that comprehensive plans maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources. The amendments would not have an adverse impact on these resources. This goal is satisfied. • Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: Goal 7 requires that comprehensive plans protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. The amendments would not modify existing comprehensive plan or land use regulations that control lands subject to natural hazards such as floodplain and steep slopes. This goal is satisfied. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendments could increase development opportunities on land adjacent to wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The amendments would have the potential of increasing the number of multi-family units which could be built on sites with wetlands. The amendment would increase the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing at various prices throughout the city. This goal is satisfied. ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 3 a • • • • Public Facilities and Services: Goal 11 requires that development be guided and supported by types and levels of public facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requirements of the area to be served. The city has adequate facilities and services • available to serve existing Multi-Family land use districts. The city's public facilities plan would accommodate the density proposed by this amendment. It does not effect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. This goal is satisfied. Transportation: Goal 12 requires that the city provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. The amendments would not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This goal is satisfied. The amendments are consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes be consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. Metro was sent a request for comments, and none were received. This policy is satisfied. General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(c) requires,that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. The amendments would promote a more efficient urban form and accommodate additional housing units. This policy is satisfied. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs, and the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were legally advertised. This policy is satisfied. Natural Features and Open Space: Policy 3.4.1(c)states that the city shall designate, in accordance with goal 5, the following as areas of significant environmental concern. (a.) significant wetlands and (b.) areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants,. animal or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas. Policy 3.4.2(a)states the city shall protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage course and waterways bb maintained to the maximum extent possible; The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires that the city provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 4 . • primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The amendments would increase the number of multi-family units that could be built. This policy is satisfied. Transportation: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. It does not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the standards for the decision of a legislative change. The standards and responses to these criteria are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Statewide Goals' in this staff report 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed below under"Oregon Administrative Rule". 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies' in this staff report. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five standards have been adequately addressed in this staff report and the sixth standard is optional only. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 96- Page + • • PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of ,1996. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,1996. • James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: • City Attorney Date is\citywide\ord\cpa96-03.ord Nels M. 06/27/96 2:13 PM ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 6 • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96-a AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 6.1.1 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 3 AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.92.020 AND 18.92.030 TO ALLOW THE ONSITE TRANSFER OF DENSITY ON SITES WITH WETLANDS WHICH ARE ZONED R-12, R-25 AND R-40. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Plan and Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 11, 1996 and July 9, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments as set forth herin; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to promote the efficient use of land zoned for multi-family while protecting wetland resources. NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Housing Section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan 6.11, Implementation Strategy 3 is amended by deleteing the language The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g., steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred. SECTION 2: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.92, "Density Computations" is amended by deleting the language in strikeout and adding the language underlined. 18.92.020 Density Calculation. A. Net Development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; • b. Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent; and c. Drainageways; and ORDINANCE No. 96-: f Page 1 • • d. Wetlands; 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public right-of-way: a. Single-family: allocate 20 percent of gross acres for public facilities; and b. Multiple-family: allocate 15 percent of gross acres for public facilities; 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. To calculate the net units per acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning district. 18.92.030 Residential Density Transfer. A. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020(A)(1)(a-c) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which could have been allowed on 25% of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2. The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. B. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020 (A)(1)(d) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R- 12, R-25, and R-40 subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations; 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. BC. All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, planned Development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ORDI�i 1ANCE No. 96-aL1 Page 2 • •• • SECTION 3: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 11 and 12; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30, 18.84. and 18.92. The amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the City Council hearing and opportunity for response were advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and Metro. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The amendments would fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan policy related to the transfer of density from physically constrained lands, specifically wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Open Space, Natural and Scenic Resources: Goal 5 requires that, adopted comprehensive plans conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This goal is satisfied. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: Goal 6 requires that comprehensive plans maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources. The amendments would not have an adverse impact on these resources. This goal is satisfied. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: Goal 7 requires that comprehensive plans protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. The amendments would not modify existing comprehensive plan or land use regulations that control lands subject to natural hazards such as floodplain and steep slopes. This goal is satisfied. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendments could increase development opportunities on land adjacent to wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The amendments would have the potential of increasing the number of multi-family units which could be built on sites with wetlands. The amendment would increase the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing at various prices throughout the city. This goal is satisfied. ORDINANCE No. 96-Q Lt Page 3 • • Public Facilities • • and Services: Goal 11 requires that development be guided and supported by types and levels of public facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requirements of the area to be served. The city has adequate facilities and services available to serve existing Multi-Family land use districts. The city's public facilities plan would accommodate the density proposed by this amendment. It does not effect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. This goal is satisfied. Transportation: Goal 12 requires that the city provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. The amendments would not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This goal is satisfied. The amendments are consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes be consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. Metro was sent a request for comments, and none were received. This policy is satisfied. General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(c) requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. The amendments would promote a more efficient urban form and accommodate additional housing units. This policy is satisfied. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs, and the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were legally advertised. This policy is satisfied. Natural Features and Open Space: Policy 3.4.1(c)states that the city shall designate, in accordance with goal 5, the following as areas of significant environmental concern. (a.) significant wetlands and (b.) areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animal or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas. Policy 3.4.2(a)states the city shall protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage course and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible; The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires that the city provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is ORDINANCE No. 96-NN Page 4 • • • primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The amendments would increase the number of multi-family units that could be built. This policy is satisfied. Transportation: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. It does not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the standards for the decision of a legislative change. The standards and responses to these criteria are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under `Statewide Goals' in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed below under "Oregon Administrative Rule". 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under `Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies' in this staff report. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five standards have been adequately addressed in this staff report and the sixth standard is optional only. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder, ORDINANCE No. 96- L/ Page • 0 • PASSED: By u_rt _fl � k5 .-D vote of all Council members present after being g read by number and title only, this 7 ' day of d,t_i_fro_ ,1996. ec,„.,,L,yue erine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this q 6-i/ //i day of 4 . , '_J ,1996. / / lig-7'le- :J�rrm6 Nicoli, ayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date is\citywide\ord\cpa96-03.ord Neis M. 06/27/96 2:13 PM • ORDNANCE No. 96-' Li Page 6 • • CJ)di1• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96-a Li AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 6.1.1 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 3 AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.92.020 AND 18.92.030 TO ALLOW THE ONSITE TRANSFER OF DENSITY ON SITES WITH WETLANDS WHICH ARE ZONED R-12, R-25 AND R-40. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Plan and Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 11, 1996 and July 9, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments as set forth herin; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to promote the efficient use of land zoned for multi-family while protecting wetland resources. NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Housing Section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan 6.11, Implementation Strategy 3 is amended by deleteing the language ct� oaf The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g., steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred. SECTION 2: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.92, "Density Computations" is amended by deleting the language in str-keout-and adding the language underlined. 18.92.020 Density Calculation. A. Net Development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent; and c. Drainageways; and ORDINANCE No. 96--Q4 Page 1 • • d. Wetlands; 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public right-of-way: a. Single-family: allocate 20 percent of gross acres for public facilities; and b. Multiple-family: allocate 15 percent of gross acres for public facilities; 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. To calculate the net units per acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning district. 18.92.030 Residential Density Transfer. A. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020(A)(1)(a-c) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which could have been allowed on 25% of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2. The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. B. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020 (A)(1)(d) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R- 12, R-25, and R-40 subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations; 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. BC. All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, planned Development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ORDINANCE No. 96-,��' Page 2 SECTION 3: The • • relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 11 and 12; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30, 18.84. and 18.92. The amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the City Council hearing and opportunity for response were advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and Metro. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The amendments would fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan policy related to the transfer of density from physically constrained lands, specifically wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Open Space, Natural and Scenic Resources: Goal 5 requires that, adopted comprehensive plans conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This goal is satisfied. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: Goal 6 requires that comprehensive plans maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources. The amendments would not have an adverse impact on these resources. This goal is satisfied. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: Goal 7 requires that comprehensive plans protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. The amendments would not modify existing comprehensive plan or land use regulations that control lands subject to natural hazards such as floodplain and steep slopes. This goal is satisfied. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendments could increase development opportunities on land adjacent to wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The amendments would have the potential of increasing the number of multi-family units which could be built on sites with wetlands. The amendment would increase the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing at various prices throughout the city. This goal is satisfied. ORDINANCE No. 96-cD -t Page 3 Public Facilities and Services: Goal 11 requires that develo • q development be guided and supported by types and levels of public facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requirements of the area to be served. The city has adequate facilities and services available to serve existing Multi-Family land use districts. The city's public facilities plan would accommodate the density proposed by this amendment. It does not effect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. This goal is satisfied. Transportation: Goal 12 requires that the city provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. The amendments would not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This goal is satisfied. The amendments are consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes be consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. Metro was sent a request for comments, and none were received. This policy is satisfied. General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(c) requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. The amendments would promote a more efficient urban form and accommodate additional housing units. This policy is satisfied. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs, and the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were legally advertised. This policy is satisfied. Natural Features and Open Space: Policy 3.4.1(c)states that the city shall designate, in accordance with goal 5, the following as areas of significant environmental concern. (a.) significant wetlands and (b.) areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animal or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas. Policy 3.4.2(a)states the city shall protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage course and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible; The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires that the city provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is ORDINANCE No. 96-�1 Page 4 +' • • primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The amendments would increase the number of multi-family units that could be built. This policy is satisfied. Transportation: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. It does not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the standards for the decision of a legislative change. The standards and responses to these criteria are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under `Statewide Goals' in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed below under "Oregon Administrative Rule". 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies' in this staff report. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five standards have been adequately addressed in this staff report and the sixth standard is optional only. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 96-' / Page 5 • i. • • PASSED: By LUIan:ki mk5U vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this £17 i jcubj day of ,1996. • a atherine Wheatley, City RecCotrde Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this Z--// day of 4 ,1996. J m Nicoli, ayor i Approved as to form: C' ity Attorney Date r i:\citywide\ord\cpa96-03.ord Nels M. 06/27/96 2:13 PM ORDINANCE No. 96-' f Page 6 r' " ° • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) City of Tigard ) I, ea 1er1✓lE Le(,)400, , hereby certify: Please Print That I am a iy- IIQ(A YYZL ems. for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council ( /PA q(0"C)CO3/2.0A g&cw 4 6ECo / Cox-- Ordkicmir, 46-3 '' of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the �°� — day of n 19 "G lO , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the clay of , 19 4 , postage prepaid. 6repared Notice = ri Subscribed and sworn.to before me this 4A4111"', day of - , 19 IC, :: f, :- • f'�, OFFICIAL SEAL YVA • �JLw� irw if . . M JO ANN HAYES , Notary lic of Oregon . b. +.� ` NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON rY COMMISSION=NO.042148 M y Commission Expires: - vinati 3 '!4f Q .{ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 05,-1999 . _ / ' h:\login\cathy\afofmali r ti , k 1111. • • CITY OF TIGARD • Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL Concerning Case Number(s): CPA 96-0003/ZOA 96-0004 FILE NAME: ABECO/COX APPLICANT: William Cox 0244 S.W. California Street • Portland, Oregon 97219 OWNER: ABECO Corporation 6205 S.W. Carman Dr. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 - add language to allow full transfer of density from sites with wetlands which are zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40 from the wetland area to the buildable portion of the site. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.020 to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which density can be transferred, and 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from wetland areas zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, . 10, 11, and 12, Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.30, 18.84, and 18.92. ZONE: N/A Action: ❑ Approval as requested Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: The applicant and owner(s) ® Owners of record within the required distance ® The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator ® Affected governmental agencies Final Decision: THE pECISION WAS SIGNED ON , 1996, AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON , 1996. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223. 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 Tigard City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96-, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 6.1.1 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 3 AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.92.020 AND 18.92.030 TO ALLOW THE ONSITE TRANSFER OF DENSITY ON SITES WITH WETLANDS WHICH ARE ZONED R-12, R-25 AND R-40. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Plan and Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 11, 1996 and July 9, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments as set forth herin; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to promote the efficient use of land zoned for multi-family while protecting wetland resources. NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Housing Section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan 6.11, Implementation Strategy 3 is amended by deleteing the language strikethr-etigh The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g., steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. - - - = - °. _ _ e - _ - _ . _ - - 'e. SECTION 2: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.92, "Density Computations" is amended by deleting the language in strikcsut and adding the language underlined. 18.92.020 Density Calculation. A. Net Development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent; and c. Drainageways; and ORDINANCE No. 96--Q4 Page 1 • d. Wetlands; 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public right-of-way: a. Single-family: allocate 20 percent of gross acres for public facilities; and b. Multiple-family: allocate 15 percent of gross acres for public facilities; 4. All land proposed for private streets;and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. To calculate the net units per acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning district. 18.92.030 Residential Density Transfer. A. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020(A)(1)(a-c) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which could have been allowed on 25% of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2. The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. B. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020 (A)(1)(d) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R- 12, R-25, and R-40 subiect to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations; 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. BC. All density transfer development proposals shall.comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, planned Development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ORDINANCE No. 96-a`i Page 2 r . • c _ SECTION 3: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 11 and 12; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30, 18.84. and 18.92. The amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the City Council hearing and opportunity for response were advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and Metro. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The amendments would fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan policy related to the transfer of density from physically constrained lands, specifically wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Open Space, Natural and Scenic Resources: Goal 5 requires that, adopted comprehensive plans conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This goal is satisfied. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: Goal 6 requires that comprehensive plans maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources. The amendments would not have an adverse impact on these resources. This goal is satisfied. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: Goal 7 requires that comprehensive plans protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. The amendments would not modify existing comprehensive plan or land use regulations that control lands subject to natural hazards such as floodplain and steep slopes. This goal is satisfied. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendments could increase development opportunities on land adjacent to wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Housing:, Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The amendments would have the potential of increasing the number of multi-family units which could be built on sites with wetlands. The amendment would increase the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing at various prices throughout the city. This goal is satisfied. ORDINANCE No. 96-a Page 3 • • • Public Facilities and Services: Goal 11 requires that development be guided and supported by types and levels of public facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requirements of the area to be served. The city has adequate facilities and services available to serve existing Multi-Family land use districts. The city's public facilities plan would accommodate the density proposed by this amendment. It does not effect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. This goal is satisfied. Transportation: Goal 12 requires that the city provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. The amendments would not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This goal is satisfied. The amendments are consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes be consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. Metro was sent a request for comments, and none were received. This policy is satisfied. General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(c) requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. The amendments would promote a more efficient urban form and accommodate additional housing units. This policy is satisfied. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs, and the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were legally advertised. This policy is satisfied. Natural Features and Open Space: Policy 3.4.1(c)states that the city shall designate, in accordance with goal 5, the following as areas of significant environmental concern. (a.) significant wetlands and (b.) areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animal or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas. Policy 3.4.2(a)states the city shall protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage course and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible; The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires that the city provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is ORDINANCE No. 96 a1 Page 4 • • primarily implemented throug OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires quires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The amendments would increase the number of multi-family units that could be built. This policy is satisfied. Transportation: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. It does not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the standards for the decision of a legislative change. The standards and responses to these criteria are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Statewide Goals' in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed below under "Oregon Administrative Rule". 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies' in this staff report. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five standards have been adequately addressed in this staff report and the sixth standard is optional only. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 96- -/ Page 5 • PASSED: By LtYI ul....' n4 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this q 1 day of dcuard L1996. - • ; 1 _ /__ _ _ atherine Wheatley, City 'ecorder 4 APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this q h/l day of _,� ,1996. J Nicoli, ayor Approved as to form: ®Attomey Date is\citywide\ord\cpa96-03.ord Nels M. 06/27/96 2:13 PM • ORDINANCE No. 96-� 1 Page 6 •• - .•. ' • • WILLIAM COX 0244 SW CALIFORNIA ST. • PORTLAND, OR 97219 . . ABECO CORPORATION . . 6205 SW CARMAN DR LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 ,• • • • . . • .0 Agenda Item No. 3. I TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of 1 14 l Lo MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Associate Planner Dick Bewersdorff; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry, Assistant to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis (introduced associate Legal Counsel Paul Elsner); and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > City Administrator Monahan mentioned that staff would like to know which Councilors intended to attend the MPAC meeting tomorrow night and the Washington County elected officials' caucus Thursday night. He announced that he, Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Hunt were meeting with the City of Durham on June 26 to discuss how the Cook Park expansion might relate to Durham Park. > Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, introduced Paul Elsner, a new attorney with his firm who also works on City of Tigard business. He reviewed Mr. Elsner's background. He noted that Mr. Elsner was the liaison to staff. > Councilor Scheckla asked if the regulations on high grass would be enforced this summer. Mr. Monahan stated that usually staff tried to step up enforcement efforts if there appeared to be a safety hazard; that is, vision clearance (for traffic) or fire. > Cook Park Update Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reported that out of the 34 Request for Proposals (RFPs) distributed to the consultants, eight proposals were received. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff hired Fishman & Associates delineate the wetlands on the Thomas property. He reviewed the type of information that the consultants would provide. He directed attention to the memo summarizing the concerns expressed at the South CIT meeting (18 people filled out comments sheets). He noted that the main concerns included: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 1 • 1. Participation should include more interest groups and there should be a broader representation on the steering committee. 2. A parks master plan should be developed for all City parks (not just Cook Park). Brian Wagner, South CIT, stated that the RFP appeared to be written by those with an interest in athletic fields with no representation of those who valued Cook Park as a natural area or by the neighbors concerned about the impacts of the changes. He said that a group of citizens was meeting tomorrow night to draft a letter explaining their position. • Mayor Nicoli asked if the CIT was aware that 25 acres of the expansion would be purchased by other people with only 10 acres purchased by the City. Ms. Newton said that Duane Roberts had explained the situation during a question- and answer-period at the CIT meeting. Mr. Wagner stated that no one else had been solicited to contribute funds; other interests might have been interested in contributing but weren't asked. Mr. Hendryx stated that Mr. Roberts gave the CIT an overview of the RFP contents and the public involvement process. Mr. Wagner said that one of their concerns was that the public involvement should have been done prior to sending the RFP. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff would provide Council with regular updates on the process. He commented that part of the parks CIP included funds allocated over 4-5 years for purchase of park areas. > Discussion: Wetland Polices Mr. Hendryx commented that with the last request to use City wetlands for mitigation, staff thought it advisable to develop a policy laying out the process for those who wanted to use City wetlands to mitigate impacts of their projects. Dick Bewersdorff, Associate Planner, stated that this policy from staff's standpoint potentially provided as much flexibility as possible. He reviewed the six points of the policy, pointing out that the decisions on whether or not a request met the criteria lay with the Council. The criteria included documented physical enhancement, benefit to the City, compensation to the City in the form of rent or a lump-sum payment, no additional maintenance cost to the City, a direct relationship between the mitigation and land development within the UGB, and no potential for onsite mitigation. He stated that the City had about 80 acres in low quality wetlands potentially suitable for mitigation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • Councilor Scheckla asked about current process for wetlands mitigation. He expressed concern that building on natural wetlands could result in flooding and impacts to neighborhoods. Mr. Bewersdorff explained that normally wetlands mitigation required DSL approval with a 3 to 1 mitigation factor to give more flood plain capacity. He acknowledged Councilor Scheckla's concern as a question whenever dealing with wetlands, stating that one of the major considerations in applying this policy was the impact to the natural system. He said that this policy gave staff standards to review potential wetlands mitigation on City property and that any mitigation request required DSL approval and must meet the City's standards. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City was liable if people were flooded out of their homes. Mr. Hendryx explained that regardless of whether it was wetland or not, people had to build to standards, which included building above the flood plain. He noted that if buildings were built above the 100-year flood plain as identified by FEMA, the buildings shouldn't be damaged. Councilor Moore commented that this policy allowed for enhancement of the City-owned wetlands. He said that they only allowed commercial or industrial development in the flood plain (not residential). In addition, developers would have to make sure that the excavation was equal to the amount of till. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern that the City prevent things like what happened up on Aspen Ridge or Benchview from happening again. He stated that he wanted to make sure that they were protecting wetlands. Mr. Hendryx advised another option would be to adopt a policy to disallow using city-owned wetlands for mitigation purposes. Mayor Nicoli commented that he thought that the policy was too tight. He said the State was beginning to say no to wetland mitigation on privately owned wetlands and may only be allowing government agencies to provide for mitigation on their properties because of a concern that private owners would not protect the wetlands. He said that he thought it was in the City's best interest to keep policies as flexible as possible and to evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis. In response to a question from Mr. Monahan, Mayor Nicoli said that he wasn't concerned about properties outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB); he added that Unified Sewerage Agency had large wetland sites that they needed to mitigate. He said that he saw this as a balancing act with a need to find wetlands to mitigate in different areas. He expressed concern about imposing too many restraints. He stated that he thought the City should act like any other private CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 3 • i . property owner and evaluate whether a request to mitigate wetlands on their property was in their best interest. He commented that he felt that the City would be dealing with this issue more and more as the UGB is developed. Mr. Monahan asked what it was in the proposed policy that the Mayor found restrictive. Mayor Nicoli cited the provisions that no new wetlands should be created and also the compensation to the City. He said that he didn't want to charge people for the use of City property when they would be enhancing it. He noted that there were several areas of former farmland that were slowly becoming wetlands that could use some help in making the transition more quickly. Councilor Rohlf asked if the City shouldn't receive compensation for the use of their property for mitigation, the same as any private property owner. He noted that they might negotiate a trade off or waive the cost. Mayor Nicoli agreed, stating that's why he wanted a more flexible policy. He suggested identifying City-owned wetlands and putting the word out that the City was interested in someone improving those wetlands regardless of whether they were inside or outside of the City. Mr. Bewersdorff stated that that was the intent of No. 3. If the mitigation was of enough benefit to the City, then the Council agreement would not include compensation. He said that they could also drop the sentence regarding no new wetlands. Councilor Moore said that he didn't have a problem with taking that sentence out, as long as they didn't approve new wetlands on developable land needed to meet the City's density requirements. Mayor Nicoli stated that he did not have concerns about the Council action (see Resolution No. 96-32) on the Summerlake property because it was a unique situation. He suggested encouraging people to talk to the City if they wanted to use City-owned wetlands for mitigation. Councilor Rohlf said that he interpreted the policy as it was written as saying "we don't want to be in the business" but what he heard from the Mayor was that "we should consider being in the business if it was to the City's advantage." Mayor Nicoli concurred. He noted that the City itself might have to mitigate projects occasionally. Mr. Bewersdorff said that he thought staff wrote the policy because it was beneficial to allow the mitigation under certain circumstances and to provide guidance for the Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 4 • • Councilor Rohlf suggested including a preamble stating that the City was open to the process. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff would bring this back to Council after incorporating the comments heard this evening. Mayor Nicoli commented that he didn't have a problem with the policy but that he thought they needed to leave their options open as much as they could. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:05 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:24 p.m. > Update on Balloon Festival Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder, reported on the Tigard Festival of Balloons. The event begins on Thursday at 6 a.m. as "Press Day." As a sponsor, the City will receive four balloon rides each day of the event. > Councilor Rohlf referred to the Gross v. City of Tigard case. He noted that the property owner on one side of the designation has already built out according to the CN zone. He asked what would happen if the designation reverted back to the original designation. Mr. Monahan stated that people built at their own risk with the understanding that if an approval was overturned, they would have to come back into compliance with the City Code. > Councilor Scheckla asked about "Fantastic Sam's." Mr. Monahan reviewed the developer's concern regarding the promptness of the City's review of his application. He cited Mr. Hendryx's memo describing the problems in staffing levels and change of policies that occurred at the same time as the application review. He concurred with Councilor Scheckla that staff's response time wasn't that far outside the usual amount. > Agenda Review Mr. Monahan of two non-agenda items requested by staff: 1. A resolution honoring Mr. Gene Seibel of the Tualatin Valley Water District. 2. Update on sewage issue at Ventura Court area. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 5 • 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: See Item No. 9. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, asked the Council what they considered to be redevelopable land; did it include all the houses or just those that looked as if they could be redeveloped soon. He said that he thought this was an important issue. Mayor Nicoli stated that part of the answer to Mr. Bledsoe's question depended on whether Metro decides to require a higher density of build-out. The City might be required to open up existing neighborhoods for redevelopment to increase densities. Mr. Bledsoe stated that he thought the City needed to make a determination now about how they would,look at redevelopment. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff had maps based on a set of assumptions as to what was considered redevelopable land. He explained that typically it was based on a valuation between structure versus property. He confirmed that not all housing was redevelopable, only that which met the criteria. Mr. Hendryx noted that Mr. Bledsoe was also raising the issue of the infill that could occur on large lots. He said that infill has also been mapped by Metro and reviewed by staff. He said staff would provide Mr. Bledsoe with a copy of the map. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: May 14 and 21, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Board and Committee Appointments a. Appoint Craig Wanichek to Budget Committee - Res. No. 96-35 b. Appoint Michael Neff to Planning Commission - Res. No. 96-36 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 6 • • • 3.4 Local Contract Review Board Award Bid for 130th/Winterlake Drive Bridge Connection to Mowat Construction Company and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign the Contract 3.5 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for approximately 6,445 square feet of Public Right of Way on SW 135th Avenue - Res. No. 96-37 3.6 Approve Public Library Services Agreement and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.7 Approve Amendments to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Intergovernmental agreement with Washington County > Mayor Nicoli introduced the new appointees: Michael Neff to the Planning Commission and Craig Wanichek to the Budget Committee. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - 1996-97 USES OF STATE REVENUE SHARING a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Summation by Budget Officer Wayne Lowry, Budget Officer, noted that Tigard received $200,000 a year from state revenue sharing. He reviewed the opportunities available for public comment and the requirements needed to qualify for these funds. d. Public Testimony: None e. Recommendation by Budget Officer Mr. Lowry recommended approval of the proposed resolution and ordinance. f. Council Questions or Comments: None Q Public Hearing Closed Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Consideration by Council Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No. 96-38 and Ordinance No. 96-22 The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-38 and Ordinance No. 96-22. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 7 • • RESOLUTION NO. 96-38 - A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CITY OF TIGARD PROVIDES SERVICES QUALIFYING FOR STATE SHARED REVENUES ORDINANCE NO. 96-22 - AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES _ Motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING - 1996-97 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET a. Public Hearing Opened Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Summation by Finance Director Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, reported that the Budget Committee made some changes to the proposed budget and recommended that Council adopt the budget. He noted the two options presented in the Council packet. Option 1 was the Budget Committee's recommendation with no further changes. Option 2 contained several staff recommended changes to the budget. Mr. Lowry reported that the property tax rate for the levy for 1996/97 of $7.9 million dollars increased over last year by .46/$1000 due to the tax base increase approved by voters in 1994. He said that the estimated tax rate was $2.86/$1000 which was lower than anticipated because of higher assessed values. He said that the assessed value they used to estimate the tax base was $2.9 billion dollars (this included $100 million in new construction and a 4.5% increase in existing property values). Mr. Lowry stated that the operating budget of $18,590,000 was a 5% increase over last year, with the largest increase in the Community Development Department staffing levels. Mr. Lowry reviewed the changes made by the Budget Committee to general fund projects. These included decreasing the annual $100,000 contribution to the future facility improvements funds by $35,000 to fund the proposed police station improvement, increasing the amount for the Cook Park irrigation system, putting back in funds for the feed store improvements that didn't happen last year, and appropriating funds for the City Hall roof project. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 8 • Mr. Lowry reviewed the staff recommended changes in Option 2. These included decreasing the $83,000 allocated for the visioning project to the revised $55,900, increasing the general fund by $55,000 for the feed store improvements, and increasing the capital projects funded by the state gas tax revenues. Mr. Lowry pointed out that the Council was limited to a 10% increase of appropriations in any one fund. He stated that the changes to the state gas tax fund put the Council over the 10% limit, and therefore, he has drafted a substitute resolution that took the state gas tax up to the 10% limit. He recommended using a supplemental budget during the next fiscal year (July) to allocate the remaining $118,000. Councilor Rohlf asked if using a supplemental budget would use up the 10% limit for next year. Mr. Lowry said no. (Mayor Nicoli left the meeting and returned during the discussion on Agenda Item No. 6). d. Public Testimony: None e. Recommendation by Finance Director: Mr. Lowry recommended that the Council adopt the corrected Option 2 budget resolution. f. Public hearing was closed. h. Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 96-39 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Res. No. 96-39, as corrected, Option 2. RESOLUTION NO. 96-39 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVING THE BUDGET, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS, DECLARING THE AD VALOREM TAX LEVY AND CLASSIFYING THE LEVY AS PROVIDED BY ORS 310.060(2) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97. Motion carried by a majority vote (3 to 1) of the Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore and Rohlf voted "yes;" Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") Councilor Scheckla stated that he voted no because he felt that the money for the visioning project could be better used elsewhere. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 9 • • 6. PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) PRIORITY LIST a. Staff Report Gary Alfson, Acting City Engineer, presented the staff report. He requested that the Council adopt the CIP update and approve the 1996/97 projects as proposed. He said that the CIP was approved by the Planning Commission on May 3, and that no opposition was received from the CITs following the presentations made to them. He noted that Appendix A contained the actual staff recommendations for projects while Appendix C was the backlog of projects. Mr. Alfson explained that the CIP consisted of streets, storm drainage, sanitary • sewer (all managed by Engineering Department), water (Public Works), and parks (Engineering and Planning). Mr. Alfson reviewed the process used to develop the CIP list, including involvement by the CITs. He noted where there were funding limitations. He said that they took out the projects approved in 1995/96 that weren't completed yet to reserve the already allocated funds for those projects. Mr. Alfson reviewed the projects proposed for streets. He reviewed the traffic impact fees (TIF) as a revenue source, noting the that 50% of those funds had to be spent on arterial streets. He said that the City has spent its 50% on major collector streets and was holding the remaining 50% in reserve for future projects. He explained the TIF Transit Reserve fund required by the TIF program. These were monies reserved for transit improvements in Tigard; staff would begin discussions with Tri-Met in the next year or so on how to best spend this money on transit improvements in Tigard. Mr. Alfson noted other TIF projects - right-of-way acquisitions at Walnut/Tiedeman and along the cemetery on Greenburg Road, the Greenburg/Maple Leaf intersection, and Highway 217 on/off ramp improvements at Greenburg. Mr. Alfson reviewed the projects proposed for gas tax funding. These included overlaying two gravel streets (Alfred and 74th) to alleviate future maintenance costs, Main Street pavement reconstruction, widening Commercial Street and installing sidewalks on both sides, the Durham traffic signal, and the speed hump program. Mr. Alfson explained that the funding for the City's half of the cost for the Durham traffic signal came from the gas tax ($6000). He stated that staff received a letter from the school district agreeing to contribute 50% of the cost of the traffic signal. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 10 • • • Mr. Alfson reviewed the Parks CIP projects, noting that major revisions occurred reflecting the new funding received from Metro Greenspaces and the new parks SDCs. Projects included five natural areas, trailway land acquisitions, expansion of Cook Park, and new neighborhood parks in the Greenburg and Canterbury areas. He stated that a major unknown in drafting the parks CIP was the extent, cost and timing of the Cook Park expansion. He said that the master plan would be completed later this year. Mr. Alfson explained that the park system funding was being reviewed to determine projects for the next several years to use the Metro and new SDC funding. He reviewed the Metro Greenspaces project list adopted by Council. Mr. Alfson explained that the sanitary sewer CIP was funded from three different sources. He stated that the maintenance fund was used for unexpected repairs needed during the year while the main fund was used for the neighborhood sewer extension program. Mr. Alfson reviewed the storm drain CIP projects which were funded from the old and new SDCs. These included drainage improvements to Main Street and Commercial Street. He noted the restrictions on projects using the new SDC funds; they had to be approved by USA and part of USA's master plan. However, he master plan hasn't been completed yet. Mr. Alfson noted that the project list for the Water System CIP was developed by the Public Works Department and the Intergovernmental Water Board to maintain the current level of service to Tigard. He said that it has already been approved by Intergovernmental Water Board. Mr. Alfson mentioned several projects in the backlog that staff saw as having a higher priority. These included pedestrian improvements, traffic studies, and improvements to Tigard Street. b. Open Public Comment Sally Christensen, 15685 SW 16th, stated that she supported the CIP budget as presented but noted that she had been given different figures for the Durham traffic signal than what she heard tonight. Mr. Alfson explained that he had told the CITs that $50,000 would come out of the TIF fund because at that time did not know if the school district would be able to pay for half of the cost. He said that now that the school district has stated that they will pay for half of the signal's cost, the TIF funds would not be used. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 11 • • Ms. Christensen expressed concern that the $100,000 budget for the signal was less than the estimated cost of the signal (up to $145,000). Mr. Alfson mentioned some work completed that would lessen the cost of the signal. Mayor Nicoli explained that if the bids came back higher than the estimated cost, Council would find the money to make up the shortfall somewhere in the budget. He reassured Ms. Christensen that the signal would be built. Mike Marr, 12420 SW Main Street, member of the Tigard Downtown Business Association, expressed the appreciation of the merchants, business and property owners for the improvements made last year to Main Street, and for those proposed for this year, including Commercial Street. Mr. Marr said that they were still looking for signalization at Burnham and Main. He noted a petition recently circulated (not by the Merchants' Association) commenting about the speeding, the crosswalk and other traffic problems. He urged the City Council to signalize that intersection prior to 1998/99. Bob Bledsoe, 11300 SW Walnut, commented on the loss of two good City Engineers by the City recently. He stated that the West Central CIT was concerned about the intersection at 121st and Walnut; they understood from the County that it was included in the MSTIP program for 2002. He concurred with the need to purchase right of way at the Tiedeman/Walnut intersection. Mr. Bledsoe noted that neither of these intersections were actually in the City of Tigard though both were more than a mile inside the city limits and heavily used by Tigard citizens. He said Tigard should do something to improve those intersections. He stated that overall the CIP showed good balance. c. Close Public Comment Mayor Nicoli closed the public comment. d. Council Discussion Councilor Hunt expressed concern that they were reducing the major maintenance programs by 25%. As a comparison, Mr. Alfson estimated that the amount of the reduction would probably be enough to overlay a length of street of about 3-4 blocks. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on the funding for the Durham/79th signal. Mr. Alfson said that they had $43,289 from last year plus $6000 for this year which totalled close to $50,000. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 12 • • In response to Council questions, Mr. Alfson pointed out that the paving of Alfred and 74th was a type of maintenance because it would reduce the maintenance costs in the future. He said that staff selected Alfred and 74th purely from a maintenance viewpoint; this street currently carries more traffic than a gravel road should. Councilor Hunt said that he would like to see some consideration of reducing the reserves on this. Mr. Alfson said that there were no reserves in the gas tax, only in TIF. In response to Council comments, Mr. Alfson pointed out that the longer they waited to maintain a road through overlay, the greater the chances were that the road would require reconstruction, a more expensive option. He said that a four- year delay would mean major costs. Councilor Hunt asked about the accuracy of the estimates given for the projects. Mr. Alfson said that the right-of-way acquisition numbers were rough estimates while the Greenburg/Maple Leaf intersection was a "tight" number. Councilor Hunt reiterated that he still was not in favor of reducing the City's maintenance program. Councilor Moore expressed concern also that this was stepping backwards. Councilor Rohif questioned paving Alfred and 74th if it took 8 years to get a payback. Mr. Alfson commented that they have already put a major effort into Alfred Street to get it to drain properly. He said that a 7-8 year payback on an overlay was good. Mayor Nicoli commented that another way of looking at this was to say that they were reducing the $300,000 but at the same time investing a substantial sum of money on these projects that would save the City money later. Mr. Alfson concurred that it was better to spend the money improving 74th and Alfred; gravel roads quickly deteriorate whereas an asphalt road would last longer. Councilor Scheckla stated that overall he thought it was a fine list because it did something in all areas of the City, allowing citizens to see the City at work. Councilor Hunt suggested moving up the 79th/Durham signal and using contingency money to pay for it this year. Mr. Monahan said that it used gas tax money also. Mr. Alfson commented that they needed to revisit the discussion on the signal to see what the parameters were now. He pointed out that a signal had to be warranted at an intersection or it could cause more problems than currently existed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 13 • • Councilor Hunt stated that he found Mr. Alfson's explanation regarding the major maintenance fund satisfactory and withdrew his objection. Councilor Rohlf asked if the two projects proposed over the next few years for the North Dakota Bridge and the project proposed for Tiedeman down to the bridge could be combined. Mr. Alfson said that it was difficult to gauge what they might do in any given year, especially with the amount of backlog that they had. He said that those three projects would probably cost at least $2 million. Councilor Moore asked where the money came for the Grant/Tiedeman project. Mr. Alfson stated that it came through the Highway Bridge Reconstruction/Highway Rehabilitation Program, in which the federal government provided 80% of the funds and the state and the City each provided 10%. He said that the North Dakota Bridge received a little too high of a rating in the state biannual evaluation of bridge structural capacity and deterioration to make the list for the federal program. Councilor Rohlf asked if the City had an intergovernmental agreement with the school district regarding the 50% funds the district was to provide for the traffic signal. Mr. Monahan said that staff has received a letter from the district committing $50,000 from the bond; they could look into an IGA. Councilor Rohlf commented that previously the district hadn't come through with funds on a project, and that he did not want to see the neighborhood disappointed. e. Council Consideration: Determine, by Council motion, the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1996-97: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt the annual capital improvement program. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE ORDLNANCE AMENDMENT (ABECO/Cox) - CPA 96-0003/ZOA 96-0005 REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 - modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also Pp proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 14 • • REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,: 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84 and 18.90. ZONE: N/A a. Public Hearing Opened Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Nels Mickaelson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the specifics of the proposal. He stated that currently the Tigard Community Development Code did not allow density transfers for wetland areas, though it allowed 25% on site residential density transfer for flood plains, steep slopes, and drainage ways. He noted that this proposal had city wide application because it would apply to all wetlands zoned R-12, R-25 and R-40. Mr. Mickaelson stated that the applicant's wetlands study found 1.9 acres of wetlands on this R-12 property. The applicant was requesting an amendment to allow transfer of 100% of the residential units from the wetlands area to the buildable portion of the site. • Mr. Mickaelson stated that while the proposal met all the statewide planning goals, staff did not feel that it satisfied Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.1 (c) which required that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. He said that staff did not believe that the applicant had submitted compelling evidence that the policy should be amended to afford wetlands a higher density transfer than other physically constrained lands. Mr. Mickaelson stated that they provided notice to the appropriate groups. Neither Metro nor DSL had comments but the South CIT had concerns about the effect of this proposal on existing neighborhoods. He stated that the applicant modified his proposal to include only lands zoned for multi family. The West and Central CITs questioned revisions which would allow more density transfer from wetlands than other physically constrained sites while the East CIT supported the concept but felt that applications should be evaluated on a case-by- case basis and that there should be no guarantee of 100% transfer. Mr. Mickaelson stated that the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial though they agreed that wetlands should be allowed a 25% transfer of residential density. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE.11, 1996 - PAGE 15 • • Mr. Mickaelson recommended that the Council deny this application as proposed because the applicant has not met all the applicable criteria and has not made a convincing argument that this change would be beneficial to the City. He also recommended that changes be made to the Comprehensive Plan and Code to allow 25% residential density transfer from wetlands on all residential land, not just lands zoned for multifamily. d. Public Testimony William C. Cox, attorney for ABECO, 0244 SW California Street, Portland. reviewed the history of the application. He said that the applicant came in with a proposal for a density of 12 units per acre and was told that he needed to subtract the wetlands from the net figure. He stated that that requirement was not in the Code and that the staff did not know where that interpretation came from. He said that staff also did not know where the 25% figure came from. He argued that it was an arbitrary number and that density transfer should be based on the design and nature of the land, not an artificial number. Mr. Cox stated that the requirement put on the applicant to explain why his application should be different from other sensitive lands put him in an untenable position. He reiterated that they didn't know why 25% was used. Mr. Cox stated that this proposal benefitted the City in increasing the density as required by Metro. He cited the North Plains case in which LUBA denied an amendment to the UGB because the jurisdiction had not done everything it could to increase the density within its current UGB. Mr. Cox pointed out the responsiveness of the applicant to the neighbors' concerns. The neighbors asked the applicant not to transfer density off all residential lands but to limit it to multi family only. He noted the East CIT's proposal to review applications on a case-by-case basis with no guarantees of 100% transfer. Mr. Cox explained that they used the term "100%" to allow them to transfer the amount that they would normally be able to build on; 100% might not be accurate. He said that he doubted they could get 100% because they were still limited by the other building requirements which would bring down the total transfer. He said that it was really based on the character of the land itself. Mr. Cox stated that he thought that the East CIT's position should be adopted here. He said that they felt it was a fair and equitable thing for the City to do because it allowed an increase in density in the City while still protecting single family residential. He said that staffs proposal did what the CIT asked the applicant not to do: transfer density off all residential, including single family. He said that was why staffs proposal increased the number of units allowed on buildable land to 389 units. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 16 • • Mr. Cox stated that their proposal was "a modest proposal." It did not conflict with the community's desire to be oriented towards single family homes. He said that their proposal was not negative. He contended that if the 25% parity was necessary, then they should find out why the 25% existed in the first place. He suggested striking out "100%" and simply saying "density transfers from wetlands should be on a design ability basis", as suggested by the more knowledgeable people at the CITs. The character of the land determined what could be built on it or not built. Mr. Cox contended that to require an arbitrary 25% without characterizing the land in any manner was not justifiable or supportable. Mr. Cox said that he did not like the staff's proposal because it did what the neighborhoods did not want done (transferring density on single-family land). The 25% was not justifiable. Staff tried to push the burden onto the applicant by asking him to justify why they had to be different from flood plains and slopes. Mr. Cox said that he thought the City could pick up 307 units which should help in increasing their density and do it in such a way that it did not impact their single-family zones. Mayor Nicoli noted that staff stated in their report that the application did not satisfy the relevant review criteria. He asked why Mr. Cox felt that they have met the review criteria. Mr. Cox pointed out that the staff report stated that the application did meet all the relevant state wide planning goals; the only criteria staff said the application did not meet was the requirement that the Comprehensive Plan/Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. Her said that staff agreed that this amendment would promote a more efficient urban form and accommodate additional housing units. Mr. Cox cited the statement in the staff report that "the applicant has not submitted compelling evidence that the policy should be amended to afford wetlands a higher density transfer standard than other physically constrained sites." He stated that that was what he was talking about when he contended that staff placed the burden on the applicant to justify the other land types. Mr. Cox argued that the community wanted single family residential protected. The proposal addressed the needs of the community, not only in protecting single- family land but in increasing the density as required by Metro. He reiterated that he disagreed with staff. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 17 • • > Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, stated that he agreed with Mr. Cox and disagreed with staff. He reviewed the history of the 25% requirement, stating that it had been a compromise position reached to gain consensus from the various interest groups during the Comprehensive Plan process. He agreed with limiting the transfer to multi-family land, though 25% was negotiable. He stated that he was not comfortable with 100%. > Steven Topp, 12566 SW Bridgeview Court, stated that he was a land developer with property that would be affected by this decision, a planner specializing in development regulations, and a property owner in Tigard concerned about lawsuits. He said that the concept to take density from wetlands and transfer it to the remainder of the site was good, as was the staff's idea to apply it to all zoning districts; however the 25% was a bad idea. He contended that 25% virtually eliminated all small development. He presented copies of the Clark County Code, adopted six months ago, which dealt with the smaller pieces of land in the residential single-family district. Mr. Topp noted a discrepancy between the Tigard and USA regulations. He said that USA required wetlands or a drainage place to be put in a separate tract of land at the time of a development application. But the City said that separate tracts of land couldn't be counted in the lot area. He contended that this would preclude development of buildable lands with wetlands on the property because there were so many regulations there was barely enough land left on which to build a house. He stated that without an incentive to buy these lands, the wetlands were not protected. He suggested that the Council not adopt the staff recommendation and require further review. > Mr. Cox noted that the testimony all supported the application. He stated that Beaverton had full transfer rights from wetlands and that Mr. Hendryx, who had worked for Beaverton, told him that he was not aware of any problems Beaverton has had with that type of transfer. He said that most cities in the area did allow the transfer. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Mickaelson recommended denial of the application and changing the Comprehensive Plan and Code to allow 25% residential density transfer from wetlands on all residential lands. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff did not simply say to the applicant that they did not know where the standard came from. He said that they evaluated the record, though it was limited. He noted that the Plan was developed in 1983 and it was difficult to know the reasoning behind the decisions. He said that staff did try to provide the applicant with as much background information as possible. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 18 • • f. Council Questions or Comments Mayor Nicoli commented that it sounded like everyone was in favor of portions of this application. He said that he understood that staff thought all residential property should be considered but asked for clarification on staff's position on the 25%. Mr. Mickaelson said that the staff position was to stay with the 25% density transfer because it must have been justifiable to the community if consensus was reached on it at the time of the draft Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. He said that he was not aware that anything has changed since then, with the exception of the population increase. Mr. Monahan commented that in 1982/83 the Task Force was only trying to attain the goal of 10 units per acre. He said that staff and all the interest groups came to the conclusion that 25% made sense; it did not add a large burden to the neighborhood and it wouldn't push up the actual density on a property to the extent that it dominated an adjoining property. He agreed that it was a compromise. He said that he didn't recall why wetlands were not included but he did remember that flood plains were the hot issue at the time. Mayor Nicoli asked if wetlands were recognizable in 1982, noting that the definitions have changed since then. Ms. Newton concurred with the Mayor, stating that very few wetlands were identified in 1982/83; flood plains were the community issue. In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Hendryx stated that they still had the same standard of an average of 10 units per acre. Mayor Nicoli asked if Council was allowed to make changes to the application without it having to go back through the process. Mr. Hendryx stated that there were noticing problems if they made a substantial change to the requested amount of density transfer, although they could approve something less than what was requested. Councilor Hunt asked if the staff made its decision because it was trying to comply with the current rules and regulations, though that might not necessarily be what staff wanted to do. Mr. Mickaelson said that he thought it was more staying within the Comprehensive Plan; there was no regulation that said 25-% was the magic number. Mr. Hendryx commented that it was also a consideration of equity. They had a standard that was applied to several different resources, and staff questioned one resource using a different number. He confirmed that there was no reason that the other resources couldn't be changed also. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 19 • • Mr. Monahan commented that it would be a more equitable review to consider all the sensitive land types at once if they wanted to change the 25% agreed upon in 1983. Councilor Hunt cited Mr. Cox' statement of using a design availability basis rather than a percentage. Mr. Monahan said that staff could look at design availability basis since it would be some kind of a performance-based standard. Staff could try to develop criteria but they needed a definition for staff to work with. Mr. Hendryx commented that the concept was that parking, landscaping and setbacks had to be accommodated on any given site. The higher the density, the more physically constrained the site became. Councilor Scheckla commented that if they kept building in wetland areas, soon there wouldn't be any wetlands. He stated that wetlands should be protected (as was decided on in 1983) and that developers shouldn't be allowed to build on them. Councilor Hunt asked if this would make any difference in protecting wetlands. Mr. Hendryx stated "the jury was still out" regarding the impacts of development next to wetlands; the national studies were not conclusive. g Public Hearing Closed Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Consideration by Council: Motion to Direct staff Mayor Nicoli stated that he was in favor of the applicant's proposal. He said that if the Council approved this, they needed to review the other three categories. He said that raising the 25% to 100% didn't bother him. He commented that over the last 10 years the federal government has taken much land from private property owners by changing the definition of wetlands and declaring property unbuildable. He held that this would put some equity back into the equation. Mayor Nicoli commented that everything done in the past 5 years has been to increase densities and that this would contribute to that effort in a small way. He stated that building near a wetlands still allowed a good quality open space around a development. He said that allowing a higher density in this type of situation was alleviated somewhat by the large open area. Councilor Hunt concurred with the Mayor's comments. He said that he would like not to take any action tonight and to have staff to go back and change the other three categories for consistency. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 20 • • Councilor Rohlf commented that he rarely found himself in complete disagreement with staff. He noted the list of goals and criteria met by this application, citing that as important. He mentioned the responsiveness of the applicant to the CIT concerns. He agreed that it would be important to change all the categories to be consistent but held that there was nothing "magical" about the decision made in 1983; the Comprehensive Plan constantly underwent revisions. Councilor Rohif stated that this would help them meet some of their density goals. He said that he preferred the applicant's approach of limiting the transfer to multi family land as opposed to going into single-family areas, citing the strong feeling from citizens to preserve single-family residential neighborhoods. He said that he liked the idea that this would help them protect the wetlands better than the current regulations, and that they could help the property owner get better use of his property. Councilor Moore stated that he agreed with the basics of the prior statements. He noted that the question was what density transfer to allow. He said that he favored denying the application and directing staff to research the options, including what was done by other cities. He said that he agreed that there should be some type of density transfer. Councilor Moore cited the comments made about restraints on the development of property limiting how many units could be actually put on it, based on the size of the property. He said that the Code should not allow 8-9 stories for multi-family units. He noted Councilor RohIf's concerns about preserving single-family residential. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Moore. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Ramis if they could legally make adjustments to the flood plain, slopes or drainage ways since the applicant did not ask for an adjustment to those land types. Mr. Ramis said that he thought that would require separate notice and application. He said that Council could adopt the proposal from the applicant and direct staff to come back with a range of options. Mr. Monahan commented that another option was to allow the applicant to withdraw his application and have either he or the City initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment to look at the issues collectively. Councilor Rohif expressed concern that the City's lengthy process would impact the applicant's ability to use the property. Mr. Monahan cautioned the Council that they were not supposed to look at Comprehensive Plan amendments with a particular application in mind because it CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 21 • • could come up to them on appeal. Mr. Ramis concurred but said that Mr. Cox could speak in general terms of policy. Mayor Nicoli noted that the staff report included several comments referring to a specific property. He questioned whether or not that was proper procedure. Mr. Ramis said that the way to resolve this was to understand that they were addressing a policy question. There was nothing wrong with using specific examples from the City to see how the policy applied. What was really critical was the Council's policy judgment on a city-wide basis. The Council agreed by consensus to reopen the public hearing. Mayor Nicoli reopened the public hearing. Councilor Hunt concurred with Councilor Rohlf's concern about holding up the project while the City reconsidered the standard. He asked what their alternatives were. Mr. Ramis explained that in order to approve a percentage transfer on this property, they had to amend the Code that dealt with wetlands, and then process the request under the amended Code. He said that they could then come back through a second process and reconsider the standard along with the other land types. Mr. Cox stated that he concurred with Mr. Ramis that this was a policy question that should not be focused on one piece of property at this time. He suggested a short continuance to work with staff to find something that would work more on a site basis than on a percentage basis, and that allowed a design characteristic of the land to come into effect. He agreed with the concern that it would take too long to go through the process, and do his client a disservice. He said that the Council could implement on its own motion a study of the other types of sensitive lands and change the Comprehensive Plan within their process. Councilor Moore asked if they could grant a variance in this instance. Mr. Ramis said that they could not grant a variance to something that was not allowed by Code. Mr. Monahan stated that the City has never allowed variances to density, and that this application did not come under any of the exceptions. Mayor Nicoli asked if staff felt that they could reach an alternative solution with the applicant, in the event of a continuance. Mr. Hendryx said that staff could discuss different options with the applicant. He agreed with addressing this application separately and giving staff direction to evaluate the broader issues, as it potentially would not hold up the application. Councilor Rohlf asked if there was something fundamentally wrong with the concept of a design basis. Mr. Hendryx said that his concern was achieving clear and objective standards and how to apply them on a case-by-case basis. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 22 • •. Mr. Cox cited the standard mentioned in the application, noting that they didn't actually use the term "100%." Mr. Ramis asked for an example where the standard would yield a different result than a 100% standard. Mr. Cox cited an example that yielded 80% of the whole site. Mr. Ramis stated that he thought that they could come up with an alternative if given time. He said that it would take some work with staff to make sure that it worked and gave the City some ability to regulate transfers in the future. Mr. Topp commented that 100% was a simple number; any other number required a defense. If they decided to go with something less than 100%, they needed to have a reason behind it. He stated that the 80% figure mentioned by. Mr. Cox has some background to it. He stated that if they adopted different standards for multi family and single family, then they needed to show why they were different; that would be difficult to do. Mr. Bledsoe stated that he disagreed with Mr. Topp. He said that he thought it should be applied to multi family. Mr. Ramis stated that those were policy judgments for the Council to make. If they decided to go with different standards, his office would work with staff to develop the record to support their decision. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to continue the hearing until July 9, 1996 to give the staff time to develop a new recommendation. Motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 8. CONTINUATION (FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996) OF PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96- 0003- DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. a. Public Hearing Opened Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 23 • • b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report . Dick Bewersdorff, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the attached order included only those provisions recommended by the Planning Commission that were also acceptable to the City Council, based on comments at • the last hearing. d. Public Testimony: None e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval as written. f. Council Questions or Comments: None g Public Hearing Closed Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 96-23 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Ordinance No. 96-23. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 96-23, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED SECTIONS 18.32.050(b)(5), 18.32.250(e)(2) TO ADD DEDICATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. Motion approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohif, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Mr. Monahan presented a resolution recognizing the efforts of Gene Seibel in helping, the Water District resolve some of its water needs. He said that Mr. Seibel was the director of the Tualatin Valley Water District and was retiring at the end of this month. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No. 96-40. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 24 • • The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96-40 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL HONORING GENE SEIBEL OF THE TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") > Mr. Monahan presented an update on the sewer problem that developed Sunday evening in the Ventura Court area. He said that sewage backed up into a local stream because vandals dropped a 12-inch diameter boulder down a manhole. Although DEQ appeared to be satisfied with the City's clean up efforts, they questioned the response time. The City crews began clean-up efforts on Monday morning. Staff waited because they did not feel that people would access the stream at 10:30 p.m. (when the problem was discovered). The stream has been posted with notices warning people that the water was not safe. Ms. Newton added that the primary reason City crews did not respond on Sunday evening was because the manhole was located on forested property off Barbara Lane. The crews had to dig through the brush to get to it and that would have been difficult to do in the dark. The City was periodically testing the water and will removed the posted waters when it is again safe. Councilor Hunt commented that based on the articles and TV report, he had gotten the _ impression that the City had exposed sewer at that location, not that a rock had been dropped down a manhole. Mr. Monahan suggested issuing a press release explaining the remedial measures the City was taking. He said that there were ways to lock down manhole covers and staff was discussing that as a future option. He stated that he understood from staff that this was not an isolated incident but that similar vandalism has occurred elsewhere in the Metro area. > Mr. Monahan said that they would reschedule the election training. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 25 • • 10. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 p.m. nct-E-VQ_A. A.t LO Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder - r c• / 1., or, City of Tigard Date: /6l /C1 �C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 26 • • AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of July 9, 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Ordinance Amendment CPA 96-0003/ZOA96-0004 (AB O / Cox ) PREPARED BY:, Neis_MickaelsonDEPT HEAD OK /A// CITY ADMIN OK �l/ J J ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a comprehensive plan amendment and zone ordinance amendment to allow residential density transfer from wetlands on land zoned R-12, R-25 and R-40? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Council reviewed this proposal at the June.11th hearing and agreed that there should be a full density transfer allowance for wetlands on land zoned multi-family. City Council directed staff to research different ways to implement this proposal and to look at options for implementing full transfer on other physically constrained lands (floodplains, drainageways, and steep slopes). Staff recommends that City Council approve a modified version of the proposal which would allow full transfer of residential density on sites with wetlands to the buildable portion of the site on all lands zoned R-12, R-25, and R- 40. The modified version of the proposal differs from the applicants original proposal in that it deletes the language in the Comprehensive Plan which restricts transfer to 25%, whereas the applicants original proposal added language to allow transfer from wetlands zoned for multi-family. Additionally, it is recommended that staff continue to work on ways to implement full transfer from other physically constrained lands and that these changes be made in conjunction with other changes being proposed for the Community Development Code this year. INFORMATION SUMMARY This application was originally submitted by ABECO Corporation which owns a site located on S.W. Longstaff Street adjacent to and south of Highway 217. The application was represented by William C. Cox, Attorney at Law at the June 11 hearing. The City Council agreed that the application had merit and should be implemented. In addition, the Council wanted staff to explore other options which could implement full density transfer on other physically constrained lands. The legislative amendment proposed by Mr. Cox would modify the housing section of the comprehensive plan to allow full transfer of density from sites with wetlands which are zoned R-12, R- 25, and R-40 from the wetland area to the buildable portion of the site. The application also proposed an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.020 to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which density can be transferred, and 18.92.030 to allow full transfer from wetland areas zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40. Staff's modified version of the proposal would allow full transfer of residential density on sites with wetlands to the buildable portion of the site on all lands zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40. The modified • • version of the proposal differs from the applicants in that it deletes the language in the Comprehensive Plan which restricts transfer to 25%, whereas the applicants original proposal added language to allow transfer from wetlands zoned for multi-family. Staff does not recognize the additional language is necessary to implement the change and that the modified proposal would allow more flexibility in the future for additional change. Attached is an ordinance containing revised findings that reflect Councils approval of the request. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Deny the proposal and return on July 23 with a modified ordinance for approval by the council. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact to the city. • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 6.1.1 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 3 AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.92.020 AND 18.92.030 TO ALLOW THE ONSITE TRANSFER OF DENSITY ON SITES WITH WETLANDS WHICH ARE ZONED R-12, R-25 AND R-40. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Plan and Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 11, 1996 and. July 9, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments as set forth herin; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to promote the efficient use of land zoned for multi-family while protecting wetland resources. NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Housing Section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan 6.11, Implementation Strategy 3 is amended by deleteing the language ctriketilfetigh The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g., steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. No more than 25%of the dwellings may be transferred. SECTION 2: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.92, "Density Computations" is amended by deleting the language in strikeout-and adding the language underlined. 18.92.020 Density Calculation. A. Net Development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent; and c. Drainageways; and ORDINANNCE No. 96- Page 1 • • d. Wetlands; • 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public right-of-way: a. Single-family: allocate 20 percent of gross acres for public facilities; and b. Multiple-family: allocate 15 percent of gross acres for public facilities; 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. To calculate the net units per acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning district. 18.92.030 Residential Density Transfer. A. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020(A)(1)(a-c) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to The following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which could have been allowed on 25% of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2. The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. B. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020 (A)(1)(d) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R- 12. R-25, and R-40 subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations; 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. SC. All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, planned Development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 2 • • SECTION 3: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 11 and 12; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30, 18.84. and 18.92. The amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the City Council hearing and opportunity for response were advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and Metro. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The amendments would fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan policy related to the transfer of density from physically constrained lands, specifically wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Open Space, Natural and Scenic Resources: Goal 5 requires that, adopted comprehensive plans conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This goal is satisfied. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: Goal 6 requires that comprehensive plans maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources. The amendments would not have an adverse impact on these resources. This goal is satisfied. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: Goal 7 requires that comprehensive plans protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. The amendments would not modify existing comprehensive plan or land use regulations that control lands subject to natural hazards such as floodplain and steep slopes. This goal is satisfied. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendments could increase development opportunities on land adjacent to wetlands. This goal is satisfied. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The amendments would have the potential of increasing the number of multi-family units which could be built on sites with wetlands. The amendment would increase the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing at various prices throughout the city. This goal is satisfied. ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 3 • • Public Facilities and Services: Goal 11 requires that development be guided and supported by types and levels of public facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requirements of the area to be served. The city has adequate facilities and services available to serve existing Multi-Family land use districts. The city's public facilities plan would accommodate the density proposed by this amendment. It does not effect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. This goal is satisfied. Transportation: Goal 12 requires that the city provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. The amendments would not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This goal is satisfied. The amendments are consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes be consistent with statewide planning' goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. Metro was sent a request for comments, and none were received. This policy is satisfied. General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(c) requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. The amendments would promote a more efficient urban form and accommodate additional housing units. This policy is satisfied. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs, and the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were legally advertised. This policy is satisfied. Natural Features and Open Space: Policy 3.4.1(c)states that the city shall designate, in accordance with goal 5, the following as areas of significant environmental concern. (a.) significant wetlands and (b.) areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animal or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas. Policy 3.4.2(a)states the city shall protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage course and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible; The amendments would increase the potential density adjacent to wetland areas. The amendments will not reduce the amount of protection currently afforded wetlands under existing regulation. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires that the city provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 4 • • primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The amendments would increase the number of multi-family units that could be built. This policy is satisfied. Transportation: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The amendments would allow the transfer of density from sites with wetlands from the wetland portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site. It does not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these residential land uses. The amendments would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the standards for the decision of a legislative change. The standards and responses to these criteria are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Statewide Goals' in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's • Transportation Planning Rule is addressed below under "Oregon Administrative Rule". 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies' in this staff report. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five standards have been adequately addressed in this staff report and the sixth standard is optional only. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 5 • • • PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1996. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,i996. James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date is\citywide\ord\cpa96-03.ord Nels M. 06/27/96 2:13 PM ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 6 •.,r L144E Osw E.G8 . • • ZONING CODE § 48.08 270 of the gross site area. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; i. Area within the floodway and the 11-16-82.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; floodway fringe as shown on U. S. Army Corps Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96) of Engineers' flood maps. • ii. Area over 25% slope. 48.08.275. Development Review. iii. Area in known landslide areas or in In the DD zone major developments and the areas shown to have potential for severe or following listed minor developments, as those moderate landslide hazard. terms are used in LOC 49.20.110 and 49.20.115, iv. Area in stream buffer area of major are subject to review by the Development stream corridors, wetlands, and Distinctive Review Commission. The minor developments Natural Areas. subject to Development Review Commission v. Area in public open space and parks. review are construction of new detached D. Subtract the area of the Density Transfer single-family dwellings, duplexes, zero lot line Acre from the difference obtained after and multi-family dwellings and exterior performing the calculation described in B, or if modifications to structures containing there are no existing dwellings on the site that non-conforming uses that require a building will remain, from . the area of the Net permit. (Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 12; 3-6-84.) Developable Acre. (Ord. No. 2091, Amended. 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2129, E. For zones, other than the R-0 zone, Amended, 04/02/96) calculate the base number of units by dividing 48.08.276. to 48.08.279 reserved. the result of the calculation from subsection D by the minimum lot area per unit allowed in the 48.08.280. Allowable Density and Density zone. For the R-0 zone, there is no base number Transfer. of units. The base allowable FAR is 1.2 times This section explains the method for the result of the calculation from subsection D. I r F. The area of the Density Transfer Acre computation of the number of units allowed for may be added to the area of Net Developable each site in the DD, WR, R-0, R-3, R=5, R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones, except in mixed use zones. Acre for the purpose of density calculation to the A. Compute the area of Net Developable extent that the applicant has demonstrated by site Acre by subtracting from gross acreage (at specific information (in specified cases by an 43,560 sq.ft. per acre) of residentially designated engineer's report) that the requirements of the land the area required for street right-of-way. For Development Standards will be met for all units public streets, use the actual acreage if known or proposed to be built. The number of units 20% of the gross acreage. For private streets,use allocated to the Density Transfer Acreage is actual acreage if known or 40 foot right-of-way. computed in the same manner as the base B. For all residential zones except the R-0 number of units or FAR is calculated pursuant to zone. if there are existing dwellings on the site subsection E, less any units which cannot be placed due to failure to comply •with the that will remain as a part of the development, requirements of the Development Standards. subtract from the area calculated in A, an area G. To determine the total number of units or amount equal to the minimum lot area per unit FAR allowed on the site, add to the result of the required in the zone. For the R-0 zone subtract calculation in subsection E the result of the an area amount equal to 1.2 times the floor area calculation in subsection F. for the existing dwellings. H. The hearing body will review the above C. Compute the area of Density Transfer calculations as part of the hearing process on the Acre by adding together the area of the application. LOC 48.04. 130( 1)(b), components listed below. 48.06.205(1)(b) and 48.08.255(3)(b) provide that • (Rev. 04/02/96; bp) 48-19 • • • • 48.08.280 ZONING CODE the hearing body will approve the total number 5. East End General Commercial - to of units calculated in G above if the facts implement comprehensive plan policies directing presented by the applicant demonstrate that the revitalization of the East End Business District. resulting density can occur within requirements The district should guide and encourage set forth in the Development Standards. development and redevelopment of the East End I. LOC 48.04.125,48.04.130(2),48.06.195, Business District. 48.06.205(2), 48.08.245 and Development 6. Campus Research & Development - to Standard 21, the Residential Energy provide a mix of clean, employee-intensive Conservation Incentives, provide for density industries, offices and high-density housing with bonuses under specified circumstances. The associated services and retail commercial uses in maximum number of units will not exceed the locations supportive of mass transit and the numbers allowed by those sections. regional transportation network. (Ord. No.2088. Enacted. 03/03/94) 7. Mixed Commerce - to provide for a mix of uses requiring highway access and which Article 48.10. Commercial Districts. provide a strong visual identity. Intended uses include • local and regional convention type 48.10.300. Purpose. facilities, office uses and supporting retail uses. 48.10.305. Uses. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1: 11-16-82. Ord. No. 48.10.310. Site Development Limitations. 1926, Sec. 2; 1-21-86. Ord. No. 1978, Sec. 1; 48.10.315. Special Requirements. 12-20-88.) 48.10.316. to 48.10.339 reserved. 48.10.305. Uses. 48.10.300. Purpose. 1. Neighborhood Commercial - to provide "P" = Permitted uses. land near or within residential areas for "C" = Uses permitted upon the grant of commercial activities. The uses listed for the approval of a conditional use permit. Neighborhood Commercial zone in LOC "X" = Uses specifically prohibited. 48.10.305 and 48.10.315(6), (7) have been determined to implement the Neighborhood 1. Residential: Commercial policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. General Commercial - to provide lands A. Special Uses. for commercial activities supplying a broad range Uses: C = NC, GC, EC of goods and services to a market area which X = HC, OC, CR&D, MC includes the planning area identified in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Residential use at .R-0, R-3, and R-5 3. Highway Commercial - to provide lands density except as specifically allowed in • for commercial activities which meet the needs LOC 48.10.315." Use not allowed on of the traveling public as well as other ground floor in GC zones. . highway-oriented retail uses which require access Uses: P = GC, HC, OC, CR&D to a market area larger than the general C = NC commercial zone. This district is not intended for X = EC, MC • regional shopping centers. 4. Office Campus - to provide lands for major concentrations of regionally oriented offices and employment opportunities for a market area larger than the planning area. (Rev. 04/02/96; bp) 48-20 • `�4, ;:4,krt�;; !{, Model. Division ofPinelands Research, Center for Coastal and `gg't. ' • .�b{{{{{x'��'{{;;; 'f ig' ` Environmental Studies, Rutgers - the State University, New Brunswick, NJ. Tit •I• :� { 123 pp 1 IiiY,'''1,' '4 : ; d' � nx ,+3 Roman, C.T. and Good, . , {t fib p s g , , , R.E. 1986. Delineating Wetland Buffer Protection Areas. ;.k{;;,. ^,1 : , :, t y The New Jersey Pinelands Model. pp. 224-230. In: Jon A. Kusler and `' A} Ali'4 'r �tts Patricia Riexinger (eds.), Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment w of ' g`": 'it'll'• r4: ` ,` ,ti fr�f::1.,,_,'''.t Symposium, June 17-20, 1985. Portland, Maine. ASWM Technical Report 1. i 041 1', tz `t=i, ...1wFg f x.; '• :: Schroeder, R.L. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Pileated Woodpecker. U.S. ,:,' aa�f '}`,. �,i Dept. Int., Fish Wildl..Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.39. 15 pp. i 1 ,;' { r lts',5 s Schroeder, R.L. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Black Brant. U.S. Dept. y'`" °' :i, 4""`IT*,:', ';n Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.63. .: ,I ,: ,,fi it..,:„,;! E, Shisler, K. P E;.„,fi,il, ,1 , , J. P.E. Waidelich, and H G Russell. 1985 Coastal Wetlands: Wetlands,-..,„ ,.i.>, ,- :., .<' ',,, Buffer Delineation Study - Task 1. Mosquito Research & Control, New :,� . ,, - ;;• ,r, ., Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, and Rutgers University, New °' ',. '1-4< Brunswick, New 09803. :,, ; Jersey $'LL1 { =`` Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N. Wargo 1987. Coastal Wetland Buffer .,.4,:. Delineation. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Trenton, New Jersey. 102 pp. Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and Costs of Conservation Corridors. Conservation Biology 1:63-71. Simenstad, C.A., C.D. Tanner, and R.M. Thom: 1989. Estuarine Wetland Restoration Monitoring Protocol: Final Draft Report. U.S. Environmental ', Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. e, ,,,. , ; Sinicrope, T.L., P.G. Hine, R.S. Warren, and William A. Niering. 1990. Restoration of an Impounded Salt'!Marsh in New England. Estuaries 13:25-30. :i Smardon, R.C. 1978. Visual-cultural Values of Wetlands. pp. 535-544 In: Philip E. Greeson, John R. Clark, and Judith E. Clark (eds.), Wetland Functions and 67 • 1 • • WETLAND BUFFERS: Use and Effectiveness Andrew J. Castelle', Catherine Conolly', Michael Emers', Eric D. Metz', Susan Meyer', Michael Witter', Susan Mauermann3, Terrell Erickson', Sarah S. Cooke 'Adolfson Associates, Inc., Edmonds, WA 2W&H Pacific, Inc., Bellevue, WA 'Washington State Department of Ecology, WA 4Pentec Environmental, Edmonds, WA for Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program Olympia, Washington February 1992 y! correlation between maximum __ ;' in southern Ontario, Canada. They derived a regression equation in which Duller aluucuaw*sw !: accounted for 90% of the observed temperature variation. .In their study, Brazier and Brown (1973) sought to define the characteristics of buffer strips that 4. „, were important in shading-small streams adjacent to logging. They found that 73 feet was often ut f;i ample buffer to shade these streams, maintaining pre-logging temperature ranges. They , advocated establishing a buffer tange that would apply to different situations of slope, exposure, wi, and canopy cover on a case-by-case basis. • ., , t.f' Human Impact Deterrence i`` Buffer zones function to protect wetlands from direct human impact through limiting easy access `' r to the wetland and by blocking the transmittal of human and mechanical noise to the wetland. 1. I°1 Direct human impact to wetlands most often consists of refuse dumping, the trampling of _ ;' vegetation, and noise. Shisler et al. (1987) analyzed 100 sites in coastal New Jersey to evaluate -- the relationship between buffer width and direct human disturbance to wetlands. The ` °x , investigators completed a post construction analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness, or lack , , . thereof, of different buffer widths for different land uses. Disturbance came in the form of t '; - „ abandoned or dumped constructions materials, dumped debris, cut or burned vegetation, fill ° ; ;if. : areas, excavation, trampled paths, bulldozed areas, and adjacent residents expanding their ;t;., 1-'''. p perty ' g y accounted f � ro the all _into the wetlands. ._Shisler.found.that_the ad'acent_land_use_type_,___ ______ __,or__� � ,,;.; much of the variation found-in the level of human disturbance: In all cases, human disturbance 3 ,i: was higher in wetlands adjacent to dense residential or commercial/industrial uses. As a result of I. ,?i their investigation, Shisler et al. recommended that low intensity land uses (agriculture, low i;,! '?` •density residential, and recreation) maintain buffers of 50, 50, and 100 feet, respectively, for salt • f, a 1 marshes, hardwood swamps, and tidal freshwater marshes. For high intensity land uses (high . s 1 density residential and industrial/commercial), buffers of 100, 100 and 150 feet were_ �`— � , ., recommended!/As buffer width increased;-direct human disturbance decreased: Disturbance i 'i J'' _ levels-were double at sites with narrow buffers (less than 50 feet). Buffers of 100 feet and 4 t< I ? t greater provided significantly more protection and reflected in lower disturbance to the wetlands than did buffers less than 50 feet. Steeply sloping buffers with dense shrub understories provided the greatest protection. 1` Cooke (Appendix A, this report) studied 21 wetlands in King and Snohomish counties in a post- 1 .• I` project evaluation to assess the effectiveness of buffers in protecting wetlands from human 1 .r. disturbances. Efficiency was measured qualitatively, using observations of human caused f 11 , Fr 216 cluster housing - MicSft Internet Explorer S Page 1 of 2 City of Portland • u 2 ' Plannin g Bureau i : : q� 1120 SW 5th Avenue,Room 1002 ' ` V�,.;,;f ,• Portland,OR 97204 CHAPTER 33.216 CLUSTER HOUSING Sections: 33.216.010 Purpose 33.216.020 Description 33.216.030 Regulations 33.216.010 Purpose The cluster housing regulations have several potential public benefits. They: • Provide flexible development options where the standard rectilinear lot pattern is not practical due to of physical constraints; • Promote the preservation of open and natural areas; • Allow for common open areas within a development project while still achieving the density of the base zone; and • Support reductions in development costs. 33.216.020 Description A cluster housing project is a subdivision containing houses with some or all of the lots reduced below the minimum lot sizes, but where the overall project meets the density standard for the zone. These projects require that the planning for lots and the locations of houses on the lots be done at the same time. Because the exact location of each house is predetermined, greater flexibility in development standards can be possible while assuring that the single-dwelling character of the zone is maintained. 33.216.030 Regulations A.Qualifying situations. Cluster housing projects are allowed only in the RF,R20, R10, R7, R5, and R2.5 zones. They are allowed as part of minor or major subdivisions. However, they may not be larger than 4 acres in size. Larger proposals are subject to the Planned Unit Development regulations. B.Procedure for approval. Cluster housing projects are allowed by right. They are subject to the subdivision review process. C.Density. The overall project may not exceed the density allowed by the base zone. In Tuesday, June 18, 1996 1:42 PM 216 cluster housing - Micleft Internet Explorer i Page 2 of 2 calculating the density, the area of the whole subdivision is included,except for public or private streets. D.Lot sizes.There is no minimum lot size (area, width, or depth). Lot sizes must be adequate to meet all required development standards of this chapter. E.Housing types allowed. Houses are the only type of housing allowed. The proposed locations for all houses must be shown on the plat or partition map.The house locations . must be shown in enough detail so that compliance with the required development standards is assured. F.Building setbacks. Along the perimeter of the project, all development must meet the building setback standards of the base zone. Within the project,the distance between houses must be at least 10 feet. G. Building coverage. The building coverage standards of the base zone do not apply to individual lots, but do apply to the overall project. Allowable areas for buildings must be shown on the plat map. H. Required outdoor area. The required outdoor area standard of the R5 zone applies for all lots. See 33.110.235. I. Preservation of water features. Water features such as drainageways and streams must be left in a natural state unless altered to improve the amenity of the water feature for the project's residents or to improve stormwater drainage. Water features must be in common ownership unless otherwise approved as part of the subdivision review. J. Maintenance. An enforceable maintenance agreement for any commonly owned areas must be created and recorded. The agreement must be approved by the City Attorney to assure that the City's interests are protected. Tuesday, June 18, 1996 1:42 PM G3 14 _ CIV III-1 ARTICLE III LAND USE DISTRICTS 300 INTRODUCTION Article III of the Washington County Community Development Code consists of the primary and overlay districts which apply to the unincorporated areas of Washington County. These districts -are provided to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the standards listed in each District, all development is subject to all other applicable provisions of this Code, including Article IV, Standards; Article V, Public Facilities; and Article VI , Land Divisions. 300-1 Intent and Purpose The intent and purpose of the land use districts is to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and land use designations on the community plan maps. The purpose is to provide for a full range of uses to implement the land use needs set forth in the Community Plans. 300-2 Residential Density Calculation To determine the maximum number of units which may be constructed on a site for residential uses, the site siie ( in acres) shall be multiplied by the maximum number of units per acre allowed on the site, as designated on the applicable Community Plan, except where otherwise specified in Section 300-3. EXAMPLE Acres x units per acre = number of units allowed 1.6 x 5 = 8.0 or 8 units 300-2.1 Site size shall include the area of the subject lot(s) or parcel (s) , in acres or portions thereof, excluding all areas currently dedicated for public right-of-way. 300-2.2 Allowable density shall be as designated on the Community Plan Map or Rural Plan. 300-2.3 The number of units which may be constructed on the sub- ject site shall be subject to the limitations of the applicable provisions of this Code, including such things as landscaping, parking, flood plain, buffering, slopes and other site limitations. 300-2.4 When the maximum number of units allowed on a site results in a fraction of .5 or more, the number of units allowed shall be the next highest whole number, provided all minimum district requirements other than density can be met. 8/19/85 • • III-2 300-2.5 In a subdivision in the R-5, R-6 and R-9 Districts, the • maximum number of lots shall be determined by the indi- vidual plat design, provided the minimum dimensional requirements for the district in which the proposed plat is located shall be met. 300-3 Density Transfers 300-3.1 Applicability: Transfer of density from one area of land to another shall be permitted for any unbuildable portion of a lot or parcel when a portion of the subject lot or parcel is within one of the following areas: A. Flood Plain; B. Drainage Hazard; C. Slopes over twenty (20) percent; D. Significant Natural Resource Area; E. Power line easement or right-of-way; • F. Future right-of-way for transitway, designated arterials and collectors; or G. Transit _Corridor as provided in Section 375 • 300-3.2 Density may be transferred only as follows: A. Within a single lot or parcel ; or B. To an adjoining lot or parcel that is a subject of the development application. 300-3.3 Density Transfer Calculations: The number of units which may be transferred shall be calculated as follows: A. Determine the total density for the subject lot(s) or parcel (s) . B. Determine the total number of units in the buildable portion and the unbuildable portion of the total site. 8/19/85 • III-3 C.. Transfer the density of the unbuildable portion of the site to the buildable portion of the site, pro- vided that the transferred density does not more than double the density allowed on the buildable portion of the site. 300-3.4 For the purpose of this Section, buildable shall mean all portions of the subject lot( s) or parcel (s) not included within a category listed in Section 300-3.1, and unbuildable shall mean all portions of the lot( s) or parcel (s) included in one of the categories in Section 300-3.1. 300-4 Development at Less than Maximum Density The standards of the applicable District shall apply regardless of whether the proposed development meets the maximum density. • 8/19/85 • • _ City of Gresham Community Development Plan - Volume IV -Standards Document hoOli SECTION: 2.0500 - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS Section: 2.0510 - Hillside Physical Constraint District Section: 2.0511 - Introductory Provisions The Hillside Physical Constraint District includes all areas of the City where the slope of the land is 15% or greater and shown on the Community Development Special Purpose District Map. Contained in this section are the special requirements which apply to development within these areas. The uses permitted in the Hillside Physical Constraint District are such uses which are consistent with the Community Development Plan, such as, but not limited to, housing, open space, parks, and any subsequent use which may be Permitted by the City Council. Three options have been created for the development of land within this constraint district The first option, Option 'A', is designed to tie the lot sizes of a land division to Vie average slope of the • parcel. The second option, Option 'B', is designed to allow for a density transfer bonus to stimulate development on those areas of the parcel where the slope of the land is less than 15%. The third option, Planned Unit Development (PUD), is intended to preserve open space areas while allowing flexibility in housing types and lot design. The procedures, criteria and standards for the PUD are found in Article 11.43 of the Gresham Development Code and Section 4.1000 of the Development Standards Document. (Amended by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) Section: 2.0512 - Option 'A' -Average Slope - Minimum Lot Size This section contains a formula which shall be used to determine the minimum lot size for developments where the slope of the land is between 15% and 35%. The site development requirements of the underlying land use district shall apply, with the exception of the minimum lot size. Determination of the lot sizes is a four step process: Step 'A-1' Determine the area of the parcel where the slope of the land is: (a) Less than 15% (b) Between 15% and 35% (c) Greater than 35% Use the following calculation procedure to determine the percentage of slope: Vertical distance between contours= y = % slope horizontal distance between contours H 10/3/95 • Outline the three slope areas (less than 15%; between 15% and 35%; and greater than 35%) and use a planimeter to determine the area within the categories. Step 'A-2' Determine the average slope of the area of the parcel where the slope of the land is between 15% and 35% by using the following formula: S = 0.00229 I L A Where: S = Average % of slope for the area where the slope ranged from 15% to 35%. I = 10' contour interval L = Summation of length of the 10' contours within the area where the slope is between 15% and 35%. A = Areas in acres of the portion of the parcel where the slope is between 15% and 35%. Step 'A-3' Determine the minimum lot size for the area of the parcel where the slope of the land is between 15% and 35% by using the following chart: Percent of Average Slope Minimum Lot Size perDwelling Unit 15 -19.99 14,000 sq. ft. 20 -24.99 17,000 sq. ft. 25 -29.99 21,000 sq. ft. 30 -34.99 29,000 sq. ft. Step 'A-4' Determine the number of dwelling units which can be allowable on those areas of the parcel where the slope of the land is less than 15% by referring to the site development requirements of the underlying district. Add to this total one dwelling unit for each one acre (43,560 square feet) of the parcel's areas where slopes exceed 35%. The combined dwelling density shall in no case exceed the highest allowable density permitted in the underlying district. The minimum lot sizes for areas of the parcel where the slope is less than 15% shall be determined by referring to the Site Development Requirements of the underlying land use district. (Amended by Ord. 1249 adopted 6/16/92; effective 7/16/92.) Section: 2.0513 - Option 'B' - Density Transfer Bonus In order to promote the preservation of natural slopes between 15% and 35% development density transfer can be used when dividing land within the Hillside Constraint District. The density transfer is only feasible where there are sizable areas of the parcel which have slopes less than 15%. Determination of the density transfer bonus is a four step process: Step 'B-1' Determine the area of the parcel where the slope of the land is: (a) Less than 15% (b) Between 15% and 35% (c) Greater than 35% 10/3/95 • • Step 'B-2' Determine the average slope of the area of the parcel where the slope of the land is between 15% and 35% by using the formula identified in Option A, Step 'A-2'. Step 'B'-3 Determine the numbers of potential lots which could have been permitted, for the portion of the parcel where the slope is between 15% and 35%, if the average slope option had been considered by using the chart in Option 'A', Step 'A-3 '. Step 'B-4' Multiply the number of potential lots by 1.2 to determine the maximum number of potential units which could be transferred to those sections of the lot where the slopes are less than 15%. The combined dwelling density shall in no case exceed the highest allowable density permitted in the underlying district. Section: 2.0513.1 - Lot Size Modification (A) Where a proposed lot has a mix of slope area below 15% slope and between 15%-35% slope, the minimum lot size shall be determined as follows: (1) (a) The percentage of the lot below 15% slope shall be multiplied by 7,000 sq. ft.; (b) The percentage of the lot between 15%-34% shall be multiplied by the minimum lot size as determined by the average slope formula; (c) The results of Steps Al and A2 above shall be added to determine the minimum lot size. (2) In no case shall the use of this section be permitted to increase development densities in excess of those calculated under the option specified in Sec. 2.0512. (3) Applicant shall furnish documentation of all calculations used to establish lot sizes under this Section. • (B) In an area where a lot is proposed which would have a mix of sloped areas above and below 35%, the approval authority may allow the creation of lots with slopes exceeding 35% for purposes of meeting the minimum lot size requirement as determined by the average slope calculation procedure. The following conditions apply to development utilizing this provision: (1) The proposed lotting pattern will not permit development densities in excess of those calculated under either of the applicable options (refer to Sections 2.0512 or 2.0513). (2) A slope easement, which prohibits the construction of any structure, is placed upon those sections of the tot where slopes exceed 35%, and (3) Those areas over 35% which are included in the lot shall not be used for a development density transfer. Section: 2.0514 - Specific Reports In order to prevent or mitigate possible hazards to life and property, adverse effects to safety, use as stability of a public way or drainage channel, and adverse impacts on the natural environment, specific reports will be provided by the applicant who proposes to develop land within 10/3/95 • the Hillside Physical Constraint District. The manager shall consult with a professional engineer registered in the State of Oregon with an expertise in geotechnical engineering to evaluate the methodology and recommendations of the following specific reports. Costs for such consultation shall be paid by the applicant. The following identifies the reports which will be required: (A) Soils Report This report shall include data regarding the nature, distribution, and • strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, design criteria for corrective measures, and opinions and recommendations covering the carrying capabilities of the sites to be developed in a manner imposing the minimum variance from the natural condition. The investigation and report shall be prepared by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Oregon. (B) Geology Report. This report shall include an adequate description, as defined by the manager, of the geology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions in the proposed development and opinions and recommendations as to the carrying capabilities of the sites to be developed. The investigation and report shall be prepared by a professional geologist. (C) Hydrology Report. This report shall include an adequate description, as defined by the- manager, of the hydrology of the site, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the effect of hydrologic conditions on the proposed development, and options and recommendations covering the carrying capabilities of the sites to be developed. The Hydrology Report shall include but not be limited to the requirements of Section 3.1013 of these standards. The investigation and report shall be prepared by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Oregon. (See Section 3.1013, for information required of a hydrology report). (D) Grading Plan Report. This plan shall include the following information: (1) Existing and proposed details and contours (five-foot intervals ) of property; (2) Details of terrain and area drainage; (3) Location of any existing buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed, the location of any existing buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within 100 feet of the property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations, and proposed or approximate locations of structures relative to adjoining topography; (4) The direction of drainage flow and the approximate grade of all streets (not to be construed as a requirement for final street design); (5) Limiting dimensions, elevations, or finish contours to be achieved by the grading, including all cut and fill slopes, proposed drainage channels, and related construction; (6) Detailed plans and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, dams, sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a part of, the proposed work, together with a map showing drainage area, the complete drainage network, including outfall lines and natural drainageways which may be affected by the proposed development, and the estimated runoff of the area served by the drains. 10/3/95 f.s . • (7) A schedule showing when each stage of the project will be completed, including the total area of soil surface which is to be disturbed during each stage, and estimated starting and completion dates; the schedule shall be drawn up to limit to the shortest possible period the time that soil is exposed and unprotected. In no event shall the existing "natural" vegetative ground cover be destroyed, removed, or disturbed more than 15 days prior to grading or construction of required improvements; and (8) The grading plan shall be prepared by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Oregon. (E) Vegetation and Revegetation Report. This report shall include the measures to be taken to stabilize slopes, minimize soil erosion, and revegetation areas where the natural vegetative cover will be removed. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect registered in the State of Oregon. (F) A Geotechnical Engineer Report. (This report shall only be required for proposed development on sloped lands greater than 35%). This report shall include the identification of areas of potential landslide hazard within or adjacent to the site and a narrative which describes the proposed construction methods to be followed to mitigate landslides. Furthermore, the report shall describe how the proposed construction and design techniques will minimize cuts, fills and potential adverse impacts to existing vegetation and have no adverse impacts to existing drainage ways, water quality and slope stability. The report shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Oregon with an expertise in geotechnical engineering. (Amended by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) Section: 2.0515 • Modification of Regulations Standards regarding public facilities, lot area coverage, yard requirements, building height and landscaping, may be modified if there is a finding by the approval authority that any of the following can be achieved by the submitted plans: (A) There is improved site design utilizing progressive concepts of building groupings; (B) There is a significant reduction in the amount of cut and fill areas by the proposed design; (C) There is a maximum retention of natural topographic features, such as drainage swales, slopes, ridge lines, rock outcroppings, vistas, natural plant formations, and trees; and (D) There are detailed and effective arrangements formulated for the preservation, maintenance, and control of open space and recreational areas. Upon a finding that the applicants' plan substantially achieves any of the preceding criteria the approval authority may modify the standards of this ordinance within the following prescribed limits: (A) Front, side and rear yards may be reduced to zero (when in conformance with the Uniform Building Code); provided, however, where attached dwellings are proposed there shall not be more than six dwelling units in any contiguous group. 10/3/95 • • 4 (B) The reduction of public right-of-way, pavement width, and/or requirements for the installation of sidewalk may be made if provisions are made to provide off-street parking in addition to that required in the off-street parking section of this ordinance. The additional parking requirements are as follows: (1) Detached Dwelling Units: Two additional off-street parking spaces. (2) Attached Dwelling Units: One-half additional off-street parking space for each bedroom more than one in each unit. In cases where a one-half space occurs in a total figure, the standard shall be increased to the next whole figure. (C) Height limitations may be removed, provided such additional stories of dwelling structures do not exceed 45'. (D) Building coverage may be increased from 35% to 45% (building coverage limits only apply to development under Option 'A'). Section: 2.0516 - Timber Harvesting on Steep Slopes Any removal of trees which would result in clear cutting is prohibited on land within the Hillskte Physical Constraint District. (Amended by Ord. 1237 adopted 1/21/92; eff. 2/20/92) Section: 2.0517 - Development on Slopes Greater than 35% Limited development on slopes of greater than 35% may be permitted when all of the following conditions exist: (A) Lot Building Area (Restricted to PUDs). (1) A lot building area may include slopes greater than 35% up to 60% only when the PUD is 10 acres or more in size. (2) No more than 30 percent of the net land area where slopes are greater than 35% up to 60% slope within the PUD may be included within lot building areas. (3) No lot building area shall include land which exceeds 60% slope. (4) The findings of the applicable sections of the Specific Reports of section 2.0514, as well as the analysis of these reports, indicate that: these sloped areas of 35%-60% are not susceptible to earth movement or landslide hazard; and the proposed construction and design techniques will minimize cuts, fills and potential adverse impacts to existing vegetation and have no adverse impacts to existing drainage ways, water quality and slope stability. (B) Public Facilities, Utilities and Driveways (1) To the maximum extent possible the site is designed so that these improvements avoid slopes exceeding 35% slope. 10/3/95 • • (2) The findings of the applicable sections of the Specific Reports of section 2.0514, as well as the analysis of these reports, indicate that: these areas are not susceptible to earth movement or landslide hazard; and the proposed construction and design techniques will minimize cuts, fills and potential adverse impacts to existing vegetation and have no adverse impacts to existing drainage ways, water quality and slope stability. (C) Lot of Record An existing lot of record may be improved with a maximum of one dwelling unit on slopes over 35% with a finding that there is not a sufficient land area on less than 35% slope for the proposed dwelling unit. (D) Open Space Open space on slopes over 35% may be improved with park land, greenways, and recreational trails. (Section 2.0517 added by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) 10/3/95 SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 33.000 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS: RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL USES 33.010 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is fo provide density standards. This chapter sets forth the method by which the allowed number of dwelling units per acre is computed where the applicable zone allows a density transfer. The standards are also intended to assure that adjoining developments are compatible and create a sense of neighborhood unity. Compatibility with adjoining development will be assured through the development review procedures. 33.040 COMPUTATION OF NET ACRES A. Net acres, for land to be developed with detached single-family dwellings, is computed by subtracting the following from the gross acres: 1. Any land area which is included in a boundary street right-of- way or water course. 2. An allocation of 25 percent for public facilities or when a tentative plat or plan has been developed, the total land area allocated for public facilities. 3. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zone, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. Net acres, for land to be developed with other than detached single- family dwellings, is computed by subtracting the following from the gross acres: 1. Any land area which is included in a boundary street right-of- way or water course. 2: An allocation of 20 percent for public facilities or when a tentative plat or plan has been developed, the total land area allocated for public facilities. 33-1 411 • 3. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zone, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. C. 33.050 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY COMPUTATION The allowed density or number of dwelling units on the site, subject to the limitations in Section 33.060,:is computed by dividing the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot, by the base zone. 33.060 LIMITATIONS ON RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSFER If there is no intervening existing street or natural or man-made topographic feature such as a drainageway, wetland, embankment or sufficient height, width, terrain variation or vegetative growth to create an effective barrier, and the residential density is transferred on site, then there shall be a 100-foot transition area between the PUD site and abutting non-PUD properties. The 100-foot transition area shall be on the PUD site, and shall include landscaping and trees, subject to City approval. A. No development shall be allowed in the 100-foot transition area if the ro ses multi-family units next to single-family housing (multi- . PUD p po Y family includes triplexes, rowhouses, apartments, etc. For the purpose of this chapter only, duplexes and single-family attached homes shall not be considered as multi-family housing relative to Section 33.060(B) below. (ORD. 1385) B. If a multi-family PUD was proposed next to single-family homes, the developer could avoid the 100-foot transition area requirements if they have duplex or single-family housing abutting the edge of the PUD site. • C. If a multi-family PUD was proposed next to a multi-family project outside of the PUD, then no 100-foot transition area is required. D. If a multi-family PUD was proposed next to a single-family PUD, then the 100-foot transition area is required unless the exemptions of (3) above are applied for. 33-2 • E. If single-family is next to single-family, whether they are in a PUD or ' not, no transition is required. (ORD. 1350) 33.070 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING DENSITY TRANSFER FOR PARCELS WITH TYPE I AND TYPE II LANDS When density is to be transferred on a land area with Type I and Type II land, the following procedure will apply: EXAMPLE: Facts: Right-of-Way: Public (59,677 sq. ft.) Private (33,106 sq. ft.) 2.13 ac. Open Space: • Dedication to City (60,113 sq. ft.) Common Ownership ( 2,614 sq. ft.) 1.44 ac. Single-Family Use: Type I and II Lands (104,000 sq. ft.) Type III and IV Lands (197,433 sq. ft.) 6.92 ac. Gross Site Area: 10.49 ac. Density Calculations: Gross Site Area 10.49 ac. (-) Right-of-Way 2.1 ac. Net Site Area 8.36 ac. Open Space: (1.44 ac. X 100% Transfer - 10,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) = 6.27 lots Type I and II Lands Developed (104,000 sq. ft. X 50 % Developable - 10,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) = 5.2 lots Type III and IV Lands Developed (197,435 sq. ft. X 100% Developable - 10,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) = 19.74 lots Total Allowed Density: 31 lots C 33-3 • • (ORD. 1291) LAllowable Density* Type I or Building When When Type II lands Not Allowed, : Developed Transferred Slopes: 25 - 35% 50%*** 100% 35 - 50% X** 50%*** 100% More than 50% X 50%*** Confirmed Land Slide Hazards X 50%*** Flood Hazard: 100-yr. flood fringe 50%*** 100% 100-yr. floodway X 50%"* Stream Buffer X 100% Wetlands X 100% Significant Natural X 100% Areas * Development of single-family detached residences on lots of record are exempt from this chart; most restrictive density governs in the event of conflict or overlap. ** Provisions in the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Chapter 31 will apply. (ORD. 1339) *** The "50 percent allowable density when developed" means that the allowable density is reduced by half (50%). That means to develop a lot on a 40 percent slope would require a lot twice the minimum lot size required by the underlying zoning (e.g., development of a site in the R-10 zone would require a 20,000 square foot lot). (ORD. 1350) (AMENDED PER ORD. 1385) 1(ovf`/ as a:\cdc.33 , r `-( YlES 33-4 ( Kc.r7t=5 M • . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) § 11.43.010 Article 11.43. PLANNED UNIT and Development Standards Document which DEVELOPMENT would apply if not developed as a PUD. (PUD) (2) The site design provides for adequate light, air, and privacy, to secure safety from tire, 11.43.010. Planned Unit Development flood, and other danger and to prevent (PUD) overcrowding of the land. 11.43.020. Tentative PUD Plan Approval Criteria (3) The site design preserves the natural 11.43.030. Modification of Tentative beauty and topography of the site by retention of PUD Plan Approval natural features, such as drainage swales, slopes, ridge lines, rock outcroppings, vistas, natural plant formations and trees, and ensures appropriate development with regard to these 11.43.010. Planned Unit Development natural features. (PUD) (4) The site design provides for open spaces A Planned Unit Development(PUD) is a method through efficient design and layout of the land. of applying alternative development standards for Each unit shall have a private outdoor area or , larger-scale developments of residential lands access to the common open space. within the LDR-5 and LDR-7 Districts. (5) The site design utilizes progressive Provisions of the Planned Unit Development concepts of building groupings such as zero lot (PUD) ordinance will be reviewed under the line dwellings, attached single family dwellings Type IV procedure within three years from the and clustering of small residential lots. The effective date of this ordinance. layout design shall be guided by such factors as (Ord. No. 1346,Enacted.02/16/95) topography of the site, privacy, solar orientation, drainage and views. 11.43.020. Tentative PUD Plan Approval Criteria (6) When the site includes lands with slopes of 15% or greater, the site design shall utilize An application for a tentative PUD plan approval sensitive hillside developmentpractices that result shall be made in conjunction with an application in minimum disturbance of sensitive areas and for Land Division under Article 11.44, except natural topography, vegetation and soils. that it shall be processed under the Type III Sensitive hillside development practices include procedures. In approving a tentative PUD plan, but are not limited to: the approving authority shall find compliance with the applicable sections of the Community (a) Designing and locating structures so Development Plan and the following: that they fit into the contour of the hillside rather than altering the hillside to fit the (1) The site design produces a residential structure. • subdivision development which will be as good or better than that resulting from developing under (b) Grading is limited to necessary site the provisions of the Gresham Development Code improvements such as building footprints, 11-38(i) 1/24/95 • § 11.43.020 DEVELOPMENT driveway areas and areas required for public land designated as open space fall below 20% of facilities and utilities. the gross land area within the PUD. (Ord.No. 1346,Enacted,02/16/95) (c) Using retaining structures as an alternative to banks of cuts and fills. (d) Utilizing foundations types, such as span, cantilevered, pole and retaining wall with slab, that are compatible with the existing hillside conditions. (e) Placing structures as close as possible to the street so as to minimize driveway construction in the sloped areas. (f) Focusing development on slopes less than 25%. (g) Restoring the natural vegetative character of the disturbed sensitive areas within the hillside development. (7) The site design is consistent with the definition of a PUD in Section 1.0500 of the Standards Document. (Ord. No. 1346,Enacted,02/16/95) 11.43.030. Modification of Tentative PUD Plan Approval Modification of the tentative PUD plan approval shall be made under the Type II procedures unless it involves any of the following, in which case it shall be processed under the Type III procedures used for the Tentative PUD plan approval: (1) An increase in the number of dwelling units approved as part of the tentative plan. (2) A change in the mix of dwelling types. (3) A reduction in the amount of open space by 5% or more. In no case shall the amount of 1/24/95 t 1-38(ii) . • • City of Gresham Community Development Plan Volume IV-Standards Document �o s SECTION: 4.1000 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Planned Unit Developments (PUD) are intended to allow various housing types and site design flexibility in the development of residential subdivisions. (Added by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) Section: 4.1010 - Districts Where Allowed PUDs shall be permitted in the Low Density Residential-5 and Low Density Residential-7 Districts. (Added by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) Section: 4.1020 - Permitted Land Uses (A) Single family attached dwellings. (B) Permitted uses allowed in the LDR-5 and LDR-7 Districts. (Added by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) Section: 4.1030 - Site Development Requirements (A) Site development standards of the land use district shall apply unless superseded by the standards of this Article. The regulations of the PUD shall prevail if there is a conflict. (B) The regulations of special purpose district(s) shall apply unless superseded by the standards of this Article. The regulations of the special purpose district(s) shall prevail if there is a conflict. (C) The minimum gross site size shall be three acres. (Added by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) Section: 4.1040 - Variation to Site Development Standards Variations to following site development standards of the underlying land use district or applicable special purpose district provisions may be approved in accordance with this Article: 11/13/95 • • (A) Minimum Lot Sizes (1) Detached dwelling unit, manufactured home and detached zero lot line dwelling unit = 3,500 square feet. (2) Two-unit attached dwelling = 3,500 square feet for each dwelling unit. (3) Single family attached dwelling = 2,000 square feet. There shall be no more than six single family attached dwellings in any contiguous group. (B) Locational Criterion Detached zero lot line dwellings and two-unit attached dwellings need not be located within 275 feet of a designated arterial street. (C) Lot Dimensions There are no lot dimension requirements. However, it shall be demonstrated on each lot that there is a lot building area of adequate space to accommodate the proposed dwelling type. (D) Minimum Yard Setbacks (1) There shall be a minimum 10 foot separation between detached dwelling units/manufactured homes, detached zero lot line dwelling units, two-unit attached dwellings, and a contiguous group of attached dwellings. (2) There shall be a minimum 18 foot setback from a garage or carport to the street right-of-way line where vehicle access is derived. (3) The minimum yard setbacks of the underlying land use district shall apply to lots at the perimeter of the PUD. (4) Other minimum yard setbacks may be reduced to zero (when in conformance with the Uniform Building Code), and shall be identified and established as part of the tentative plan approval. (E) Maximum Building Height Whichever is greater: (1) 35 feet (2) Thirty feet above the abutting average street grade for dwellings located within 50 feet of the street right-of-way, provided that the structure does not exceed a height of 45 feet. (F) Minimum Street Frontage No minimum street frontage is required. 11/13/95 • • (G) Maximum Lot Coverage The maximum lot coverage shall be 80%. (H) General Lot Utility Easements There is no general lot utility easement requirement. It shall be demonstrated that general utilities such as electric and telephone lines can be accommodated and, if necessary, utility easements shall be provided. (Added by Ord. 1374 passed 9/19/95; effective 10/19/95) Section: 4.1050 - Density To encourage the PUDs, a density bonus shall be given. (A) Maximum allowed density shall be calculated using the following steps. (1) The square footage of the net land area of land less than 15% slope, between 15% and 25% slope and greater than 25% slope shall be calculated separately. Each calculated net land area(s) shall be divided by 5,000 within the LDR-5 District, and 7,000 within the LDR-7 District, except that net land area within 275 feet of an arterial street shall be divided by 4,000. (2) The number calculated in (1) above on land of less than 15% slope shall be increased by multiplying by 1.2. (3) The number calculated in (1) above on land between 15% and 25% slope shall be decreased by multiplying by 0.75. (4) The number calculated in (1) above on land with greater than 25% slope shall be decreased by multiplying by 0.50. (5) The net density of lands within the Natural Resource District shall be calculated as provided in Section 2.0500 - Natural Resource District, except that a density transfer of 2.4 dwelling units per acre when one acre or more of the parcel lies within the NR District shall be allowed. (B) The net density for development of the PUD shall be the addition of the units calculated in A.2 through A.5 of this section. (C) The total number of permitted dwelling units may be distributed throughout the PUD in compliance • with the standards of this article. (Added by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) Section: 4.1060 - Open Space Areas The approval authority shall evaluate proposed open space areas based on the following criteria: (A) A minimum of 20% of the gross land area within the PUD shall be allocated as an open space area and shall be in public or private common ownership. 11/13/95 • (B) Proposed open space areas shall be located as to encourage the conservation of natural features and the protection of steep slopes. The following topographic features, natural resources and other features shall be mapped and identified: (1) Significant natural features. (a) Water resources, streams, drainageways, ponds, lakes, fish habitat or wetlands; (b) Historically or culturally significant sites; and, (c) Ecological or scientifically significant areas, such as Hogan Cedar trees. (d) Significant trees and significant tree groves; (e) Land areas within the Natural Resource District; (f) Land areas with slopes greater than 35%. (2) Other natural features. (a) Trees with a circumference of 25 inches or greater measured at a point 4.5 feet above the ground on the upslope side of the tree; (b) Geologic features; (c) Scenic views and landscapes; (d) Significant wildlife habitat; and, (C) The open space areas shall be located to maximize the preservation of the features identified in Subsection B. (D) The open space areas may be either public open space or private common open space. (1) Public open space must comply with requirements of Article 11.66 of the Community Development Code. (2) Private open space must comply with the following criteria: (a) Open space easements transferring development rights are dedicated to the public; and (b) There is a financial mechanism that ensures maintenance of the open'space area. (E) The approval authority may approve the dedication of open space areas or of open space easements in concurrence with an approved phased land division. (F) Open space areas which do not include the features identified in Subsection (B) may be approved if improved with active recreation uses. Active recreation areas shall include, but are not limited to: 11/13/95 • • swimming pools; tennis, basketball, volleyball and badminton courts; children's play areas; baseball and soccer fields; picnic and barbecue facilities; and community gardens, etc. Active open space areas shall be of a sufficient size for the proposed active use. (Added by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) Section: 4.1070 - Street Trees Street trees shall be provided as required in Section 6.0470 of the Development Standards Document except that for the spacing standard. Street trees shall also be provided when abutting open space areas. A street tree plan shall be submitted for approval with the PUD tentative plan. The street tree plan shall be approved consistent with the following criteria: (A) The applicable provisions of Section 6.0470 are met. (B) The street tree plan identifies the required number of trees. (C) The street tree plan provides a spacing plan which evenly distributes the location and spacing of trees. (Added by Ord. 1346 passed 1/17/95; effective 2/16/95) 11/13/95 • —effrr )4,E15.4 Exhibit "A'! ... . . — . i Chapter 18.411 INTERPRETATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS _1' Section 18.411.015 Calculating Minimum and Maximum Densities Exceptions to A. For all urban zoning districts with minimum densities except R1-5, R1-6, R1-7.5, R1_ 10 and R1-20. •:- .. -._ - . . '.:_ . - ••...... • ..;; : •,. - _ :_ .. . •_ _.,• _ _ . •• _• • _.• _ • .. , •- - - , • . . 1. Minimum density or floor area ratio will be based on the developable area of the lot that remains after subtracting: a. land dedicated for public roads, public parks and trails, required landscaping and drainage ways. b. land designated by covenant or public dedication to be permanently maintained in an undeveloped state because the land is identified as sensitive due to the presence of steep slopes, unstable land, historical or archaeological sites, wetlands and buffers, or other permanent physical development limitations as may be determined appro by the Planning Director. All other lands shall be considered in the calculation of minimum density or floor area ratio including required setbacks, private-recreation or common areas. • 2. Regarding the calculation of "Maximum density or floor area ratio shall be calculated, .. . .: • . • _ .. . .. - . - _: •_ : _ - . . _ .. - based upon , ea the gross area of the site, excluding public right-of-way. out of unbuildable areas to those• .." . .. • .. .." .. .. - - - . - _ - .. .• •.. .. : • • • •:b .. . - .. , .. : - - - .•. .•. .. .. • . . " . . . ... . . - . . ... . _ . -. ! •':••••••; •.. _ •O _ B. Maximum Residential Density in the R1-5, R1-6, R1-7.5, R1-10 and R1-20 zoning districts. 1. Purpose: To achieve the density goals of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the urban area, while preserving environmentally sensitive lands and the livability of the single family residential neighborhoods, while also maintaining compatibility with existing residences. CCC 18 .411 . 015 Page 1 • • 2. Density Transfer: The density for property developed in single family zone districts, if encumbered by land identified as sensitive due to the presence of steep slopes, unstable land,historical or archeological sites, wetlands and buffers, or other permanent physical development limitations as may be determined approved by the Planning Director or land voluntarily set aside for open space or commons as approved by the Planning Director, from the gross acreage may be transferred to the remaining u nencumbered land areas on the same development site, subject to the following limitations: A. Maximum number. The maximum number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of whole units (fractions of units shall be rounded down) which would have been allowed on the unbuildable area if not for the above encumbrances: PROVIDED; however, the maximum number of units shall be calculated based on the gross area of the site minus any public road right-of-way and the maximum density allowed will be dependent upon site characteristic and other factors. B. The minimum lot depth of any lot abutting environmentally sensitive lands shall be 55 feet. C. For parent parcels larger than 2.5 acres: 1. The resulting lots which abut property zoned for single family residential shall: a. Be at least 90% of the minimum lot area standard for the respective single-family zone district. b. Have a lot depth of not less than 80% of the minimum lot depth of the respective zoning district. • c. Have a minimum lot width not less than 10 feet from the minimum lot width of the respective zoning district. • 2. The resulting lots which are interior (not a part of the parent parcel abutting an adjacent property line) to the site shall conform to the lot requirements set out in table 18.411.015-A D. For parent parcels 2.5 acres or less, the lots to be created shall conform to the lot requirements in Table 18.411.015-A. CCC 18 .411. 015 Page 2 • - • E. This Density Transfer Development provision may not be.used in association with, the provisions of Chapter 18.405, Planned Unit Developinents or 18.406.020.0.; In-Fill. . F. A recorded covenant shall be place on those areas or tracts from which density is transferred prohibiting any development of the parcel or tract inconsistent with its intended use. :.... :.. TABLE 18.411.015 A .- .. .:: .: - _.. . . . Useable •. Avg .Avg. Lot .Lot Lot - Lot Classi- - .. Density' Areal Width' - Depth' fication (d.u./acre) (s.f.) - (feet) (feet) R1-5 6_9 • - 2,250 35 50 R1-6 5.8 2,500 40 50 R1-7.5 4.6 3,000 50 50 • R1-10 3.5 4.000 70 50 - R1-20 •1.7 4,500 90 50 • 'The maximum density listed is for the purpose of calculating maximum densities to be transferred.and is only provided for that area from which the density is being transferred. The maximum densities listed are based upon dividing gross acres by the minimum lot size in the zone and minus 20% which would normally be devoted to public road right-of-way in a typical subdivision. • 'Minimum useable area is that portion of the lot which is unencumbered by the land voluntarily set aside, environmentally sensitive lands to be protected and their respective buffers, and shall exclude yard setbacks and easements. [Example: A typical 5,000 square foot lot would have 3,000 s.f. of usable area, even if unencumbered by environmentally sensitive lands.1 • - - 3May be reduced subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.411 and the variance procedures. 4The minimum street side yard shall be ten (10) feet. CCC 18 .411. 015 Page 3 • • • Definition: Open Space / Commons shall mean an area left open and undeveloped, for use by the public but is not a formal park or recreation area managed or owned by the County. The land shall be identified as a separate tract and shall be managed and maintained in perpetuity for the intended use of the homeowners of the relevant development. . h:\bpc\code\density.cd3 • CCC 18 .411 . 015 Page 4 March 1990 ►_ r`1 O F -8 E\l tint c�F 177 • • i. Water quality will not be adversely affected, and ii. Riparian Corridor vegetation will be maintained in a healthy co?' : n. Solar access to vegetation must be maintained at least 50%of daylig' = rs during the normal growing season. 7. 4. Slopes: meK Er a. Top of Slope: .- i. 50' from top of a slope designated as a Protected Area by Section 20.25H.070 and having a grade difference from top to bottom of at least 10'. ii. 25' from the top of a slope which is not a Protected Area and which is greater than 15%. b. Toe of Slope: 75' from toe of a slope where historic or potential mass slope movement occurs as determined by the Director of the Storm and Surface Water Utility. • c. Measurement: The distance from the top of a slope or the toe of a slope is measured as specified by the City of Bellevue Development Standards. d. Slope Setback Modification: The Director of Design and Development and the Director of the Storm and Surface Water Utility may waive or modify the slope setback of Paragraph B.4 if the applicant demonstrates that-- i. The proposed construction method will, as demonstrated in the required geotechnical analysis, improve or not adversely impact the stability of the slope and reduce erosion potential, and ii. The proposal uses construction techniques which minimize disruption of the existing topography and vegetation, and iii. The proposal adequately addresses the existing geological constraints of the site including soils and hydrology. 5. Area of Special Flood Hazard Extension: Any setback required by Paragraphs 20.25H.090.B.1-3 is increased to the edge of the Area of Special Flood Hazard (20.50.010) if the requirements of those Paragraphs otherwise result in a lesser setback. 6. Setback Adjustment Process: When the combination of opposite setback requirements for structures and land alteration pursuant to the Land Use Code equals more than 50% of the property dimension which includes those setbacks and when a Sensitive Area setback required by this Part is required in that determination, the Director of Design and Development may adjust setback requirements as follows: a. When a side setback and a Sensitive Area Setback are combined, the side setback may be reduced to a figure equal to the perimeter landscape development requirement of Section 20.20.520 but in no case less than 5'. b. When a rear setback and a Sensitive Area Setback are combined, the rear setback may be reduced to a figure equal to the perimeter landscape development requirement of Section 20.20.520 but not less than 10' unless a lower requirement exists in Section 20.20.010. r. 178 March 1990 • . c. When a front setback and a Sensitive Area Setback are combined, the front setback may be reduced to 20' or to the minimum setback required by Section 20.20.010 if less than 20'. d. When any other setback requirement of this Code is combined with a Sensitive Area Setback,that other setback may be reduced to 5'. e. A setback adjustment beyond that authorized in Paragraph 20.25H.090.B.6 will be processed as a variance pursuant to Part 20.30G or 20.30H but in no case may a variance to the setback requirements of Paragraph 20.25H.090.B.1-5 be approved, except pursuant to the provisions of Part.20.30.P., relating to Protected Area Development Exceptions. C. Transition Area: Development on sites within the Sensitive Area Overlay District which contain areas designated as protected areas are exempt from the provisions of Part 20.25B. (Ord. 4130, 3-12-90, Section 6) 20.25H.100 Density/Intensity Calculation: A. General: Except as provided for Protected Areas in this Section, the number of dwelling units per acre and the maximum floor area ratio for office space pursuant to Section 20.20.020 apply to a Sensitive Area. B. Dwelling Units per Acre: The maximum number of dwelling units per acre for a site which contains a Protected Area designated by Section 20.25H.070 is equal to the dwelling units per acre as specified in Section 20.20.010 times the Buildable Area in acres plus the dwelling units per acre times the Protected Area in acres times the Development Factor derived from Paragraph 20.25H.100.D: [DU/ACRE)(BUILDABLE AREA)] + [(DU/ACRE)(PROTECTED AREA)(DEVELOPMENT FACTOR)] = MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT POTENTIAL C. Floor Area Ratio for Office Space: 1. The maximum allowable office floor area for a site which contains a Protected Area designated by Section 20.25H.070 is equal to 0.5 times the Buildable Area plus 0.5 times the Protected Area times the Development Factor derived from Paragraph 20.25H.100.D: 0.5 X BUILDABLE AREA+ 0.5 X (PROTECTED AREA X DEVELOPMENT FACTOR) = MAXIMUM OFFICE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 2. A property which contains a Protected Area designated by Section 20.25H.070 is exempt from the sliding scale FAR requirement of Land Use Code 20.20.010, Footnote 9 (Notes: Uses in Land Use Districts--Dimensional Requirements). The applicable maximum Floor Area Ratio fo the Buildable Area is 0.5 regardless of building square footage. D. Development Factor: The development factor, consisting of a "percent credit", to be used in computing the number of dwelling units per acre or the maximum allowable office floor area for a Protected Area designated by Section 20.25H.070 is derived from the following table: Land Use Code is ! 179 ON-SITE DENSITY CREDIT DEVELOPMENT FACTOR 30 --- 27 — L--, 24 — --� • 21 — !-- i 18 — L-- i PERCENT CREDIT 15 — I— (DEVELOPMENT FACTOR) 12 — —— i 9 ;— 6 — L_ 3 — • 0 ! 1 4 I 4 1 4 1 f 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTED AREA AS A PERCENTAGE OF SITE AREA 20.25H.110 Performance Standards for Sensitive Areas: A. Area of Special Flood Hazard 1. Restricted Use and Development: No use, development or activity may occur in an Area of Special Flood Hazard except as specifically allowed by Part 20.25H. All use, development or activity which is allowed is subject to the performance standards of Paragraph 20.25H.110.A • No alteration of the flood carrying capacity,configuration or volume of the Area of Special Flood Hazard is permitted except as specifically permitted by Part 20.25H. 2. Existing Development Declared Legal Nonconforming: All development within the Area of Special Flood Hazard(20.50.010)constructed or for which a vested building permit applica- tion exists prior to the effective date of Part 20.25H and which fails to comply with the requirements of Part 20.25H is legal nonconforming development. Any change to a legal nonconforming development is subject to the performance standards of Paragraph 20.25H.110.A. 3. Review Required: a. In order to assure that proposed development will be safe from flooding, the Director of the Storm and Surface Water Utility,the Director of Design and Development and the Fire Marshall shall review and must approve, approve with conditions or deny new develop- ment under Part 20.25H and the substantial improvement of existing development within the Area of Special Flood Hazard. The Director of the Storm and Surface Water Utility shall determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from federal. state, or local agencies prior to approval. 180 • is Land Use Code . b. The Director of Design and Development shall obtain and transmit to the Director of the Storm and Surface Water Utility the elevation in relation to mean sea level of the lowest habitable floor including basement, of a new or substantially improved structure permitted by this Part. I c. The Director of Public Works and Utilities shall review and must approve all plans and . specifications for new or replacement water and sanitary sewage systems permitted by Part 20.25H to assure compliance with the regulations of this Part and to assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies from which ap- proval is required by federal or state law or agency regulation. 4. Definitions: The following definitions apply to the Area of Special Flood Hazard regulated under Paragraph 20.25H.110.A: a. Flood or Flooding: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from- i. The overflow of inland or tidal waters: or ii. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. b. Flood Insurance Rate Map: The map delineating special flood hazard areas effective December. 1978, that was prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration for the City or as subsequently revised by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. c. Floodproofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or im- proved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. d. Habitable Floor: Any floor usable for living purposes,which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof.A floor used only for storage pur- poses is not a "habitable floor." • e. One Hundred-Year Flood: The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year as determined by customary methods of statistical analyses defined in the Storm and Surface Water Utility Code (Bellevue City Code 24.06). f. . Structure: A walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a mobile home. g. Substantial Improvement: Any repair, reconstruction,or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the assessed value of the structure either, (1) before the improvement or repair is started, or (2) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored. before the damage occurred. For the purpose of this definition, "substan- tial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building commences whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either(1)any pro- ject for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions or (2) any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5. Intrusion Allowed: In addition to the uses and activity permitted by Section 20.25H.080, any structure may intrude over the Area of Special Flood Hazard if — a. The intrusion is located above existing grade, does not alter configuration of the Area of Special Flood Hazard; and b. The intrusion is at an elevation and orientation which maintains the existing vegetation of the Area of Special Flood Hazard in a healthy condition. Solar access to vegetation must be maintained at least 50% of daylight hours during the normal growing season. 07/02/96 TUE 13:50 FAX tj001 • • > 1 City of WILSONVILLE in OREGON 3CCCO SW Town Center Loop E FAXFAXWilscnville. Cregcn 97070 FAX (503)682-7015 (503) 682-1011 COMB 11UNTTY DEVEL OPMENT TO: /1�w(ldl,t FAX NUMBER GI$4--'Z 2 r" COMPANY NAME C...1.1"Y THIS FAX CONTAINS PAGES INCLUDING THIS SKEET FROM: S "Q.1 iC n m G«•r►'S FAX 503) 682-7025 DATE: '2 (2 f C j (c SUBJECT 1 ■<c I'Ti' T�'a-►:7 f-�►�l '�rz- . MESSAGE: PLEASE CALL IF THE DOCUMENTS YOU RECEIVE)ARE INCOMPLETE OR ILLEGIBLE. OUR OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS(503) 682-4960. • _. __-THANK YOU • - "Serving The Community With Pride" 07/02/96 TUE 13:50 FAX a002 • • 4.130 (Cont.) problems of flood hazard, severe soil limitations, or other natural or man- made hazards; (e) To permit flexibility in the height of buildings while maintaining a ratio of site area to dwelling units that is consistent with the densities established by the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the Plan to provide open space, outdoor living area and buffering of low-density development. (Amended by Ordinance #210 - April 19, 1982) (f) To allow development only where necessary and adequate services and facilities are available or provisions have been made to provide these services and facilities. (g) To permit mixed uses where it can clearly be demonstrated to'be of benefit to the users and can be shown to be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. (h) To allow flexibility and innovation in adapting to changes in the economic and technological climate. (4.131 Planned Development Regulations • Intensity of Use. (I) The intensity of use shall be governed by the City of Wilsonville Comprehensive Plan. For residential developments, the intensity shall be governed by density designated in each range. 4.132 Planned Development Regulations - Lot Oualification. (1) Planned Development may be established on lots which are suitable for and of a size to be planned and developed in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of Sections 4.130 to 4.140. (2) For those Planned Development Residential lots which are located in a residential zone, the site shall include not less than two(2) acres of contiguous land unless the Planning Commission or City Council find that the property of less than two (2) acres be suitable by.virtue of its unique historical character, or other natural features, or by virtue of its qualifying as a special interest area. .133 Planned Development Regulations - Permitted Uses. (1) Planned Development Residential: (a) Any use permitted together with accessory uses permitted in an R Zone, Section 4.122. (b) Manufactured dwellings may be located in subdivisions or parks that are exclusively dedicated to such uses. Additionally, manufactured homes may be located on individual lots within planned - 153 - 07/02/96 TUE 13:51 FAX I6 003 • •. 4.122 (Cont.) (13) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 4.121 and 4.122 and owner or his authorized agent of a lot of the size of two (2) acres or less may apply for a PDR zone, under the planned development zoning regulations set forth in this Code. 4.123 Zones - PDR Planned Development Residential Zone. (1) The requirements of PDR Zone shall be governed by Sections 4.130 to 4.140, Planned Development Regulations, and as otherwise set forth in this Code. 4.124 Zone • PDC - Planned Development Commercial Zone. (1) The requirements of a PDC Zone shall be governed by Sections 4.130 to 4.140, Planned Development Regulations, and as otherwise set forth in this Code. 4.125 Zone - PDI - Planjied Development Industrial Zone. (1) The requirements of a PDI Zone shall be governed by Sections 4.130 to 4.140, Planned Development Regulations, and as otherwise set forth in this Code. 4.130 Planned Development Regulations - Purpose . (1) The provisions of Sections 4.130 to 4.140 shall be known as the PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. The purposes of these regulations are to encourage the development of tracts of land sufficiently large to allow for comprehensive master planning, and to provide flexibility in the application of certain regulations in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and general provisions of the zoning regulations and to encourage a harmonious variety of uses through mixed use design within specific developments thereby promoting the economy of shared public services and facilities and a variety of complimentary activities consistent with the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan and the creation of an attractive, healthful, efficient and stable environment for living, shopping or working. (2) It is the further purpose of Sections 4.130 to 4.140: (a) To take advantage of advances in technology, architectural design,and functional land use design: (b) To recognize the problems of population density, distribution and circulation and to allow a deviation from rigid established patterns of land uses, but controlled by defined policies and objectives detailed in the comprehensive plan; (c) To produce a comprehensive development equal to or better than that resulting from traditional lot land use development. (d) To permit flexibility of design in the placement and uses of buildings and open spaces, circulation facilities and off-street parking areas, and to more efficiently utilize potentials of sites characterized by special features of geography, topography, size or shape or characterized by - 152 - 07/02/96 TUE 13:52 FAX 0 004 . - • • 4.136 (Cont.) of Approval necessary to meet the minimum requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Code. (Amended by Ordinance#219 - August 16, 1982) (4) The Planning Commission, or on appeal, the City Council, may as a condition of approval for any development for which an application is submitted, require that portions of the tract or tracts under consideration be set aside, improved, conveyed or dedicated for the following uses: (a) Recreational Facilities: The Commission or Council, as the case may be,may require that suitable area for parks or playgrounds be set aside, improved or permanently reserved for the owners, residents, employees or patrons of the development consistent with adopted Park standards and Facility Master Plan. (b) Outdoor Living Area: Whenever private and/or common outdoor living area is provided, the Commission or Council shall require that an association of owners or tenants be established which shall adopt such Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws or other appropriate agreement, and shall adopt and impose such Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions on such outdoor living areas and/or common areas that are acceptable to the Planning Commission. Said association shall be formed and continued for the purpose of maintaining such outdoor living area. Such an association, if required, may undertake other functions. It shall be created in such a manner that owners of property shall automatically be members and shall be subject to assessments levied to maintain said outdoor living area for the �.% ; purposes intended. The period of existence of such association shall be not less than twenty (20) years and it shall continue thereafter and until a majority vote of the members shall terminate it. - (c) Easements: Easements necessary to the orderly extension of public utilities may be required as a condition of approval. 4- (5) When calculating density of a planned development, the total area shall include the area of the proposed development, including streets, dedications and mapped open space designated in the Comprehensive Plan up to ten percent (10%) of the total land area. All the open space designated in the Comprehensive Plan can be outdoor living area. 4.137 Planned Development Regulations - Sun Exposure Plans. (1) A sun exposure plane is an imaginary, inclined plane: (See Figure 1 on page 180). (a) Northerly Exposures: Beginning on a line parallel to a front,side or rear property line and ten (10) feet within the abutting property or properties northerly from the northerly line or lines of the development site to which the sun exposure plane applies and projecting thence due south at a thirty degree (30) slope over the applicable development site. (b) Easterly, Westerly and Southerly Exposures: Beginning on lines parallel to front, side or rear property lines, and five (5) feet within - 178 -- POLICY • • 6.1. 1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICES AND RENT LEVELS. (Rev. Ord. 85-03; Ord. 84-38; Ord. 84-29) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall monitor the rate of development through an annual "land survey, " which will function as an up-to-date inventory of land available for future residential needs. 2. The Tigard Community Development Code shall list a broad range of zoning districts which allow for a variety of housing types, and comply with the --- adopted Metropolitan Housing Rule (50-50 mixture of single family and attached or multiple family at 10 units to the net_acr-e_on_buildable vacant land) . —-_ _ __ — — - _- /1- 3 . The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g. , steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred.__ In addition, the City shall encourage developers to use the planned development process in all developing areas. 4. The Tigard Community Development Code shall allow for manufactured homes in manufactured home parks and subdivisions, within specified zoning districts . 5. The City shall encourage housing development to occur, to the greatest extent possible, on designated buildable lands in areas where public facilities and services can be readily extended to those lands. 6. The City shall provide for opportunities for proposals to develop specialized housing for the area's senior citizens and handicapped based on the needs of these groups by: a. Making information available on subsidizing programs; b. Allowing special use housing for these groups in all development districts; c. Requiring the needs of the handicapped to be considered as a part of the Site Design Review process. 7. The City shall coordinate with the Washington County Housing Authority, H.U.D. and other Federal, State and regional agencies for the provision of subsidized housing programs in Tigard. 8 . The City shall determine through census figures, surveys and organizational reports, such as those prepared by the area Agency on Aging, the extent of the City's need and projected need in the area of low and moderate income housing, senior housing and specialty housing. The City shall encourage the development of such housing types to meet the identified and projected needs. • II - 33 • • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE'--��- 18.84.010• Chapter 18.84. SENSITIVE LANDS B. Sensitive land areas are designated as such \ to protect the public health, safety, and welfare 18.84.010 Purpose of the community through the regulation of ■ 18.84.015 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, these sensitive land areas. Prohibited, and Nonconforming \ i 18.84.020 Administration and Approval \ C. Sensitive land regulations contained in this Process chapter are intended to maintain the integrity of l 18.84.025 Maintenance of Records the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by 18.84.026 General Provisions for Floodplain , \minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, ■ i Areas , !maintaining and enhancing water quality, and 18.84.028 General Provisions for Wetlands i Ifish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic , ! 18.84.030 Expiration of Approval: Standards quality and recreation potential. ! for Extension of Time , i 18.84.040 Approval Standards /,1 D. The regulations of this chapter are intended il 18.84.045 Exception for Development of the / to implement the comprehensive plan and the 108th/113th Ravine below the 140 Feet 1/ city's flood plain management program as Elevation required by the National Flood Insurance 18.84.050 Application Submission / Program, and help to preserve natural sensitive Requirements land areas from encroaching use and to maintain 18.84.060 Additional Information Required the September 1981 zero-foot rise floodway and Waiver of Requirements elevation. (Ord. 95-03; Ord. 90-29; Ord. 89-06; 18.84.070 Site Conditions Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52) 18.84.080 The Site Plan — _—__ ---_ - , 18.84.090 Grading Plan \\ 18.84.015 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, 1 8.8 4.1 0 0 \ ' Prohibited, and Nonconforming 18.84.010 Purpose A. Outright Permitted Uses - No Permit / Required / A. Sensitive lands are lands potentially '. . I unsuitable for development because of their '\ Except as provided by Subsection location within: 18.84.015.B, D. and E., the following uses are outright permitted uses within the 100-year 1. The 100-year floodplain; floodplain, drainageways, slopes that are 25 percent or greater, and unstable ground when 2. Natural drainageways; the use does not involve paving. For the \ \, purposes of this chapter, the word "structure" 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by shall exclude: children's play equipment, picnic the other agencies including the U.S. Army tables, sand boxes, grills, basketball hoops and Corps of Engineers and the Division of State `, similar recreational equipment. Lands, or are designated as significant wetland ' on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and 1. Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens, 11 Wetland Map; and ` or play areas; I 4. Steep slopes of 25 percent or greater and ! i 2. Farm uses conducted without locating a unstable ground. // structure within the sensitive land area; =� 18-84 - 1 Rev. 01/24/95 ID • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CO-D-E-�`-- --- / 18.92.010 Chapter 18.92. DENSITY COMPUTATIONS / 5. A lot of at least the size required by the \ applicable base zoning district, if an existing \\ 18.92.010 Purpose dwelling is to remain on the site. ',\ 18.92.020 Density Calculation 18.92.030 Residential Density Transfer B. To calculate the net units per acre,divide the ) number of square feet in the net acres by the 18.92.010 Purpose \\ minimum number of square feet required for )' each lot by the applicable zoning district. A. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the comprehensive plan by establishing the 1 C. All density calculations shall comply with // criteria for.determining the number of dwelling the provisions of Section 18.40.040, Residential j units permitted. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)dwelling Density Transition. (Ord.89-06;Ord.84-29;Ord. / r'�� / 83-52) 11- 18.92.020 Density-Calculation= J �r- 8.92:030 �Reidential-Density Transfer A. Net development area, in acres, shall be i determined by subtracting the following land A. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land jarea(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020.A.1 from the land included in the legal description of the'', gross acres may be transferred to the remaining (j' property: buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. All sensitive land areas: 1. The number of units which can be 1\ a. Land within the one 100-year transferred is limited to the number of units 1 floodplain; j which would have been allowed on 25 percehrof ■ the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent; and ; 2. The number of units is limited to 25-3 cr en of the total number of units which could \ c. Drainageways; have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 2. All land dedicated to the public for park ■ 1 purposes; 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed:125 percentiof the maximum number ` 3. All land dedicated for public of units per gross acre permitted for the right-of-way: applicable comprehensive plan designation. \\Ia. Single-family: allocate 20 percent of ! B. All density transfer development proposals gross acres for public facilities; and shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless b. Multiple-family: allocate 15 percent developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, of gross acres for public facilities; , Planned Development. (Ord.89-06;Ord.83-52)■ , \ \\ 4. All land proposed for private streets;and / - _ " -1 Da W r 7 - ED 7r1-TS 18-92 - 1 W 14-e rl Reformatted 1994 'oci ) KoJ T tj5 -4' �L1ss£T7 t,����6d-r adrtJG A P,113 • • • Agenda Item: • Hearing Date: April 81996 Time: 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: ABECO/Cox Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0003 PROPOSAL: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 - modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. APPLICANT: William Cox 0244 S.W. California Street Portland, Oregon 97219 OWNER: ABECO Corporation 6205 S.W. Carman Dr. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: City wide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 , 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1 , 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1 , 6.2.1, 6.3.1 , 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff Report City of Tigard/City Council Hearing DE NOVO Page 1 • • Staff recommends of the proposed amendment based on the findings found in Section III of this report. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant represents the ABECO Corporation who has an interest in 4.37 acres of land adjacent to Longstaff Street along Highway 217. The property is zoned R-12 with a comprehensive plan designation of Medium Density. According to the city's wetland inventory the property is for the most part covered by wetland and is most likeley not developable. The aproximate area covered by wetland is 3.22 Acres. A wetland deliniation would need to be performed in order to deterimine the exact boundary of the wetland site. Tigard Community Development Code does not include wetlands as areas from which residential density can be transfered. Other sensitive lands including floodplain, drainageway, and steep slopes do allow transfer. Comprehensive Plan Housing Policy 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 currently states: "The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g., steep slopes or floodplains to develop with density transfers on the site. No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred." The Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 curently states: A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020(A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transfered is limited to the number of units which could have been allowed on 25% of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2. The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been construted on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the aplicable comprehensive plan designation." b. "All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, planned Development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52" As read above Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1(3) does not specifically exclude wetlands from lands which are "physically constrained", or, is the list inclusive of all physically constrained lands (for example drainageways are not included in this list yet the Staff Report City of Tigard/City Council Hearing DE NOVO Page 2 c Community DevelopmSode does allow 25% density fro,ese lands). Community Development Code 18.92.020 states: A. "Net Development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property: 1. All senstive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent; and c. Drainageways " As stated above wetland areas are not allowed density transfer. There seems to be a discrepency between the Comprehensive Plan which would allow density transfer from lands which are "physically constrained" and the Community Development Code which allows density transfer from "sensitive lands". (Note: This language my be written as such to allow density transfer from land other than those lands considered as "Sensitive Lands". There is also a conflict within the code itself. Community Development Code 18.84.010 defines areas which are considered sensitive lands: A. "Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: 1. The 100-year floodplain 2. Natural Drainageways; 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the Comrehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map; and 4. Steep slopes of 25 percent or greater and unstable ground." At issue is the fact that wetlands are excluded from residential density transfer even though they are considered sensitive lands. The applicants proposal would allow 100% density transfer for wetlands only, the density transfer standard for other sensetive land areas would not be changed. ISSUES 1) Would this change allow multi-family developments in single family areas? Would the code allow it? 2) Would this have a significant impact on wetlands? Would having more people next to the wetland have an adverse impact? 3) Should we allow 100% density transfer for wetlands, but only 25% for other physically constrained lands? Staff Report City of Tigard/City Council Hearing DE NOVO Page 3 . _ _ _ • 4) Would limiting-this-proposal to areas zoned multi-family make sense? The applicant states that the proposed amendment addresses this situation by allowing [depends on final wording of amendment - see page 3 of narrative] IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy (TCP) 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter (TCDC) 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITS, DLCD, and Metro. This goal is satisfied. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The proposal would fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan requirements relating to the siting of commercial land to serve the residents of the community. This goal is satisfied. Goal 9 - Economic Development. Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendment(s) would increase commercial opportunities through expansion of existing General Commercial areas and/or siting of new ones. This goal is satisfied. Goal 10 - Housing. Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels. The amendment [would make it easier to locate/would make it easier to expand existing] general commercial land use designations [within/to] residential areas. This may result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available to housing units. On the other hand, the basic restriction of locating general commercial land in areas surrounded by residential districts remains unchanged; and the proposal may result in better use of existing general commercial land through expansion of inefficient sites, thus reducing the need to site locate new commercial sites. For these reasons, staff finds that this proposal would not significantly affect the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing at various prices throughout the city. To maintain compliance with the housing goal, every proposed quasi- judicial plan map amendment is analyzed and evaluated for its affect on the goal's requirements and for compliance to OAR 660-07 (Metropolitan Housing Rule). This goal is satisfied. Staff Report City of Tigard/City Council Hearing DE NOVO Page 4 FEB-29-1996 12 36 FROM CITY OF TUALATIN TO 6847297 P.01/05 regijiLQ CITY OF TUALATIN 18880 SW MARTINAZZI AV6. PO 90X 369 TUALATIN, OREGON 97062-0369 (503) 892-2000 TELEFAX TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: ' Zc(— "{ TO: YF .S - M ICF1--,SOf`f- CIT'i 11 6 64_40 FAX # C9 - 11C FROM: - # k ?--344-1/9- C D� Thh-tf9.91 I" FAX # (503) 692- 3512 DOCUMENT: CONIegi+F Il/S 111 e 4714itl T Co Df. Gtr ,V(vim, 1 r1W6 17 PC itic f S t4 Fr TOTAL PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER: �. NOTES: Ale k ve Do --..- 5-‘, 0 3 0 00)(1:1) Is coup 191-4/ 1 NQ, Now- N u"ice eF --nIv t PiJ!1`N W i Lei)S MFM' iiftAhp �s; k/ q0 -05s Is ccD 4 6u6Z Fore peas te`/ D4 6 l fN �- ('ptici,6 fmm Icy) �S'4k�- Z9 IS--0 Is Co cAttl 604-66- Fog? CIt BSc r _. . „a.�rT,_ c�4Mu .4 DISI f TS • FEB-29-1996 12 36 FROM CITY OF TUALATIN TO • 6E47297 P.02/05 • 5.030 Tualatin Development Code 5 .030 • (10) Provide for the raising of agricultural animals and agricultural structures in areas that are presently used for this purpose and that are not buildable due to their location in the 100-year flood plain. (11) Require that all residential development adjacent to Expressways be buffered from the noise of such Expressways through the use of soundproofing devices such as walls, berms or distance. Density transfer to accommo- date these techniques is acceptable. (12) Encourage the development of attached housing in accordance with the RML Planning District in . the area of the Norwood Expressway/Boones Ferry Road intersection only after the Norwood interchange is built and connected to Boones Ferry. Road. (13) Provide truck routes for industrial traf- fic that provide for efficient movement of goods while protecting the quality of residential areas. (14) Protect residential, commercial, and sensitive industrial uses from the adverse environmental impacts of adjacent industrial use. (15) Protect adjacent land uses from noise impacts by adopting industrial noise standards. (16) Protect the Tonquin Scablands from adverse impacts of adjacent development. This includes the main Scabland area in the vicinity of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks which is preserved through the use of the Wetlands Protection District and the Greenway and River- bank Protection District. This also includes other ele- ments of the Scabland formations found farther to the east. These latter areas will be preserved on a case-by- case basis as development occurs through preservation in their natural state, allowing residential density transfer through the small lot subdivision, common wall housing, and condominium conditional use processes. (17) Protect wooded areas identified on the Natural Features Map found in the Technical Memorandum by requiring their preservation in a natural state, by inte- grating the major trees into the design of the parking lots, buildings, or landscaping areas of multi-family com- plexes and non-residential uses, or in low density areas through the small lot, common wall , or condominium condi- tional use. If it is necessary to remove a portion or all of the trees, the replacement landscape features shall be subject to approval through the Architectural Review process, except for conventional single family subdivi- sions. (Sec. 5 .030 amended by Ord. No. 592-83, Sec.24, passed June 13 , 1983, and Ord. No. 635-84 , Sec.3 , passed . June 11 , 1984 .] FEB-29-1996 12:37 FROM CITY OF TUALATIN TO • 6847297 P.03/05 . • 40.030 Tualatin Development Code 40.055 (g) Retail nursery. (h) Hospital or sanitarium. (i) school. ( j) Utility substation or p ping station with n• equipment storage, and lines ich are essential to he functioning and servicin- of residential nei• •orhoods. (k) Any business, servi - , processing, storage or di- •lay essential or inci• ntal to any permitted use in this zone and not co •ucted entirely within an enclose, building. (1) Golf course, cou try club, private club. (m) Agricultural an vials, limited to cattle, horses an• sheep, and ag icultural structures such as. barns, st= • es, sheds/. •ut excluding feed lots, in areas desi. :ted on th- Tualatin Community Plan Map, The City Co it may unit the number of animals to be allowed on = spec Pic parcel of properly . (n) Incr- -sed •uilding height to a maximum of 75 feet, provid=• • at all yards adjoining said building are not . ess than a distance equal to 1 1/2 ' times the height •f said building. (o) Nursie . •r convalescent home. (p) Retie-men housing conforming to the standards in --ctio 34.160 - 34.170. (Sec_ ,0.030 operdad Dy ord. 655-84, Sec. 11, passed June 1 , 1984, and - _ 461-85. Sec. a, passed March 28, 1985.7 40.040 Temporary V-.e Permitt: • . Portable construction office as ,rovided in % apter 34. 40.050 _ • _. - ,. • . - qu tted .es. Except as otherwise provide. , the lot size fo a single-family dwelling shall be as folio (1) T* e minimum lot area - all be 7,000 square feet. (2) P e minimum average lo, width shall be 70 feet. (3) he minimum lot width o 'all be 35 fact on a cul- de-sac street. (4) The maximum building cov- age on a lot shall be 35 percent. ( For flag lots, the minimum lot width at the street shal be sufficient to comply with at least the minimum access requirements contained in Section 73 .400(7) to (12) . (Section 40.050 amended by Ord. 866-92, Sec. I. messed April 27, 1992 and Ord. 920-94, Sec. 2, Dossed April ii, 1994.7 40.055 I dj Lot Size for Gzeenwav and _Natural Arco, Tracts and Lots. For each 7000 square feet of tract created in the subdivision or partition process for Greenway purposes or for preserving natural areas identified on the Recreation Resources Map (Figure 3-4) , the lot size standards for one single family dwelling shall be as follows: (1) The iuihiiuun lot area shall be 5000 square feet. (2) The minimum average lot width shall be 50 feet. 1,7;f12(9. FEB-29-1996 12:36 FROM CITY OF TUALATIN TO 0 684729? P.04/05 • ! �0 -k-:12J-DOC-1-; ar . 40.055 Tualatin Development Code 40.080 (3) The minimum lot width shall be 35 feet on a cui- de-sac street. (4) The maximum building coverage on a lot shall be 45 percent_ (5) The subdivision's or partition's density net of the dedicated tract(s) shall not exceed 7.5 dwelling units per acrp. ja...-. .»sups ..4a.4 ny net'. 933-04. s..• io; rft. .A r......h.v. 74. 240411 40.060 Lot Size for Conditional Uses. Except as ot erwise provided, the lot- size for conditional uses . n an RL Dist ict shall be as follows: (1) The minimum lot area shall be 6,000 .quare feet, excep. ng secondary condominium lots as approved • rough the Archit- tural Review process and lots for public utility facil- ities. (2) The minimum average lot width = ' all be 60 feet, . excepting econdary condominium lots as appr• ed through the - Architectu•al Review process and lots for p •lic utility facil- itiee. ( 3' The minimum lot width for ots in small lot • subdivisions -hall be 30 feet on a cul -sac street and for all other lots shall be 35 feet on a cu -de-sac street, excepting lots or public utility faci ities. (4) he maximum building coverage on a lot shall be 40 percent, excepting secondary cond,minium lots as approved through the Archi ectural Review pr'.cess and lots for public utility facilities (5) For lag lots, th= minimum lot width at the . . street shall be suf cient to c• iply with at least the minimum access requirements c--ntained ' Section 73.400(7) to (12) . C3.ee.ia.. 4A.etf1 aalm.4■4 ly P1.A. aif , aa.• 7, .. • ar.-41 �7, 104,7 O.A. O7ff..0l, firm. 1, �aa:,e,+el 1F.,- 1 11, 1994; Ord_ 923,-94, Sc a . 2, p- -4 .y 9, 1994 ] • 40.070 Setback Requi -me s for Permitted Uses. (1) The front d setbac:k shall be a minimum of twenty (2 0) feet_ . (2) The side - • setback shall be a minimum of five • (5) feet for a one-stor bu ding, six (6) feet for one and one-half and two-story •uild gs, and seven (7) feet for a two . and one-half-story bu' lding. (3) On co•ner lots, the setback for yards adjacent to streets shall be a minimum o . twenty (20) feet in the yard where a driveway p,ovides access to a street other than an alley and snail •=. a minimum ot t 'fteen (15) feet in the yard where no drivewa access exists. (4) ' e rear yard setbac shall be a minimum of fif- teen (15) feet [s.c. ao.oro aa¢adad by Ord. 731 87, see- 1, paap•a saps-mrar 1a, 1987 and Ord. 7.3-88, Sec. 46, • -ad Mar.:3h .28, 1988.] 40.080 _ .• _ _. . _-i._ - ..ents for Con I 'o, iTnn . )' Except as otherwise prov ded, the setbacks for condition- uses shall be as determined ; d approved through the Arch:'�ectural Review process. Howev-' , no setback greater than 50 feet may Ibe required. Off-street parking and vehicular circulation areas shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any public right-of-way or property line. 12/17/.. FEB-29-1996 12:38 FROM CITY OF TUALATIN TO • 6847297 P.05/05 • 42.080 Tualatin Development Code 42.150 • 42 080 Projections Into Required Yards. Cornices, eaves, canopies, decks, sunshades, gutters, chimneys, flues, belt. courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental featu -s, and other similar architectural feat res may extend or. pro .-ct into a required front or rear yar. -etback area not more tha three (3) feet and into a require. side yard not more than two - ) feet, or into the required op-- space as estab- lished by c.: verage standards in this cha. er. cm..e-. 42.oso smanded Dr Ord. 731-87, doe. 2, - $epttaka5 14, 19874 42.090 t ctu_e tei•_ t. Except as .therwise provided, no structur- in an ME Distric shall exceed a height of 2 1/2 stories or 35 eet, whichever ' s less. 42.100 Access. All ots creat after September 1 , 1979, shall abut a p st -=et, excepting secondary con- dominium lots, which sha- co, orm to the access provisions as required herein by Sectio 7 .400. Lots created for the pur- pose of preserving wetland- identified by Chapter 71 of these standards, or for the pur-•s,- of preserving park lands and greenways in accordance th e park and recreation element of the Tualatin Public Fac' lities -lan, may not be required to abut a public street. [ - 42.100 a by Ord. 872.92, See. 5. Imago? sun. 2e, 1992.) 42.110 Of -S _ -et ti'w �:f • f + .. - :. • . Refer to Chapter 73. 42.120 _ _..• .• . = . 1 • . t 'ct. Refer to .Chapter 70. 42.130 Commu- it •esi- ^tam- w •. Refe to Chapter 73. 42.140 La..�scape Standards. Refer to Chap -r 73. (Sea_ 42.140 added by ord. 72587, Sec. 13, pealued 2.484 22, 1987. ad by Ord- 462-92, Sae- 10, x 4 March 23, 1992_) 42.150 Shift of Density for Multi-family Residential Development Adjacg�,t to a. Greenway or Natural_ Area� When a parcel of land located in a Multi-family Residential Planning District is also located partially within the Greenway and Riverbank Protection District (GRP) or includes a natural area identified in Figure 3-4 of the Parks (g) and Recreation Master Plan, and when that portion located in the GRP District or identified Natural Area is dedicated to the City or dedicated in a manner approved by the City to a non- profit conservation organization, the remainder of the parcel may be permitted to be developed to the same residential density as would be permitted by the applicable multi-family residential planning district standards if none of the parcel were in the GRP District. [Ste. 42.190 added by Ord. 933-94, Sec- 21, pASted November 28, 1994.] r_ L )L- l �i r-,..'V 1 18/18/94 ..„.," ,......,),. . ....., ., ... .0 ••• ,.... , . ..,,,s. .- $...., ..- . .: . 1 . - , ....0 p s 1./1 °\';'::%Sso 1 20 • 4'.«.• 4• WA/ 1 . 0 : • 1.0 i °4 -7 N sp. 1 , t• .. 1 0 , 4 4 Al a a I 1 • • 1 — IS ltiGsii .11s1sN's 1 , 113 1 °•°130111101:13— 1 1 1 r . . .. . • m• .13 Ac. • ' I '45 44 J,08Aat 0 a a • )1a4 I. • , I 10 1ST,/ _ 11 so 19 4 4 4 101 , 10 N00 174 61/./ . -.... 0 r ..... .. 2 • 4 j A Cal -AT.• (3— u . • . -- — ..,,, x x 5 555 00 055555 11 • S. . ' /-44°41` LON GSIIA F 3524 4111 sT R E ET ig:kiesTofor SACC . ,.. to. . SO Is 1700 1 1 a i • vr:. a f I A&(1) 1 4( lir ..... 41 4 a .1 •di 11 I :•••• 1 : 1 I :••••: • . • • j L., •$ i 0 . 0 1 4 h 4 4 • .. . . 24 ... 22 1 23 . . ,... , 1 • , • ... • 1 .. • r i ... II" . .. .. . SEE MAP • °"*" 02/22/96 14:49 22503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARIIII X1004/007 III. SURVEY OF VACANT BUILDABLE LANDS IN THE TIGARD PLAN AREA nv r�4uvav4Y ` The method used to estimate the amount of buildable land in Tigard is a modified version of that suggested by the CRAG Housing Task Force in 1976. The CRAG method was excessively ambitious in terms of its assumptions about _ 'the amount of resources which could be devoted to the inventory and was therefore altered to a more usable form. The Tigard survey, for example, it involved measurements on individual parcels, as in the CRAG guidelines, but it J I , nn* 7nvn111` 7Obu.aoaon of lot: wn huch W—ra Pa tl .iy b\Aatltaay J C ftl L YNrY . Institutional and public lands were omitted. Completion date of the original survey was late September. 1981. The survey was updated in October, 1982, and again in november, 1983. The Vacant Buildable Land Survey tabulates individual parcels according to the following characteristics: A Man !f Mr 1 Tax Account q Zone Designation Plan Designation Neighborhood Planning Organization -Total Acreage Vacant Suitability Alnnav of grit nr mnra 100-year Floodplain Other (see below) _ r Vacant buildable acreage was estimated in as consistent a manner as possible using 1982 Washington County Assessor Maps, 1974 quarter section maps (revised ./ 1980 and 1982), and aerial photos (where necessary), existing site plans. existing NPO Plan maps, comprehensive plan maps, and field surveys as the information sources. On parcels with industrial or commercial uses, parking lots, outside storage J than L7.. O-_ ..L_ L: o the •-_ ai eaa, and uLritlr" ar"uas apparently necessary 1 or cne operac1on or tine Dullness v were all considered to be part of the built-on land. Otherwise, the built-an land was assumed to be equivalent to ' the minimum lot size required by the 11 current zoning. Built-on land having residences was generally assumed equivalent to the minimum lot size (on a per gross acre basis) necessary to support the existing structure under current zoning: for example. 0.25 acres for land zoned R-7 (4 units/acre). However, where the placement of the house, its size, number of outbuildings, etc. especially warranted, a large area was rnnaiAoro,i An Iuuuilf�n an,I wuaseuraA • ..�..r�v�. �.� .w.. rM��r V.. M..4. n.0 V•✓'V. CV. The "other" category was actually a grab-bag catch-all intended to cover landlocked lots, lots. with unsuitable configuration (e.g., long lots 50' wide), and especially, residential parcels unlikely to be subdivided or further developed due to the character of the neighborhood, size of the, house compared with the lot, scattered outbuildings, closeness of the lot to the minimum size required by current zoning, etc. These exclusions required ! subieCtivo iuriamant in lennu rases. II i — 296 'Receivea: 2/22/96; 2:47PM; 503 664 7297 => W C COX; #5 02/22/96 14:50 12503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGAB 005/007 S Additional Notes + The rity of Tigard does not guarantee that these data are 10076 accurate for every parcel in the Tigard Plan Area. h; fig... estimates calculated to provide the best information for the Plan Area • - • eo0.•S +ti;r+ the limited period of time available for as a whole Cana iary o� -.- - -- the survey. However, for all but a very small fraction of the lots listed, the data can be regarded as reliable given the assumptions involved. `. The data was current as of November, 1983. I/ IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Th. ,.w..nr.t „f nrnwth management emerged as a response to control rapid and uncontrolled sprawling growth and its attendant externaiitiei. externalities included environmental degradation, overconsumption of resource lands, and inerrlcien.. land ::ac tta rn : Growth results from population and employment increases which in turn create a -trial land: This growth also demand For residential, commercial ano Lnauaaraa�t -. creates a demand. for the provision of public services and facilities. The falic..;.,r, „+,;schuss have been considered for a growth management system. �uaww...q ....j ---- CExisting Growth Management Systems - Tigard has been involved in managing the location and type of growth. The City has managed its growth by coordinating it with the extension of services and expansion of facilities. •■.,+.+.•taut oiet■ents of this regulatory system are: ine rn'-i ' imp... ...-.._ ---•----- - 1. The Urban Planning -Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County regarding the c--dina-.#p ^f alarming activities between jurisdictions. . • ^.........::.. Ti ple Annexation 2. The Annexation Ordinance (No. ii-2;)!(;ii nrN�e�w.-^ -.• - Ordinance establishes a process for creating a straight, compact anc • bnundaries for the City of Tigard. The ordinance alsc provides a mechanism for measuring the environmenial, economic and' social impacts of proposed annexations on the community. 3. The Systems Development Charge (SOC). SDC is a financing mechanism whereby part of the cost for the provision of new capital improvements required by growth is borne by new development. six c. at:2 used for the operation and maintenance of physical JYb to P+ry �— — facilities. • • I I — 287 j - 02/22%96 14:50 e503 684 7297 VV • TVCITY OF TIGARD 4J006/007 II ' _ • II , ... • I _ . t I TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department, S. Hamid Pishvaie IISUBJECT: Buildable Land Inventory IIAn inventory of vacant buildable land is an essential step in preparation of . the Comprehensive Plan for the future land use allocations within the Urban irowch Boundary lua.. Speciiicatty, this inventory helps identify ana address housing needs of the City. Land use designations included in the vacant-buildable land inventory are: II low, medium, medium-high, and high density residential; different intensities of commercial and industrial land uses. II The amount of acreage with slopes exceeding 25% was determined to be v uaouiluaole and as oenucten frail lne LnvenLury (47.07 ;izza;). llltbc lauu.}- fall into all designations including residential, commercial and industrial land uses. ItLand in the floodplain was not considered as buildable in this inventory (93.97). New development is presumed to be outside the 100 year flood plain li area. 7L. r1,..4.-1 -J ■ .r_-. ....1 _A U. PI.. _FwFC •..wl..A.A. war..m1 si... •a= BICVII sy auu urauuLaa UuL&1.C.. V] '-Ilc O..d..a au..au..n... roa�ca oa...o, Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation, slopes greater than 25Z, 1 and floodplain area. This inventory was conducted on a tax lot by tax lot basis, with each lot number recorded and researched individually. The data was recorded by Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO) as the major data II recording unit and by tax map (section, quarter section). This process gives a total 1983 net buildable figure by zoning designation. .....--n..t 1...A ..es ..aara.-ne (fn.. l�..ilamhlo lm..A) whin Ika /tirv'e 11rM ohnv rho W&SC&& &a* YOG ySVeCCLLD \ava ..V..a..nv6.. a......, ........... r..- Va..7 v ..vr ...w.. . ..... ( majority of land is designated for a committed to residential uses. Of • approximately 1,800 acres of vacant land, 1,309 acres are designated for residential use; of this approximately 67i.UL acres are designated low aensxty 11 and the remaining are designated medium, medium-high and high density residential. t More than one half of the remaining 490.72 acres are designated commercial. II ?h. hind ..co rloccifie•arinn fnl.nA rn hove fouoar �Iaeiolarpd acres is 4Mr .-VV�.�r..r�r.. -r ... - .r Iry industrial with about 224 acres. For the purpose of calculating the number of new single family and multi-family development, the net acreage for each specific zone was multiplied by the density factor allowed in that zone. ItThe result of this calculation is 11,769 new single and multi-family units. The tiro-wir1A Aenciry will be C ..nits per arro which is 1 I.nir 1..2 than rho IILCDC density requirement of 10 unit per acre. Received: 2/22/96; 2:48PM; 503 684 7297 .> W C COX; #7 I/ 02/22/96 14:50 1503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD _ ___ 21007/007•• • • it IThe City eau utGr .►v r c / r G{ V;LGw t L ♦ through: 1. Residential development in the CP and C6D zones, i.e. , allocation of 25Z of land at a density of 40 units per acres for that purpose (31.49 acres). This would result in 1,260 additional units. 2. Redevelopment of certain areas in the CBD and Triangle area (as identified in the attached map), i.e., 252 of these area to be davo1nnad sat s eianai ry of in "nit. nor acre 0.5 1 T1.:. ......t.l add 383 units to the housing stock. Wiln inese two atternait.ves the overall density can be ra;sea to 9.7 units per acres. The additional .3 units per acre can be gained through development of accessory structures in the single family residential zones as permitted by the Community Development Code. II 1 I I I I It .Y:Qm.(uttur) I IF �;;;: - - ...g.: 1,i IESCROW AGREEMENT © � Ce Company . N0. 3200.13578-NAi 9900 SW Greenburg Rd. 8180 ESCROW OFFICER Mary McDougall :• Portland, OR 97223 DATE: October 9, 1995 ,' 'q,<< - . . A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS; . TO; CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Ot OREGON, ("Escrow-Agent•). • Property Descriptions (as shown in Preliminary Title Report issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE Co. under Order No. 136466 dated 08/30/95, a copy of which has been received and approved by the undersigned.) PURCHASER deposits with Escrow Agent under these instructions sales price in the sum of as follows: . $2,000.00 EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT; BALANCE PAYABLE IN CASH AT CLOSING; I it . and will deposit with you such other sums and items as may be required to enable you to compll with these instructions, which sums and items you are authorized to deliver, release or pay F over when you hold for the account of the Purchaser the following: • '� 1. WARRANTY DECD ,, • • in form acceptable to Purchaser showing Purchaser's interest.; • 2. An ALTA (1992) .`.ore of Owner's Title Insurance Policy providing Standard Coverage in the sum of insuring Purchaser's interest subject to printed conditions, stipulations, exclusions and exceptions to coverage in the usual 11, form, matters attaching by, through, or under the Purchaser, and the following paragraphs of the preliminary title report referenced above: • 6, a-131 II' B. PAYMENTS: Purchaser agrees to pay and authorizes payment and deduction from and credit t: the gross sum above specified in accordance with the Purchaser's Tentative Escrow Statement I attached hereto and made a part hereof. Items shown on the Tentative Escrow Statement may bo adjusted to accommodate exact amounts required at the time of disbursement. C. PRORATE: It is understood that water, sewer, waste collection, electricity and other utility churees and i::veutuiy for fuel will be adjusted between Seller and Purchaser outside this escrow. Escrow Agent shall prorate as of SEED RECORDING . the following items: PROPERTY TAXES FROM 7/1/951 • and charge or credit Purchaser's account accordingly. Assume a 365-day year in any prorate herein provided and unless the parties otherwise instruct, use the amount contained in the last available tax statement (which may include reductions based on any deferral or exemption rental statement as provided by the seller, lender's statement, and fire insurance policies delivered into escrow for the prorate provided above. In the event any lender's statement reveals a deposit, account or funds for a future payment obligation of the loan, adjust I accordingly. D. RECORDING: Escrow Agent will record/filo the necessary legal instruments and then pay of such encumbrances of record as may exist at time of recording/filing such instruments, and shall not be responsible for liens attaching after said date. Purchaser hereby acknowledges that they have and shall have continuing obligations to cooperate with Escrow Agent in good faith to enable Escrow Agent to fulfill its responsibilities under this agreement. Such obligations of Purchaser shall survive the closing of the transaction described herein and shall include, without limitation, the obligation to (i) disclose to Escrow Agent any liens, encumbrances or any other rights, claims or matters known to Purchaser which affect or relate to the property and transactions referred to in this agreement, and (ii) return to Escrow Age for proper disposition of any funds, documents or other property which are for any reason improperly or mistakenly released to Escrow Agent or to Purchaser. I In accordance with the lender's instructions, Escrow Agent is authorized to place on the publ record any documents required by such lender to secure its lien on the subject premises. Escrow Agent is further authorized to comply with its instructions to record such documents prior to receiving the funds required to be disbursed by the lender pursuant to the loan • agreement. •I RECITALS • E. ELECTRONIC TRANSFER; Escrow Agent may, in its discretion, receive and/or disburse any funds in connection with this escrow by electronic (wire) transfer. I I I 7'; ',- .. .,e: -- !: P. COP ; When requested to do so, copies of t:h scrow Instructions and Closing Statement::7:-.",- :j7 . .,.:. ehowin bursements, in accordance with these in Estate ere & Agents who consummated the trans, bens; may be delivered to all Real , the mortgagee or to my attorney. ' G. DEPOSITS, All Checks, money orders or drifts will be processed for collection in the normal course. of business. Escrow Agent may co-mingle funds received by it in escrow with escrow lands of. others, end may, without limitation, deposit such Lunde it its custodial or escrow accounts with any reputable trust company, bank, savings bank, savings association, or Ic,i.her financial services entity, including any affiliate of Escrow Agent. It is understood that Escrow Agent shall be under no obligation to invest the funds deposited with it on behalf of any depositor, nor shall it be accountable for any earnings or incidental benefit attributable to the funds which may be received by escrow Agent while it holds such funds. Purchaser is hereby informed that Escrow Agent deposits all funds into a non-interest bearing 111 account and receives or may receive certain credits and benefits including, but not limited to t checks, deposit slips, data processing and account services from or through various hanks as a ( result of the banking relationships maintained in the regular course of its escrow and title insurance business. Seller waives any and all rights or claims with respect to such credits 1 and benefits received by the Escrow Agent or any affiliates thereof. A good faith estimate of the benefits received (based on 1991 activity) is $32.65 per escrow II 1: . . transaction. This disclosure is made in compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule R63-50.065 I (We) acknowledge receipt of the above disclosure. i H. CLOSING; For purposes of this agreement, Escrow Agent shall have completed the closing I (t at such time as documents necessary to transfer title and/or create the security interest f required for funding have been accomplished. ,tttt Immediate/y following closing, as defined herein, Escrow Agent shall be entitled to payment of all fees charged for services provided. Any funds held for satisfactions/release of lion, ant III l encumbrances which have been paid through this escrow may be transferred from the account , herein to the appropriate department for processing. BORROWER(5) ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, PURSUANT TO REGULATIONS ADOPTED UNDER THE REAL ESTATE SETTLEMEN: i . . PROCEDURES ACT, I (WE) HAVE A RIGHT TO REVIEW THE HUD-1 SETTLEMENT STATEMENT ONE DAY PRIOR TO CLOSING AND DO HEREBY WAIVE SUCH RIGHT AND INSTRUCT THE SETTLEMENT AGENT, CHICAGO TITLE INS. t CO. OP OREGON, TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALTERNATIVE SECTIONS OP SUCH REGULATIONS. • T. ACCOUNTING; The Company will retain any excess funds after disbursement of the closing . escrow and will make all reasonable effort to forward those funds to person(s) entitled i thereto. The Company will charge an accounting fee of $10.00 and will charge an additional ! fee of $10.00 for each additional month the funds are held in the event person(s) entitled to ouch funds cannot. after reasonable and diligent effort, be located. lll . J. TIME; These instructions shall be binding on Escrow Agent until the close of business o 30 days from date hereon and be performed within said period unless written demand by the Purchaser is made upon Escrow Agent for the revocation hereof: any such written notice shall 111 effective upon receipt of such notice. If these instructions have not been revoked prior to expiration of such 30-day period, Escrow Agent shall have the option of performing in [ accordance with these instructions. II X. ARBITRATION; Except as noted in paragraph (2) below; if any dispute or claim arises out of or relates co clue agreement, or to the interpretation or breach, thereof, Escrow Agent me at its election, (i) hold all matters in its existing status pending resolution of such dispv or (ii) it shell be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the then effective arbitracic rules of Arbitration Service of Portland, Inc. or the American Arbitration Association, whichever organization is selected by the party which first initiates arbitration by filing a claim in accordance with the filing rules of the organization selected, and any judgment upor 1 the award rendered pursuant to much arbitration may be entered in any court having juriadictc thereof. In the event suit or action is brought, or an arbitration proceeding is initiated, to enforce or interpret any of the provisions of this agreement, or which is based thereon, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in connection therewith. T1 determination of who is the prevailing party and the amount of reasonable attornoy's fees to I ' be paid to the prevailing party shall be decided by the arbitrator(m) (with respect to attorney's fees incurred prior to and during the arbitration proceedings) and by the court o I / . courts, including the court which beers any exceptions made to an arbitration award submittc to it for confirmation as a judgment (with respect to attorney's fees incurred in such confirmation proceedings) . (2) In the event of any dispute over the disposition of an earnest money deposit held by Escrow Agent less than $2,500.00, Escrow Agent al,all have the option of interpleading said fund in the nietrict Court or Small Claims Division of the same. I • f I fr ' f • EXCLUSIONS L. VAR US; Escrow Agent has no liability or res onsibility with respect to any matters canoes ith the following (unless expressly au sad herein), (1) Compliance with requir Cs of the Consumer Credit Protection Ac Inter State Land sales Act, or similar r laws; .(g) compliance with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes 537,330 (related to ` water rights) and any similar laws: (3) Compliance with the requirements of oregnn Revised ' Statutes 448.271 (Related to Well Testing) and any similar laws: (4) Title to any personal property, or encumbrances thereon, including, but not limited to, personal property taxes, r' sales tax, instruments filed under the Uniform Commercial Code, water rights, or leased I i equipment on premises, (5) Forgeries or false personation: of any person or party in connectic with these instructions or this escrow; (6) Interest and/or penalties assessed due to any delay in updating county tax assessment records. N. PIRPTA; Rscrnw Agent assumes no liability or responsibility for the collection, with- f, holding, reporting or. payment of any amounts due under Section 1445 and 6839C of the Internal I Revenue Code, as amended, and regulations adopted thereunder (commonly called PIRPTA). gacrov Agent is not the agent of the parties for purposes of law and/or regulation and escrow Agent lien made no representation concerning the effect of such law and/or regulation, on any party tc escrow. Any determination of whether the withholding or payment of any tax is due pursuant tc I such law and/or regulation shall be made by the parties outside of escrow and Escrow Agent hereby advises each party to contact his or her attorney or tax advisors regarding any questions on the applicability of such law and/or regulation to this transaction. Notwith- standing the tact that Escrow Agent assumes no liability or responsibility to the parties for • Compliance with Section 1445 and 6039C of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations adopted thereunder (commonly called PIRPTA), Escrow Agent reserves the right to take any action • required of said law and/or regulation without further instruction by the parties to this f. escrow. I N. PRACTICE 01, LAW. Purchaser has been specifically informed that Escrow Agent is not linens, to practice law and no legal advice has been offered by Escrow Agent or any of its employees. Purchaser has been further informed that Escrow Agent is acting only as an escrow holder and forbidden by law to offer any advice to any party respecting the merits of this transaction o: 1 f the nature of the instruments utilized, and that it has not done so. i O. ADVICE, Purchaser has not been referred by Escrow Agent to any named attorney or attorne: or discouraged from seeking advice of an attorney but has been requested to seek legal counse. on his own choosing at his own expense, if Purchaser has doubts concerning any aspect of this transaction, P. DOCUMENTS. Purchaser further declares all instruments to which it is a party, if prepare by Escrow Agent, have been prepared under the direction of its attorney or itself and particularly declares that copying legal descriptions from title reports into forms of deeds, etc. or reforming of legal descriptions or agreements is, or will be solely at its direction . and request. , ill Q. REVIEW. Purchaser has been afforded adequate time and opportunity to road and understand the escrow instructions and all other documents referred to therein. R. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS, (x) See attached ( ) None S. Purchaser acknowledges that all terms and condition's of the earnest money agreement, amendments nr addenda thereto, have been complied with to the satisfaction of Purchaser or will he complied with outside of escrow. • III T. IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PARTIES SIGNING THE kBOVE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS OR THOSE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE ATTACHED HERETO THAT SUCH INSTRUCTIONS CONSTITUTE THE WHOLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THIS FIRM AS AN ESCROW AGENT AND YOU A; A PRINCIPAL TO THE ESCROW TRANSACTION. THESE INSTRUCTIONS MAY NOT INCLUDE AL: THE TERMS OP THE AGREEMENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ESCROW. READ THESE IINSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY, AND DO NOT SIGN THEM UNLESS THEY ARM ACCEPTABLE TO YO` Executed on this day of IDavid Abrams , IPORNARDIur ADDRESS. 1. ESCRON NO. 3200-13578-hat DATE, October 9, 1995 I $PECIAL INBT TIONS The owing special instructions are hereby re and approveds Seller and purchaser are aware chat the taxes have not been certified by Washington { County and you are unable to obtain an accurate tax amount for purposes of prorate. I i.€ You are hereby authorised and instructed to prorate taxes based on the amount of + $2,025.11, which is the 1994-95 taxes. If there is any discrepancy in said amount at the time the 1995-96 taxes are billed, said discrepancy will be satisfied between the parties outside of this escrow with no liability or responsibility to CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE It As it may take 4 to G months, or more, for the County Tax Assessment Records to be• updated with the name and mailing address of the new owner, the parties herein agree that it is the responsibility of the purchaser herein to contact the County Tax Aseamnor directly to obtain the tax bill, prior to the next installment due date. I Seller herein agrees to forward any tax bill received after the clone of this escrow directly to the purchaser herein. Chicago Title Insurance Company shall be held harmless from any loss, liability or ranponsibility in connection with any interest and/or penalties assessed as a result of any delay in payment of any tax installment atter its duo date, after the close of this escrow. Ii 1 I . 111 it I , . I 111 I. I • III 1 • • , I AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO, I , David Abrams .40 1 Until o change is requested all tax . r statements ;hall be sent to the following •6. READ AND APPROVED"G address! Escrow No. 3200-13578-MM i Order No. 136466 DATE. .1 I i 1 WARRANTY DEED • STATUTORY FORM (INDIVIDUAL or CORPORATION) eJOHN O. DART or MARCELLA U. DART, as Trustees under the trust agreement dated June 5. 1992 and BROCK DIXON and MARGARET P. DIXON, as tenants by the entirety j 1 i grantor, conveys and warrants to f F Grantee, the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set torch herein; (Cnnt.i nucd) • 1 . . This instrument will not allow use of the property described in this instrument in violation of applicable land use laws and regulations. Before signing or accepting this instrument. the person acquiring tee title to the property should check with the appropriate city or county planning department to verify approved uses and to determine any limits on lawsuits II against farming or forest practices as defined in ORS 30.930. ENCUMBRANCES; • (Continued) II . The true consideration for this conveyance is $99,900.00 I October 6, 1995 Dated ; if a corporate grantor, it has caused its nam to/'be•,�{ig e y order of its board of directors. /'f......-P.A.. 6;.f>....�; / 4> .1 John 0. 5t. " .4 —'4% - Marcella G. Dart art III Brock Dixon Margaret P. Dixon ' I STATE OF OREGON, County ofWashington j88. • This instrument was acknowledged before me on I . October 6, , 19 95 , by Brack Dixon, personally and as attorney* This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 19 by as • of. - * in fact-for•John 0. Dart, Trustee and' I . • • • lbakti Q ' , , " Marcella O. Dart, Trustee and appear;, Margaret T. Dixon Nacary r Public f ego • My cottunisdion expires �` �., OPFIGIALSEAL ,, 2. .04-..,� NOOTARY A. LIOO.00REOON 1) 111 ION NO.015684 0 MY••OMISSION EXPIRES JULY 16,1906 ( — --- R�4 M1N 1 ; Qr 136466 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION • • I • 'y That part of Lots 20, 21, 24 and 25, ASHBROOK FARM, in Washington County, Oregon, conveyer to Hargrave by Deed recorded in Book 270, Page 193. • I EXCEPTING THEREFROM those trade:conveyed to B. George,, et ux, by Deed recorded in Dook 270, Page 195 and to L.B. Smith,.et ux, by Deed recorded in Book 270, Page 192, and being more particularly described as Allows, +1: r Beginning at the Southeast corne;. 'bf'Lot 23 of said plat., thence North 0°10' West, 271.95 I feet to the Northwest corner of Said Smith Tract and the true point of beginning, thence North 89°00' East along the North line of said Smith Tract, 480.5 feet, thence North 0 010' i West along the Bast line of said Hargrave Tract, 476.93 feet to the most Easterly Southeast corner of said George Tract, thence South 89°42 West along the South line of ' said George Tract, 382.8 feet to a reentrant corner thereof, being the Northeast corner of the second tract so conveyed to.said George's by said Deed, thence South 0°10' East along the East line of said second tract, 122.85 feet, thence South 89 042' West\elong a South line of said George Tract, 50 feet to the Southwest corner thereof, thence: continuing South 09°42' West, 48.18 feet to a point on the West line of said Hargrave Tract; thence South 0°20' West along said West line, 347.31 feet to the true point of f beginning. E. . 4XCk1"r1N0 'THEREFROM that portion lying North of the Southerly right of way line of State I Highway 217. . • FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following described tract of land, Beginning at a point on the North line of the Westerly 100.00 feet 'of the South 271.95 feat of Lot 24, ASHBROOX FARM, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon (hereafter referred to as Parcel 1), said point being North 88°57'30° East 11.00 feet from the Northwest corner of said Parcel I, thence leaving said North line North 76°29'36" East 27.71 feet to a point when measured at right angles S.98 feet North of said North line, 1 thence 5.98 feet North of and parallel with said North line North 88657'30° East 62.04 feet to a point on the Northerly extension of the East line of said Parcel I, thence on said extension, South 00°12'00" East, 5.98 feet to the Northeast corner of said Parcel I, thence on the North line of said Parcel I, South 88°57'30" West 89.01 feet to the point o s beginning. Ir i f I t • II • 1 . • 11 • Snaumbranoes, continued • . Taxeo for the fiscal year 1995-96, a lien but not yet payable. • ' ; 7. The premises herein described are within and subject to the statutory powers including the power or assessment of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County. 0. Regulations, including levies, lions, assessments, rights of way, and easements of Tualatin Valley Water District. i : 9. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described 1 lying within the limits of roads and highways. 10. Limited access provisions contained in Deed to the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, which provides that no right or easement of right of I access to, from or across the State Highway other than expressly therein provided ( for shall attach to the abutting property, 4 Recorded, November 20, 1967 !. nook, 453 Page: 208 I b 11. An easement created by instrument, including terms and provisions thereof. Dated: June 1, 1995 Recorded: June 6, 1995 I Recorder's Fee No.: 95038657 ol • In Favor Of Adjning property owners For, Storm drainage and sewer lines Affects, The Southerly portion of the herein described property II Said casement contains erroneous fee numbers in the legal description. i. 12. Lack of right of access to and from said lend, The within described property does not appear of record to have access to a public street or way. I i • I . I • I . • I • . • I 1 . I . • - . co Earnest Money Agreement jBy and between David A. Abrams or assigns as Buyer and John Rouches, Seller, for that certain real property described as MBF 1 S 1 35 AC tax lots 4600 & 4700, 1 Washington County, Oregon, Exhibit "A". This agreement is dated February 21, 1995. 1. Purchase Price: 2. Terms of Payment: Cash on close. 1 3. Earnest Money Note and Approval Period: Buyer's earnest money deposit is a note of$5,000 which will be redeemed for cash upon acceptance of this offer: Buyer shall have 180 days from the date of mutual acceptance of this offer to perform its due diligence and give its approval to this purchase. If Buyer elects not to proceed this sales and agreement shall be terminated and the earnest money deposit associated herewith shall be returned to the Buyer and neither party hereto shall have any further obligations toward the other. If Buyer approves and proceeds the earnest money shall become non-refundable. 4. Closing and Escrow: The transaction shall close in escrow at Fidelity National Title Insurance. Buyer shall have 30 days after date of approval to close this transaction. At closing, Seller shall deliver to Purchaser a Warranty Deed for the subject property. The property to be conveyed free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Buyer may purchase two (2) thirty (30) day extensions of the tclosing date for the payment of $2,500, which payments are applicable to the purchase price, but are non-refundable. All prorates shall be as of the date of closing. Buyer and Seller to share equally in the cost of escrow. Seller shall pay any taxes associated with the transfer of the property and buyer shall pay for the recording of the deed. 1 5. Access: Seller recognizes that Longstsff St. is not a public street nor are there access easements with adjacent property owners establishing a private street. 1 Buyer, at his sole expense, will diligently pursue establishing legal access to subject property. If, however, legal access hasn't been achieved by closing date, that date will be extended at no cost to Buyer. Buyer must demonstrate to seller reasonable progress in obtaining legal access. 6. Title Insurance: Seller shall provide buyer title insurance at Seller's expense. 1 Buyer shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of the title report to review said report and note any objections to Seller in writing. Seller shall be responsible for clearing or resolving any defects in title. 7. Possession: Buyer shall be entitled to possession of the property at closing. Buyer and its representatives shall be permitted to enter upon the property during 1 • th e time this agreement is in effect for the purpose of inspection, testing and other legitimate purposes required in order for Buyer to complete its due diligence. Buyer shall hold Seller harmless from any loss, liability or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to Buyer's entry upon the property. 1 8. Hazardous Materials: The Sellers agree to provide Purchaser with a level one environmental report showing that the property is free and clear of environmental I hazards or wastes of what so ever nature. Seller shall be obligated to provide said report 30 days prior to closing. In the event the report shows environmental waste or materials, Purchaser at its option may elect to terminate the transaction and in said event shall have its earnest money returned. 9. Condemnation: If prior to closing, all or any portion of the Property, or any interest therein, is taken as the result of or in lieu of condemnation or eminent domain, or is the subject to pending condemnation or eminent domain proceedings, then, at Buyer's option, this agreement shall be terminated and, in such event, Buyer shall be entitled to the return of its earnest money deposit and the parties will have no further duties or obligations to the other. If Buyer does does not elect to terminate this agreement, then Buyer shall purchase the remaining portion of the property and Sellers shall assign to the Buyer the award or payment applicable to such taking. 10. Applications for Permits and Approvals: Buyer shall have the right during the term of this agreement to apply for and obtain any and all public agency approvals and permits as are required or desired by Buyer for building upon the property. Seller, at no cost Seller, shall cooperate with Buyer in this effort as requested by Buyer. 11. Attorney's Fees: In the event there is suit or action to enforce the terms and conditions of this agreement, attorney's fees shall be awarded to the prevailing Iparty. 12. Commissions: Buyer recognizes as selling agent, and has no obligation to pay a sales commission. Buyer: Seller: bated: 2/Z( l ct . Date: M/,�- Z� S4 � Y • I I I I 1 (Iii 1 AD " ADDENDUM "A" dated March 23, 1995 to Earnest Money II Agreement dated February 21, 1995 between David Abrams or assigns ( "Buyer" ) and John Rouches ( "Seller" ) for real estate property described as MBF 1 S 1 35 AC tax lots 4600 & 4700, Washington County, Oregon. A. Seller will except a note from Buyer for the Earnest Money in the amount of $5,000. B. At the beginning of each month starting April 1, 1995, until closing, "Buyer" shall send "Seller" $300. This "non-refundable 1 deposit" shall be applied to purchase price upon closing. If closing does not occur, then the "non-refundable deposit" shall be kept by seller. Should Buyer fail to send "non-refundable deposit" then this agreement shall terminate. ' C. "Buyer" has an exclusive purchase agreement with "Seller" . D. "Seller" agrees to provide clear title at closing. E. All notices and deposits shall be sent p to: 11 Buyer: David Abrams 6205 SW Carman Dr. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Seller: John Rouches 1101 N. Northlake Way, Suite 3 Seattle, WA 98103 I Buyer: Seller: 40PZ Dated: L(/(47(//4/ 5- Dated: /44d." 13 I f 1 i • ADDENDUM "B" to Earnest Money Agreement dated February 21, 1995 between David Abrams or assigns (°Buyer") and John Rouches ("Seller") for real estate property described as MBF 1 S 1 35 AC tax lots 4600 & 4700, Washington County, Oregon. 1 A. The transaction shall close in escrow at Chicago Title Insurance Company of Oregon. IBuyer: Seller: 5217e1 1 Dated: 3C/ 2,0h Dated: Oh r I I I I I I I I I I I . Received: 2re itto; e:4brM; bUJ bb4 (/. f _> w C cox; NO 003/007 02/22/98 14:49 '18'503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD • k mo,41lAA-1-1-123 1, merit CIT*OR TIGARD I)' WETLANDS INVEN I ORY (C-13 -` - -- 1_ i 14 I It►irr A I '-"PrX" UIVI 1 G �'� Ilp �ll 1 Il ► I i � iiiliii identified weclanas f-- � 1 A-1 Wetland ID I r I r•--r ■J„i: 1 ` t Irri rilm ` — — Aquatic Resource Unit I ° ,� I I I...i , T I Boundary � m n n 4rr.n.•.+ 1".-.rr;r•,nr• - .r * •- • - • .J • ' 1 41- 1-1 1 L I I II .JLI CdIII ■ V1 I Iuv1 IEtl` L .I1Er1P1U i 1 I Wetlands Lr JJ I I I - f gin .a Public Land Survey 'I f 17 ► 1 1 r 11 iiir , I r r is i "I'' Section IDs I r. � , 1 � i II iI r rI r w�Yr t �, �,� Jr • I -1.,4!pA 11!:3 1 I — - ) Ill ii - t I — JAM �_ -- —— cols �. r � m Source: Scientific Resources Inc. and Fishman Environmental Services- Aerial 1 Ti Fq 1 ai= I raphy from A , i�.,4 at a ■� L nominal photog scale of 1" pril4 = 00'. I - -\ � p is u1 a generalized nature. In all cases, actual _ tic,d r.nnriitinns determine wetland I J �� boundaries. `N _ /� Pt;hlic Land Survey Information: All •\ Public land survey sections depicted on II 1 I .)...'<,,)-,,,,.... „ ,..I ,61 i L ii . ii._-::i. ....A::: ,' C this map survey are within either \, '- T1SR1W or T2SR1W. ,', ,■ _ �� d c :: :i1 NORTH \ SCBcccT 600' I6 0 600 1200.. DI nT naTC- n7/1n/Q5 .._4;11--.r. \ , \ N:.c..."x:}l�igic::: .YL rLV 1 -'!l1 V. va• .••.:_.1._..,' _- Received: 2/22/96; 2:45PM; 503 684 7297 =, W C COX; #2 02/22/96 14:48 e503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD U1002/007 II \ I I P-I Hill Hholfill MI I mityr 111 , . . t 1111 v i .:: .:,..I 1 \ 1-\1 1 '.."' •mmt-1-1 II 1 n 1 1 li .., , 1 1 1-----11--- ErE I \--------- - iffLT , 1 ,1 --1 : Li-m- - iglir-777(av . ,\,,, \i -,_--, ' /,-- - L.L.LLL14.111211111 1 1 1 ITITT) gTir"---41 1---1- L:l-4---- --74IV-- 11.7ict l : "RI i____ gv i' ii 71 I i ---11--- -N - J 1 S i 4r I III III - -. 43 4if a 40.....1 \• ..::..;..: .-- _e r . . % ELLE :::: •::-.:::A:::::.. PM ST I I 1 t 1 1:0---Ip. : 4,4 :.:;;::: 11—,:::.— \ .....,, ,_ ,ta, ,4 .......... ... NJ %Iir_ • 1 ' 1 --u--.9, i7 \,'N•NNN:a- 7 1 t.s::::.:...sv____7r_-`-r-7P--ff*_rj 7 pm .,,, I i \ tor; i/ _ ..... __ .,-1 pi i . >,- .,L ' Nt:-::. 1-7 .. ,...... - 1 IMP -4K,..i --. T ..:.::::.:: ----.. • - ..- 1 -4, -•-•, d : 111 -1. 11 6°m m‘aw( ----'.111w.-77.77 { ::Z:iie<41JP- 1:::71 r171.41E 1111-7—r-Ft-hidai:::a:::..... I *;:. ,- Err ..,..%...•. .,.... . _ D'• I ""t "LL " L"'\___ II XlA II no lin lr: 1_4 0.1.1 .,44HIN P\ "C' .--i • 1 ...E. vis Attlit_. 1,w,tm _N, N hi! I \cp , , . , <2,)..... i__:: :._,_, ,:=,,„id.- .„ .. \ " k____ 12 ----N, / 1 i ( \\ \ j - /1 .P ' i 1-1-4- 4-4FIH 4 1 Z6\ \??=*-J--ll Lw%4 PC'AMEI -1=1 H ') . li ; s i .,_,_ \\\\ . :Teri • LA '. Of WC. mi. s4 I 4 „ ticici. I 'jrn ' N:-.,,, NNVI f \"--3;1■1:Ert,' \(16 ( I r_. iWtj„,Li - firie4S.,. % Sti • . 's'‘ All , ______ c I'2 I 7---- /4 / riCt■-■ -**44tk_1-1---W -\\XXY.•s., j\\,./ 1 .. 1 r7-21 • • 1 '`f:,'d 4:5 1?:r•y i 4174 `C' y f'rf R ' �s�i%.' :•.c: 6>I0 ..7 I in n ,..).,v4,, 1 i,' ................ „ + #D •••• •_..• _•• ••••• 17 • ,1Lr.._ 1 24 . ! �P -- 3! - I . R-12 i . .4 40 Lt gi- R-2 ___-..._..�._ _.._...Q 1 ` R-25_ ...___._ ■■ •■■■ 10'. c:15 '� R-4.;► .___. 107 • liS3 r -7- ' la; ' 1 2 • I I I I I I • I I 36)(Art.:le._'. LA-6.1 4 7711'4 I I Darrell and Barbara Dick 5750 SW 95th Avenue Portland, Or•n 97221 Aft II . I. ' Joyce M. Osborn 10860 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Priscilla D. Haugen 10890 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 1 . James and Marian Bozich 9425 SW Longstaff Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Ir David Abrams 6205 SW Carman Drive Lake Oswego, OREGON 97035 Virginia S. Andersen ' 10970 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 i 1 Eugene and Vivian Davis ' 13095 SW Henry Street Beaverton, Oregon 97005 1 1 I • . 1 A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON IICOMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ZO NE ORDINANCE_ .r IMENT APPLICATION I CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 . II Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY IICASE NO. OTHER CASE NO'S: II RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: I1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION 11 lcAr, Taw 1 „tc 1 n (A) Application form (1) II4600, 4700 1 (B) Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. Sae abovo authorization I [ I (C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE 5 acres (pre-app check list) IPROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* See Appendix 3 (D) Filing fee ($ ___) ADDRESS 5_w_ T.nngataff RI- _ PRONE 24F,-S4U4 Additional information for Compre- ICITY Tigard ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Change APPLICANT* ABECO CORPORATION (E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS 6205 S.W. Carman Dr. PHONE699-1771 location (pre-app p pp check list ICITY T,AKF OCIATEGO, OBfir'O.DJ ZIP 97035 (F) List of property owners and *When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1 Ipeople, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization (H) Title transfer instrument (1 from the owner or an agent of the owner with written IIauthorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 12. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: I applicable) from to and a Zone Change from to . N.P.O. Number: II OR The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code RpQtri-ti.oszs: to IIrAsident i., de_ _nsi t. tranefars from City Council Approval Date: wrest 1 anr9a 0737P/23P IRevd: 5/87 • 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: • 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this ' application. 5. THE APPLICANT(S)• SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. • B. 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. C. 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. ' D. 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. n DATED this L� day of ii6-i--u.a..ii.. 19 eyQ SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. 1 ZIP — ./ _ 4 e�/i� � r// / AgOtuar/ /.. I 1 (KSL:pm/0737P) 1 1 - 1 ( Darrell and Barbara Dick (- -'5750 SW 95th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97221 - — - - - I . Joyce M. Osborn 10860 SW 95th Avneue Tigard, Oregon 97223 • Priscillia D. Haugen 10890 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 James and Marian Bozich 9425 SW Longstaff Street Tigard. Oregon 97223 David Abrams 6205 SW Carman Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Virginia S. Andersen 10970 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Eugene and Vivian Davis 13095 SW Henry Street Beaverton, Oregon 97005 1 4.. CITY OF TIGARD• OREGON SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: C 6 Company: - Phone: 2 `{G' — S 'ict� Fax: 74 `'1 — $ 1Sv From: NFk_S v,,\-17C ,= Lsb ►J Company: City of Tigard Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 Date: blz6 ! t 6 Pages including this page: 7_ COMMENTS: BILL/ tiEc W r2 E ? oPoSE b c - GES TO P PL Gc4i TO WTI t-r k-IoJte or D 5T2--T3ore -c IGwr S G. NtLS City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY ** • • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nels Mickaelson DATE: May 20, 1996 SUBJECT: Changes to ABECO/COX application In order to meet the intent of this proposal the following changes are needed in the applicant's proposed language(pg 4 staff report) . These changes were not identified prior to release of the staff report: A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020(A)(1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: on all land other than that which is zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40:" to A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020(A)(1)(A-C) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 05/20/96 15:50 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD a001 9******************************** ** *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT TX *** ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *4409 TX G3 5036203433 TIGARD TIMES 05/17 15:15 00'52 1 OK *4410 TX G3 503 222 5358 DAILY JRNL COMRC 05/17 15:16 00'44 1 OK *4411 TX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG. ,Inc. 05/17 15:25 01'24 2 OK *4414 TX G3 503 274 4685 05/17 15:51 03'48 6 OK *4417 TX G3 6921799 05/17 16:31 00'37 1 OK *4424 TX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG. ,Inc. 05/20 07:53 01'14 3 OK *4433 TX G3 503 297 2835 05/20 10:49 00'41 1 OK *4436 TX G3 659 1466 05/20 11:13 04'59 7 OK *4435 TX 6591446 05/20 11:23 00'00 0 NG 0 #018 *4443 TX G3 503 244 8377 05/20 12:56 00'50 2 OK *4444 TX G3 503 646 7840 05/20 13:01 00'56 2 OK *4447 TX G3 503 221 7647 SMITH BARNEY 05/20 13:42 00'50 1 OK *4448 TX G3 15032221701 05/20 13:44 00'56 1 OK 4451 TX G3 5032211171 05/20 15:25 02'05 5 OK 4453 TX 2448450 05/20 15:39 00'00 0 NG 0 STOP 4455 TX G3 5032448750 05/20 15:40 00'43 2 OK ***************************************** *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT RX *** ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *4406 AUTO RX G3 503 669 5472 05/17 14:46 00'33 1 OK *4407 AUTO RX G3 503 669 5472 05/17 14:47 00'56 1 OK *4408 AUTO RX G3 . 503 693 4545 WASHINGTON COUNT 05/17 14:50 02'11 3 OK *4412 AUTO RX G3 503 239 7038 AMERICAN HTG INC 05/17 15:27 02'12 3 OK *4415 AUTO RX G3 05/17 16:02 01'53 3 OK *4416 AUTO RX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG. ,Inc. 05/17 16:16 02'59 6 OK *4418 AUTO RX G3 05/17 17:29 00'55 2 OK *4423 AUTO RX G3 5032211171 05/20 07:50 01'08 2 OK *4427 AUTO RX G3 05/20 09:46 02'43 4 OK *4428 AUTO RX G3 503 294 1408 05/20 09:50 02'35 5 OK *4429 AUTO RX G3 05/20 10:11 02'43 4 OK *4430 AUTO RX G3 05/20 10:21 02'42 4 OK *4431 AUTO RX G3 05/20 10:26 01'27 3 OK *4432 AUTO RX G3 503 590 1198 05/20 10:31 00'40 1 OK *4434 AUTO RX G3 05/20 10:57 01'45 1 OK *4438 AUTO RX G3 503 669 5472 05/20 12:00 00'32 1 OK *4439 AUTO RX G3 503 669 5472 05/20 12:01 00'57 1 OK *4440 AUTO RX G3 503 648 9723 05/20 12:34 00'38 1 OK *4441 AUTO RX G3 503 681 6232 05/20 12:38 01'00 2 OK *4442 AUTO RX G3 05/20 12:52 03'00 3 OK *4446 AUTO RX G3 503 873 5384 05/20 13:34 02'36 5 OK 4450 AUTO RX G3 208 384 3814 05/20 14:09 01'05 2 OK 4452 AUTO RX G3 503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 05/20 15:29 04'06 8 OK 4456 AUTO RX G3 503 243 2944 05/20 15:46 01'30 2 OK • • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Nels Michaelson r7� FROM: Liz Newton �/I DATE: May 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Easy CIT Recommendation on Density Transfer (CPA 96- 0003) At the May 8 East CIT meeting consensus of members present on the proposal Co amend the Comprehensive Plan regarding density transfer was as follows : Support of the concept . Applications should be reviewed on a case by case basis . There should be no guarantee of 100% transfer of density. • • William C. Cox attorney at law Land Use and Development Consultation Project Management May 8 , 1996 Director of Community Development c/o Nels Mickaelson City of Tigard 13125 S .W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re : Comprehensive Plan/Development Code text amendment ABECO, applicant . Additional explanation subsequent to 5/7/96 CIT meeting Dear Nels, Following our discussion at last evening' s CIT meeting and our phone conversation this morning I wish to further identify the limited scope of the proposed amendment . Please treat this letter as a substitute for the one I sent yesterday (May 7, 1996) . The ABECO amendment proposal is limited in its scope to only the transfer of density from wetlands located on parcels and lots zoned multi-family residential . When I use the term multi- family zone in the context of the proposed amendment I am referring to R-12, R-24 and R-40 zones . The amendment proposal, as written, can be interpreted to include other classifications of residentially zoned land. The amendment proposal however, should be interpreted as only referencing the transfer of density from wetlands located on land zoned R-12 , R-24 and R-40 . To help clarify the proposed amendment' s scope I have rewritten the proposed text changes and hereby submit the following as the request . The applicant requests an amendment to the text of Comprehensive Plan Housing Policy 6 .1 . 1, Implementation Strategy 3 , and related provisions which limit density transfers from wetland areas within R-12, R-24 and R-40 zones . Tigard Planning Department has indicated that wetland property is not allowed any density transfer. - Comprehensive Plan Policy 6 .1. 1 (3) is proposed to be amended by adding the following policy statement to the existing plan text : -1- 0244 S.W. California Street • Portland, Oregon 97219 • (503) 246-5499 • FAX (503) 244-8750 • • To enhance the protection of wetlands on multi-family zoned property and to ensure the efficient use of multi-family zoned land, the Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow multi- family zoned properties containing wetlands to develop, with density transfers, to a density equal to the entire parcel's or lot's zoned density. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, applicant' s request will necessitate the amendment of Community Development Code (CDC) section 18 . 92 .020 (A) (1) as implemented by CDC 18 . 92 . 030 which in turn implements Policy 6 . 1 . 1 (3) . This language would implement the new policy language as proposed above . CDC 18 . 92 .030 would be amended to add the language contained in the bold italicized print with words to be deleted in brackets [] as follows : A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18 . 92 . 020 (A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations on all land other than that which is zoned R-12, R-24, and R- 40 : 1 . The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2 . The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3 . The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. " B. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18. 92. 020(A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R-12, R-24 and R-40 subject to the following limitations : 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on the wetland area if not for these density transfer regulations; -2- • • 2. The number of units is limited to the total number of units which could have been allowed on the unbuildable area if not for wetland preservation regulations; and 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. " C. "All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18 . 80, Planned Development . (Ord. 89-06 ; Ord. 83-52) " Finally, since Subsection 18. 92. 020(A) (1) is referenced in the proposed amendment text it will need to be modified by adding the term wetland to the list of sensitive land areas . Subsection 18 . 92 . 020 (A) (1) would be revised by adding (1) (d) as follows : "A. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area (s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property: 1 . All sensitive land areas : a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 250; [and] c . Drainageways; and d. Wetlands; Please attach this letter to any official documents regarding ABECO' s comprehensive plan and development code text amendment . When in doubt about the scope of any statements made in the previously submitted documents consider that the proposed amendment only refers to wetlands in R-12 , R-25 and R-40 zones . 7u } r ',7, "illi. C. ': WCC/abh CC: Client -3- itiglei DeSer6 PJ todvr5 ki--5 kil EV A / 200 a D 14. k. eisrArjr-7-4L Zone ° Gaunt ( um acres © 0 5 D 14 E� �,. _ �:: ter", C-G 1 5.5 FLOOD? to 44410T-Ni C-P 5 0.6 CBD 1 0.5 -L -a 2.7 I-P 1 R-12--'• 3" >10. 10 .', t — Ill . R:35.5, ...'�=:=: 1 3.4 3 ,i.4 6, _ C+ ,. 2 1.9 R=4.5 = 6 -= 35: ( i R_7 . 2 3 2.6 2 .._ 9.0 35,11 — 1 (Pi 46 TOT ToT A" L 0 356 , --71 161, 4 111.0 4 , '7 209iS'a 1 i7 , 2f r Li 1 Teo RA D 1 72 , 2 ik) gt-' 1 Z t4 • 6 3 ,) 1F4,.00 DPL-J4c1:er --7 oft) , CoU LD 3 - 0.v f ��- 7— . rsm-1-0 5= o0 a.0.0 ? `1- LpIro , zot,) • • William C. Cox attorney at law • Land Use and Development Consultation Project Management May 7, 1996 Director of Community Development c/o Nels Mickaelson City of Tigard 13125 S .W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 • Re : Comprehensive Plan/Development Code text amendment ABECO, applicant . Dear Nels, It came to my attention while attempting to explain the ABECO Comprehensive Plan and Development Code text amendment request to a CIT that the request is not very clear as to its scope . The ABECO amendment proposal is limited in its scope to only the transfer of density located on wetlands located on parcels and lots zoned multi-family residential . The amendment proposal, as written, can be interpreted to include other classifications of residentially zoned land. The amendment proposal however, should be interpreted as only referencing the transfer of density from wetlands located on multi-family zoned land. To help clarify the proposed amendment' s scope I have rewritten the proposed text changes and hereby submit the following as the request . The applicant requests an amendment to the text of Comprehensive Plan Housing Policy 6 .1 . 1, Implementation Strategy 3 , and related provisions which limit density transfers from wetland areas within multi-family zones . Tigard Planning Department has indicated that Wetland property is not allowed any density transfer. Comprehensive Plan Policy 6 .1. 1 (3) is proposed to be rewritten by adding the following policy statement : To enhance the protection of wetlands on multi-family zoned property and to ensure the efficient use of multi-family zoned land, the Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development -1- 0244 S.W. California Street • Portland, Oregon 97219 • (503) 246-5499 • FAX (503) 244-8750 • S process, shall establish a procedure to allow multi- family zoned properties containing wetlands to develop, with density transfers, to a density equal to the entire parcel's or lot's zoned density. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, applicant' s request will necessitate the amendment of Community Development Code (CDC) section 18.92 .020 (A) (1) as implemented by CDC 18 .92 . 030 which in turn implements Policy 6 . 1 . 1 (3) . This language would implement the new policy language as proposed above . CDC 18 . 92 .030 would be amended to add the language contained in the bold italized print as follows : A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18 . 92 . 020 (A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations on all non multi-family zoned lands : 1 . The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2 . The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3 . The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. " B. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18. 92. 020(A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on all multi-family zoned lands subject to the following limitations : 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on the wetland area if not for these regulations; 2. The number of units is limited to the total number of units which could have been allowed on the unbuildable area if not for wetland preservation regulations; and -2- 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. " C. "All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18 . 80, Planned Development . (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) " Please attach this letter to any official documents regarding ABECO' s comprehensive plan and development code text amendment . When in doubt about the scope of any statements made in the previously submitted documents consider that the proposed amendment only refers to wetlands in multi-family zones . Yo9s v ..y Truly, li.m .x WCC/abh CC: Client -3- - FAX TRANSMITTAL- PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LIDO EGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: May 23. 1996 TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433 FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on June 11. 1996 at 7:30 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 the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 - add language to allow full transfer of density from sites with wetlands which are zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40 from the wetland area to the buildable portion of the site. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.020 to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which density can be transferred, and 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from wetland areas zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.30, 18.84, and 18.92. ZONE: N/A TT PUBLISH_May 30, 1996 - FAX TRANSMITTAL- 0 *LACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD 1 IMES DATE: May 3, 1996 TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433 FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on May 20. 1996 at 7:30 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 the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 -modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. ZONE: N/A TT PUBLISH_May 9. 1996 4110) - FAX TRANSMITTAL- LACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: April 19,1996 TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433 FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on May 6. 1996 at 7:30 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 the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 -modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. ZONE: N/A Note: This hearing will only serve to open the record for this proposed amendment, no testimony or review will occur. The reason for this delay is to ensure adequate time for citizens to make comments and comply with time requirements for Legislative amendments. TT PUBLISH April 25. 1996 • • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TO: David Scott, Building Division DATE: April 15. 1996 FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Nels Mickaelson Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 -modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. ZONE: N/A From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 25, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: _Y We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: • (Please provide the following informatio• Name of Person Commenting: Soh Phone Number: P J • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS t CITY 7.10: 1-ItGARD OREGON TO: Brian Rager, Engineering Dept. DATE: April 15.1996 FROM: Tigard Planning Division TAFF CONTACT: Nels Mickaelson Phone: - • 9-4171 Fax: (50 • : - RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 -modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. ZONE: N/A From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: April 25. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (Please provide the following information) Name of Person Commenting: �• t`l-`f(o Phone Number: \C3\e • f Ti SENDER: r. 1.) •Complete items t and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the ie •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an I H ■Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): card to you. W I j ',Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address n 1 E permit. d i y ■Write'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery c ) t„ aThe Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date «. 1 c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. a I 0 d s 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number ti 0 DLCD P 474 569 740 EI E 1175 COURT ST. , NE 4b.Service Type u SALEM, OR 97310-0590 ❑ Registered Certified c col ❑ Express Mail Insured m 1 Ix ❑ Return nReceipt for Merchandise ❑ COD a 7.Date of Delivery�'r • .J`':- " . 9 f z g. 0 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested and fee is paid) .2e I— I illif•-••1 re: (Address:• o ''ent) I. r •� 1 r m' 811, Decem•er 1994 Domestic Return Receipt )1110 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTI FILE NO: CPA 96-0003/ZOA 96-0004 CITY OF TIGARD FILE TITLE: ABECO/COX OREGON APPLICANT: William Cox 0244 S.W. California Street Portland, Oregon 97219 OWNER: ABECO Corporation 6205 S.W. Carman Dr. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 • REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as .follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 -modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all•'sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. ZONE: N/A CIT: All CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) DECISION MAKING BODY STAFF DECISION X PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 5/6/96 TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 6/11/96 TIME: 7:30 RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN OTHER_ STAFF CONTACT: Nels Mickaelson (503) 639-4171 x321 • CRY OF TIGARD OREGON SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: DLCD Company: Phone: Fax: 1-503-362-6705 From: NELS MICKAELSON Company: City of Tigard Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 Date: 4-29-96 Pages including this page: 3 COMMENTS: ON 4-26-96 I MAILED.'':A^COPY OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO YOUR OFFICE.. I INADVERTENTLY FORGOT TO INCLUDE YOUR FORM AND 3 COPIES OF THE PROPOSED ,AMENDMENT. I AM FAXING THIS INFORMATION TO YOU TODAY AND WILL FOLLOW-UP WITH THE ORIGINALS IN THE MAIL. IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS, PLEASE CALL ME. City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY ** (-s-A 1110 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: t,J t, t, w, co Company: Phone: ZQ(o -- s"`-(9q Fax: 7 Li c( S r7 s-O From: Ntecs so/■f Company: City of Tigard Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 Date: Li`z /cl • Pages including this page: COMMENTS: • City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY ** • April 26, 1996 *Ngfolgt t William Cox 0244 SW California Street CITY OF TIGARD Portland, OR 97219 OREGON ATTENTION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment application CPA96-00 Dear Bill, I have a revised schedule for the CIT meetings (See attached timeline). I had the wrong date for the South CIT meeting. The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday May 1st rather than May 8th. The schedule is a follows: 7:50 PM Wednesday May 1- South CIT meeting at Tigard High School Lecture Room The high school is located off of Durham Road, at corner of Durham Road and 92nd Avenue, Road to Cook Park. 7:00 PM Tuesday May 7th - West and Central CIT at Mary Woodward Elementary Map enclosed 7:00 PM Wednesday May 8th - East CIT at Tigard City Hall Town Hall I apologize for the error in meeting schedule. If you can not attend the South CIT meeting city staff can make the presentation of your application. If you have any questions , please call me at 639-4171. Sincerely, Nels Mickaelson Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 • TIMELINE FOR ABECO/COX APPLICATION CITS 7:50 PM Wednesday May 1st - South CIT - Tigard High School Lecture Room 7:00 PM Tuesday May 7th-West and Central CIT - Mary Woodward Elementary 7:00 PM Wednesday May 8th -East CIT- Tigard City Hall (Town Hall) Planning Commission Schedule Monday May 6th - Ask Planning Commission for extension - On this date it will be 28 days from the first planning Commission Meeting in April; Legislative amendments must be heard within 30 days of the first planning commission meeting in April. Ask for an extension to May 20 or June 3. May 20 Timeline April 16th - Send out request for comments (35 days prior to PC) April 25th - Send notification to DLCD - 45 days prior to Council Hearing May 8th - Final Staff report to Jerree May 20th - Planning Commission May 29th - Revised Staff report to Cathy June 11th - City Council By June 16 - Send DLCD Notice of Denial or Notice of Adoption I ■ I )4.6, iiir , • cX• w N < TAKE s.� — ¢'� II . SCROLLS •444 o\-,s `�� � TAYLOR'S FERRY � W EXIT °` '4, o J 0 1 Q m _ � N 0 LOS ST ao all 0. � JLL9 m 'y!y o W Y OAK U OAK 2 < z 0.0 - ,n, i > SHADY g Q --Q I j-= t- — DAKOTA ST I Nli W ri <1-j rn < I PFAF LE ST WINT r KE D:�� TIGA' D Ci 78TH r ,T RFF AVE J AI 16. y ►- w ` < 11 ALCO �, o DWARD \�a(<, s� 1 0,R �i:- LE EN AR '� P o s 4 9,Aok i/l1 THER man 1111 -# _ST. WALNUT ,, Ail A' �r� rn , le .N ç04 Bi, `r��•_ 0 n,. 04/26/96 08:46 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD a 001 ** ******************************** * *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT TX *** ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *3494 TX G3 5035901240 BRIAN MOORE 04/24 15:43 01'27 2 OK *3499 TX G3 9195 04/24 17:14 00'39 1 OK *3501 TX G3 503 326 4005 EPA/CID PTLD OR 04/25 07:48 00'35 1 OK *3504 TX G3 5032304877 04/25 09:54 03'29 5 OK *3506 TX G3 7865343 , 04/25 10:32 01'08 2 OK *3507 TX G3 201 616 1930 04/25 10:35 04'29 10 OK *3508 TX G3 5036241454 04/25 10:43 01'20 2 OK *3513 TX G3 6921799 04/25 11:51 04'41 9 OK *3521 TX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG. , Inc. 04/25 14:20 02'35 5 OK *3536 TX G3 206 623 0160 04/26 07:55 00'48 1 OK 3538 TX G3 WW5; ;�,_r,_1 04/26 08:42 01'28 4 OK ***************************************** *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT RX *** ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *3490 AUTO RX G3 04/24 15:22 01'33 2 OK *3491 AUTO RX G3 15036455357 04/24 15:34 01'59 3 OK *3497 AUTO RX G3 503 598 8900 04/24 16:26 01'09 1 OK *3498 AUTO RX G3 04/24 17:11 01'06 2 OK *3502 AUTO RX G3 503 682 8820 04/25 08:10 01'23 2 OK *3503 AUTO RX G3 503 682 8816 04/25 09:44 02'43 4 OK *3505 AUTO RX G3 503 687 5572 EUGENE DEV DEPT 04/25 10:04 03'29 6 OK *3510 AUTO RX G3 240 2256 04/25 11:14 01'29 2 OK *3511 AUTO RX G3 503 223 2701 04/25 11:24 03'47 7 OK *3512 AUTO RX G3 6553236 04/25 11:41 00'43 1 OK *3514 AUTO RX G3 503 681 3777 WACO SUPPORT SVC 04/25 11:56 01'33 3 OK *3515 AUTO RX G3 04/25 13:00 02'31 2 OK *3517 AUTO RX G3 206 623 0160 04/25 13:56 00'41 1 OK *3518 AUTO RX G3 503 297 5947 04/25 13:59 01'21 2 OK *3519 AUTO RX G3 2567246 04/25 14:06 02'06 3 OK *3520 AUTO RX G3 503 731 7042 04/25 14:09 01'31 3 OK *3522 AUTO RX G3 503 526 0775 04/25 15:14 01'29 2 OK *3523 AUTO RX G3 04/25 15:27 00'57 1 OK *3524 AUTO RX G3 3037446246 UNIVERSITY PAKMA 04/25 15:31 00'48 2 ' OK *3525 AUTO RX G3 5032432944 04/25 15:51 01'16 2 OK *3526 AUTO RX G3 503 656 1092 04/25 16:04 01'37 3 OK *3527 AUTO RX G3 503 624 0641 04/25 16:10 01'37 - 2 OK *3528 AUTO RX G3 04/25 16:26 04'20 8 OK *3529 AUTO RX G3 1 503 681 2882 04/25 16:35 00'59 2 OK *3530 AUTO RX G3 3037577222 04/25 16:44 00'37 1 OK *3531 AUTO RX G3 916 922 4576 04/25 17:22 01'26 2 OK *3532 AUTO RX G3 1 503 287 7483, 04/25 20:51 00'34 1 OK *3533 AUTO RX G3 503 797 1793 04/25 23:07 02'32 3 OK *3534 AUTO RX G3 503 797 1793 04/25 23:14 02'31 3 OK • CITY OF TIGARD OREGON SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: ()JTLLCO )c. Company: Phone: 2i((c, — s4-tq1 Fax: 2 Li 4 -- From: e LS wi ELSoii Company: City of Tigard Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 Date: 'La'[( 'Lila. Pages including this page: 2 COMMENTS: City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY ** • TIMELINE FOR ABECO/COX APPLICATION CITS Tuesday May 7th-West and Central CIT Wednesday May - South CIT Wednesday May 15h -East CIT Planning Commission Schedule Monday May 6th - Ask Planning Commission for extension -On this date it will be 28 days from the first planning Commission Meeting in April; Legislative amendments must be heard within 30 days of the first planning commission meeting in April. Ask for an extension to May 20 or June 3. May 20 Timeline April 16th - Send out request for comments (35 days prior to PC) April 25th - Send notification to DLCD -45 days prior to Council Hearing May 8th -Final Staff report to Jerree May 20th - Planning Commission May 29th - Revised Staff report to Cathy June 11th - City Council By June 16 - Send DLCD Notice.of Denial or Notice of Adoption June 3 Timeline April 30- Send out request for comments (35 days prior to PC) May 10th - Send notification to DLCD - 45 days prior to Council Hearing May 22nd - Final Staff report to Jerree June 3 - Planning Commission June 12 - Revised Staff report to Cathy June 25 - City Council By June 30- Send DLCD Notice of Denial or Notice of Adoption 04/12/96 14:45 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD fj0O1 w 0 *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT TX *** - ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *2966 TX G3 503 678 1108 04/11 11:58 00'50 1 OK *2968 TX G3 2473 CITY ATTORNEY 04/11 12:12 01'37 2 OK *2971 TX 68477297 04/11 13:06 00'00 0 NG 0 STOP *2973 TX G3 503 684 3611 04/11 13:12 00'43 1 OK *2976 TX G3 503 693 4412 04/11 13:48 00'.56 2 OK *2977 TX G3 6120722 04/11 13:52 00'33 1 OK *2981 TX G3 503620 2086 NICOLI ENG. , Inc. 04/11 14:31 00'46 1 OK *2985 TX G3 6976594 04/11 15:28 00'43 1 OK *2986 TX 5262479 04/11 15:42 00'00 0 NG 0 #018 *2990 TX G3 04/11 15:55 01'44 ? 3 OK *2992 TX G3 5262479 04/11 16:12 00'47 = 1 OK *3000 TX G3 800 841 0663 04/12 08:27 03'13 4 OK *3004 TX G3 503 624 6557 TUFCOAT INC 04/12 09:42 00'57 2 OK *3007 TX G3 692 1186 04/12 10:26 • 01'14 2 OK *3009 TX G3 503 620 5963 KEN SCHECKLA 04/12 10:57 01'23 2 OK *3012 TX G3 15036364732 04/12 11:05 00'45 1 OK *3014 TX G3 503 231 0317 04/12 11:11 02'12 3 OK *3015 TX G3 04/12 11:17 00'42 1 OK *3019 TX G3 TIGARD TIMES 04/12 11:20 01'47 4 OK *3024 TX G3 503 639 2361 VCI 04/12 14:01 01'46 4 OK ;3 iEC:At'" - G3:.- , 5;6 7 5 0 , . -/-12,.,W- -2- 0.9, 4 • *,2 e '." x' ': *3028 TX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG. ,Inc. 04/12 14:34 01'08 2 OK ***************************************** *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT RX *** ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *2969 AUTO RX G3 5032244836 04/11 12:21 01'20 2 OK *2974 AUTO RX G3 5036247777 04/11 13:37 04'13 4 OK *2978 AUTO RX G3 503 274 0123 SRI SHAPIRO 04/11 14:05 01'40 2 OK *2979 AUTO RX G3 5032240155 MILLER, NASH 04/11 14:10 00'47 1 OK *2983 AUTO RX G3 503 291 5464 04/11 15:01 01'20 2 OK *2994 AUTO RX G3 503 692 5421 CITY OF TUALATIN 04/11 16:36 01'08 2 OK *2997 AUTO RX G3 503 692 5421 CITY OF TUALATIN 04/12 07:57 02'18 3 OK. *2998 AUTO RX G3 04/12 08:03 01'14 2 OK *2999 AUTO RX G3 503.642 1412 5+ 04/12 08:14 01'27 1 OK *3002 AUTO RX G3 503 681 6232 04/12 08:48 00'58 2 OK *3003 AUTO RX G3 503 624 6557 TUFCOAT INC 04/12 09:31 00'57 1 OK *3006 AUTO RX G3 5036437916 04/12 10:17 00'46 1 OK *3016 AUTO RX G3 04/12 11:18 00'37 1 OK *3021 AUTO RX G3 503 538 2721 04/12 11:56 00'53 1 OK *3022 AUTO RX G3 503 646 6286 04/12 12:19 01'54 3 OK *3023 AUTO RX G3 503 626 8039 Robert Becker In 04/12 13:48 01'47 2 OK *3025 AUTO RX G3 04/12 14:05 01'22 1 OK *3026 AUTO RX G3 503 257 6366 04/12 14:20 01'16 2 OK POLICY • • 6 .1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICES AND RENT LEVELS. (Rev. Ord. 85-03; Ord. 84-38; Ord. 84-29) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall monitor the rate of development through an annual "land survey, " which will function as an up-to-date inventory of land available for future residential needs. 2. The Tigard Community Development Code shall list a broad range of zoning districts which allow for a variety of housing types, and comply with the adopted Metropolitan Housing Rule (50-50 mixture of single family and attached or multiple family at 10 units to the net acre on buildable vacant land) . _--- --- -_— - - /� Th"e Tigard Community Developme Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a pr• ure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics CO, steep slopes or floodplains, to develop ! with density transfers allowable on the site. Ne m- e ``-- , 251—o1-the-- / d.._„ i- =g= - 1 `-=-t-ranst-a-r-r-ed -_In-addi.tion,_the-City sh la 1 encourage developers to—use - the planned development process in all developing areas. 4. The Tigard Community Development Code shall allow for manufactured homes in manufactured home parks and subdivisions, within specified zoning districts. 5 . The City shall encourage housing development to occur, to the greatest extent possible, on designated buildable lands in areas where public facilities and services can be readily extended to those lands. 6. The City shall provide for opportunities for proposals to develop specialized housing for the area' s senior citizens and handicapped based on the needs of these groups by: a. Making information available on subsidizing programs; b. Allowing special use housing for these groups in all development districts; c. Requiring the needs of the handicapped to be considered as a part of the Site Design Review process. 7. The City shall coordinate with the Washington County Housing Authority, H.U.D. and other Federal, State and regional agencies for the provision of subsidized housing programs in Tigard. 8 . The City shall determine through census figures, surveys and organizational reports, such as those prepared by the area Agency on Aging, the extent of the City' s need and projected need in the area of low and moderate income housing, senior housing and specialty housing. The City shall encourage the development of such housing types to meet the identified and projected needs. MilvArie4;64°)Y6 J / II - 33 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE_---- -- 18.84.010 Chapter 18.84. SENSITIVE LANDS B. Sensitive land areas are designated as such to protect the public health, safety, and welfare 18.84.010 Purpose // of the community through the regulation of 18.84.015 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, these sensitive land areas. Prohibited, and Nonconforming 18.84.020 Administration and Approval. il C. Sensitive land regulations contained in this II Process chapter are intended to maintain the integrity of 18.84.025 Maintenance of Records \ \ the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by , 18.84.026 General Provisions for Floodplain minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, Areas maintaining and enhancing water quality, and 18.84.028 General Provisions for Wetlands 1\ fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic 18.84.030 Expiration of Approval: Standards quality and recreation potential. \ l for Extension of Time 1 I ` 18.84.040 Approval Standards / D. The regulations of this chapter are intended 18.84.045 Exception for Development of the to implement the comprehensive plan and the I 108th/113th Ravine below the 140 Feet city's flood plain management program as Elevation required by the National Flood Insurance i ;, 18.84.050 Application Submission Program, and help to preserve natural sensitive I 1 Requirements • land areas from encroaching use and to maintain 18.84.060 Additional Information Required n the September 1981 zero-foot rise floodway and Waiver of Requirements / J elevation. (Ord. 95-03; Ord. 90-29; Ord. 89-06; 18.84.070 Site Conditions J Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52) 18.84.080 The Site Plan `—__ � 18.84.090 Grading Plan \ 18.84.015 Applicability of=Uses:Permitted, .100-Landscape.Plan ' ? Prohibited, and Nonconforming 18.84.010 Purpose ` A. Outright Permitted Uses - No Permit Required A. Sensitive lands are lands potentially 1J unsuitable for development because of their! j Except as provided by Subsection location within: ; 18.84.015.B, D. and E., the following uses are outright permitted uses within the 100-year �.\1 . The 100-year floodplain; j floodplain, drainageways, slopes that are 25 \ i i percent or greater, and unstable ground when 2. Natural drainageways; the use does not involve paving. For the ' ` purposes of this chapter, the word "structure" ,I 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by shall exclude: children's play equipment, picnic /! the other agencies including the U.S. Army I tables, sand boxes, grills, basketball hoops and // Corps of Engineers and the Division of State' similar recreational equipment. / Lands, or are designated as significant wetland / on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and I 1. Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens, Wetland Map; and ii or play areas ; ■ '� 4. Steep slopes of 25 percent or greater and) 2. Farm uses conducted without locating a \ unstable ground. structure within the sensitive land area; 18-84 - 1 Rev. 01/24/95 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE / 18.92.01 Chapter 18.92. DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 7( 5. A lot of at least the size required by the , applicable base zoning district, if an existing ,\\ 18.92.010 Purpose ',, dwelling is to remain on the site. , ‘ ■ 18.92.020 Density Calculation , ' I 18.92.030 Residential Density Transfer B. To calculate the net units per acre,divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the I 18.92.010 Purpose minimum number of square feet required for ,4'4 each lot by the applicable zoning district. A. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the comprehensive plan by establishing the // C. All density calculations shall comply with criteria for determining the number of dwelling the provisions of Section 18.40.040, Residential units permitted._ (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) iv Density Transition. (Ord.89-06;Ord. 84-29;Ord. // _ _—:— 83-52) �irf 18.92.020 Density Calculation -7-- - _ :- _�� ', �7 18.92.030 Residential-Density Transfer \, / A. Net development area, in acres, shall be, determined by subtracting the following land \ \ A. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020.A.1 from the ` land included in the legal description of the , 1 gross acres may be transferred to the remaining I `' ; \ property: buildable land areas subject to the following I�; '-- limitations: \ I , 1. All sensitive land areas: ; I 1. The number of units which can be `,,\ a. La_nd_wi lhin—this one T00-year, transferred is limited to the number of units �, ! ' flQQdplain; which would have been allowed on-25 percent of 7 1 '; the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; / i-6 and-ar-slopes-exceeding-28-percent; � f ands 2._ The_number of units is limited-to-25- --" 1 i 1 s- L ,05 ;percent of_the total number of units which-could - -,-) ! cw Dr e_wa s. ,/ ' have been constructed on the unbuildable area if �/ l not for these regulations; and 2. All land dedicated to the public for park il purposes; 1, 3. The total_number_of units per site does �! i \ not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number 3. All land dedicated for public \ of units per gross_acre—permitted-for--the, ' \'�, right-of-way: ' applicable comprehensive-plan-designation. 1 l a. Single-family: allocate 20 percent of All density transfe development proposals �' ', gross acres for public facilities; and 'shall comply with the development standards of /� the applicable underlying zoning district unless / b. Multiple-family: allocate 15 percent developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, j ' of gross acres for public facilities; Planned Development. (Ord.89-06;Ord.83-52)® /,' // \ 4. All land proposed for private streets;and ,J i ,�`` �` - -- - _ _--__% Z 7 18-92 - 1 Reformatted 1994 G�. c.V: f ,tui2 Wb`LwtoD r4 ✓1£�S 0 T T IA_1-....) by.v L-t 1- F ut w.L i.L'1 Z p, r� • • Agenda Item: Hearing Date: April 8,1996 Time: 7:30 PM A STAFF REPORT �- '�..e TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I. APPLICATION SUMMARY • CASE: FILE NAME: ABECO/Cox Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0003 PROPOSAL: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 - modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can ' be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive - land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. APPLICANT: William Cox 0244 S.W. California Street Portland, Oregon 97219 OWNER: ABECO Corporation 6205 S.W. Carman Dr. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: City wide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1 .1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1 , 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard . Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff Report City of Tigard/City Council Hearing DE NOVO Page 1 • • • Staff recommends of the proposed amendment based on the findings found in Section III of this report. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant represents the ABECO Corporation who has an interest in 4.37 acres of land adjacent to Longstaff Street along Highway 217. The property is zoned R-12 with a comprehensive plan designation of Medium Density. According to the city's wetland inventory the property is for the most part covered by wetland and is most likeley not developable. The aproximate area covered by wetland is 3.22 Acres. A wetland deliniation would need to be performed in order to deterimine the exact boundary of the wetland site. Tigard Community Development Code does not include wetlands as areas from which residential density can be transfered. Other sensitive lands including floodplain, drainageway, and steep slopes do allow transfer. Comprehensive Plan Housing Policy 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 currently states: "The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g., steep slopes or floodplains to develop with density transfers on the site. No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred." The Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 curently states: A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020(A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transfered is limited to the number of units which could have been allowed on 25% of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2. The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been construted on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the aplicable comprehensive plan designation." b. "All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the ,applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, planned Development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52". As read above Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1(3) does not specifically exclude wetlands from lands which are "physically constrained", or, is the list inclusive of all physically constrained lands (for example drainageways are not included in this list yet the • Staff Report City of Tigard/City Council Hearing DE NOVO Page 2 Community Developmellode does allow 25% density froreese lands). Community Development Code 18.92.020 states: A. "Net Development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property: 1. All senstive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent; and c. Drainageways " As stated above wetland areas are not allowed density transfer. There seems to be a discrepency between the Comprehensive Plan which would allow density transfer from lands which are "physically constrained" and the Community Development Code which allows density transfer from "sensitive lands". (Note: This language my be written as such to allow density transfer from land other than those lands considered as "Sensitive Lands". There is also a conflict within the code itself. Community Development Code 18.84.010 defines areas which are considered sensitive lands: A. "Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: 1. The 100-year floodplain 2. Natural Drainageways; 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the Comrehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map; and 4. Steep slopes of 25 percent or greater and unstable ground." At issue is the fact that wetlands are excluded from residential density transfer even though they are considered sensitive lands. The applicants proposal would allow 100% density transfer for wetlands only, the density transfer standard for other sensetive land areas would not be changed. ISSUES 1) Would this change allow multi-family developments in single family areas? Would the code allow it? 2) Would this have a significant impact on wetlands? Would having more people next to the wetland have an adverse impact? 3) Should we allow 100% density transfer for wetlands, but only 25% for other physically constrained lands? Staff Report City of Tigard/City Council Hearing DE NOVO Page 3 • 4) Would limiting this proposal to areas zoned multi-family make sense? The applicant states that the proposed amendment addresses this situation by allowing [depends on final wording of amendment - see page 3 of narrative] IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy (TCP) 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter (TCDC) 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITS, DLCD, and Metro. This goal is satisfied. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The proposal would fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan requirements relating to the siting of commercial land to serve the residents of the community. This goal is satisfied. Goal 9 - Economic Development. Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendment(s) would increase commercial opportunities through expansion of existing General Commercial areas and/or siting of new ones. This goal is satisfied. Goal 10 - Housing. Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels. The amendment [would make it easier to locate/would make it easier to expand existing] general commercial land use designations [within/to] residential areas. This may result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available to housing units. On the other hand, the basic restriction of locating general commercial land in areas surrounded by residential districts remains unchanged; and the proposal may result in better use of existing general commercial land through expansion of inefficient sites, thus reducing the need to site locate new commercial sites. For these reasons, staff finds that this proposal would not significantly affect the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing at various prices throughout the city. To maintain compliance with the housing goal, every proposed quasi- judicial plan map amendment is analyzed and evaluated for its affect on the goal's requirements and for compliance to OAR 660-07 (Metropolitan Housing Rule). This goal is satisfied. Staff Report City of Tigard/City Council Hearing DE NOVO Page 4 March 13, 1996 _410 111:k -edit XX William Cox 0244 SW California Street CITY OF TIGARD Portland, OR 97219 = OREGON . - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION CPA96-0003 Dear Bill, • This letter is in response to the application materials submitted on behalf of the ABECO Corporation to initiate an amendment of Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1, and provisions related to density transfer. Staff have found the application to be incomplete according to TCDC 18.32.050. In order for staff to deem this application complete, the following issues and items need to be addressed and included in the application: • Submit a revised application which includes a proposed Zone Ordinance amendment. The current application only addresses amending the Comprehensive Plan. • The application should include proposed policy and code language. The current application does not contain examples of either. • The application should be revised in light of the fact that the current policy and code do not include wetlands as areas from which 25% of the density can be transferred. The current application assumes that they are included. • The assumptions used in the calculations on page 18 of the application are incorrect. These calculations assume that all wetlands are outside of 100 year floodplain areas. In fact 80% of the city's identified wetland areas are within the 100 year floodplain. The calculations also incorrectly assume that 25% of the density can be transferred from these wetland sites. • Final submittal should include 25 copies of the proposal. The application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 96-0003 will be deemed complete when the above information is provided. We recognize the initial application was submitted to the city within the time limits set by our code for legislative plan amendments. Additional materials must be submitted, however, by March 30th in order for staff to do a complete analysis and the Planning Commission to hear your proposal on May 6, 1996. You understand, of course, that while your proposal may have merit, an incomplete application could result in a recommendation for denial or long term delay until the issue fits the staff work program. If you have any questions ,please call me at 639-4171. Sincerely, Nels Mickaelson Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 January 2, 1996 *so- 4 4AI- /� r Mr. William Cox CITY OF TIGARD 0244 SW Califomia Street Portland, OR 97219 OREGON Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Bill: This letter is in response to your letter dated December 11, 1995. I would like to address some of the questions presented in that letter. As discussed in your pre-application conference on October 31, 1995,wetlands are not eligible for density transfer. Your letter referenced Section 18.92.030 and 18.92.020(A)(1) as the applicable criteria for density transfer, and did so correctly. Since wetlands are not one of the three sensitive lands listed in 18.92.020(A)(1), they are not eligible for density transfer...Further, Comprehensive Plan Implementation Strategy 3, which you also cited, specifically limits the transfer to 25 percent. The only way to allow a density transfer of any kind, is to list wetlands under 18.92.020(A)(1). The purpose of our October 31st pre-application meeting was to discuss the process through which such language could be added into the code. The process would be through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Ordinance Amendment application. As discussed, to submit such an application would require an extensive narrative which addresses all Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code sections which would be amended. As the applicant, you are free to request what you think would be an appropriate percentage to transfer. Staff would recommend that the percentage requested be applied to all sensitive land areas, not just wetlands. Applications for a legislative change are permitted twice yearly. The completed application shall be submitted not more than 75 days, and not less than 45 days before the first Commission meetings in April and"October. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to meet on April 8, 1996. Enclosed is an application form. The fee is$706.00. If you feel another pre-application conference is necessary to further discuss this matter, please contact Will D'Andrea to set a conference date. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at 639-4171. Sincerely, / • James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director LUogfnturptnt iU x.ltr Enclosures (2) 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 . .. . , . _ ,-• . .g.2,Asti,44:;,4,,:., i4,--,,;:•,,:i„,.,;;f,,:.;,,,kit.,..,; 1.::),1z;.,1•••:;•7x-...:";...,4;j;•44.;:fr,z17(.4,14 _ ,.4V,v,,4.,..;,•,;?;:r,, ,i,4c...1-gtYgA:4:ii-:',:•.-,.,:;;;.,„......i...,:::::;••:-. - ,:-. ,- ..-_:;-.t.. - „--0.;,:,,,fiiiii:,•.:4*." 4:W;i3, -;,Fx&';,..;:,-,;, __ :,.., . .....-,.'';,:fili'....,"" a 4. .•;G -.,,1 2'. • -',...': 9 RO ,OSElit: , --------,,:tf:-: -,,f,k,- --3:-m--,.,.::,;z,,,e.,,,_a-co,-4„,V,Fc,V,;;..tkttik,.Qt„.__)tri ,,,.v. -..,,,,..--,•-•:i,..1;-Lr./;1,„4.,„,,::,....7-....,. ... ..,4.4.7.1i.1,1,4.-vd „..,7. ..."-: 7,,,'7.7.: ,-.7.....,,,"P.'.-..•••,-.--_-••,,,,,•••,.:',..,..X..1...;,..1r:....- 4'.'1.4. 1Z.;.=”=,:fA...=-...'..','1.-•-.....,-L,..•:,-1.1 i-..,,.,,iClf.,i'.:::'-.,..Z.:-........„---'',1 Z.:,-1.,-:ft: „..,,..::-..,..-...72,...::,,,,..1,r,„:__: „,..ii.rir.,- z4.2.,f1/21,---4;:b44+,,,, fit&,,... ..., .-,- ”1' ,..,,, -.-,„4-..:-4.,0-i.,....-.--7,,..±,4,;,,r, ....-„z:77,.....tr,,......-,a.,,,,..75........,f--_,...„,-....--, -4...-:,„. . -,.7,-.4..z.,z.i ....r, 17- .7.:'''' t''''''''''2.* '''":":;',". '' ThlrfOrnnilUSt S-..receivfat. .-fl Irli 10.'7",;-'' -':,r:-.'''. . : . .: . ...Ap;trrii retrAv;T:..1,11.,..k., . • ._ ..,........,._,i„..----,-..- ..,.,...--..--: -. , -- -, ---.,, -v- iffirftkodistma---a- -- ---- -.7r-- T".:..\0,.. ..;:':. '''' ',..;1,:`=...::;`:::•":.,t...',.;',,t'-fg:'?",' .1.$50,.,..‘.,,,i......,7,t1.7.2.4,..3 _....... ---1,11,10-4•6115.24- ---: Vr,..4.,h-V-LV-;-, i LeXPOUALII,V1131011,',e ; '...,,k•,--s:4 rr1.-';:t....-;,$7`4:::;:9 ":17.c.,...,,i,-T,',..-1'..4,,, 4.&:,..,,,,,,,,--5',7-i,,,A,a_---•.,.' •::,:.. f....Hi.`. ..."?'?..%:,. •'''',.: 17•,:-.7-,5. ,i,m7,41, ,,,,,?g,i4.4&&;-,bio., ...44,21..;4?"1-,:d&taittit :,..*:. ',,f -;;;.'...-';.=:;, .--...;:e;-:''',:, -'''--,,r ,?&=-:.--iiL.,-''''- "-;-• tx-,V-1,';:L.4:-,,'L^';',47102.--;-_,L4-.1-1, ',..,?'",,,,;14,;;",;-... '-t•-= ---::-;'-",----+-`-' :.4:,-44'X'-•--•,•-1-i41?- "•=,-.-;..-,' 4,r-4-jr•r-'7-_, -;-S-*Nt' -'•-•_!. , - •'• ,-- .:,-,-,-,-..."•=77 "::---*'"-e-7"-' '''.-.':,• -.:,; , -,,,i4:7---5,`;'":7-tf.,.- -,-...-;--7.-'''''', -;i--7-7,%,..-•-t.-'5,ii,75,,-;,.', -,3,71.-,:4,,,,--'' See reverse side for submittal requirements :,--":— ::-.--.f.ii••=:4?,-1?::•=g-444.- i'*•...--''.0-t=5:0"--r-I-li,-.:--z ,•,.. - ••...fi,,...!,.,..,..„.„;:,-. ..--:-.-7-tk,;1.,_ T '''''-ifi,‘ -7 .' ,•. '.' .,- , ' •.., ' 's ,,:4:,."-:t.: ' ,,. ..''','•• ,...:: -,,,*., -.;-;. 4''..-1-4,-tt,:.:'': ''.., - ';'--'''' - ' . ; ; .: ..,, it.•;-i- --•',f.".,-.41-..,--,',Ii ..': .' ' - ' ''1 Jurisdiction , , . 1 ' _. • . , June •11, '1996 ,•." c - = '" Local . 'CPA796-;0003/- ' . - . Date of Final Hearing .,•:• ... _ _ . • ZOA .96-,0004 ' -. - Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD? Yes• x No • , Date ._,. • • • . , • . , . . .' _ • - • .. . • ••• : • - . , . : . , . . . . ,. x • •, . . _. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment „: • • .. ••• -Comprehensive Plan MapAmendment: j: , . - • . — c-k-A-,,.--- • -,-"---,-,,:-.1-•••:', :,,y' "-% .---'. ,: -i•-;.;,,:-, .;47,,z'elv-,:•-;:.i%'•,':g..oz.s."'-q't:" ,t', .-,,,,,.t...1-9`.:7"!it:;-":;-,,lt,77- :7::::',• , ''....'"X Land Use Regulation Amendment - --2-.--•-'---. -'''-7.--Zoning map.Amendmeht‘-';-•':-:','--- ',17,-!--- •s - -• - ... • ',oit•;,-4,-e•,-,-::-. •,•, ..,New,Land Use Regtilationz:,;40: ,-,.-:-.4,i--...f.Ail•: =4,,-:, .1-4,4. .k..yi....1,..:,, .-_,i ...••;2•.;..;••.4.1-.0,0...,441E.,...;..5....:.?4,7,,,,,.-tiw-,..,iO4:,-...-...,:-a.„...F..,-,1-..:...z..,.•;-.....,1; ., ... .., _ . ••••.: ::-.....:,,-..,,..,,,,,t-,,,,:, ••--„,,,..,_-,,,,.•..F :""---"-:'s:„:--,::::-. ':''.. .t.:'-';,'S....li?,Ai:-':•--,:?:-:..-'";1 "=',,,::=Ei.:Z.:44.;a1--1-z-,:-='-'" ,‘-aC:e*-. :ZZ::41'i'ik;:°;: i%-::`1-;t'l-'1-`:::".:l';'':":''''''--"":' ":-''''.14;- -'1th:1-6'.--'Z'-‘1-1.1...-.: -."4:-'-'4:=14;:'1.'''''-1:-2 '-'''. ,7.-.. , :,-. .,-' -,-, -- "—'- %.- ''..,'-'-,-..'-:,', '-,-,,:”.:!".;'4,4kr,"? ,'"'''117.'1 '::',1'...jr:'''..:?,--•':''',:,;,.oi!",;.1"--":7-.1Y.s%,-,:',.,',-.-'4,-",`''''''',':1',.`g';':-.,:, '..--.' : " '", , !:, ':', ", ',''' '-'1-"."-:.,,,.:."=""'"'.!.i'",':.":',` '', :'--:''- ' .. --- lh proposal Eii• '- ' technical.- '-' t ' o• ' t 'tit' "S -Attach d Briefly summarize e ,. O not use ,pips..: o no w e ee e .,,,,,•-•_:„.i.i,•...:- .----•,.... ••• ;, 4-1',,,::-.,z.:• -•-•••:.`,•-•,' -,=', ,-.,:•••1.•-•:.----•.: -' - --•-, ,•:••"- -_,:z.-',,‘•-----•1,-*-7,--- ---..,,"--:;'..,4 .-'7:-.;•.,..-,v..••,:..;':,f:..,5-'1'..-'';'\''•-•;%:'..i -i';,': ... •.:.:-,,:,.., ,1 '-_., ,Amend the text of- the-,,Housing,..zsection,-(•of,,the-..ComprehensiveiziPlari::::bii.';','': ,:., ,..4.„,_.,,_i,i,...,;•,aurend..■.neec 4.s r ---' c ing ,pe9 1 f ii t cya,as: oi.l ows6s....w1 i.l4_:674-e1:-:-,0I1m,p-..--AweeimtAelnvtafwtio;nfikStfvdtrae.:g8.-iyiii-,,.3, koaitif )olfcii:itwiieiiceAfttii ,,, :',,;...• • vhithR,..residentialt'rdeifEltiiiiljefilitlieftraiiiiife'feed,7--an&f-t-i-k-xemove•,-the-langtia0' - , which allows no more than : 25$.`,4reSidelii-lal apuy 1-r ails fin,- -f roil) a 11 '- --,-.-- ----2, .r. -:-.of,,-...-If.-------.:--'----z-.1i-::•:-. ...... .,,4,,.. ,, ,,,,, sensitlieeliraridateasr -The-,„..:appkication.,also----proposes4auklamendmentcto:-.1-,", - ' 44:::'-'.!;,-..--...-1 -5,:ttf..,!.:.:::'4,-•:,. :,. :::.f-:=.: --..?,-.-;,---,,,c....:,[;,;,,:-..w-.-.., -,,i,,,,,,,z:-....,;.,c.:-•:- ..,ilak.,,,t„,;;;?.k.i:-.,,,',..,y, ',-- - % -,-4:-.. ,,.-.,-:- ,-=---.7...-7.-,,,,,. ..,.•,...r...=.1.i,..;,,..,..,..:. .-... :;., „,.....-.-,':•,. :•. ,.,- - ' Ti.vd.Lt..1 Cpunnunity,,Develppmentcode Itk..92..0.31V..to,.:,allow,,,100. percent density-. • ... -, -. ::... .,-,e---... -:-. ,i,-.-..-...,..,.,•.•-:,....•....,:•,:ilcs:i..•..,:-,;4,..,..„-...., ,,-,•• - .. • ••, - , , - ',"'"f--' ':•••"_:,;•.;-';?'---;' transfer .:from',all. sensitive:-.Lana'''areas.-.4.......: c--=A4,'--,;,, ---- ' - ' ''''.., - - • . ' ','"" •-.'" i•-•;.. ,4„-.-'. .,-iii.„.:,.;:;',..-;<,-•..,-.::...;...;5;P-S.qtt,,`.4.'"4,4. ,;. :;,::, ,,A1,,.,, , ,.i'4,-- .;'17';". t- „,t;,.tt,s-Ak-..,.t1.4-4*,t.4.1,',--,,t'eNZ.,,l'W.',, .:',.f#',''.;,"-"''''':2'''-'1,,Vt.'I-',I•.c.;3-4 -:.,47,:_;;;,2";'''')'',:a"'"I' '•4.`rt11°',1;,;','":6":":::::. ( % -. .1ittlt:-. V`, , I ... .-.47:*tftr,p,17474'f.re,iin-,74,-4,,k,z,,AV,iri'-'4:1,TV:TAgti76- 0S',4...,s7r. .,4,,F,-*-*.,„ozf,-.',v,:',',-"ir....V.t.Y.:,71.,..:c07•:•:ii.:.?,•.-i.,*:f,A '.:.:i•.'. ..*.',..7t4Tfe;.- "'..t.i.;fill`,.:.-r-W.',,''',.55, , ": .. -.,. - , , • . • . . ': . • ' "I. - -.• - '• Plan Map Change From .- n/a .. , . ,.:•• -, ,.. ..:c- :„ •• Zone Map Change From ::'" ' • • ':7 ...: ; •', . • • . ,- .Citywide '- Location - '- - '--- • :e . '-- ' "-- ' T• - '', Acres Involved: I n/a • ' ; - • Specified change in Density: Current Density n/a Proposed Density n/a : . _ . • Applicable Goals: 11, 2, 5,. E, 2--,LLLda,...ls an Exception proposed? Yes . , . 11,, 12,: 13, 14 . .: - „ : _ . , . -. ..„ .. _ . . • . . , . . . Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: Metro and DLCD . . ' .,. - - -- - • - ' . . . . . . . . .: • - - . . . . . • , • . . . _ Local Contact: . Nels mickaelson, • . • Phone: 639-4171, ext. . 321. _ . . • . Address: City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, OR 97923 _ . ,.. • .- :._ - • - • • , ' : _________--=====-,=-;_===_______=.-_-----====_-_==_- _________=-_-_______._=----,•-,.:L. • , . . . - . • : 1;szi,t,-4-,-;,,,,tri--,,.-•.,:- " , •- -. ,-,-.•-:."-•:-,•:.-,-.:,:•-•,, ...,.-•'-r::':•:.ir:;'"t'1,rt-,-.'V...'.Y'trW.ETI,'',7.•-i".':'1,-..v• •-••;•-t.- -.-•,, -r: •- .-• : ' :,- - " , •;"7 -. .';'. .." • DLCD File# ' --- ' -:,- - • • ' 7 ' -4- "'-Date Rec'd:-.`' • - - ' -': - #Days Notice - •--,---- -,- ' ---- • , . .„ . • Proposed Policy and Code Change Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1(3) is proposed to be written as follows. The language in brackets is to be deleted and the italicized bold print language is to be added. The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g., steep slopes [or] floodplains, or wetlands to develop to their full zoned density with density transfers allowable on the site. [No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred]. Community Development Code 18.92.030 would be revised as follows. The language in brackets is to be deleted and the italicized bold print language is to be added. A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18.92.020 (A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on [25 percent of] the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; 2. The number of units is limited to [25] 100 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 3. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation." P 335 802 151 US Postal Service i Re fofi Mail No Insurance ceipt Coverage r Certi Provided.ed Do not use for International Mail See reverse Sent to Street&Number T 5T• N Post Office,State,&ZIP Code ��-65`EC) y2 1-15 Postage $ `0 11:2111111 , l0 Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee IIIIIIIIIIII rn Return Receipt Showing to Whom&D- % i:.: :• .n Return R 4 -;.ui9;r ro� ''t Q Date,r.:L:' :SAdd " C age i£Fees '$= ,CM ..i CO Postm ;• II ataif g ^�/ o 1hi70U`- to (/J i,.ci ., cn + - -- - Ili. i d SENDER: - y •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the m •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for a----,‘ 'I I ` ■Pr d your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): > •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. 1:1 Addressee's Address 1 permit. Z d ■Write'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. El Restricted Delivery w •The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date .. 1 c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. .L d 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number m cc 1 ORe&oJ PLOD P 335-50Z_ IS-I E � , 4b.Service Type 3 I, o I li S- CPU i STQF;T N N d Registered Certified is cn w C KI C i 0 9131 j �0— £ 5O 0 Express Mail 0 Insured I) cc `J ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD 0 7.Date of 4'v 9 199b if a� 5.Received By:(Pont Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested 1 ,l w and fee is paid) co c 6.S'gFlaf a(Addresse A nt ~('X/1,,,th' -/ageri . , PS-Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt • • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. C—PAci&—CO c -5 OTHER CASE NO'S: RECEIPT NO. C1(p -�7(Z 5 APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: � / � //( DATE: 62 Z %qcp of 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION i si Ar max i nFC inn ✓('A) Application form (1) 4600 . 4700 —17& Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. See abovo authorization I ,/CC) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE (pre-app check list) e3 _ 5 acres PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* See Atmendix::3 ✓(D) Filing fee (t-/NY5 ADDRESS 9.W. Lnngstaff St_ PHONE 24F,—ri4gc) Additional information for Compre- CITY Tigard ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes APPLICANT* AMC() CORPOPATION k___,/(E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS 6205 S .W. Carman Dr . PHONE699-1771 location (pre-app check list) CITY r.AKE QSWFGO, OREGON ZIP 97035 ✓(F) List of property owners and *When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record ) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization ) Title transfer instrument (1) from the owner or an agent of the owner with written EAiz.Pc-ssr MONsyy authorization. The owner(s) must sign this ��+x2EEM�T O�Jly application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from to and a Zone Change from to N.P.O. Number: OR The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code Rc c t ri-t ices• to rPsldpntial density trancfarc frnw City Council Approval Date: wPtlanrlq 0737P/23P Revd: 5/87 • o 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered ' as part of this application: . 4. Applicants : To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. , 5. THE APPLICANT(S)• SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. • B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. M DATED this pC --- day of ,�' 19 q , SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. 4 i/ _Aie .. _/% /r. Ab 4Fri _ _A'' _"4/ / art/ e . ; L4 ' 1 (KSL:pm/0737P) • 0 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP SEE ALSO LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE Assessor' s Map Maps/Preliminary Plat Notification _Legal Description/Deed Surrounding Property Notice ____Letter of Authorization Affidavit of Mailing __Copies of Correspondence with Applicant Agency/NPO Notice __Public Input a-Wk /Ua liuv Publication Agency/NPO Comments (Affidavit of Mailing) Articles/Notices from IT Final Action—Date(s) Staff Report(s)/Director Decision Application/Narrative _ Appeal PC Action Date CC Action Date _ Correspondence after approval Final Action Notice Deed Document SUMMARY Approved Denied No. of Lots Special Setbacks Recording Date Book/Page No. KL/bjs(0616P) . • IWilliam C. Cox attorney at law Land Use and Development Consultation Project Management 1 UCITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST (revised) CHANGE OF WETLAND DENSITY TRANSFER LIMITATIONS GENERAL INFORMATION Property Address: 1S1 35AC, Tax Lots 100, 4600, 4700 t S.W. Longstaff Street adjacent to and South of Highway 217 Property size: Approximately 3 . 5 acres ' Property owners: ABECO Corporation-Contract Purchaser Tax Lot 100 . . .Brock and Margaret Dixon ' Tax Lots 4600 and 4700 . . .Phylis Hresty Applicant: ABECO Corporation ' 6205 S.W. Carman Dr. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503) 699-1771 ' Representative: William C. Cox, Attorney at Law 0244 S.W. California Street Portland, Oregon 97219 (503) 246-5499 PROPOSAL SUMMARY ' Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment The applicant and applicant' s representative, with authority ' from property deed holders, requests an amendment to the text of Comprehensive Plan Housing Policy 6 . 1 . 1, Implementation Strategy U -1- ' 0244 S.W. California Street • Portland, Oregon 97219 • (503) 246-5499 • FAX (503) 244-8750 • . t3 , and related provisions which limit density transfers from physical constraint areas to "no more than 25%" . The ABECO site contains an area of wetland. Tigard Planning Department staff have indicated that Wetland property is not allowed any density transfer. Land use regulations add the term drainageway to the Ilist of physical characteristics governed by the 25% density transfer limitation but the wetland on the ABECO site is neither a drainageway, a floodway nor floodplain. According to Tigard ' Community Development staff this Comprehensive Plan amendment is necessary to modify Policy 6 . 1 . 1 so wetlands will not suffer from any density transfer limitation. Applicant requests that 100% density transfers be allowed for wetland areas . Zoning Code Text Amendment In addition to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, applicant' s ' request will necessitate the amendment of Community Development SCode (CDC) section 18.92 .020 (A) (1) as implemented by CDC 18 . 92 . 030 which, according to Tigard planning staff, presently ' implements Policy 6 . 1 . 1 (3) and also works to limit density transfers from wetland areas . CDC 18 . 92 . 030 presently states in pertinent part : A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18 . 92 . 020 (A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations : 1 . The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have ' been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; ' 2 . The number of units is limited to 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been ' -2- • • constructed on the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and ' 3 . The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. " " B. All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable ' underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18 . 80, Planned Development . (Ord. 89-06 ; Ord. 83-52) " The immediate request by ABECO only references wetlands located on residentially zoned land. The reasons stated in the ' remainder of this document for accepting 100% density transfer from wetlands would be equally as valid when analyzing all circumstance where a portion of a residentially zoned site contains any type of physical restraint . One hundred percent transfer of density onto more buildable portions of a site is in keeping with the concept of fostering compact urban development . PROPOSED POLICY AND CODE LANGUAGE Comprehensive Plan Policy 6 .1 .1 (3) is proposed to be ' rewritten as follows . The language in brackets is to be deleted and the italicized bold print language is to be added. ' "The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a I procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e .g. , steep slopes [or] floodplains, or wetlands to develop to their full zoned density with density transfers allowable on the site . ' [No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred] . Community Development Code 18 . 92 . 030 would be revised as ' follows . The language in brackets is to be deleted and the italicized bold print language is to be added. -3- ' • • • ' A. "Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Subsection 18 . 92 . 020 (A) (1) from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable ' land areas subject to the following limitations : 1 . The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on [25 percent of] the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; ' 2 . The number of units is limited to [25] 100 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area if not for ' these regulations; and 3 . The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. " I "All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18 . 80 , Planned Development . (Ord. 89-06 ; Ord. 83-52) " IAPPROVAL CRITERIA STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES State law requires that local land use plans be consistent ' with the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. City of Tigard has determined that the statewide planning goals and guidelines numbers 1 through and including 14 are relevant to a Comprehensive Plan textual amendment request . Those goals are ' addressed as follows : ' Goal #1 "To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all ' phases of the planning process. " ' -4- • • Comment: The proposed comprehensive plan text change will not alter the existing notice or appearance standards in the existing ' Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Those standards have been reviewed and acknowledged by the LCDC as being in compliance with this goal . Goal #2 "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. ' X X X X X "All land use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed, revised on a periodic cycle to take into account changing public I policies and circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and ' revision of plans and implementation ordinances . " Comment: ' The subject comprehensive text and ordinance amendment is being processed in the spirit of this goal . As the need to increase residential densities within the Portland Metropolitan Area Urban Growth Boundary becomes more acute it is logical and responsive to change to seek ways to remove unnecessary obstacles to achieving that higher density. This modest request will work to encourage the preservation of wetland areas by removing the negative value impacts associated with the loss of density allocated to the wetland area. By allowing 100% density transfer to land adjacent to the wetland area the goals of increased -5- r • • density and resource preservation can better be accommodated at less of a negative impact to a land owner' s property value . 1 Goal #3 ' "To preserve and maintain agricultural lands" . Comment: This goal is not involved in this textual change application since the lands which will be impacted will have already been zoned for residential development . To the extent that any agriculture land would become involved it would be in the future when a zone change or other land use decision is made . At that time the Comprehensive Plan map and text changes would address agricultural land. Goal #4 "To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state' s forest economy by ' making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use of forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, ' and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. " ' Comment: This goal is not involved in this textual change application since the lands which will be impacted will have already been zoned for residential development . To the extent that any forest land would become involved it would be in the future when a zone change or other land use decision is made . At ' that time the Comprehensive Plan map and text changes would address forest lands . Goal #5 "To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. " 110 Comment: The subject comprehensive text and ordinance amendment is being processed in the spirit and purpose of this goal . As the need to increase residential densities within the Portland ' Metropolitan Area Urban Growth Boundary becomes more acute it is logical and responsive to change to seek ways to remove ' unnecessary obstacles to achieving that higher density. This modest request will work to encourage the preservation of wetland areas by removing the negative value impacts associated with the ' loss of density allocated to the wetland area. By allowing 100% density transfer to land adjacent to the wetland area the goals ' of increased density and resource preservation can better be accommodated at less of a negative impact to the land owner' s ' property value . ' Goal #6 "To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. " I Comment: ' This request is consistent with the intent and spirit of this goal . The very concept of compact urban areas and controlled ' urban growth which are the keystones of the Urban Growth Boundary concept is to contain growth so as to better utilize existing infrastructure and reduce auto omissions. By allowing the 11 transfer of 100% density onto housing resource land from wetland areas the theory of this goal is accommodated while being sensitive to what may otherwise be considered conflicting plan provisions, i . e . unnecessary loss of density due to limited ' transferability from wetlands . • • Goal #7 "To protect life and property from natural disasters ' and hazards. " Comment: This goal addresses the need to subject development to appropriate safeguards. It warns against locating development in areas of natural disasters and hazards without appropriate safeguards . This goal is not directly applicable to this request . Tigard Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations already control lands subject to natural hazards such as steep slopes and floodplains . The proposed text change will not alter those safeguards . The text change will not allow intrusion onto unstable ground or ground subject to floods . It merely allows the transfer of density to property capable of accommodating that density. In fact, as mentioned above, by reducing the incentive to develop in wetlands and allowing the maintenance of density already zoned for the property as a whole this textual change advances this goal . IGoal #8 "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. " Comment: This request is not impacted by this goal . iGoal #9 "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon' s citizens. " I ' -8- 1 • • Comment: This goal is applicable to any activity undertaken by humans in the State of Oregon and City of Tigard. Its purpose is to assure that comprehensive plans and policies contribute to a stable and healthy economy for the State and Tigard. The ' comprehensive plans are to be based on inventories of areas suitable for increased economic growth and activity after taking into consideration, among a list of subjects, materials and 1 energy availability and cost; labor market factors; availability of key public facilities; necessary support facilities; current market forces; availability of renewable and non-renewable resources; availability of land; and pollution control requirements . ' This goal has its primary zoning focus on commercial and industrial land. However, its general concepts can not be ignored ' when discussing the residential development industry. The 11 emphasis in the goal on consideration of energy costs, labor market, current market forces and the availability of land is relevant to the requested text amendment . Many of the jobs being created in the electronics industry are not as high paying as those being lost in the traditional Oregon economic base . This, combined with a rapid decrease in the availability of residentially zoned property to shoulder the influx of labor to Ifill the new economic base results in the need to seek every avenue available to keep the cost of housing as low as possible. ' By allowing a 100% density transfer from wetlands to suitable residential land the availability of the additional housing units -9- i 11 I • • should help deflect some of the imbalance in the present supply- demand ratio for residential housing in the Portland Metropolitan Area. See discussion under goal 10 infra. Goal #10 "To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. " Comment: A key element in this goal is the concept of buildable lands . The goal indicates that comprehensive plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. Buildable lands refers to urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use . ' The existing Tigard Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations limiting the transferability of resident density associated with wetlands is having the effect of limiting ' Tigard' s ability to comply with this goal . Removal of the present restriction to transferring 100% of a wetland' s density will increase the availability of residential housing stock by allowing the total density of a site to be located on land ' suitable for the use intended. The evidence that such increased housing stock is necessary is easily found by reference to the Urban Growth Boundary expansion debates now being dealt with by Metro. In a recent case out of the Land Use Board of Appeals the ' concept of a local government needing to look hard at any means -10- 11 r • . • of increasing density within an existing urban growth boundary was brought to light . In 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of North Plains, 27 Or Luba 372 (1994) the Land Use Board of Appeals ' found, in adopting the argument of co-petitioner Department of Land Conservation and Development, that before a city can justify ' expanding its urban growth boundary it must attempt to increase density, via density transfers, within its existing. boundary. LUBA stated at 27 Or Luba 408-409 : "The City' s position that it has only 24 acres of land buildable for housing, and thus not enough to accommodate the projected [year] 2010 population, is unsupported. Although some of the City' s land that is zoned for housing and currently undeveloped is in a flood plain and therefore not buildable, the city has a `density transfer' clause in its acknowledged plan. By that clause, the City can increase the density in another area of buildable land to make up for the planned for, but unbuildable housing in the floodplain area. The City did not analyze the impact of that ' clause . The City cannot justify a UGB expansion based on a need for housing when it has not analyzed its options to accommodate additional housing within its ' current boundaries. " Bold emphasis added. While the facts in that case are not identical to those which surround this request they are very similar and the thrust of DLCD and LUBA' s reasoning can not be ignored. The fact that ' Tigard' s plan arbitrarily limits density transfers from wetland ' areas will become an issue to the City if it ever wishes to expand its UGB . By changing the text now, as proposed in this request, that future problem can be eliminated. In addition to the above identified reasoning of DLCD and ' LUBA the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has adopted Administrative Rules which require proof that sufficient ' -11- 1 • • reasoning has been undertaken and documented to support Tigard' s limitation density transfer. For example Oregon Administrative tRule 660-07-015 states : ' "Local approval standards, special conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing must be clear and objective, and must not have the effect, either of themselves or cumulatively, of ' discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. Emphasis added The limitation of zoned density transfer has the effect of unreasonably increasing the cost of housing within the City of Tigard because of the limitation' s impact on housing supply while demand is growing rapidly. The requested text change will ' eliminate that negative impact . Another administrative rule adopted by the LCDC indicates the practice of limiting density transfers from wetlands is questionable . OAR 660-08-000 , which was created to assist in implementing goal 10 , states : " (1) The purpose of this rule is to assure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units, the efficient use of buildable land within urban growth boundaries, and to provide greater certainty in the development process so as to reduce housing costs . ' This rule is intended to define standards for compliance with Goal 10 "Housing" and to implement ORS 197 . 303 through 197 . 307 . " ' To this author the unnecessary limiting of housing density transfers from wetland areas would seem to be inconsistent with LCDC polity. For those who would argue that Tigard is dense enough now why encourage more density, the subject proposal does not alter the existing density. It merely allows existing zoned density to -12- • • become an actuality. The LCDC has indicated by rule what Tigard' s fair share of the region housing must be. That figure is found in OAR 660-07-035 which indicates Tigard must maintain an average ' density of 10 housing units or more per acre . If Tigard' s present density is 10 units an acre the allowance for 100% density transfer will maintain that . If Tigard' s existing density is less than 10 units per acre then the proposed textual amendment will ieliminate a hinderance to Tigard ultimately achieving the 10 unit ' per acre mandate . As OAR 660-07-035 states : "The following standards shall apply to those jurisdictions which provide the opportunity for at ' least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing or multiple family housing: L " (3) Multnomah County and the cities of Portland, Gresham, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego and Tigard must provide for an overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre.' It is this author' s understanding that when net buildable acres ' were calculated in Tigard, inventoried as well as uninventoried ' wetlands were not subtracted from the calculation of net buildable acre . The existing Tigard Comprehensive Plan did not I 1 (3) "Buildable Land" means residentially designated ' vacant and, at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within the Metro urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by natural hazards (Statewide Planning ' Goal 7) or subject to natural resource protection measures (Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15) . Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use . Land with slopes of 25 percent or greater unless otherwise provided for at ' the time of acknowledgment and land within the 100-year floodplain is generally considered unbuildable for purposes of density calculations . OAR 660-07-005 (3) 1 ' -13- S • `net-out' wetlands even if they are now recognized as part of a Goal 5 resource inventory. Since they were not `netted out' then their density should not merely be dismissed or reduced by 75% in ' the final accounting without a corresponding reduction in Tigard' s buildable lands housing inventory figures . ' The need to better utilize the existing land within the UGB is not just an other city' s problem. Regional Coordination to ' accommodate the growing population' s housing need is a ' requirement of LCDC goals and rules . OAR 660-08-030 states : " (1) Each local government shall consider the needs of the relevant region in arriving at a fair allocation of ' housing types and densities . (2) The local coordination body shall be responsible ' for ensuring that the regional housing impacts of restrictive or expansive local government programs are considered. The local coordination body shall ensure ' that needed housing is provided for on a regional basis through coordinated comprehensive plans . The requested comprehensive plan textual change is not only good ' for the applicant it is good for Tigard and the entire ' Metropolitan region. Goal #11 ' To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. ' Comment: The requested textual amendment aids in achieving goal Iii . The increased percentage of density that can be transferred as a result of the text amendment aids in the efficient use of ' public facilities and services . The City of Tigard has already adopted a public facilities plan which is designed to service the ' areas within its boundaries according to their zoning. Assuring ' -14- • . • the use of those facilities to their design capacity results in their efficient use as required by the goal . ' Goal #12 ' "To provide and encourage a safe,, convenient and economic transportation system" . ' Comment: The impact of the proposed textual change on existing and planned transportation systems is a theoretical increase the ' number of riders on mass transit . The increased number of housing units within the UGB resulting from 1000 density transfer is ' consistent with the desire for a more efficient use of mass ' transit systems . The increased number of infill units resulting from this proposed amendment adds to the number of people who will use the already existing and tax payer subsidized Tri-Met operation. This is the alternative to leap-city commuter ' dependent development in areas such as McMinnville, Dundee, Lafyette . ' Goal #13 ' "To conserve energy" . Comment: This goal emphases the need to assure that land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles . The subject request is in conformance with this goal since its effect will be to increase the number of housing units which can be located on infill lots or tracts . This ' is a key component in the Urban Growth Boundary concept . By increasing the efficiency of land uses within the UGB the cost of ' servicing new development will be decreased on a per-capita I -15- 1 • • ' basis . This in turn results in the conservation of energy types needed to accommodate the needs of Tigard' s citizens such as the use of mass transit instead of the automobile, less necessity to ' manufacture and install utility lines over unoccupied distances, etc . ' Goal #14 "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition ' from rural to urban land use. " Comment: Much of the discussion about the compatibility of the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment with the first 13 goals is equally applicable to the discussion of this goal . Goal 14 requires that development of land within the Urban Growth ' Boundary be encouraged before conversion of urbanizable land and that development of urbanizable land be encouraged before 11 development of rural land. This mandate is heavily relied upon as the basis for LUBA' s decision in the aforementioned case of 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of North Plains. Goal 14 also stress ' the need to consider orderly and economic provision of public 11 facilities, the need for housing and the "maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of existing urban areas . All those issues have been discussed earlier in this document . The fneed to allow for use of wetland density to meet all those ' consideration should be abundantly clear. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 11 Different policies apply to specific textual amendments depending upon the nature of the proposed amendment . What follows ' is applicant' s interpretation of the relevant comprehensive plan ' -16- • policies . If any policies are determined to be insufficiently addressed a supplemental amendment document will be submitted. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ' This textual amendment shall comply with and will not alter this policy in any manner. The appropriate neighborhood planning 1 organizations will be notified and their comments will be requested pursuant to the appropriate statutory and code provisions . The applicant will comply with the notice requirements governing comprehensive plan amendments . NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE The portion of this plan policy section relevant to this application it that which deals with wetlands . The proposal does not in any manner alter the goals or policies of the plan regarding the protection of wetlands . The proposed text change will assist in making wetland protection less onerous on the individual property owner. The incentive to intrude onto wetland areas to capture another housing unit will be lessened because ' with 10096 density transfer that additional housing unit can be ' located on the site in a manner which recognizes and protects the wetland. ' According to City of Tigard data the City has inventoried approximately 180 acres of wetland. Applicant' s land is located in the vicinity of the wetland identified on City maps as C-12 . A review of the general mapped location of wetland C-12 is inconclusive as to whether the subject site has any land included in wetland C-12 . If it does fall within the C-12 wetland the I -17- e 410 ' subject site is only minimally included within the boundaries of that wetland area. The proposal will not in any manner deteriorate the protection afforded that wetland or any other wetland by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. (See wetland map in the appendix to this application) . AIR, WATER & LAND RESOURCES QUALITY This policy relates to Statewide Planning Goal #6 . The main ' thrust of the policy is to protect the public from being overburdened with untreated waste and process discharges from future development . The subject application will not negatively impact the purposes or intent of this plan provision. The necessary waste and process discharge containment systems are in the vicinity of the site and will be connected to the on-site systems . In relation to air quality the proposed text change will allow the overall goal of maintaining or improving existing air quality protection to be better met . By furthering compact growth and urban growth boundary infill the goal of protecting the ' region' s air shed from automobile exhaust inundation will be implemented by the corresponding increase in the opportunity for people to use mass transit . ' ECONOMY This proposal furthers the action plan identified in Tigard' s Comprehensive Plan relating to this policy. The most directly applicable action plan is found in the portion of the policy dealing with Tigard' s municipal codes . The action plan states, regarding municipal codes, that : -18- I • • "Within the Tigard Community Development Code modifications have been and will continue to be made to existing processes to streamline development ' application periods, to provide flexibility in some land use areas and to allow maximum economic use of land. Emphasis added The subject proposal will definitely assist in assuring that the maximum economic use of land will occur. By allowing full density transfer from wetland areas land owners are better able to 1 realize full economic use of their lands . The existing plan and code provisions relating to wetlands punish the land owners for having wetlands on their property. Those negative regulations actually work against the goal of maximizing land use and protection of wetland. Economy policy implementation strategy 13 (c) states that Tigard will "aid in the effective utilization of the land, energy and human resources . " The proposed text change implements that 1 strategy. HOUSING This chapter of Tigard' s comprehensive plan is designed to implement statewide planning goal #10 . However implementation ' strategy 3 to policy 6 . 1 . 1 and implementation strategy 3 to policy 6 . 4 . 1 are inconsistent with the purpose of the housing goal . 1 As discussed above, the buildable lands inventory, a key element in Tigard' s housing plan and policies, did not "net-out" the density associated with wetlands . The "survey of vacant buildable lands in the Tigard plan area, " (see appendix) only netted out slopes exceeding 25% and floodplain areas . The ' -19- 1 • inventory figures were created by multiplying the net acreage for each specific zone by the density factor allowed in the zone . By including wetland areas in the net acreage and multiplying by the 11 applicable zone but then only allowing the zoned density associated with the wetland acreage overstates the total number of housing units allowed by Tigard. An analysis of existing data reflecting the total inventoried wetland areas within the city on residential zoned land indicates an overstatement in the gross amount by about 1357 housing units (see appendix) .2 Furthermore, as is discussed above, under the heading of statewide goal 10 , the City is overstating the number of units per acre it is planning to accommodate within its planning area . Since LCDC has mandated an average of 10 units per acre the approximately 12% overstatement (1, 357 of a total projection of 11, 769) will detract from the City' s ability to meet its regional fair share of housing. The herein proposed textual change will eliminate that result . ' PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES The very concept of containing population growth within the metropolitan urban growth boundary and Tigard' s urban growth i 2 The percentage of wetland acreage which is also impacted by floodplain has not been determined. This figure may be inaccurate since the wetland area which is also within the floodplain area would actually be allowed a 25% density transfer. The wetland without any floodplain is not allowed any density transfer according to discussions with City staff . A more accurate figure, assuming the floodplain factor is to remain in the Comprehensive Plan even if the wetland areas are granted 100 % transfer rights, would be arrived at by determining the amount of wetland area is also classified as in a floodplain. 11 -20- ' • ' boundary is predicated upon the belief that urban infill will allow efficient, effective and economical use of public facilities . This proposal to remove a hinderance to urban infill will further that concept . TRANSPORTATION ' This policy implements statewide goal 12 . The comments made in this text change application regarding goal 12 are equally 1 applicable to this plan policy. The above discussion regarding ' public facilities and services is also appropriate comment on this policy issue . ' ENERGY This policy implements statewide goal 13 . The comments made ' in this text change application regarding goal 13 are equally applicable to this plan policy. The above discussion regarding public facilities and services is also appropriate comment on ' this comprehensive plan policy. URBANIZATION This policy implements statewide goal 14 . The comments made in this text change application regarding goal 14 are equally ' applicable to this plan policy. The above discussion regarding public facilities and services is also appropriate comment on this comprehensive plan policy. CONCLUSION This application for comprehensive plan textual change can be viewed as either an opportunity to update Tigard' s plan to assure that it has done what it can to accommodate increased -21- • population growth in the region or a correction of an oversight in the existing plan which works counter to Tigard' s ability to ' comply with provisions of Statewide Goals 10 and 14 . Either way, the City is benefitted by accepting applicant' s request . The applicant encourages Tigard to accept this modest text change proposal . Res.ect ul y bmitted, lliam C. Cox, Attorney for Applicant ABECO WCC/abh I I I 1 I 1 ' -22- lis ....W.114°..::%\b,,-2700 Bp 4)%i,,. ° ! t .m 4 1�.• - 0 • �1 r .. P. b W u, "V Zs°° y• o.13 Ac G f4 -� SO C 2500 y�0L, I 1 ;-1C m • a .53 Ae. 2400 4600 •7k, 5 1 .� ►. .45 At. 1.OSAc. x 4) s u • n 41s.• Id it. . .. /_ei so�1� � ~ 19 »�','sO•r + 101 . W 0 5000 5100 yj1, .21A4 C.i7Aa _ .20A4 - ,y as o ° /Kt ; 2 o . ;1993-0 40 140• }'' _ Tit.....� a : _ • . yo 3 �0.9Se9'"�spp0'Od'lr �� S.44 C N. �.t4 CN. sa_s / •• �'M 5.11 . :2:.44 LO N GS�iA�F :ss.« STREET s.r.s• 'WS. 4 /> . a tom o 1700 I 100 o .�; - 2.79 Ac. ! 4.2.2 Ac. A 1 :, . . . . -I N j I P it I Et 22 - 1 23 _ 24 a - r ; . • t SEE MAP • es•0o•1 1 4410.3 e,1 MB an — as — — — • -•---- MI — — — — — — — an — — as Received: 2/22/96; 2:46PM; 503 684 7297 => W C COX; #4 02/22/98 14:49 X503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD X1004/007 r • 1 III. SURVEY OF VACANT BUILDABLE LANDS IN THE TIGARD PLAN AREA • ' l( r"re LnwunJ awy v The method used to estimate the amount of buildable land in Tigard is a modified version of that suggested by the CRAG Housing Task Force in 1976. ' The CRAG method was excessively ambitious in terms of its assumptions about the amount of resources which could be devoted to the inventory and was therefore altered to a more usable form. The Tigard survey, for example, I involved measurements on individual parcels, as in the CRAG guidelines, but it ril nnf invu.ut 1ir ;Y*4nw vf £d+: which W I.w. Pawi-rHay awi$ Wt¢ay J CrC1 YpCJ . Institutional and public lands were omitted. Completion date of the original survey was late September, 1981. The survey was updated in October, 1982, and ' again in November, 1993. The Vacant Buildable Land Survey tabulates individual parcels according to the following characteristics: Man M • w^r Tax Account # Zone Designation Plan Designation Neighborhood Planning Organization ' . Total Acreage Vacant Suitability Alnno•z of 9get nr mnro - 100-year Floodplain Other (see below) Vacant buildable acreage was estimated in as consistent a manner as possible using 1982 Washington County Assessor Maps, 1974 quarter section maps (revised •/ 1980 and 1982), and aerial photos (where necessary), existing site plans, ' existing NPO Plan maps, comprehensive plan maps, and field surveys as the information sources. On parcels with industrial or commercial uses, parking lots, outside storage , J vL�r L1.. far L a the /. ai caa, and utnrr arias apparentay necessary i or cne operation or the lousiness L were all considered to be part of the built-on land. Otherwise, the built-on land was assumed to be equivalent to ' the minimum lot size required by the current zoning. Built-on land having residences was generally assumed equivalent to the minimum lot site (on a per gross acre basis) necessary to support the existing structure under current zoning: for example. 0.25 acres for land zoned R-7 (4 units/acre). However, where the placement of the house, its size, number of outbuildings, etc. especially warranted, a large area was ennairiereri as an,4 m,searrru,l • I/ The "other" category was actually a grab-bag catch-all intended to cover landlocked lots, lots with unsuitable configuration (e.g., long lots 50' wide), and especially, residential parcels unlikely to be subdivided or ' Further developed due to the character of the neighborhood, size of the. house compared with the, lot, scattered outbuildings, closeness of the lot to the minimum size required by current zoning, etc. These exclusions required i subjective iurlomani- in manu rases II k- • ' I - 286 me,,.. c,cc, u, .•-. •-� n �vn 02/22/96 14:50 ' '5O3 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 14005/007 11 • IAdditional Notes. r I. The ! iry of Tigard does not guarantee that these data are 100% II t accurate for every parcel in the Tigard plan Area. ,I,tl f .y.., et are estimates calculated to provide the best information For the Plan Area . _ X0,1+.) within the limited period of time available for I as a whole �anv ,.r.. �, --..-.. - -. - the survey. However, for all but a very small Fraction of the pots listed, the data can be regarded as reliable given the assum on involved. The d=t,a was current as of November, 1983. II 1 IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TLw con= „f nrnwth management emerged as a response to control rapid and I ntl a. •,..vp... ... 7• -^ -- --- uncontrolled sprawling growth and its attendant externalitiea. T!:ES•II externalities included environmental degradation, overconsumption of resource lands, and inerricient land Inc r' --°rns_ II Growth results from population and employment increases which in turn create a 4..:.,.1 land: This growth also demand for residential, commercial ann inaui,.,-.a+ .o.,•-• creates a demand. for the provision of public services and facilities. The IC m., etiues have been considered for a growth management system. Existing Growth Management Systems I Tigard has been involved in managing the location and type of growth. The City has managed its growth by coordinating it with the extension of services and expansion of facilities. I '" -F imper"nt elements of this regulatory system are: I riE OKJ D in,'.v, ...-.. Ii. The Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County -rdinaticn of planning activities between regarding tvie Cuurua1. i ... jurisdictions. II • . iw-- wpp,.r•,.t i x I The Annexatior 2. The Annexation Ordinance (No. ii-t-y):taee .,Nr�.p..� I . •- ---- Ordinance establishes a process for creating a straight, compact anc 1n..4..1 hnundaries for the City of Tigard. The ordinance alsc I 1 Physical, provides a mechanism for measuring the environmenca�, FI,Iysical, economic and' social impacts of proposed annexations on the community. / II 3. The Systems Development Charge (SDC). SDC is a financing mechanism 1 ;/' whereby part of the cost for the provision of new capital improvements _L required by growth is borne by new development. II enr, etc used for the operation and maintenance of physical JY1r .a v-r.. �-- _ Facilities. of• new Received: 2/22/96; 2:4/PM; boa 954 7297 => W C Cox; Co 02/22/96 14:50 /2503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD X1006/007 J 1 II ITO: City Council FROM: Planning Department, S. /humid Pishvaie IISUBJECT: Buildable Land Inventory II An inventory of vacant buildable land is an essential step in preparation of the Comprehensive Plan for the future land use allocations within the Urban irowtn isoundary caws). speciiicaiiy, this inventory helps iaenci.ry and IIaddress housing needs of the City. Land use designations included in the vacant-buildable land inventory are: I low, medium, medium-high, and high density residential; different intensities of commercial and industrial land uses. The amount of acreage with slopes exceeding 25% was determined to be .. unoulivaole anu vas ueuucGed eru.. UC 4n.v.CULVly (4 0n b_rc.). L.CbC laud; fall nto a designations g residential, commercial and industrial land uses. ILand in the floodplain was not considered as buildable in this inventory (93.97). New development is presumed to be outside the 100 year flood plain I area. ' .T, ..L..A..1�... ..A ..:rate:. ..l • .A U. h1.e e-. 4..w7...JeA. we.-ws7 e.rm. AUG MG4.11 SY Ruu l.LauRrIR '.14.ii irimu V) �„c o,.z1+ �u..au,.a... 1.oa�o► oaa , Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation, slopes greater than 25Z, II and floodplain area. This inventory was conducted on a tax lot by tax lot basis, with each lot number recorded and researched individually. The data was recorded by Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO) as the major data 11 recording unit and by tax map (section, quarter section). This process gives a total 1983 net buildable figure by zoning designation. I•..�-s..r 1....i aura.-..., if.... h..:1.1.h1v l,.nAl w:fh:n rho (`itvlr 11(_A nhn, rho I YM.... uv Lau.. uoG ya.. cane 1,41~0. u../ was.a.au ....ow waft., .. ww.. wool.... �..w majority of land is designated for a committed to residential uses. Of approximately 1,800 acres of vacant land, 1,309 acres are designated for residential use; of this approximately b7d.Ui acres are designated low density . II and the remaining are designated medium, medium-high and high density i residential. i I More than one half of the remaining 490.72 acres are designated commercial. Th. 1oni1 ,,ca. ,loccifirarinn fr,n,tl rn hauo fawPsr ,1ACicnarvd acres is ..... ♦ ».. rte rw .. a......_ w.. ..w - _..---- ----p..---- --^-- -- industrial with about 224 acres. I ror the purpose of caicuiating he number of new single family and multifamily development, the net acreage for each specific zone was multiplied by the density factor allowed in that zone. ' The result of this calculation is 11,769 new single and multi-family units. i Me rwro�icie Aensity X111 he 9 -nir per art. vh4rh �c T ..nir Inc. rhmn rh_ �, .. .� rte., .. IILCDC density requirement of 10 unit per acre. 02/22/96 14:50 '8`503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD _ ___ X1007/007 • 1111 410 I/ m r:ry .•sw ...wen •La r rnr ..♦ •L........1.. ►..� u..I.' vpu IIL Gt Luc Lvuu 4GW44LGWGLIL 1.III140.15ll. 1. Residential development in the CP and CBD zones, i.e. , allocation of 252. of land at a density of 40 units per acres for that purpose (31.49 acres). This would result in 1,260 additional units. 2. Redevelopment of certain areas in the CBD and Triangle area (as identified in the attached map), i.e., 252 of these area to be "Y°14dvva1nnsi At a 1.0-2ity rf 40 IHni,s nor .c`o (4 5 e....oel TL: ....td :Ad ......�-J .. ,.�. .... ..r ..��ei• �.44Q �v.sau add 383 units to the housing stock. 1 w _L .. wL�n inese Ewo a�.cernaixves the overact density can be raisea to i.7 units per acres. The additional .3 units per acre can be gained through development of accessory structures in the single family residential zones as permitted by the Community Development Code. I 1 I 11 nr:am-(unar) yi --j - Title MICRON AUREMNERT (**� (PURCHASER) I ' 1: V Cpm�fe ► E . 3200-13578-MM . . 9900 SW enburg Rd. 0180 ES OFFICER Mary McDougall ; Portland, OR 99223 DATE: October 9, 1995 I/ . . t A. GENERAL SN9TRUCTXONE; . TO: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, (•Escrow Agent•). I/ Property Descriptions (as shown in Preliminary Title Report issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO. under Order No. 136466 dated 08/30/95, a copy of which has been received and approved by the undersigned.) PURCHASER deposits with Escrow Agent under these instructions sales price in the sum of as follows: $2,000.00 EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT; BALANCE PAYABLE IN CASH AT CLOSING; and will deposit with you such other sums and items as may be required to enable you to compll I with these instructions, which sums and items you are authorized to deliver, release or pay � . over when you hold for the account of the Purchaser the following: • 1. WARRANTY DEED I in form acceptable to Purchaser showing Purchaser's interest; 2. An ALTA (1992) !tom of Owner's Title Insurance Policy providing Standard Coverage in the sum of - insuring Purchaser's interest subject to printed I . conditions, stipulations, exclusions and exceptions to coverage in the usual form, matters attaching by, through, or under the Purchaser, and the following paragraphs of the preliminary title report referenced above: 6, 9-13; I/ . D. PAYMENTS, Purchaser agrees to pay and authorizes payment and deduction from and credit tt • the gross sum above specified in accordance with the Purchaser's Tentative Escrow Statement i attached hereto and made a part hereof. Items shown on the Tentative Escrow Statement may bo adjusted to accommodate exact amounts required at the time of disbursement. C. PRORATE: It is understood that water, sewer, waste collection, electricity and other utility churyea and inventory for fuel will be adjusted between Seller and Purchaser outside ' this escrow. Escrow Agent shall prorate as of DEHD RECORDING the following items: PROPERTY TAXES FROM 9/1/95; ! and charge or credit Purchaser's account accordingly. Assume a 365-day year in any prorate r heroin provided and unless th;e parties otherwise lnstruc[, use Cho amount contai;iad in ttie I las' • t available tax statement (which may include reductions based on any deferral or exemption rental statement as provided by the seller, lender's statement, and fire insurance policies delivered into escrow for the prorate provided above. In the event any lender's statement • reveals a deposit, account or funds for a future payment qbligation of the loan, adjust accordingly. I/ D. RECORDING, Escrow Agent will record/file the necessary legal instruments and then pay of such encumbrances of record as may exist at time of recording/filing such instruments, and shall not be responsible for liens attaching after said date. Purchaser hereby acknowledges I/ i that they have and shall have continuing obligations to cooperate with Escrow Agent in good faith to enable Escrow Agent to fulfill its responsibilities under this agreement. Such obligations of Purchaser shall survive the closing of the transaction described herein and i shall include, without limitation, the obligation to (i) disclose to Escrow Agent any liens, 1. encumbrances or any other rights, claims or matters known to Purchaser which affect or relate II to the property and transactions referred to in this agreement, and (ii) return to Escrow Age for proper disposition of any funds, documents or other property which are for any reason improperly or mistakenly released to Escrow Agent or to Purchaser. II In accordance with the lender's instructions, Escrow Agent is authorized to place on the pubs record any documents required by such lender to secure its lien on the subject premises. • Escrow Agent is further authorized CO comply with its instructions to record such documents prior to receiving the funds required to be disbursed by the lender pursuant to the loan I agreement. RECITALS E. ELECTRONIC TRANSFER: Escrow Agent may, in its discretion, receive and/or disburse any funds in connection with this escrow by electronic (wire) transfer. 1 l' i • •II P. COP When requested to do so, copies of th crow Instructions and Closing Statement u showing ruements, in accordance with these ins ions; may be delivered to all Real • Estate a era & Agents who consummated the transact. , the mortgagee or CO my attorney. G. DE POSITS, All Checks, money orders or drafts will be processed for collection in the II normal course of business. Escrow Agent may co-mingle funds received by it in escrow with ' escrow funds of. others, and may, without limitation, deposit such funds it its custodial or ( escrow accounts with any reputable trust company, bank, savings bank, savings association, or F other financial services entity, including any affiliate of Escrow Agent. It is understood I that Escrow Agent shall be under no obligation to invest the funds deposited with it on behalf . of any depositor, nor shall it be accountable for any earnings or incidental benefit l'r . attributable to the funds which may be received by Escrow Agent while it holds such funds. `. Purchaser is hereby informed that Escrow Agent deposits all funds into a non-interest bearing account and receives or may receive certain credits and benefits including, but not limited to checks, deposit slips, data processing and account services from or through various banks as a F result of the banking relationships maintained In the regular course of its escrow and title II a insurance hu inesa. Seller waives any and all rights or claims with respect to such cre is and benefits received by the Escrow Agent or any affiliates thereof. A gond faith estimate of the benefice received (based on 1991 activity) is $32.65 per escrow transaction. This disclosure is made in compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule R63-50-065 t .I I (We) acknowledge receipt of the above disclosure. H. CLOSING, For purposes of this agreement, Escrow Agent shall have completed the closing I/ ` at such time as documents necessary to transfer title and/or create the security interest required for funding have been accomplished. Immediately following closing, as defined herein, Escrow Agent shall be entitled to payment of all fees charged fur services provided. Any funds held for satisfactions/release of lions ant I/ oncumbrunces which have been paid through this escrow may be transferred from the account , f herein to the appropriate department for processing. BORROWERS) ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, PURSUANT TO REGULATIONS ADOPTED UNDER THE REAL ESTATE SETTLEMEN' I PROCEDURES ACT, I (WE) HAVE A RIGHT TO REVIEW THE HOD-1 SETTLEMENT STATEMENT ONE DAY PRIOR TO CLOSING AND DO HEREBY WAIVE SUCH RIGHT AND INSTRUCT THE SETTLEMENT AGENT, CHICAGO TITLE IRS. • CO. OP OREGON, TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALTERNATIVE SECTIONS OF SUCH REGULATIONS. ' I. ACCOUNTING, The Company will retain any excess funds after disbursement of the closing escrow and will make all reasonable effort to forward those funds to person(s) entitled thereto. The. Company will charge an accounting fee of $10.00 and will charge an additional fee of 010.00 for each additional month the funds are held in the event persons) entitled to such funds cannot, after reasonable and diligent effort, be located. II J. TIME, These instructions shall be binding on Escrow Agent until the close of business o 30 days from date hereon and be performed within said period unless written demand by the Purchaser is made upon escrow Agent for the revocation hereof, any such written notice shall I t effective upon receipt of such notice. If these instructions have not been revoked prior to expiration of such 30-day period, Escrow Agent shall have the option of performing in accordance with these instructions. K. ARBITRATION, Except as noted in paragraph (2) below; if any dispute or claim arises out II of or relates to this agreement, or to the interpretation or breach, thereof, Escrow Agent me at its election, (i) hold all matters in its existing status pending resolution of such diapt of (ii) it shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the then effective arbitrecic rules of Arbitration Service of Portland, Inc, or the American Arbitration Association, I/ whichever organization is selected by the party which first initiates arbitration by filing a claim in accordance with the filing rules of the organization selected, and any judgment upor the award rendered pursuant to ouch arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdict: ( thereof. I In the event suit or action is brought, or an arbitration proceeding is initiated, to enforc, or interpret any of the provisions of this agreement, or which is based thereon, the prevailing i oarof shall be entitled to reasonable and the amount fees in to determination of who is r.hr. prevailing party I be paid to the prevailing party shall be decided by the arbitrator(„) (with respect to attorney's fees incurred prior to and during the arbitration proceedings) and by the court O i courts, including the court which bears any exceptions made to an arbitration award Submitce CO it for confirmation as a judgment (with respect to attorney's fees incurred in such confirmation proceedings) . I ( (2) In thn event of any dispute over the disposition of an earnest money deposit held by II 1 Escrow Agent less than $2,500.00, Escrow Agent shall have the option of interpleading said fund in rho District Court or Small Claims Division of the same. EXCLUSIONS II t L. VARIOUS; Escrow Agent has no liability or responsibility with respect to any matters connoct�lth the folluwirrg (unless expressly act ed herein), (1) Compliance with require a of the Consumer Credit Protection Act nter-State Land Sales Act, or similar ! laws; :(R) Compliance with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes 537,330 (related to I `s water rights) and any similar laws; (3) Compliance with the requirements of oregnr, Revised c Statutes 44A.271 (Related to Well Testing) and any similar laws; (4) Title to any personal property, or encumbrances thereon, including, but not limited to, personal property taxes, `, sales tux, instruments filed under the Uniform Commercial Code, water rights, or leased equipment on promisee; (51 Forgeries or false peraonations of any person Or party in connectic I . with these instructions or this escrow; (6) Interest and/or penalties assessed due to any delay in updating county tax assessment records. N. PIRPTA, Escrow Agent assumes no liability or responsibility for the collection, with- ' holding, reporting or payment of any amounts due under Section 1445 and 6839C of the Internal Revenue. Code, as amended, and regulations adopted thereunder (commonly called FIRPTA). Eacro; Agent is not the agent of the parties for purposes of law and/or regulation and escrow Agent has made no representation concerning the effect of such law and/or regulation on any party tc ' escrow. Any determination of whether the withholding or payment of any tax is due pursuant tc such low and/or regulation shall be made by the parties outside of escrow and Recrow Agent hereby advises each party to contact his or her attorney or tax advisors regarding any questions on the applicability of such law and/or regulation to this transaction, Notwith- standing the tact that Escrow Agent assumes no liability or responsibility to the parties for I compliance with Section 1445 and 6039C of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations adopted thereunder (commonly called PIRPTA), Escrow Agent reserves the right to take any action required of said law and/or regulation without further instruction by the parties to this escrow. IN. PRACTICE OP LAN, Purchaser has been specifically informed chat Escrow Agent is not licenss to practice law and no legal advice has been offered by Escrow Agent or any of its employees. Purchaser has been further informed that Escrow Agent is acting only as an escrow holder and : forbidden by law to offer any advice to any party respecting the merits of this transaction o: the nature of the instruments utilized, and that it has not done so. 0. ADVICE, Purchaser has not been referred by Escrow Agent to any named attorney or ateorne` or discouraged from seeking advice of an attorney but has been requested to seek legal counse on his owe, choosing at his own expense, if Purchaser has doubts concerning any aspect of this I/ ; transaction. P. DOM/CMS, Purchaser further declares all instruments to which it is a party, if prepare by Escrow Agent. have been prepared under the direction of its attorney or itself and particularly declares that copying legal descriptions from title reports into forms of deeds, I/ etc. or reforming of legal descriptions or agreements is, or will be solely at its direction and request. Q. REVIEW, Purchaser has been afforded Adequate time and opportunity to road and understand t the escrow instructions and all other documents referred to therein, R. BP!CIAL INSTRUCTIONS, (x) See attached ( ) None Purchueer acknowledges. that all terms and conditions of the earnest money agreement, In. amendment., or addenda thereto, have been complied with to the satisfaction of Purchaser or will he complied with outside of escrow. T. IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PARTIES SIGNING THE i.BOVE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS OR I THOSE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE ATTACHED HERETO THAT SUCH INSTRUCTIONS CONSTITUTE THE WHOLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THIS FIRM AS AN ESCROW AGENT AND YOU A: A PRINCIPAL TO THE ESCROW TRANSACTION. THESE INSTRUCTIONS MAY NOT INCLUDE AL: THE TERMS OP THE AGREEMENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ESCROW. READ THESE I INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY, AND DO NOT SIGN THEM UNLESS THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YO` Executed on this day of IDavid Abrams I/ — IIFORWARDING ADDRESS, I . ESCROW NO. 3200-13578-MM DATE, October 9, 1995 SPiICIAL INSTRUCTIONS The 41111owiny special instructions are hereby rillind approved, f_ Seller and purchaser are aware that the taxes f>nve not been certified by Washington County end you are unable to obtain an accurate tax amount for purposoe of prorate. You are hereby authorised and instructed to prorate taxes based on the amount of ' $2,025.11, which is the 1994-95 taxes. If there is any discrepancy in said amount at the time the 1995-96 taxes are billed, said discrepancy will be satisfied between the parties outside of this escrow with no liability or responsibility to CHICA0O TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. As it may take 4 to G months, or more, for the County Tax Assessment Records to be updated with the name and mailing address of the new owner, the parties herein agree that it is the responsibility of the purchaser herein to contact the County Tax Assessor directly to obtain the tax bill, prior to the next installment due date. ' Seller herein agrees to forward any tax bill received after the close of this escrow directly to the purchaser herein. Chicago Title Insurance Company shall be held harmlcss from any lose, liability or responsibility in connection with any interest and/or penalties assessed as a result of any delay in payment of any tax installment after its duo date, after the close of this escrow. 1 • • • 1 1 1 AFTER RECORDING RRTURN TO: • David Abrams • • .• I .. Until a Change is requested all tax -��:__,,.- statements sha31 be sent to the following address: READ AND APPROVED 1 II 1 1. escrow No. 3200-13578-MM __ _. ) i Order No. 136466 DA11. •t I E WARRANTY DEED • STATUTORY FORM i (INDIVIDUAL or CORPORATION) . JOHN O. DART or MARCELLA U. DART, as Trustees under the trust agreement dated June 5, 1992 and BROCX DIXON and MARGARET P. DIXON, as tenants by the entirety C Ip Grantor, conveys and warrants to IUrantro, the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically net forth herein: (Continued) I 1 . This instrument will not allow use of the property described in this instrument in violation of applicable land use laws and regulations. Before signing or accepting this instrument, the person acquiring fee title to the property should check with the appropriate city or county planning department to verity approved uses and to determine any limits on lawsuits against forming or forest practices as defined in ORS 30.930. GNCUMARANCES; (Continued) IThe true consideration for this conveyance is $99,900.00 Oetnher 6, 1995 I Dated if a corporate grantor, it has caused its nam to be' ig eryt��,y order of its board of directors. Ar..w..�,t,. 6;.4 ....„.744.— "`J'^ /..I. John 0. llyrt. • et •""` Marcella G. Dart Art / I /-= •' Brock Dixon Margaret P. Dixon II r STATE OF OREGON, County of Washington )ss. • This instrument was acknowledged before me on I October 6, 19 95 , by Brock Dixon, personally and as attorney* This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 19 by__._ as of * in fact for.John 0. Dart, Trustee and' ' O Marcella G. Dart, Trustee and appeare, • •Notary ter Public for egos Margaret. T. Dixon My commission expires ( �`"~� "" ��+ r{J� //,: BYO A. MO DOUOAU. 111 f .``_.'� COMMISSION NO 01669 / I MY••MMISSION EXPIRE$JULY 15,1996 I IOr o: 136466 . LEGAL =SCR' ON • That pert of. Lots 20, 21, 24 and 25, ASHBROOK FARM, in Washington‘County, Oregon, conveyer . to Hargrave by Deed recorded in Book 270, Page 193. EXCEPTING THEREFROM those tracts'conveyed to B. George,; et ux, by Deed recorded in Book 270, Page 195 and to L.B. SmitCet ux, by Deed recorded in Book 270, Page 191, and being more particularly described as -4llowa; ',, Beginning at the Southeast corne;. t;f Lot 23 of said plat{. thence North 0°10' West, 271.95 • feet to the Northwest corner of eaid'Smith Tract and the true point of beginning: thence North 89°00' East along the North line of said Smith Tract, 480,5 feet: thence North 0°10' West along the East line of said Hargrave Tract, 476.93 feet to the most Easterly Southeast corner of said George Tract: thence South 89°42 West along the South line of II said George Tract, 382.8 feet to a reentrant corner thereof, being the Northeast corner of the second tract so conveyed to.said George's by said Deed: thence South 0.10' East along the East line of said second tract, 121,85 feet: thence South 89°42' West along a South line of said George Tract, 50 feet to the Southwest corner thereof: thence: . continuing South 09°42' West, 48.18 feet to a point on the West line of said Hargrave 1 Tract; thence South 0°10' West along said West line, 347.31 feet to the true point of i beginning. i kXCkP'i NG THEREFROM that portion lying North of the Southerly right of way line of State Highway 217. FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following described tract of land; Beginning at a point on the North line of the Westerly 100.00 feet 'of the South 271.95 II teat of !,ot 24, ASHBROOX FARM, in the County of Washington and state of Oregon (hereafter referred to as Parcel I), said point being North 88°57'30" East 11.00 feet from the Northwest corner of said Parcel I: thence leaving said North line North 76°29'36° East 27.71 feet to a point when measured at right angles 5.98 feet North of said North line, chance 5.98 feet North of and parallel with said North line North 88 057'30" Bast 62.04 II • feet to a point on the Northerly extension of the Bast line of said Parcel I; thence on said extension, South 00°12'00" East, 5.98 feet to the Northeast corner of said Parcel I: thence on the North line of said Parcel 1, South 8B°57'30" West 89.01 feet to the point o beginning. I 1 I II 1 . I 1 1 I encumbrances, continued • .axeo for the fiscal yoar 1995-96, a lien but not yet payable. • 7. The premises herein described are within and subject to the statutory powers including the power of assessment of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington i County. . 1 a s U. Regulations, including levies, lions, assessments, rights of way, and easements of 1 Tualatin Valley Water District. I 9. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the limits of roads and highways, 10. Limited access provisions contained in Deed to the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, which provides that no right or easement of right of access to, from or across the State Highway other than expressly therein provided I for shall attach to the abutting property, Recorded: November 20, 1967 Hook: 453 Doge: 208 ` 11. An easement created by instrument. including terms and provisions thereof. Dated: June 1, 1995 Recorded: June 6, 1995 kecorder•e Fee No.: 95038457 1 In pevor Of: Adjoining property owners For: Storm drainage and sewer lines Affects: The Southerly portion of the herein described property 1 said easement contains erroneous fee numbers in the legal description. 12. Lack of right of access to and from said land, The within described property does not appear of record to have access to a public street or way. I I 1 . 1 • 1 . 1 1 • I • 1 Earnest Money Agreement - ' By and between David A. Abrams or assigns as Buyer and John Rouches, Seller, for that certain real property described as MBF 1 S 1 35 AC tax lots 4600 & 4700, Washington County, Oregon, Exhibit "A". This agreement is dated February 21, 1995. 1. Purchase Price: 2. Terms of Payment: Cash on close. • 3. Earnest Money Note and Approval Period: Buyer's earnest money deposit is a note of $5,000 which will be redeemed for cash upon acceptance of this offer. Buyer shall have 180 days from the date of mutual acceptance of this offer to ' perform its due diligence and give its approval to this purchase. If Buyer elects not to proceed this sales and agreement shall be terminated and the earnest money deposit associated herewith shall be returned to the Buyer and neither party hereto shall have any further obligations toward the other. If Buyer approves and proceeds the earnest money shall become non-refundable. 1 4. Closing and Escrow: The transaction shall close in escrow at Fidelity National Title Insurance. Buyer shall have 30 days after date of approval to close this transaction. At closing, Seller shall deliver to Purchaser a Warranty Deed for the subject property. The property to be conveyed free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Buyer may purchase two (2) thirty (30) day extensions of the closing date for the payment of $2,500, which payments are applicable to the purchase price, but are non-refundable. All prorates shall be as of the date of closing. Buyer and Seller to share equally in the cost of escrow. Seller shall pay any taxes associated with the transfer of the property and buyer shall pay for the recording of the deed. 5. Access: Seller recognizes that Langstaff St. is not a public street nor are there access easements with adjacent property owners establishing a private street. ' Buyer, at his sole expense, will diligently pursue establishing legal access to subject property. If, however, legal access hasn't been achieved by closing date, that date will be extended at no cost to Buyer. Buyer must demonstrate to seller reasonable progress in obtaining legal access. 6. Title Insurance: Seller shall provide buyer title insurance at Seller's expense. Buyer shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of the title report to review said report and note any objections to Seller in writing. Seller shall be responsible for clearing or resolving any defects in title. 7. Possession: Buyer shall be entitled to possession of the property at closing. Buyer and its representatives shall be permitted to enter upon the property during 1 • the time this agreement is in effect for the purpose of inspection, testing and other 9 P P P � 9 legitimate purposes required in order for Buyer to complete its due diligence. Buyer shall hold Seller harmless from any loss, liability or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to Buyer's entry upon the property. 1 8. Hazardous Materials: The Sellers agree to provide Purchaser with a level one environmental report showing that the property is free and clear of environmental hazards or wastes of what so ever nature. Seller shall be obligated to provide said ' report 30 days prior to closing. In the event the report shows environmental waste or materials, Purchaser at its option may elect to terminate the transaction and in said event shall have its earnest money returned. 9. Condemnation: If prior to closing, all or any portion of the Property, or any 1 interest therein, is taken as the result of or in lieu of condemnation or eminent domain, or is the subject to pending condemnation or eminent domain proceedings, then, at Buyer's option, this agreement shall be terminated and, in such event, ' Buyer shall be entitled to the return of its earnest money deposit and the parties will have no further duties or obligations to the other. If Buyer does does not elect to terminate this agreement, then Buyer shall purchase the remaining portion of the property and Sellers shall assign to the Buyer the award or payment applicable to such taking. 10. Applications for Permits and Approvals: Buyer shall have the right during the term of this agreement to apply for and obtain any and all public agency approvals and permits as are required or desired by Buyer for building upon the property. Seller, at no cost Seller, shall cooperate with Buyer in this effort as requested by Buyer. 1 11. Attorney's Fees: In the event there is suit or action to enforce the terms and conditions of this agreement, attorney's fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party. 12. Commissions: Buyer recognizes as selling agent, and has no obligation to pay a sales commission. Buyer: Seller: 5zz., 4,41_ Dated: 2/Z( /ct j— Date: AWL- Z;, 14.4y I 1 1 I (lb i ADDENDUM "A" dated March 23, 1995 to Earnest Money Agreement dated February 21, 1995 between David Abrams or assigns II ( "Buyer" ) and John Rouches ( "Seller" ) for real estate property described as MBF 1 S 1 35 AC tax lots 4600 & 4700, Washington County, Oregon. A. Seller will except a note from Buyer for the Earnest Money in the amount of $5,000. B. At the beginning of each month starting April 1, 1995, until closing, "Buyer" shall send "Seller" $300. This "non-refundable deposit" shall be applied to purchase price upon closing. If 1 closing does not occur, then the "non-refundable deposit" shall be kept by seller. Should Buyer fail to send "non-refundable deposit" then this agreement shall terminate. 1 C. "Buyer" has an' exclusive purchase agreement with "Seller" . D. "Seller" agrees to provide clear title at closing. IIE. All notices and deposits shall be sent to: Buyer: David Abrams 6205 SW Carman Dr. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 1 Seller: John Rouches 1101 N. Northlake Way, Suite 3 Seattle, WA 98103 Buyer: Seller: C%)(444:./4- 411OPZ /t/ Dated: Lt-AZ 1CI 5 Dated: /1/414i Z3 (rj'6' 1 1 1 11 0 ADDENDUM "B" to Earnest Money Agreement dated February 21, I 1995 between David Abrams or assigns ("Buyer") and John Rouches (°Seller") for real estate property described as MBF 1 S 1 35 AC tax lots 4600& 4700, Washington County, Oregon. A. The transaction shall close in escrow at Chicago Title Insurance Company of Oregon. Buyer: Seller: A14- 5217, d �� 5 Dated: L � � Dated: / 1 I t I 1 1 Received: 2/22/96; z:gorM, DUO 009 icai . •I L. I.VA; no 02/22/96 14:49 /2503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 003/007 - , ` kt"4` 1' 1 CITN.OF TIGARD lir�� WETLANDS INVLN I Un1 fc-13 I I� . - - _ 11AIIT A • • ALL idyl I c PrI I 1=1 I I I E . . i i . Identted Uv etianas I ililltid ii;iii r, A-1 Wetland ID y L-� :1111: . Id T, lIJ 1 ii 1 1 Ii — — Aquatic Resource Unit ,.a , r Boundary z . k--HHEIrlE1--fil ni.i.„nr.•. /-`.-.rr;rant J.L. I 1 I l I I 11 J O CCIIII S../V• 1 ITV• I :. Eirjr - L1—.- T1PRIHIl Wetlands VI J i I I _-�`-- Ti - - "Ii 3'�. 4 Public Land Survey 1 I I I Ir1 11 . . r . r PiE . .. , .I y_I 14141 ilk I � �11J Section IDs - 1-1...I II--I ' I I I I J 1 MO R�iin�[ I tff:0 M. IIIIMU IN 11.110! J • RM I .10:29.4 T: '1 L t_,,. ) II J-1 I _:.tip_ .7.. !an r_ I -- Source: Scientific Resources Inc. and � r � 1 Fishman Environmental Services- Aerial I il _i [ iI _ photogra phy from April, 1Y 4 a t a lul 1�JI :� ,---- nominal scale of 1" - 400•. — ^' St — ` �- inrorrna.0ui oh 1i..S. 1.1' 1 1J u. .1 'N. generalized �0 r rrninri inns determine lcases. wetland actual I N\17—\ boundaries- . it /� Public Land Survey Information: All II \ \., Public land survey sections depicted on this map survey are within either •� /1" T1SR1W or T2SR1W. II /S,; :-\ II : �(.---, 'IM- ______ ,,i-,..- ..::,,,: I <--\\___...A,\ ..*-:•: 1 NORTH Scale 1":600' ,� 1 ■ FEET 1 Ltl\_., _ p 600 1200 _Ar____,,,,>.\\ DI nT r arc- n)iln/Q5 "` - '..... {�(' Cy Heceived: 02,22/96 e:.;717;48 1257; z3;14 1;9129=7> W G: COX; "CITY OF TIGARD Z002/007 I \ 1 1 / §-I 111111-11-1 , -1 -1E11 f III -11 1 /k.!'.5-r \ L\I 1 , l B ' m Nowir.H i 1 n 1 i g ilyi I ■ 1 II, ) 1 //• ) -1 +' s 1. ' '7/F 7,Z' , ( W:\ I M lj U—r9 grj7-7(11": I .‘ \ t\ _F:„.........,......... ii I / / I I I i I [ M glilriliril L—I3 ....".N.N,\. — ...- . N ) Th. [=1 / 1 11----'----4 ).1daleolud. se,.. ,v__ i-1 is NNN., 1 4:I .7-\ f ri :,7 ./, :.._1 I. 11----ENN ci I , ir I lime,._dit§ mil I --'ji \ ( .. 4, ..... _,LL.L.J....v .,_„ i \ . . t.:%:-..-. -no-41A iir ‘. "PPP- 1_4 7. E: J ' i-)13 :.::::-:—......— i4: : .%:::::::::, I 1.1NE ST iiiE. \ :.::::::' :::::::::: ...."".:::::::::::'::::: ::::::::g.ia:: 2:::.4::::' rift \,....___ .-.."7e - e ' Ifttp#o446gr .--,-----cf: I \ - ---.11:7W--- -.."1-■---/ :II. 21 ------ 4ton% .t •■•-_ --r I t --,r- 9. t-.....-1--._ 2 \ I. \ 1 if _do, 09. ,.. .%::.::•::::::::::::::.::::::I. ,...:1,". ,,,,,,TNN.s,,..,... 1 I tR:: I. IN /17 _ °Iv"- ,..... ..),.::.:: :'::::.:N.:K::::::,:,4-1 % ::t :ES :'.11m III PER a C.::1.100:W1 - -‘40••,/-4,..._ V. Lt- AN MINN II aill:\.... ..7.16L j.:.,.., Z,. :.:', ::::-:-:-"" '"- ; W÷r:I",,,,....44b 4.. .,,,,,, ‘1:..1:::::,:. "gig— nal._ :41 Mai I ill7>7 ........... ■ rj:■Imi I ffill- 1 i J ::::6:-.4ii.:i • ... 41..... • f I i I -:•-•::.:,WA ) . Frij 1.1111 . I-I 41.7' rol K* . . tr`W/ , i---_---77- 1 f ll ii 1111mi SU C1 -111ffPuFF-] P=T\ \-7s1--9 HL I Aqt_t_i ,,,.,.... t; } 99:::tm---N,N, ,N.4 ILL A \r \,,, 1 l INI 1 • \\ A n---1-u-r---------„avii-- 1-_-.=4-------H____ F-----;_ N N...,_ I ...e ( ( \\ \ i /i 1 1 ' , . "' kl r-ILrc [---tir,,Th.±1 I 4-L--L\\ N\ '\\ II 1 . - h-' 1 )41M 111 in I —1-/CA- - I \ \\ ' irlrwl ..:,„,!■■a: TA';"-T-CT%--- vi\-9" 47/1-ji\ \k3....7*-i- I 74 L. ■4z. : NN,nlAn L a ■4I■ -4 IA IIII I -jilpri< 7 ' ,,,,,■...„-- -■_,..74;41F44e44\,. % ihy 40 1 , -..-------I. ,,, , 7---, /---/I / 74-Q--..\ -44:Rig,T;::. '"-^-'--.4.'■XXs-2/.\->' _ .../\‘..."" 1 f • • I ,; ;;J:‘1 j i. "4"":f ..: ..''' ::'..1 4.:1 ''''•41 A I_ ":%3;121 Ale .''''*':.;:.!:-' 14$4...L5 1 0 4n 1-1,VIAZI A.111.11.1.0■11116 CBD ■ 7' • ■ 1-1....._ . ...�_ . I R-12 4 ...______. .4.4_ q gq- R-2 . ... 0' ` I III 1125._ 9 1 CL f R-3.,i .-._.__ ____�._-.. 1 ' - 7 I R-4 4 L' ; 42'3 -7 __ _8; ' i a _ I .. I I I I I • 1 5,20,,r ' .efr l�rvf_ I I Darrell and Barbara Dick 5750 SW 95th enue r Portland, Or e 97221 Joyce M. Osborn 10860 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 1 Priscilla D. Haugen 10890 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 James and Marian Bozich ' 9425 SW Longstaff Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 David Abrams 6205 SW Carman Drive Lake Oswego, OREGON 97035 1 Virginia S. Andersen 10970 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Eugene and Vivian Davis 11 13095 SW Henry Street Beaverton, Oregon 97005 1 11. • . A I � •._ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • I Q1PREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ ONE ORDIUN � CE AMENDMENT APPLICATION( ICITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY I CASE NO. OTHER CASE NO'S: RECEIPT NO. IAPPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION ' Si l c A r, Taw 1i- -c inf . (A) Application form (1) II4600 . 4700 (B) Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. Soe abovo authorization It I ____(C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE _5 acres (pre-app check list) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* See Appendix 3 (D) Filing fee ($ �_) ADDRESS 5.W. T,nngctaff St _ PHONE 94R_czloo Additional information for Compre- CITY T4gar0 ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Change APPLICANT* ABFCO CORPORATION (E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS 6205 S.W. Carman Dr. PHONE699-1771 location (pre p pp check list IICITY T.AKP OcWEGO, ORranN ZIP 97035 ____(F) List of property owners and *When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1 Ipeople, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization (H) Title transfer instrument (1 from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this Iapplication in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: l 2. PROPOSAL SUMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: I applicable) from to and a Zone Change from to • N.P.O. Number: OR II The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code Rec+r; -•tions. to I rAci,ential density tranafarS frcID City Council Approval Date: wr�1-1 n r�c 0737P/23P Revd: 5/87 • - . 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. I 5. THE APPLICANT(S)• SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. • B. 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. C. 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. ' D. 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. . i:R>1..ttaiL3� (� - DATED this �� day of 19 -/ (U SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. 1 �AAP VAIr 1 • (KSL:pm/0737P) 1 1 1 I 0 I March 13, 1996 i-----4 4 I _114.1"14_,11;......A William Cox I0244 SW California Street CITY OF TIGARD Portland, OR 97219 OREGON ICOMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION CPA96-0003 Dear Bill, This letter is in response to the application materials submitted on behalf ofriii.--e-AB- ABECO Co ration to initiate Ian amendment of Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1, and provisions related to density transfer. Staff have found the application to be incomplete according to TCDC 18.32.050. In order for staff to deem this application complete,the following issues and items need to be addressed and included in the application: I • Submit a revised application which includes a proposed Zone Ordinance amendment. The current application only addresses amending the Comprehensive Plan. I • The application should include proposed policy and code language. The current application does not contain examples of either. I • The application should be revised in light of the fact that the current policy and code do not include wetlands as areas from which 25% of the density can be transferred. The current application assumes that Ithey are included. I • The assumptions used in the calculations on page 18 of the application are incorrect. These calculations assume that all wetlands are outside of 100 year floodplain areas. In fact 80% of the city's identified wetland areas are within the 100 year floodplain. The calculations also incorrectly assume that 25% of the density can be transferred from these wetland sites. • Final submittal should include 25 copies of the proposal. I The application for C Comprehensive Plan A c d-.,.cnt CPA 9C /�003 vv-ill b deemed Th. "FY .,..1.,r.fva a Ci:lYreu..ia: Plan�uiavi.:ulitau, CPA ;U-vVV wtll be uccnied complete when the above information is provided. We recognize the initial application was submitted to the city within the time limits Iset by our code for legislative plan amendments. Additional materials must be submitted, however, by March 30th in order for staff to do a complete analysis and the Planning Commission to hear your proposal on May 6, 1996. You understand, of course, that while your proposal may have merit, an incomplete application could Iresult in a recommendation for denial or long term delay until the issue fits the staff work program. If you have any questions ,please call me at 639-4171. I Sincerely,_ Nels Mickaelson IAssociate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 I CPA9 (0 - 000O3 �1,q P A. CITY OF TIGID a 1 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM CITY OFTIGARD ANALYSIS OF .11 ,,,,,,,_ ddir • , , - Ira ,. ...... t fYLCR F 't a RD 100% DENSITY all I } ..... 4 I sbil° i I-1 az TRANSFER FROM le DAKor: Wit* 11111.1111.1111111411 a 11111111t la gr 1111.110 1.11111aiiiiiii.- �r 1. WETLANDS is i III a I,. if 111 a 4 }1 I a r 1 00_le .., pill Or 1 Avis. z _...„... a,. ,......... ..,,,, „„,,.. ..a.sta,...., ....... , ,L vr41 I I laat 0 0 1/4 jr(1;4 ..s.:0 mill V 1 rT L! 7TaEA i., 0 _0, ...,... do ir —ew 1111111111011.11111,g II PFAFr �x 'to a }' 0,0.. . itsill 'i „ 4 „2,,,, .......,....„..., ,,.., rolliii. c' _ s urt s. 111 4 41 ry 4f SCROLLS c94,,,, Mill IIII 0 4....). trilliiiiiHs'a- eiss 4041j1IL ‘ 4fri ,,,, ,;_ ts "jk 1 ,,, air w I, , 1 t..... AA DE c iiiii, im Ps r C,� ;r F s s .; . ... all 4Zt AI so I RD 1 aiiiii11.110.1 l pm, 1114 ill 1 ettsr 0 1 ,---#4,2 • 4 e u, 1 it >- ' ' a i ) ille , " Tki 0 isv a le j f3EEF B No RCS . 4 It al a ill sal NW 111 a _ Cr 4,1"'-"t rins. a i 1 --ir e [ w Si ill Ws 1 P win 4 - 'Nis • rn, i IS �d ? '�4 .f Ak N'•a II II In I'II a. 11.1111 a dr s pa f . ., - = _ _ ■.. "111111: CITY OF Z I.,r\RD .Ar 'n' ''° q j I 'rte u ' /11.i: :;• ' "m GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM .�.:,��.■! V41' i J • i hip, !•■ u N■u 4.•■ CITY OF TIGARD ■■n■M 'p J u • I I 1 1 a1 I E1 M m WPM 11. ..-nn ��•,2 I NEvi s I■•. mini■ W ooL. — 1n... 11�• •� � ppi; :_ I,,�a'-• Parcel s withi n Areas wad .. :D�■�, . j 7 / /11BL'r 111 m I --III.. i1■1 , un '"`u:Ur,"r'.1-'••` s\,C� ` •1[ own 111111= 1� I I jr• ■i��•.mW�, Zoned MuftkiFaA iy .mm=AMP�� -n a :,i,, r i o. '.,.a s ..9 , ♦ • own■■11M17_ !y � . ' .�,■ I n RI ■•/♦ 11L rwa■ ��,.,.�, ,° ;- sawn 1. - .r adjacent to wetlands nw•n u .d �1ri ♦♦ t i■u unirk r/ : I 1■■1�a1'°90t ` _A i♦ ►...',..452. ....7 ''�IY�►flu uuu■■w-���■ ♦♦♦:. .-is";: B,q„s ♦♦ ► �� 11f111i■ni.,.[a ilk- Igoe N ■' ■!t►111 ■Uf'I . ■ ■ ■!. ♦,, -` a ei i� i- wawa m :•a►lt y�l► numnn ■.1111 Ill L ` a 1,4. --�t- I „� a_■1■►' 11 a- U■-_■rink n q♦ -n.-_.■n v t ■■n • - ►e„a■ .• �w, ! \� - , CINIG■ 1 ` Lana■■ 1 ■ '' (> ♦ ■ • trio 1 &L` w!m��� ■ I e.eo$y.•� O►.t hi ♦ VI 1 �■n ■ ♦ �-,n, -■� ,,, ■■ ■■ I Parcels Zoned Mufti-Family( R-12) • V %.►.2-or ■' ' - .• p ♦i!. ,, \. -�� um 1-iI•11111 •11U1 MUI'� _ Ilu ! • ,, a1� -- ■a■ .„ — n. •• a / 1111 1■llu r % adjacent to wetland areas 4u.n .... ■uN .. Vii♦ • . �- �. l . .■:1 u■ .. .♦,1 ♦�♦ /haw q�♦■■u. ■� . .�q uu p ■•.!• . ♦• Q .a.�Va W■ i I sum-1-in -- • • �)'to �*•14`::: °� 11 1 ♦♦♦i♦�- R. .:nu .el a , ♦►♦ ,to t au1/1m �♦ '211 / 1 1�1 AIL" 2111■' ■aa•911 m NEN r w . 4-' ''i♦'►►0• Iur'to ■\\\n 11.- jl P 4.•zo.i MI. ■6 rll 1611li1 GIIR2:■1■d 111■ ■1■Iu..►••'v _► p• �A^ ✓ =-'_� _� .►♦• .., to '11111 .11 ■MEV 11 :1■ra •r h► . - nu■ ►♦ ■eta IM RE 11� nvv�i dm—9. .. .lVt I �4 mm a!■■■■o fps tat: ♦ _ i■�4 J 7 iii:Itti�,•a P1 6v a.P4 ♦ 1■-■ ou fr.►••h w1 Ip/ _in . ++ter rzw ■.I■■� P IrI ■,a` r w 41♦h411: la,, :■/f►i:'♦b mint r■ 6. ,7 ��i%.i."0 .,,, _■�b 112 di n hair.~i �e. r6.��p•■ uuu■►: ■u, -. i w ' / � :11� n ■•N� ■d / s%. i1=IW■uuwuuw► y i►p• Ain. - -- ♦/ / ■-■�+ ■1■■ -- 1/ IunWU� r / _ •• ► • °::W1w��i 9_"nm■�m /\V - ��� \Y _7■_ .,- 1• 'n�� --■■■ .■■■ ,'... ♦ ♦ ■n ♦ /\�O ' I�% f . ._ .'t■:: i a� `��\t� _ '■ /'//<. .■.■ 11■�i�1�1 11� ' /�_ ■ �� �� allluw � i . .. - � -.1♦b • .t�. �al //A j re ■nlif�.•nn p -. ��■■tri . ■1j==1- ,'- i ■.~■'is ii-T 1 n �Ij .• / .1111111110►\ ♦ -'�'+I��/. �1 • 1�r Ie■ .- n Inn ■■man► Bunn ■I■ . . i . ■.en ...11,IIiu�. -. +.♦ =►�i� y��jUf�i-■ �►►i.�, • 1�i�■n�--��-��� i - If' l��.■;w.� ' �� �� r 4.. s . �•. ♦�■■■LZt■ s ... �■1■.1 •� ■■m= / O I '�■ O• .. a�p `I ram_ ■ �aa:�• :°q1 I `O•I. � a .'•w I ♦.�.�Op - /,,/ , 11 _i�J��n��s1w ■�.-_ � ` �r .► � � �� � 1111- Iu to. �♦ imp, u a0 ♦�. , . ,. ■ ■�7.........u� -: �. n■ �e_ ��\�.�loo pi�♦o ��-t-■�►•♦,.i• P�■lam��■■ �.1.wu .'� 1� -■ - ♦.d: _ • u�,..s■ ■■■1 ■- .. m�_? ■.':■■■■daft:i.. Y „, ,,ttl � A •emu■_r,tW a■IWib 11111 nV/� i G;4= U�. �-'°3 �a ,,�5,1,■ �'"�dJ milb iiii ' p:7 uunuu i i�:1 i iii �■r m..Ad -1►� •�1N,>•I' �.o o_ W . t■Z■M%11� sr°°._ .r ._`�� 1 1111111 - \Y, ■ % ,.nn. =�°w �/a�vas 'il'-p anmu1111N1r �r L ''�'• • :dill ilk _ Ei • n■ ■► <n auin .. ■1 a pe �ter■! .■■. r •■ = ri�.� �h�♦'O o�.•�. n t - at��■■- u.1■I ii+.A;ii j �.I■■■■■■ t v■ ■ 1�♦.4. .,♦ I.uln■�n-■sq-4� :■ 't-pt�i%■:■1 ,■ri Iu■■j■■■ ■ I ►II`►�� ��1 ��� t�` ��■- . 1o.�9D mnq`1 •. . ..- ,�1 W I/►i to a f . ti, ' ”�1� D �; ■ A. I■. t,..•.•■I■I►i +■7� ,111/41p.-�l∎ ♦b.,t i 1r r ■� N Tl i'. r* ►�°411,r . ♦ °•1t laN 11,- _ ► uiy ♦naiuS�•.i■/"�i' vtl4,11.-it'0,11 /�i ■ •fi 1 1 i♦,� ♦�.� `� ♦ �I s um,► n■■■ :■!m s+► • q ■: a>1�UeI��l1■1 . , I ■ n111 I �v.b � ■p '.� / ■\ � -.� ■ ■►� � ��� � ♦ ♦ .1 ��♦� 'lam � ft■f1■f1 '■ , !u ♦gip♦♦iii•: -■/, u .." ■ wrig■ 4, *.4,,•, 1� '•',∎l i ♦ �w i■ ■:'.■�I mi I Li i'M id mama-1 \ l oigo ,r■ .: . . i ♦l � 21ij?:L V =��Id 1 tt♦ i�- ■ ►I I ♦��o ♦ i♦♦♦/ / u1�� � m �a►f •.M'�I�'•� ■.11Z�� ` �/�♦♦ �♦��i'/�'��. ■■d11111w■■■■■■■■■■■ � •u■�i4� ♦ ��■. 11/1... ■�11 ., �iI♦�i•♦1♦�►O l• ■■■t■Minn 1 •• 's�� ■u■■w Q�1■ t. A. .♦ ♦ o• • ima 16.Nntlll: = ,�,�� ��� �� ♦► �►�'p�i•,:r.►�• �'' •♦ •�A0..•f l■■■■uu. ■■■■.U■■ ♦ �•∎Ma��� .x =11 �1 u..!/ Wyly is -MOM •f"; ! • N ., ,� .,�,�� �� ',♦ _ t11/D -- t ul■WRWU` i♦` i„'� ns v i g.'�r lrrrfy,�1♦� �� ,.�.�_ �r • iva 1.. Im ■nii►i aunli��■1■!'11■ft1`-��i��^ ■ a t 11 � .IWwa■rs �1 _ `MI ii° a '■nN ■■_•.. mho■■■ ■ftl-A-M11ri■ 1.� Riau■1 ill�ii""' \.♦ . 4 r ■■■� ■ u ;ti:i!"3ij i■■'%y# �! ��a ' iii■ q.■ �� ..u :� 4 '■ 1N`4r �'� '>T,-■■■.� -'... n11m -W-_ _ / '\� f tiL#tj t 1 ''/ . I■n ` ∎ 011. - E 4■w.■--=MN -■ _ ._ Q �►r �tl ■ ■ ■ate' ..■.,r a►gleall T ■a>. ! ■■ r ■■- a =1i■■�■i,�t _- . �,r . �/■ I� ■�, . � - . �,�► .fin�� •► • .ate fit■ ■ �� ■ ■ ■U■■111■! . ■, r imll►� rul NE''''' t.•16.4 M....2•61 L'il r....f....••■•1N-4 AN as '---ta - .-.alli 'Mr r.-11' AniAlintir,r,-r_;.,;tip ow EL,.EituI 1 1 �-- �.. r t��♦♦♦♦ :• i! it1i!i -t s _N. ■ IM■ _, r$:!iI! !jf TIT■s■ t♦r ♦a I m, ■ . w■■ ■ �►,t S ' 1..NERINEN-.. ■ ►���♦.�_ ► - 1 IU ■ ■f ■■i �:.. 1 pa el LIIII u ■ 1 ,■ � � ma I■111 f•�. s 1 •n . 7 � ■i ■ Wes. IN J� a .1 Q. m uunl■� u a gr ,L'i l■ l...01■. ■ ■ ■■�11rIt�_ j.� .. ■■U.■■,!•■■■�11 u■■�■■,�1 ■Il/ten. -.I a� aD�: ■`tv. um=e rertillill .■.•. ..,, • ■_ -_ =.r... .ut1111.11 , ■, ti = ..■■■ ... r frol:_161 �. i ,� ■■■■v ■ ■un■ u. a �p . I= .► ■■nm►. `IQ 111 �LL\7uv■/// 111111. ' i otla,•I V.��i.At :�-�llnnnAtiixunux► ■ufUxx a1♦♦`'A1 / we!■ 1 .n l ry� ��♦a`♦ �I�i�.r�f ::.. na..�n ..tea: C� �/ IrluulnTl� •►����■ C ■.. w1!{■k.■n.I�1 I ��a `�G Iy�'�. r.'�,au1 _ . �� / Ilun n11 N pm�• 1 ��l►■I ► ♦ �1 ,11 �rs.... O , • \\\V\W\W\%$'t\\ _xI.t I■ . ♦ na Pxr IW1u1ui1 ,• ♦ �• /� �~O� +�Pay ,\\\u n\\\\\\\\ 'I♦I �I•C Q„d.� 1 rifi:`� W\�.♦�♦♦.�1�♦1 ���:tea i i�� O'♦�. . �aa_a���G 1\\\\\\\\1\\ /�p .♦, p ,���, ���p■■ am jc- � �.a1U1■ Q♦ . P,q i O a �.,♦ ■ p\\\\\v Np\A,:�x"111 �� �����•_� ♦♦�W■ X111111♦ Il.►♦♦ � ♦ ■ ♦�p �. �i ♦��.i� \\\\\\,\\ - u s �UIt., .��C�- ■►♦1- .1 OII 7��1\♦� 1♦ �f ■ .' ul -: O..I��� �, //0p�.j♦, �V\\\\\\Q -�,,t�i •4/jt.,. ■O�O� r♦■ ♦��. .� a1�Wl Iln •l 1 nl eA. O•i� .. �i., ♦� IWll,f - ■,. 1- I 1 W !`�`e�O� .� .xx-oe.,�.,,a♦, 1g ig■ 1-■ „11 4 ` -e 4- l g . sup.WIIIIII<•J _D.■ a� i r - n' u iu n 1 1 % rillt ' i '- //Bon..■":'IMrtl■.■ _ un di■iliii . _ M.ma 1: Emmy rum !wig unit My / : i1 II■.111 I ► ••• .. - :■III_ /I=--•n• .•n �� �aa.nnnll 1 ♦��i- . I/I =N i=�1ife Nj� j..;♦g111- , l Ipu 9q-1► u1;� • .Q■IU111P . .Q/■�■m�-1■_ II � e v u - �nl .-■ �I�/ rill 2���• .- ♦I �.■ P a 111„ : /♦�iW •■-r1u11nnuut= -�►►♦ 1► . .��i♦� n �■Ill AIM-1 vir,b�a:1:♦• 1♦♦�.�'4 IIIPI■nwumm_.r,/���i�11� : 41 :• wlnnntn� 1_C11-_. _r�e/�t L"U■z�1�I_...pa+allPn 1/'n "h;rot �WIW►Wlur muumuu -=�0 �■, ,,�' . �a :_-t!i•ptp r till 111111 Zr�nu1 ti,on IIII■1111 11 °-�Qiva■■.._ ♦ I 11 � . I'InU► t,�•.•M •i /l►_.� r vim/---.I mu m■7� €lr-I►.�� i l . '� • <` � Iw �� rn Dl ■AI p N' , ,. 1 � is based on the 1990 ma J La rim iU �r :_ 1 .-"r. �. _■ Note:This map i I — ( . .♦ •.••_ ■, and 1994 survey of wetlands • ... �. •• • �.� w' conducted for the City of Tigard. ■.I I■= ,�,..►.,;/■■r. 'min �� This information is of a generalized �►,rya. �, IIIIIIIIIP._ �,, •:: �■ ■ maul Va r IA■.M h .�;• • 11•� _""'''�- ""° ° - , nature and may not include 1u1111u1■_ ■■ 11151:,■1.1■ LI - _ . //11111111/1111111 all wtlands within the City.rLj ; p.. uaa nil r1y p � • I �,Vn■■n/2111••. . ,:. U '�.Diu st :°,'CAI,i1: ( ' ,. y.,., . 4 ■■- , 1�1 li"u ;j1- au■ V■I�= .► 1V■ ■■■■ U n I I :� i■ - ' conditions deternyne wetland H :;• f■ .. , •..�..k 1 E_= ♦ 1 boundaries. 1996 .xxx 1 „���L..... r.•.... ...� — i t�f 1 I l I l I I I w� May 5, . • Ir 1 Ak 1CITY OF OREGON TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) , I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Assistant for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer • X Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the 21st day of May, 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the 21st day of May. 1996. and deposited in the United States Mail on the 21st day of May, 1996, postage prepaid. di / ,. Pre' red Notice 6 . Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of �..� , 192.Li . 17 r OFFICIAL SEAL NOTA'Y PUBLIC O O r E9 y G N� �� DIANE M JELDERKS My Commission Ex.1 - : � r-- NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 4'.. COMMISSION NO 046142 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 EXHIBIT HEARING • •PUBLIC NOTICE • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, June 11. 1996. AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 - add language to allow full transfer of density from sites with wetlands which are zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40 from the wetland area to the buildable portion of the site. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.020 to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which density can be transferred, and 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from wetland areas zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.30, 18.84, and 18.92. ZONE: N/A THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. 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. 323 (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 WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED 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 PLANNING COMMISSION'WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER May 21. 1996, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. 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 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. 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 DISAPPROVALat THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COU WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITW ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT ImpAPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, 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 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN 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 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Nels Mickaelson. AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. • Examrl Z � w- 't.�... _ . - ii_�I� ,`.= y_ . " . L :.� _ . ��- r'`•v ' � �i _ . -i - . F ' ' '`'- €_ .v� t: ,F.. ., �sy : - � ±- : t iv r ; ' S s r1 . , r ' , c . 274t1,..*--. : » 4• •- .. ... .•„.� , giyt ' 17, WILLIAM COX 0244 SW CALIFORNIA ST. PORTLAND, OR 97219 ABECO CORPORATION • - 6205 SW CARMAN DR LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 • . : , WILLIAM COX • 0244 SW CALIFORNIA ST. ' PORTLAND, OR 97219 • ABECO CORPORATION • `; 6205 SW CARMAN DR • LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 • • • • • • • F A6md-'.. - Frauds _ ,• • 12200 SW 6 utl - :..;11905 SW 125th"Court_ urtau 'Road�:::'� + Tigard OR 97223 -, . �-;'::TigardOR 97224`•� . Bill Gross Kathy Smith 11035 SW 135th Avenue 11645 SW Cloud Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 • • Kathie Katlic) Linda Masters 12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 15120 SW 141st Avenue : : Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 • ' Ed Hoiden Scout Russell 11829 SW Morning Hill • 31291 Raymond Creels Road .' : Tigard OR'-97223 Scappoose OR 97056 • Bonnie&Sun Roach. Cal Woolery 14447 SW Twekesbury Drive - ' 12356 SW 132nd Court Tigard OR 97224 t . Tigard OR 97223 • • Clark G.Zeller Mary Swintek 13290 SW Shore Drive - 9915 SW Frewing,#23 • Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Larry Westerman Craig Hopkins 113665 SW Fern Street 7430 SW Vents Street Tigard OR 97223 Tigard•OR 97223 Christy Herr Mark F.Mahon 11386 SW Ironwood Loop 11310 SW 91st Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 • • Barbara Saltier Joel Stevens . 11245 SW Morgen Court 9660 SW Ventura Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 June Sulffridge . Pat Wyden - 15949 SW 146th Avenue 8122 SW Spruce Street . - Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 • • • 4irle:gONSt&ANet-, - • - • - •- • - ---- ' ; , 111.r • • ;.• .' 7• ." , -• *. , ' „ 4---, ..74. .,J,,••0,4;-;;;;;1..,,‘ . ■ -15.57...5 SA/10901Avenue LigaidOR 97224 John Benneth 15550 SW 109th Avenue Tani OR 97224 • Brian Martin Tripod OR 97223-3930 Kad Swanson • 11410 SVI/konwood Loop - Tigard OR 97223 II . Ctrs marling labels as of 2114196 - • - , 1 h:Vogin!patty%docs1alicits.lbs - • .c, • • HA - 11�7 iJ C3TY OF TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OREGON STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Department Secretary for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director X Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the 29th day of April, 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the 29th day of April. 1996 and deposited in the United States Mail on the 29th day of April, 1996, postage prepaid. �il� �° C- / . LtgrL� Prep ,d Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of 1114" , 19 ' ''i, ' 7-77W 14 ' OF1III\ '' ���., NOTARY PUBLIC Ore REG• . ~ DIANE�."",; NOTARY My Commission E •Ires: �;,?,,e COMMI2 1999 MY COMMISSION EPI0'. • UBLIC HEARING EXHIBIT A NOTICE Amhot I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, May 20, 1996, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 -modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. ZONE: N/A THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. 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. 323 (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 WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED 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 PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER April 29. 1996, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. 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 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS PAOT OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY D OPMENT CODE AND THE TIGNIE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. • FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, 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 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN 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 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Nels Mickaelson. AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. • • • , _ _XBIT:f: : • v. :Abd u nth Beverly Froude 11905 SW 125th Court 12200 SW Bull Mountain.Road Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Bill Gross Kathy Smith 11035 SW 135th Avenue 11645 SW Cloud Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Kathie Kallio Linda Masters 12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 15120 SW 141st Avenue Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Ed Howden Scott Russell 11829 SW Morning Hill 31291 Raymond Creek Road Tigard OR 97223 Scappoose OR 97056 Bonnie Jim Roach • Cal Woolery 14447 SW Twekesbury Drive 12356 SW 132nd Court Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 Clark G.Zeller Mary Swintek 13290 SW Shore Drive 9915 SW Frewing,#23 Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Larry Westerman Craig Hopkins 113665 SW Fern Street 7430 SW Vams Street Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Christy Herr Mark F. Mahon 11386 SW Ironwood Loop 11310 SW 91st Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Barbara Sattler Joel Stevens 11245 SW Morgen Court 9660 SW Ventura Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 June Sulffiridge . Pat Wyden 15949 SW 146th Avenue 8122 SW Spruce Street Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 ...... ..... r - . . .0 -' a• i,+ :IL 2 a 3aa ua. J G: '=.�ri� _.T - :s '.:f{'• -..5� v'•I: �.:n.1 „ •.'''.'..,.• .n, :' "s F' _ '.\�'�T''° - .rni'£ :�:ms s__.i - =id + , "•'. � f� _ :II!j u i4�ttt Vii: tczY -:F-c. f. .. - - ic_r .3.. ..^;' .''.- - -..... ..'a:_a:° y, .v 3-?s&= ,...v3„.,. .•-- �._:., :mot. _.. ..':.. . .. - - - - _ enue. v 10981 A - Tigard OR 97224-' • . - ;- . _ . , . - - , . n,4..: • • John Benneth ' . • • . •.- _- --- 15550 SW 109th�Avenue Tigard OR 97224 - . • • • Brian Martin 10965 SW Pathfinder Way . .. • . . . • • • Tigard OR 972233930 " .. . . - , • Karl Swanson -- - . _ . . _ • .. 11410 SW Ironwood.Loop:- . , . • - _. . - : _ Ttgard OR 97223 : . • All CIT's mailing labels as of 2114/96 • h:Voginlpattykdocslallcits.lbs •. - . • • • • • • • • • . t•j '9t ��,�• 'rte=. >,7 ..=t=-°`.j ': --: 'y`-,7.. .--,--'_ `.?w ti .Y ?=n"4 - =3"i- _ •h2 wa,¢r.• .'�` :;i!--"-T $..L rYp -a. -%?":t' . i - s�y,7c$•tik.sc- yin • t'"• '.F';.,t `ice ._•.L.f^iqi ':;.. >s•.,. 'e;.-.k 'f::-'•-•"'4.-':1=i,';: Ir . WILLIAM COX • • 0244 SW CALIFORNIA ST. PORTLAND, OR 97219 • • ABECO CORPORATION 6205 SW CARMAN DR • LAKE •OSWEGO, OR 97035 - t WILLIAM COX • • • , 0244 SW CALIFORNIA ST. PORTLAND, OR 97219 • • ABECO CORPORATION. • , ' 6205 SW CARMAN DR LAKE. OSWEGO, OR 97035 • • • • • • • • • A leiTY OF OREGON TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Department Secretary for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director X Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the n/a _ day of , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the 15th day of April. 1996 and deposited in the United States Mail on the n/a day of , 1996, postage prepaid. A r Prep td Notice 0 Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the,-v • -y 1P �r./i/ Li� / .Lf/ .■er, OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUB OF OREGON �� :.<.�r,%g.a DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGON My Commissio xpires: ®;'. COMMISSION NO 046142 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMREI 07,1999 OPUBLIC HEARING • EXHIBIT A NOTICE kaAhlk NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, May 6, 1996, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 -modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. ZONE: N/A Note: This hearing will only serve to open the record for this proposed amendment, no testimony or review will occur. The reason for this delay is to ensure adequate time for citizens to make comments and comply with time requirements for Legislative amendments. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. 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. 323 (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 WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED 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 PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER April 15, 1996, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. 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 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS •ST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLI ABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, 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 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN 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 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Nels Mickaelson. AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. • ;+ .- .� sT.: _S.=.Y.iC,n;:'T; � '.ir+: - .-P. ii°£r,_.n ::J_i_:•%1F-'-.'." _ _ ,. _ _- _ _ :-= .....-..:.:.c.:.....?..L..t .-.c....,..._.�"._.,.':...:.';..'..r..'.....:.`:..'..-...,.-.a_...................................... : D, _ ,i .,.--.i-••- • UES T OR O D�� : ii�i:i,.':e i:...:�::::•?:i*_ - �- �!� s. y ' ' � ! _ -r' ` :rsC X' -F'Y+- _ . ... .!st@?'.t.x_ :=va '-- ':-sx:?;aSr- ,j,;,...,,,,." - � J '- �'. �< �, i: _� ;"�3 ^ n-7, --:r' :e . _ _.—..-. � b 10, �rVa•anNw:USEB ID 70;J1: '« '• fi - - . .: _ _ � �• .......;,,:%,$.',71:.;., x_• :* . f .�-ep, y1t :` E A #. - .f - FtC •"4 .r4'_rr t' �- 2.z..... ° ra;•j:>R•::cvr,? :+�M.F.}:.;�!-. S+ : \+•fiv>.:t '; ;'.p$ itS'x,'' ..c ::fJ.:v••...:.h:?S:y j i :?..._.':':...:..:..:ii:{...:...: :vii:.: : qF K�t� L :�'� . ::iii::: . :::::: : :v ' rl i::::'::::':: ::Y 'i:.i:-::..::: .......... cifde one .. ."tic-: _ . .". "' • / :' )CIT••Area: (W) (S) 4E) (C) '• - • • .''•• •- ® Placed for review in Library CIT Book 1J '- -•' )K• BLDG.DEPT:/David swim- POUCE DEPT/Kelley:lennings,orr�i�....;onk. _OPERATIONS/John Acker.Matra.sp4i. • • _CITY ADMIN./Cathy Wheatley,cryremic. .- Z ENG.DEPT./Brian Roger.Rager.Development Review _COM.DEV.DEPT./DS.T.'S . _ADV.PLNG./Nadine Smith, Mi.+ps„oews . . ' WATER DEPT./Michael Miller,°pews=iiirJovaara. +ecii - _FIRE MARSHALL UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY . . . TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DIST. Gene Bichefl . . SWM Program/Lee Walker . . . PO Box 745 ._ - Wa.County Fie District .. . -' 155 N.First Street Beaverton,OR 97075 • (pick-up box) . • • • ......:....Hillsboro:OR 97124 .. �,i:%isisiis 'C}Eii' >i3i<.. iii`ii:::':a_`5"'`? ' .`k:I; ':dii>'::2:__:ii::isr::;i;::;:;::ii: i'i;;:::>::;:..;;;::g:?:: �::;::;:2:::;:i:::::::%:;i::;:z:;_ r_>:;::;:i:. `i:::;% (r'«< t:<i :i:=>:: ::;:'<::;is';.p;;<:Y;i::i,;:;:i::i.;;z;:::>;i;:;;;::r6i:'::.`> ' WA.CO.DEPT•OF LAND USE&TRANSP. • METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION ~ 7TRO-GRI (SPACES . . 150 N:First Avenue 800 NE Oregon St.416,Suite 540 `,`, •el Huie (CPA's/ZOA's) . ' • ' • • • Hillsboro.OR 97124 ' . • Portland OR.97232-2109 . • • • 600 NE Grand Avenue• • • • Portland.OR 97232-2736 • • •" 5" gent Curtis(CPA's) . • - • • STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION - ' . t ,_rim Tice(IGA'S) Sam Hunaid . . `.ODOT/REGION 1 • Mike Borreson(�a�r):•.`�''';1; ,. PO Box 25412-; • - " . ' Laurie /Trans.Planning'. • . _Scott King(CPA's) .:. _ Portkmd,OR 97225-0412 . .` 123 N.W.Flanders , _ ,. . . -<Tom Harry(Current Planning App's) ., .. - , '', .' . -.-. .• , • :•'..Portland.OR.97209-4037 .• _Lynn Bailey(Current Pl rming App's)-_ .:.... .,;..,�OREGON DLCD(CPPAE's/ZOA'sj . • .' : ,'ODOT/REGIO = 1175 Coin Sfieet, _ N 1,DISTRICT 2-A• . CITY OF BEAVERTON . . - Salem.OR 97310-0590 • .Bob Schmidt/Engiineering Coord. • Larry Conrad.Senior Planner _ 2131 SW Schols/PO Box 25412 . • • PO Box 4755 • • . - - . ' , _CITY OF PORTLAND. • -'• -Portland,OR97225"• . Beaverton,OR 97076. • Planning Director • • .• ' - , .: . 1120 SW 5th ' . _CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO . . _ CITY OF BEAVERTON Portland,OR 97204 . ::- City Manager . . - Mike Matteucci,Neighborhood Coordinator ' PO Box 369. . PO Box 4755 • . _CITY OF DURHAM Lake Oswego,OR 97034 • ' Beaverton.OR.97076 - • - . City Manager • PO Box 23483 =CITY OF KING CITY . • _CRY OF TUALATIN , . Tigard,OR.972813483 City Manager• • '- PO Box 369 15300 SW 116th Tualatin,OR 97062 OTHER - • King City,OR 97224 ;.:.: > «'`:<= "'''''::':'?(ii :'` ''.":::>>> : ?:<: