ZOA8-84 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
Ft _y ,,, •. s,t
;r yy -*s t e+•1`,3 tv,,n 1 'tP.. . k:.3.a.7 ,`':�rlt # +it
Nk x• •:,,y` i xMg kys�srTl.r; .2�' a E��a. �w ys r�'` �}v.�xa' ..n;r��l*�"zx�.:,}fir..vsr0.Ms,. �.
18.42.010, 18.60.030, 18.62.030 ZO,X ,.4
—•✓'•""�"`.w«—.ear
", '—'''---3.3.,64.030 18.66.030, 18.68.030/ 8.8
& 05038.70.030,18.72.030,18.84.045
•
ii
1�
,
Sri
r
i .., '
,
is N ,...
•
�
�
..
L.
L
x ..
•dye. Z- -
a
:.
.rr
, CITY OF TIGARD
Washington County, Oregon
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION -- BY CITY COUNCIL (Sec. 18.32.380)
1, Concerning Case Number(s):
ZOA 8- 84 .;.
2. Name of Owner: N/A
3. Name of Applicant: Cit y of Tigard
`. Address 12755 SW Ash Ave. City Tigard State OR Zip 97223
4, Location of Property
Address N/A
Legal Description N/A
5. Nature of Application: Add definition for Manufactured Homes and allow their
use in specific zones. Also amend section 18.98,030 on Building Heights and
Flag lots.
Action:6.,: 6 The Tigard City Council amended various sections of the CMG by
adopting Ordinance No. 85-15 on 4/15/85. A copy of the ordinance is attached
for tile.
7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall
and mailed to:
•
XX The applicant & owners
a Owners of record within the required distance
XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization
XX Affected governmental agencies '..
8. Final Decision:
THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 4 15 85
•
The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be y
obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, "
P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
•
9. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard
City Recorder, 639-4171.
(0257P)
r {.
A A '
•
1
{
T.
I' ..--
CITY OF TI:GARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 85- / '''s
1
i
4 ,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMMUNICY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY (ZOA 8-84)
i
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise its Community
Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of t;, .
the Code; and
f.
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has reviewed the Community Development Code
and has adopted the same; and g
WHEREAS, the Community Development Code was submitted to the. Land Conservation ..,
and Development Commission for acknowledgement with other elements of the 1
Comprehensive Plan; and 1
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission held public hearings on the 1
proposed changes on March 5, 1985. t
WHEREAS, The Tigard City Council held public hearings on the proposed changes
on April 8, 1985. i
1
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: r `:
Section 1. The Community Development shall be amended as set forth in
Exhibit '°A" attached. Items •to be added are underlined, items
to be deleted are shown in [brackets]. 1
Section 2. In order that the community Development Code may improve the v ."
operation and implementation of the Code and to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, an emergency is hereby i
Is declared to exist and this Ordinance shall become effective upon 1.
its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. t',
PASSED:: By u,,7 4,,,,►a-,c��c 5 vote of all Council members present after
being read by number and title only, this /6—'1...L-- day l,:
of �,. ! , 1985
#.
l'
;.
/I .•t ., A --g=.-<- )
c Deputy City Recorder ity of Tigard 1.'1.
APPROVED ' `
This �S'— day of . �.�.�_/ 1985.
' ('''''' ' ' i— )'''( -'1'‘I°4*' t''
..
.yar - City of Tigard r :,
1,
-�
(1199P)
,.
ORDINANCE NO, 85- .s'
t
Page 1
•
EXHIBIT "A„
18.26.030 Add, in alphabetical order, "Manufactured homes" as used in
this code, means a factor, fabricated transportable building
designed to meet the Uniform Building code to be used by itself
or incorporated with similar structures or units at ,a buildin►
site, as a dwe l lin- unit. The term is intended to a.41, to
1. major assemblies and does not include buildings constructed at
a site from prefabricated panels, trusses, and other
prefabricated supplements.
18.42.020 (9) Delete ["Manufactured/"]
18.42.020 (10) Add Manufactured Home refers to a factory transportable
buildin• which meets the Uniform 8uildin► Code which is
incor•orated with similar structures or units as a buildin•
site and used as a dwelling units.
18.44.030 Add L Manufactured homes
18.46.030 Add 4) Manufactured homes
18.48.030 Add 4) Manufactured homes
18,50.030 Add (4) Manufactured homes
: . 18.52.030 Add (4) Manufactured home
18.54.030 Add (7) Manufactured homes
18.56.030 Add (9) Manufactured homes
18.58.030 Add (10) Manufactured homes v.
(:'
•E. Chapter 18.94 Sections:
Add 18.94.040 Manufactured Homes on individual building lots.
Delete 18.94.0[4]0 Nonconforming mobile homes
Add 18.94.050 Nonconforming mobile homes
18.94.010 Delete
18.94.010 Add: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria for
the placement of manufactured/mobile homes in manufactured home
subdivisions, mobile home park developments and manufactured
homes on individual building lots within the City of Tigard.
18.94.040 Delete
18.94.040 Add Manufactured homes on individual buildin. lots.
The establishment, loction, and use of manufactured homes as -
scattered-site residences shall be permitted in the absence of
covenants, conditions and restrictions in any zone permittxng
installation of a dwellinq unit subject to requirements and
Limitations apply ng-generally to such residential uses in the
district and provided such homes shall meet the follow .ng
requirements and limitations:
ORDINANCE NO. 85- :5:-
Page, 2
•
•
Ll The home shall meet all requirements applicable to
single—family dwellings and possess all all necessary
improvement location, biilding and occupancy permits and
other certifications required by <the codet
(2) The home shall be larder than 950 sic uare feet of occupied
s a _or meet the minimum square footage requirements for
the appropriate gone;
(3) The home shall be attached and anchored to a2ermanent'
foundation in conformance with the regulations adopted by
the Ore.on De•artment of Commerce and with manufacturer's
:. installation specifications
(4) The home shall be covered with an exterior material
customarily used on site built residential dwellings, and
such material shall extend oven the top of the foundation
Sor meet the community°s site built residential dwellanc�
•
home standards)
(5) The homes shall have a roof composed of a material
customarily used on site built residential dwellings, stash
as asbestos, fiberglass shake as.halt or tile which
shall be installed onto a surface a* ro.riatel ,itched for
the materials used.
Add: 18.94.050 Nonconformincl mobile homes. Sa) Mobile home. parks
c. existing at the adoption of the ordinance codified in this ttle not
meeting the standards set forth in this title shall be considered ,
nonconforminct and are subject to the standards set forth in 'Section
18.132.040
(b Nonconforming mobile homes in such parks may be replaced with
like mobile homes that meet that standards of Section 18 94.030 when
they are moved _or destro, ed, (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A( ,mart)- 1983) .
18.98.030.Delete
18.98.030 Add Building Heights and Flag Lots
Limitations on the placement of residential structures on flag
lots ap.p when either of the following exist:
111 A flag lot was created prior to April 15, 1935;
(2) A flag lot is created after April 15, 1995,- by+ an approved
minor land partition or
A flag lot is created by the approval of a subdivision and
the flag lot is located on the periphery of the subdivision
so that the lot adjoins other residentially zoned land, '
Add (b) The maximum height for a single—family, duplex, attached or
multiple—family residential. structure on a flag lot or a lot hav g
sole access for anaccessway, private drive or easement is one and
one—half stories or twenty-five feet,__whichever is less, except that
.' � the maximum height is two stories: or th irty feet, whichever is less,
Provided:
ORDINANCE NO. 85— /
Page 3
Y;. .':.•' . .. .' . .J)a y.. .N, N �'�tea') u ` �,
(* (1) The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable " '`
dimensional re uirements of the zonin+ district; v
(2) A ten foot side yard will be preserved_
(3) A residential structure on an abutting, lot either is located
fifth feet or mare from_the nearest paint of the subject
dwelling,or the residential structure exceeds one and one-half
stories or twenty abutting lot; an
(4) Windows fifteen feet or more above rade s
g hall not face
dwellin• unit windows or ',atlas on an abuttin• lot unless the
rp oposal includes an agreement to plan trees capable of
mitigating direct views,or that such trees sexist and will
pr•eerved,
c
Where an a•reement is made to .lant trees capable of miti•atin•
direct views, the agreement shall be deemed a condition of approval
under the provisions of Section 18.32.2591EL
d� The tree plantin• agreement shall be a condition of Chaster
18,120, Site Develo imam Review, for three or more attached units sir
a multi•le-famil residential structure, 1_2E_ for sin le detached
units, one duplex or two attached residential units at the issuance ''
of buildin permits.___(Ord. 84-29 Section 1 Exhibit A cart 1984•
Or 83-52 exhibit A(part), 1983 .
1199P
v,
a.-
i
is ..
ORDINANCE NO. 85- /1-
. Page 4 ,,
k
T I G A R D CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL ,MEETING MINUTES — APRIL 15, 1985 - 7:30 P,M,
1, ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian (arrived
at 7:37 P.M.) Phil Edin, Jerry Edwards,' and Ina Scott;,_
City Staff: Frank Currie, City Engineer; Bob Jean, City
Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development
Counsel al
Director; Tim Ramis, Le '
..: g (arrived at 7:37 P.M.);
and Doris Hartig, Deputy City Recorder.
2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON—AGENDA ITEMS
Add the following:
a, State `Sales Tax Status Report by City Administrator
b. City Administrator Employment Contract -- Phil Edin •`'
c, Howard Williams letter — Ima Scott
;.
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA
No one appeared to speak
4. KEYS TO CITY
a. Mayor Cook presented Key to City to Robert Bellinger for his
service on Parks & Recreation Board. Staff will mail certificate ^';
to Myrna Pinkerton.
5. WCCLS & COUNTY LEVY DISCUSSION
a. City Administrator noted the County has not called for an election
date. He reported on the status regarding an acceptable levy for
Washington County libraries. He will keep Council advised
,,. 7:37 P,M. COUNCILOR BRIAN AND ATTORNEY RAMIS ARRIVED
6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT .ZOA 8-84
f^
a, Director of Community Development summarized memo and recommended
adoption.
ORDINANCE NO,. 85-15 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (ZOA 8-84)
b. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt.
Discussion followed regarding section 18.94.010 and 18.94.040
regarding pre—existing covenants, conditions and restrictions.
c. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to amend
section 18.94.040 by adding "residences shall be permitted in the
absence of covenants conditions and restrictions" in any zone
permitting, . . . .and amend section 18.94.010 by deleting all the
underlining except "manufactured homes on individual building"
Motion carried.
Ordinance as amended approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES -- APRIL 15, 1985
V-.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 8, 1985, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, Phil
Edin, Jerry Edwards, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Bill
Monahan, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal
Counsel and. Jerri Widner, Finance Director.
1.1 CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS ,
a. Addition to 12.4 consent agenda, JB Bishop planned development
Tom Brian moved to discuss this issue on non--agenda." Jerry
Edwards seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: Daniel Gott, 13230 SW Hill Ct spoke about JB Bishop's
proposed development. Gloria Johnson passed out a 'letter requesting a
hearing on the matter. Carolyn Eadon expressed NPO l's concurrence with
the action taken, Dave Atkinson of SW Century Oak Dr. relayed a message
from the Tigard Neighborhood Watch Committee regarding vandalism in
Summerfie1d. JS Bishop requested Council to allow the Costco chief
executive officer and Costco attorney to speak. _.
3. STATE REVENUE SHARING ORDINANCE 85-11. Tom Brian moved to adopt. Ima
seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
4. BANCROFT ASSUMPTION ORDINANCE 85-12. After discussion, Phil Edin moved
to adopt the ordinance with the amendment Tom Brian seconded. Vote
I 4/1 with Councilor Scott voting no ,,.
5. SALE OF SURPLUS LAND/ALTERNATIVE METHOD. Tom Brian and general
consensus by other members direct the Asst. Finance Director to mail the
information to brokers on the West side
6. SOLAR ACCESS STUDY. Mike McKeever of the State Department of Energy
, discussed the proposed solar access project with the Council. Ima Scott
was concerned with the staffing costs and Tom Brian was concerned with
the property rights issue of solar access. Jerry Edwards felt he needed
• more information. Tim Ramis asked if private sector consultants would
be hired and would the City have any control over the hiring. Mayor ,
Cook asked Bill Monahan to come back on April 15, 1985 with more
information for council.
7. ZONE ORDINANCE ZOA 8-84 CITY OF TIGARD. Staff sun..:-&tion was Presented
by Bill Monahan. Tom Brian moved to have an ordinance written using the
definition on page two of the staff report. Ima Scott seconded
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. ;
Tom Brian moved to direct staff to notify legislators and the
( legislative committee handling SB53 that the City is in opposition of
:.." the bill and also any other legislation which restricts local control.
Jerry Edwards seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
Flag lots. Staff summation by Bill Monahan. Phil Edin moved to have an
'R ordinance written that would restrict additional flag lots in
subdivisions that adjoin and also flag lots included in these rules.
, ' Tom Brian seconded Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
t
}•
.eta,
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 5, 1985
1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was
held at Fowler Junior High LGI Room 10865 SW Walnut.
2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President. Moen; Commissioners Butler, pyre,
Owens,` Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Campbell.
ABSENT: Commissioners Leverett and Peterson.
STAFF: Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth
A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
* Commissioner Pyre moved and Commission Bergmann seconded to approve
minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote of
•
Commissioners present, Commissioner Owens abstained.
4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
0 Staff distributed copies of sections of Land Use Procedures and
Practices in Oregon. Also, a letter from NPO # 3 was distributed F..:
regarding agenda item 5.1 (ZOA 8-84)®
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5e1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OA 8-84 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE)
(5.1 a.) Review Section 18.26, 18.94 (Manufactured Homes), (5.1 b.)
18.96 and 18.98 (Flag Lots and Height Limits).
5.1 a. Associate Planner Liden explained that the information on
Manufactured Homes had been taken back through the NPO process. He
reviewed NPO 3, 5, and 6's comments. The other NPOs had not r
responded. He requested that the Commission make a recommendation to •
City Council whether or not manufactured/mobile homes should be
allowed on individual lots � v
•
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o No one appeared to speak
PUBLIC HEARING, CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AS ACTION
o Consensus of the Commissioners was that Manufactured Homes should be
allowed if they met the standards as. required by stick built homes
and have criteria which they would have to meet to be allowed on
individual lots. Also, they felt their was a 'need for a strong
definition between manufactured homes and mobile hones.
..`, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1985 Page 1
f -
p ,
T
Z
P
* Commissioner Campbe11 moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to
a
recommend to City Council to allow Manufactured Homes on Single
Family Lots, that they meet the same standards as required for stick '`
built houses, that they meet the standards for subdivision and
criterions be established to allow manufactured homes on individual
lots. Also that a definition be made for manufactured. and mobile
homes. Motion carried unanimously by Commission present
5.1 b. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the memo and information stating
that staff preferred alternative number five. Lengthy discussion ..7'.
followed.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY ,
0 Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, representing NPO # 6, read the
NPO's recommendation from their February 25, 1985 minutes. They were
concerned about giving authority to the Director to decide this issue.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED .
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Vanderwood, Fyre, Bergmann, Butler, Owens and Campbell
favored alternative number five. Commissioner Bergmann was not sure
why the code needed changing, he felt it was adequate as is. Lengthy `''
discussion regarding the side yard setbacks.
o President Moen stated his concerns for alternative five. He supported
alternative number two, which would require that the Code provisions - _.
be applied only to flag lots which are not in subdivis ions.
* Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to
:'; recommend alternative number 2, which reiterates their recommendation .
A
of May 8, 1984, to have the Code provisions only apply to flag lots
which are not in subdivisions. Also to add 10 ft. for side yard
setbacks, also remove the word provided. Motion carried by majority .
vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Butler voting no
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 30-84 FINDINGS POLICIES AND .
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES DOCUMENT.
Review Policies 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.3, 3.4, and 3.4.1.
,
Associate Planner Newton reviewed the status and requested that staff's ,...
recommendations be forwarded to City Council.
. .. PUBLIC TESTIMONY
• o Geraldine Ball, read her concerns into the record, she favored
�. staff's recommendation.
t
"i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1985 Page 2
,•-ice �..y;,�..
•
•
r'
AGENDA ITEM .5.1'a
- PLANNING COMMISSION •
March 5, 1985
ZCA 884
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission March 1, 1985
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Manufactured Homes
"; At the January 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, the planning Staff
presented a memo regarding siting of manufactured/mobile homes. The primary
issue raised was whether or not manufactured mobil. home should be allowed on.
individual lots in residential zones in he City. At that meeting,` the
Planning Commission directed staff to review the issues with the NPO's.
Since that time, staff has made the information available to all of the
NPO's. NPO # 5 and NPO # 6 have both reviewed the information. The consensus
of NPO # 5 was to allow manufactured homes on individual lots subject to
certain standards set forth in the Community Development Code and
enforceable through Covenants, 'Conditions, and Restrictions.
NPO J 6 does not support allowing manufactured/mobile homes on individual lots
and recommends retaining the existing Community Development Code language.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review the attached standards proposed by the Manufactured Housing Association
and forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding siting
manufactured/mobile homes on individual lots.
1063P
dmj
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Geraldine Ball questioned the need for a field survey. Discussion
followed.
PUBLIC REARING' CLOSED
0 Vice President Owens moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to set
CPA 30-84 over to the February 5, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. ..
Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present.
,
FINAL ORDERS FOR ITEMS', 5.2 and 5.3.'
", Associate Planner Liden reviewed the final order for PD 4-84, S 9-84, 2C
12-84, and V 15-84.
* Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to
•..:` adopt the final order as proposed by staff and authorize Vice ,
....-..=','
_ President Owens to sign the final order. Motion carried unanimously „�
by Commissioner present. ,
Associate Planner Liden reviewed the final order for 'PD 6-84 and S' 11-84.
:•` * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commission Butler seconded to adopt
the final order as proposed by staff and authorize Vice President
Owens to sign the final order. Motion carried unanimously by
..A
Commissioners present
-t 5.6 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 CITY OF TICARI3
Review section 18.26, 18.94, 18.96, 18.98, and 18.144 of the `Communit -
a a a a �
Development Coded ;
Director of Community Development Monahan reviewed his memo regarding
Manufactured/Mobile Homes. He requested that the Commission give him some
direction as to whether manufactured homes should be allowed on single
family lots.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Don Halbrook, 1109 Sierra Vista, Newberg, supported staff's recommendation
for the definition of manufactured homes. He supported allowing
manufactured homes on single family lots®
4
Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, was concerned about the effect
Manufactured homes would have on established homes if they were allowed on ,
single family lots. .;,
i 4:
:i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 5
f y ^k
4 p
•
•
•
4'7
63rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-1985 Regular Session
Senate Bill 53
PRINTED PURSUANT TO ORS 171.130 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing rules,
indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the pact of the President(at the request of Joint Interim Committee on
Land Use)
SUMMARY ,
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly.It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.
Requires city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to allow the siting of certain
manufactured homes on at least some lots zoned for single family dwellings. Requires local governments to
designate lots on which manufactured homes will be allowed.
■ 1 A BILL FOR AN AC'f
2 Relating to manufactured homes.
3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
4 SECTION I.Section 2 of this Act is added to and made a part of ORS 197.295 to 197.307.
5 SECTION 2.(1)Upon and after the first periodic review,city and county plans and land use
6 regulations shall allow manufactured homes meeting the requirements of subsections(2)and(3)of this section to
7 be sited onset least some lots planned and zoned for single family dwellings.The comprehensive plan or land use
8 regulations shall designate the lot or lots planned and zoned for single family dwellings on which those
9 manufactured homes are allowed. •
10 (2)A manufactured home qualifies under subsection(1)of this section if it meets all of the following criteria:
• l I (a)It is multisectional.
12 (b)It encloses a space of not less than 864 square feet.
', 13 (c)It has a pitched composition shingle or wood shake roof.
14 (d)It is set upon a foundation approved by the Department of C;ornmerce,and if not placed at ground level,
15 it has skirting which complements the structure.
- 16 (e)It has exterior siding in color,material and appearance similar to the exterior siding material commonly
• 17 used on residential dwellings.
18
. (3)A city or county may subject a manufactured home sited under subsection(1)of this section and the lot
19 upon which it is sited to any development standard to which a conventional single family residt:,t<tial dwelling on •
20 the same lot would be subject, except those development standards which would prevent all manufactured
21 homes from being sited on the lot.Development standards include,but are not limited to,building setbacks and
22 aesthetic and architectural requirements.
23 (4) Nothing in this section precludes a city or county from allowing mobile homes, as defined in ORS
24 446 003(19),and manufactured homes that do not meet the requirements of subsection(2)of this section on lots
25 planned and zoned for single family dwellings.
26 (5)City and county comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall adequately provide for the siting of
27 mobile homes,as defined in ORS 446.003(19),and manufactured homes not provided for in subsection(1)of
28 this section within areas planned and zoned for residential use.
NOTE: Matter in bold face in an amended section is new,matter[italic and bracketed]is existing law to be omitted.
•
•
,-t .:::.,«....._..a-. ,...,;,r .,...'.:..:_ .:> :i: r � ,a4:..«... __ .•.., Jf.. yr•
SB53
I SEC"'I'ION 3. Subsections(1) to(4) of section 2 of this Act apply to a corrlprehensive plan and land use
2 regulations upon.and after the first periodic review of that plan and regulations.
•
s.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,
{
ltt.
`7
•
b�7•
[2)
•
I
V ri O
y1
v m
AGENDA ITEM 5.1 b
PLANNING COMMISSION .
march 5, 1985 i
ZOA 8-84 ,
MEMORANDUM ,
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Irch 1, 1985
Planning Commission
'. FRS:
' gd/i/ •
planning Staff
. SUBJECT: Flag Lots/Height Limits
the Planning eta a
Commission meeting,
At the January 8, 1985,, Planning development on flag lots,
a.
options for regulating process.presented a memo outlining p
•directed staff to send the issue back through the NPO p
The Commission ���.�^
the staff made the information
and February regarding
During
the months of January this
available
to the NP0's. The. minutes from the NPO 6 meeting •
# 5 also reviewed the issue, however, no minutes
issue are attached. NP O �;
have been received by staff regarding this issue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In addition,
of the planning Commission and NPO are attached . In ardition,
< The minutes from Bill Monahan outlining.. �> the memo dated December 28, 1984,
? i s attac8�ed The Commission should make a recommendation to the Council
regarding Flag
dots and Height Limits.
1063P
S
s
�..
•
•
•
y .r •
February 25, 1985
NPO //6 Minutes from February 20, 1985 meeting. •
1. The meeting was called to order by Phi] Fastens at 7:30 p.m.
•
Roll was taken with Phil Paster's Sue Carver, Mary Clinton, Eunice Dart
Jane Miller and Connie Smith presMary nt.
3. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
4. Jeff Fish Representative for the ''Street of Affordable Homes" and
Brian and Michele Lessler Bridon Homes presented their plan for the
above function to be held starting June 14 and continuing on for 17 days.
The hours will be 11 a,m, to 8 p.m. during the weekdays and 10 a.rn: to
8 p.m. on the weekends. Admission will be $3 for adults and $1 for child
ren. This will be located on the corner of Durham and Hall Blvd. There E
will be 15 builders building 18 dif feren ct homes. This area is•'zoned ,
R-7 (5 000 sq. ft. lots). The homes will range from 1,250 to 17,000 sq.
ft. and range from $60,000 to $80,000. They have worked things out with
the Tigard Police and City for maximum security. There will be parking
available in the Tigard High Swim Center. They will be using volunteers
from the Muscular Dystrophy and will inturn make a donation to the found=- t
ation.
5. Vern Lentz was present representing Arlie and Irene Mawhiter i
r n a sub
•
division they are Planning.' This is located on the corner of McDonald and y' f:.
97th. They have planned 6 lots, 4 of which are at least 7,500 sq. ft or
better. There are 2 lots that are under the 7,500 sq. ft. lot minimum, ,1
and he was asking for a variance for those 2 lots. A motion was made,
seconded and passed to recommend to the Planning Corrmision of approval of
this. E,
6. NPO #6 joined with NPO #5--t6 get some input on the Zone Change of an area :1',
south of Ross. St. and on Hall Blvd. The representative for this Zone 1 ry
Change, Ryan O'Brien said they want to change the zone from R-7 to R-12.
There is about 3.72 acres in this piece of property. They are planning
multi-family dwellings, with 42 to 48 units. The traffice on Hall Blvd. ;,,:
was one of the bigger issues discussed in this matter. NPO #5 did not I;
have a quorom, so 'they were unable to make any recommendations.
7. NPO #6 made a motion, which was seconded and passed, to recommend that
the Flag Lots and Heights Limitation Code read as follows. (Combining
# 3 and #6 of the Alternatives to Modify the Code Provisions)
Reduce the maximum height of homes on flag lots to either
30 or 25 feet. NPO #6 recommended in May of 1984 that
Section 18.98.030 be replaced by the following:
"The maximum height for a single-family, duples, attached
or multiple family residential structure on a flag lot or
a lot having sole access from an accessary private drive or
• easement shall be no higher than the talles house on an
adjoining lot or twenty five (25) feet, whichever is less."
Continued on Page 2
•
- r .,..P.w xyi .1.'.} Nn nq X;.w W. xaYX. •\ ^ a ..y. -:Sr1'\i«`.PMlf tN9,..aM`<r hx^ M+fX N 4\X^P't Y< .<h(N/
..' �WYA�mWa.,n•
.,., ..,.,.. .._..x,..:._ i..,..as-,,W_,.«,,.-... ......,�...u.»_,. •.. ... .
#
`J
NPO #6 Minutes of February 25, 1985
7. Continued.
And
Provide special screening requirements in addition to .�
the current code regulations. The screening could be
patterned after those used by the City of, Eugene which
prove an option to an abutting property owner to request
screening along the access drive or a five foot high sight o
obscuring fence or`wall, or landscaping that will be five
` feet high and 75% sight-obscuring within five Years.
Eugene applies its regulations at the time of land division
review. The City of Portland also has a screening requirement.
Portland requires screening along any lot line between a flag •
lot and an abutting lot where the abutting lot is in different ►
ownership than the lot being partitioned/subdivided to
create the flag lot. Thus, the burden is totally on the i
flag lot property owner to provide a fence for screening
regardless of whether the adjoining properties are dev
eloped first. Portland does provide for a waiver if all
owners give written consent.
And
Andprohibiting Flag Lots in Zone R-4.5, R-7, R--l2, ►
R-20 and R-40.
L. This information was to be passed on to the Planning Commission.
4
8. Other business - Mary and Phill'were planning to go the grade school
and the junior high to see what kind of support they could receive
from them in making a bike path on Pinebrook.
9. with no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
•
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
0 Commissioner Pyre stated he was on NPO # 3 during the Comprehensive
Plan and their intent was not to allow manufactured homes on single
family lots.
0 Commission Vanderwood stated it was her understanding that
g family
manufactured homes were not to be allowed on single famil lots. , .. •
o Commissioner Campbell stated she was not present during the
Comprehensive Plan process, however, WAS concerned with treating
manufactured homes as mobile homes. She felt that they should be
considered dwelling units. ... .
o Commissioner Butler stated he was on NPO # 1 during the process and
they determined it was discriminatory not to allow them, however, the
intent of the plan was not to allow them on single family lots. ;
}
0 Commissioner Peterson was not around during the Comprehensive Plan
process but felt they should be allowed in subdivision with <`.
convenants and on single family lots if standards were set '
0 Vice President Owens recalled that it was NPO # 7 intent to allow
manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions. She felt there !
was a need, for a definition and supported staff's recommendation. -.
0 Commissioner Leverett felt manufactured homes should be allowed as a
matter of economics. If they meet the building code they should be `
allowed as a dwelling unit.
o Commission Butler commented that he felt allowing manufactured homes
would help meet the LCDC goal which requires providing a diverse type
of needed housing. He felt minimum standards could be established.
o Lengthy discussion following regarding allowing manufactured homes
a Frank Johnson, 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. commented that he
- 1 lived in a mobile home and that their is a big difference between
manufactured and mobile homes. He added that LaGrand allows
manufactured homes in a specific area.
o Discussion followed on how to continue. Consensus was to go back
through the NPO process. No action was taken. ee
Director of Community Monahan reviewed his memo on flag lots and height
limitations. He explained the difficulty of applying the restriction when
flag lots are being developed. He then reviewed seven alternatives.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Mary. Clinton, 9865 SW View Ct., representing NPO # 6 suggested not
allowing flag lots to abut existing established areas. She felt flag
lot should only be allowed on R 3.5 lots or larger.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 6
•
0 Discussi on fallded. Consensus of the Commission was to send this
item back through the NPO process. Coamnissioner. Butler and Owens
I.' favored alternative number S and Commissioner Peterson favored
..
alternative number 2. No action was takena
6. OTHER BUSINESS
sign code exceptions for
o Director Monahan reviewed his memo regarding asked the Commissioners
restaurants, motels, and gas stations.
types of businesses should be
for their input on whether these typ
allowed special exceptions.
o, Consensus of
the Commission was for limitations and not to allow
special exceptions.
7. ADJOURNMENT 11:08 P.M.
i
Diane M. Jelder Secretary
ATTEST:
Vice-President Bonnie Owens
. 0903P
dmj
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 7
kl r;t, :'K"q'«»..vpyr. yy+c .,.7, a �..?...v. °r+r'v ut t_x,.4 �e'"risn 79 4i';r'•M R :- T ..
AGENDA ITEM 5.6
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
January 8, 1984
ZOA 8-84 (18.96 & 18.98)
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
' FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: December 28, 1984
SUBJECT; Flag Lots and Height Limits
•
Tiard's Community Development Code contains a special section concerning
#: height limits which are applied to flag lots. The section has been applied on
+kJ.
a few occasions with mixed results. In order that we may assess the adequacy
of the code provisions, I conducted a survey of Oregon communities to
determine if there are other ways to regulate flag lots which may better suit
: our purposes. The survey was sent to twenty four jurisdictions with fourteen
responding. (See Flag Lot Regulation Survey — Attached). Although the
majority of cities do not apply any special standards to flag lots, some
interesting restrictions and definitions were provided to us I have ;
attempted to analyze our code provisions and apply the alternative standards
so that you may review the current language to determine if any modification
should be made.
f+ Present Code Lanau
Section 18.96.080, 18 96.090, and 18.98.030 relate to flag lots. In addition,
a Flag Lot is defined in section 18 26.030 as "a lot or,parcel which includes
a private accessway as part thereof". The purpose of creating flag Lots is to- -
allow for maximum utilization of land by creating lots with less frontage than
normally required to accommodate an access corridor to lots on parcels which
are located behind lots or parcels with normally required street frontage.
The particular concern which Ti ard's
present code deals with is that of :
privacy. Each of the special conditions dealing with height, setbacks from
existing residential structures, regulation of windows, and tree planting were
established for the purpose of preserving privacy on adjacent lots. It is
felt that a home on a flag lot has the potential to infringe on the privacy of
neighboring lots since the house may face the private rear yard area of one or
more lots. Whether or not this is a concern which justifies the continuance
of the present code provisions should be evaluated. The current language is '`
as follows:
"18.96.080 Lot area for flag_lots. (a) The lot area for a flag lot shall
comply with the lot area requirements of the applicable zoning district.
(b) The lot area shall be provided entirely within the building site area
exclusive of any accessway (see figure in Section 10.96.090). (Ord. 83-52
Exhibit A (part), 1983).
18.96.090 F'r®nt yard deterrrmirnation, The owner or developer of a flag lot
may determine the location of the front yard; provided no side yard setback
' area is less than ten feet, and provided the requirements of Section
18.98.030, building heights and flag lots, are satisfied. r,
.w4..,. . .,.:,... Page 1
nv � .}t.. 'i..:,a+.m 'y! +s tv\.•nYt n+ar:• r-irisY.li.".fr. v.+uw4w w
�89'�8.Q3(3 Building heights and flag lots. . (a) The maximum height for a
{:
single-family, duplex, attached or multiple-family residential structure on a
flag lot or a lot having sole access from an accessway, private drive or
easement is ona and one-half stories or twenty-five feet, whichever is less,
except that the maximum height may be two and one-half stories or thirty-five
•
feet, whichever is less provided:
(1) The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable
dimensional requirements of the zoning district;
(2) A residential structure on any abutting lot either is located
fifty feet or more from the nearest point of the subject dwelling, or the
residential structure exceeds one and one-half stories or twenty-five feet in
height on any abutting lot; and
(3) Windows fifteen feet or more above grade shall not face
- ' dwelling unit windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal
includes an agreement to plant trees capable of mitigating direct...views, or
that such trees exist and will be preserved.
(b) Where an agreement is made to plant trees capable of mitigating
direct views, the agreement shall be deemed a condition of 'approval under the
provisions of Section 18.32.250(f)
(c) the tree planting agreement shall be a condition of Chapter 18.120,
Site Development Review, for three of more attached units or a multiple-family
residential structure, or for single detached units, one duplex or two
attached residential units, at the issuance of building permits.
•' specifically, Tigard's code provides for special height limits for flag lots
unless the proposed house complies with the dimensional requirements of the
zoning district, a house on any abutting lot is either 5o feet or more from
therya
proposed dwelling or that existing house is greater than one and_one-half
stories or twenty five feet in height, and windows of the house which face
adjacent dwelling unit windows and patios are not more than fifteen feet above
grade unless tree planting to mitigate direct views is provided for. These
conditions place all of the responsibility for preserving privacy on the
developer of the flag lot, however, the conditions fail to meet their intended
purpose if all surrounding lots are not developed prior to construction of the
home on the flag lot. In addition, the code does not apply properly where the
flag lot is the initial lot to be developed in an area nor does it provide for
the privacy of the residents of the flag lot when future development on
adjoining lots take place,
purpose of Restrictions
Ideally the code provisions will allow each flag lot to be developed without
unduly adding to the cost of development while meeting the intent of the
Code. But, why place special conditions on flag lots when similar
restrictions are not ''placed on other single family structures which may
similarly infringe on the privacy of others for any of a number of reasons?'
Examples of conflicts which are not prevented by our Code on standard lots are
1. The thirty five foot house in an R-7 zone surrounded by one or one
and one-half story homes.
4 Page
•
..1 2. The house with second story windows which look out' onto a
neighbor's� patio (regardless of whether the patio pre-existed: the
house).
3. Areas where only ten feet separate homes in an R-7 or R-4.5 zone
could result in windows directly facing each other which limit
privacy.
4. The orientation of a house on higher ground is such that even
though it is only one story, windows face dwelling unit windows or
look down on the patio of an adjoining lot.
In terms of the preservation of
p privacy, it is difficult to anticipate the ..
many circumstances which could occur where privacy will become an issue. In
most of Tigar 's subdivisions the development of an area is not completed in a
so called planned format as all houses to be developed are not planned in
advance. Normally a developer will subdivide an area, put in-settle public
facilities, and then offer the lots for sale. As a result, the lots are
bought and developed by builders either on contract to a buyer or built on
speculation. Not knowing what type of home will be built on an .adjoining lot
can result in home orientation and window placement which cause a conflict
when later development takes place or results in design modification by the
'' later builder. Unless the City imposes special conditions on builders on
standard lots the end result could be that the last home built is allowed only
+ � limited windows and restricted placement of the home. ,
Instances where Ti'ard's Code Ma Not Accom•lish the Intended Result
Tigard's code ` provision is geared towards the flag lot being the last lot
developed. When this occurs, if all homes surrounding it are one or one and
one-half story in height and all are built less than fifty feet from the flag
lot home, some continuity and privacy can be achieved which may be
y p y y preferable ._ .,
to that which a two or two and one-half story home would allow. However, when
the flag lot is developed early in the completion of a subdivision or if there
is a difference in topography, the
purpose of the code provision may not be
achieved (or insured) or application of the code may not be needed to preserve
privacy.
1. Development of the Flag Lot is early in the build out of the subdivision.
If the flag lot is developed first, item 18.98,030 (2) cannot apply as no
structure is 50 feet or more from the structure to be built on the lot.
Also,
18.98.030(3) can not apply. As a result, the City must determine of
r
the lot can be developed at two and one half stories or if it is
restricted to only one and one half since item (2) can not be met. This
issue needs to be clarified.
2. A difference in topography exists -- the flag lot could be situated in a
subdivision either above or below other lots in the subdivision or on
adjoining lots. If a
� ng great difference in grade exists, the purpose of the
code provisions may be deferred. For instance, if the flag lot is
substantially below the grade of an existing home on an adjacent lot, even
if the existing home is of one story, section 18.98.030 (3) may not be
applicable if the windows "face" the existing structure, but in fact are
below them. This situation oints out the
A problem in defining what °'shall.
not face dwelling unit windows or patios" means.
Page
Alternatives to Modify the Code Provisions to Meet the Intent of Preserving
_•
Privacy.
There are several ways to preserve privacy in those instances where a flag lot
is developed:
1. Maintain the existing regulations and apply them to all existing flag lots
as well as those which will be created in the future.
2. Carry out 'Che Planning Commission recommendation of May 8, 1904 that the
Code provisions only be applied to flag lots which are not in subdivisions.
3. Reduce the maximum height of homes on flag lots to either 30 or 25 feet
NPO #6 recommended in May of 1984 that Section 18,90.030 be replaced by
the following:
"The maximum height for a single—family. duplex, attached or
multiple family residential structure on a flag—lot or a lot having
sole access from an accessary private drive or easement shall be no
higher than the tallest house on an adjoining lot or twenty five
(25) feet. whichever is less:"
4. Utilize the height limits regulated by the standards of the underlying
zone. Each of the jurisdictions surveyed which allow flag lots allow the
` f homes built on these lots to have a height equal to non flag` lot homes.
The City of Eugene, however, does requires that a structure to the rear of
another be at least thirty (30) feet from the structures on the front lot.
5. Establish a procedure where development of a flag lot is a Director's
Decision requiring notice, but no hearing. When a permit application is
processed for a flag lot the permit would be subject to a review similar
{
to that of Washington County which evaluates creation of a flag lot
subject to:
1. Buildings on flag lots shall be oriented to provide the maximum
privacy to surrounding existing and future residential structures.
2. Access and drainage are reviewed.
3, Landscaping and fencing to insure that privacy of existing
residential structures is maintained.
4. The setbacks and minimum lot area requirements of the primar
y
district shall be maintained.
5. Washington County's procedure could be applied to existing lots of
record in a modified site `development review. Many potential
problems could be avoid if at the time of parcel.ization or
subdivision consideration is given to the building location as well
as the access and circulation. •
page 4
. argtit^ ..ra+ }� -wtkyrstY?rtndF»
• •vir a .;..*ti.'Yhr rW., —'k•:tCr
6. Provide special screening requirements in addition to the current �.
code regulations. The screening could be patterned after those
used by the City of Eugene which prove an option to an abutting
property owner to request screening along the access drive or a
five foot high sight obscuring fence or wall, or landscaping that
will be five feet high and 75% sight—obscuring within five years
Eugene applies its regulations at the time of land division
review. The City of Portland also has a screening requirement.
Portland requires screening along° any lot line between a flag lot
and an abutting lot where the abutting lot is in different
ownership than the lot being partitioned/subdivided to create the
flag lot. Thus, the burden i s totally on the flag lot property
owner to provide a fence for screening regardless 'of whether the
adjoining properties are developed first. Portland does provide
for a waiver if all owners give written consent.
A final alternative requires drastic steps:
7. Prohibit the creation of flag lots. Coos Bay took this step in
` 1982, however, given Tigard's density requirements, this proposal
would not apply properly. As land is subdivided or partitioned,
particularly within the older sections of the City, developers will
find that it is necessary to create flag lots to make the highest ,
use of the land.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Planning Commission review the various alternatives to
' determine' if any of those not now applied would better serve Tigard than the
existing code. I have not reviewed the code or the surveyed jurisdictions
c concerning solar access or view rights. My review strictly relates to the r
issue of privacy and how privacy is impacted by building height and window
' placement. It appears that Tigard places more restr,'ict ons on everyday
application of the Code on flag lots than other jurisdictions, We have,_
however, left out the opportunity for flexibility. Flexibility can be worked
in if we require a special review of flag lot development under a Director's
Decision similar to that applied to acces..ary uses.
. .r
Please advise me of your desire to look further at this issue. Specific code
language could be prepared for review at a later date should the Commission
wish to modify the code. Please note that this issue has not been presented
to the CCI for NPO input as no meeting was held in December due to the holiday
schedule. Copies can he sent to the NPO°s for their input prior to any future
Planning Commission discussion.
(0872P)
Page ":
FLAG LOT REGULATIONS SURVEY
Portland �• No special' building height regulations, regulated by
provisions of underlying zone. Code places emphasis on
access and impact rather than height.
Tualatin No special height limits.
Beaverton No special height limits.
Eugene Have an ordinance which allows a modification to minimum
lot standards.
Height maximum is determined by zoning district of the
development.
Minimum of 10 foot placement between structures or a
foot setback on interior property lines.
Screening requirement gives the abutting Property` owner
the option to request screening along the drive or a five
foot high sight-obscuring fence or wall.
Lake Oswego No special height requirement.
Must have 25 foot frontage on street
Wilsonville No provisions for regulating flag lots.
Must comply with requirements of the zone in which they
are located.
Approval by PC since access does not conform to the code
for minimum frontage.
Troutdale Utilize same height standards for all types of lots,
Medford No special requirements other than a minimum street
frontage of 20 feet.
Lot range, setback, and height correspond to the
underlying zoning.
Gresham No difference in regulation than a standard lot
configuration.
Coos Say Since 1982, do not allow creation of flag lots. Now
require a 40 foot frontage on a publicly dedicated
right--of--quay
Roseburg No special regulation of flag lots.
Salem No special height limits for flag lots. Height determined
by underlying zoning district.
? Washington County Setbacks of the
primary district are maintained.
Require landscaping and fencing through Development Review w
to insure maintenance of privacy for existing residential
structures.
Forest Grove Do not impose more restructive height limits on flag lots.
(0872P)
+n,ww. w zv.w ^irsi++n .-v.n wx «w.•
,•.. .. ......::. ;.. '... .. ::. _.:... .,.. :. . :,, •, .,,, yam -'.
MEMORANDU i
CITY OF T;IGARD, OREGON
TO: NPO and CCI Members January 11, 1985
ti' FROM: William AY Monahan, Director of Community Development
BUE3J'ECT: Potential Community development Code Changes
Enclosed for your review are copies of two discussion topics initiated at the
Planning Commission on January 8, 1985, The Commission -asked us to distribute e
these to the NPO's and CCI for input. Both topics will be on the February 5,
agenda of the Planning Commission following discussion at the Tanuary 28, CCI
meeting.
•
Manufactured Homes The Planning Commission expressed interest in
determining if manufactued homes should be allowed on individual lots, we
need to better define manufactured homes and clarify in the Code where
such units are allowed. -
Ala Pots an ei ht l.imi is - The Planning Commission would appreciate
your comments concerning how the City should regulate flag lots. Several
options are presented in the memo. Mrs. Mary _'Clinton of NPO 6 suggested
two other altenatives,
1. That , no flag lots be made abutting existing residential:
neighborhoods; or
2. That no house on a flag lot be built more than 1/2 story higher
than buildings on abutting lots.
Please consider these alternatives as well as those spelled out in the
memo. }
Enclosed are copies of the memos for your consideration. Staff will
prepare a recommendation after considering your comments.
{
dmj/O9O2P
•
•
PUBLIC TESTIMONY ,
o_ Geraldine Ball questioned the need for a field survey. Discussion
followed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ;
o Vice President Owens moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to set
CPA 30-84 over to the February 5, 1985, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present.
L FINAL ORDERS FOR ITEMS 5.2 and 5.3.
Associate Planner Liden reviewed the, final order for PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC
12-84, and V 15-84.
* Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to
adopt the final order as proposed by staff and authorize Vice
President Owens to sign the final order. Motion carried unanimously -
by Commissioner present.
Associate Planner Liden reviewed the final order for PD 6-84 and S 11-84.
* Commissioner Peterson moved and Commission Butler seconded to adopt .
the final order as proposed by staff and authorize Vice President
Owens to sign the final order. Motion carried unanimously by
ra Commissioners present.
5.6 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 CITY OF TIGARD
Review section 18.26, 18.94, 18.96, 18.98, and 18.144 of the -Community
Development Code.
Director of Community Development Monahan reviewed his memo regarding
Manufactured/Mobile Homes. He requested that the Commission give him some
direction as to whether manufactured homes should be allowed on single
family lots
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Don Halbrook, 1109 Sierra Vista, Newberg, supported staff's recommendation
for the definition of manufactured homes. He supported allowing
manufactured homes on single family lots.
Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, was concerned about the effect
Manufactured homes would have on established homes if they were allowed on
single family lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 5
a.:
.o
•
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED •
0 Commissioner Pyre stated he was on NPO # 3 during the Comprehensive
Plan and their intent was not to allow manufactured homes on single '
family lots. :,
0 Commission Vanderwood stated it was her understanding that
manufactured homes were not to be allowed on single family lots.
0 Commissioner Campbell stated she was not present during the •
Comprehensive Plan process, however, was concerned with treating
manufactured homes as mobile homes. She felt that they should be
considered dwelling units
o Commissioner Butler stated he was on NPO # 1 during the process and
they determined it was discriminatory not to allow them, however, the
intent of the plan was not to allow them on single family lots.
o Commissioner Peterson was not around during the Comprehensive Plan
process but felt they should be allowed in subdivision with
convenants and on single family lots if standards were set. ';.
0 Vice President Owens recalled that it was NPO // 7 intent to allow
manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions. She felt there
was a need for a definition and supported staff's recommendation. •
o Commissioner Leverett felt manufactured home„3 should be allowed as
, matter of economics. If they meet the building code they should be
allowed as a dwelling unit.
o Commission Butler commented that he felt allowing, manufactured homes
• would help meet the LCDC goal which requires providing a diverse type
of needed housing. He felt minimum standards could be established
..:: 4 o Lengthy discussion following regarding allowing manufactured homes.
o Frank Johnson, 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd commented that he
I , lived in a mobile home and that their is a big difference between
manufactured and mobile homes. He added that LaGrand allows
manufactured homes in a specific area
o Discussion followed on how to continue. Consensus was to go back
•
through the NPO process. No action was taken._
Director of Community Monahan reviewed his memo on flag lots and height
limitations. He explained the difficulty of applying the restriction when
flag lots are being developed. He then reviewed seven alternatives.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Ct., representing NPO # 6 suggested not
allowing flag lots to abut existing established areas. She felt flag
lot should only be allowed on R 3.5 lots or larger.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 6
•
c,
s.+w,+.+....w+•-.--+,-.-^'.'.mow '..,..
. d. Consensus of the Commission was to send this
,•.., � Discussion follows it back through the NP0 process. Commissioner Butler and Owens : r
:..: favored alt ern em '
ative number 5 and Commissioner Peterson favored
• �•
alternative number 2. No action was taken. .
. , 6. OTHER BUSINESS
sign code exceptions for
.. o Director Monahan reviewed his memo regarding asked the Commissioners
restaurants, motels, and gas stations-
,.. their input on whether these types of businesses should be .
for the input , ,
allowed special exceptions.
o Consensus
of the Commission was for limitations and not to allow
special exceptions.
7. ADJOUR MN ENT 11:08 P.M.
d f' • ;tiI dew { e.
Diane M Jelder. Secretary
ATTEST: •.
Vice-President Bonnie Owens
F k 0903P
#> dmj
.i
rt
' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Pago 7
4
AGENDA ITEM 5.6
January 8, 1985
20A 6-84 (18.26 & 18,94
MEMO
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM William A Monahan, Director of Community Development
DATE: January 3, 1985
RE: Manufactured Homes
Recently a question arose concerning the standards within the Code which
relate to Mobile Homes and Manufactured Homes. Section 18.94 presents the •
Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations and section 10.26 030 includes the .
definitions of "mobile home", "mobile home park" and "mobile home
subdivision". The uestion which was
q posed is what types; of structures are
included in the definition and thus restricted so that they may only be
located within mobile home parks and subdivisions. Our Code does not allow
manufactured/mobile homes on individual lots unless part of a subdivision
which is 100% comprised of units of that type. ,"
It is not clear from the definition of "mobile home" if the intent was to
include all dwelling units constructed off site and transported to the site
for installation. The Planning Staff recalls that the intent of the
Commission and Council during the Comprehensive Plan
g p preparation process was
to group all mobile homes and factory built homes under the general title of
manufactured homes and restrict their placement. , Unfortunately, the
definition section of the, code only contains a definition of mobile hone
which is not inclusive of all manufactured units. A separate definition of
manufactured home is needed. Chapter 18.94 of the Code allows
manufactured/mobile home subdivisions and parks. There is a grouping of terms
here which adds to the confusion. It could be interpreted to mean that
manufactured homes and mobile homes are separate. There are separate
standards for subdivisions and parks. A review of the standards indicates
that the purpose was to allow either manufactured or mobile homes in a
subdivision while the park standards are set out specifically for the type of
• unit which is commonly referred to as a mobile home. The standards contained
in Chapter 18.94 seem to support the argument that the intent of the Code is
to restrict any factory built units.
. The following questions need to be resolved:
1. Is the intent of the Commission and Council to only allow units built
off site and transported for installation on a property to be located
in manufactured/mobile home subdivision and parks?
•
f �
w
l
s ion arid Council feel that manufactured homes should be '
,'.� �. I F- the "Comma � .".
allowed on any building lot in the City, are there any restrictions t
which are necessary such a
,
1) Minimum size of the units
2) building material restrictions
:'
3) design of the structure r•} t .Y
4) landscaping?
developer of a
,
Cener•a11y convena the deve
hts and restrictions prepared by applied to a
the standards which could be app i
subdivision will specify Of course, not
manufactured unit if one were allowed on an individual lot.
'� CC and R's,` therefore if the Commission �
all city housing lots are governed by
does wish to allow individual units, some standards will be necessary.
For your review I have enclosed copies of some floor plans for 1 .
4 manufactured units now available. They were provided to me
by Mr. Pete �'anzen I `�.
who would like to place a unit for his home the Code is that e.
Sh interpretat
Subdivision. I have advised -:him that my �
now allowed. the Commission and Council find otheise,
the unite are not n z
to prepare modifications to the Code and definitions, for your
we will need p p
r'nterp�•e�atie�n, ` at least a 1 . '.
If you agree with my 1
} ` review in February. � '..,.
i of manufactured home is needed in the Code while some language
definition
revision may also be needed.
A suggested definition of manufactured homes is:
fabricated transportable building
designed to i
meet the llni.form Building
A factory Code to be used by itself or .:,:
similar structures or units at a building ,
incorporated with h
- unit• The. term is intended to apply to
;: site as a dwelling
4: ': -
. assemblies and does of include buildings constructed
ss ..
major a �
. prefabricated panels, trusses, and other
at a site p
prefabricated supplements.
1 L
:
'', (0890P
t
N ..
iw°.•eww..,viJy—w--te+..w Y, � —1 ,! L 5e
L/ , I-I 10,V1 S rg� ,-,-t `� 4 , G.).S U
"Dwelling unit" means a single unit, excluding mobile
homes, providing complete, independent living facilities
for one or more persons including permanent provisions for
living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. See Mobile ,
Home.
"Mobile home" as used in this code, means a structure
` transportable in one or more sections, each built on a perma-
nent chassis, which is designed to be used for permanent occu-
pancy as a dwelling and which is constructed cn a site other
than its place of permanent use.
"Mobile home park" means any place where four or more
mobile homes are located within five hundred feet of one
another on a lot, tract or parcel of land under the same
ownership, the primary purpose of which is to rent space or
keep space for rent to any person for a charge or fee paid
or to be paid for the rental or use of facilities or to offer
space ° free in connection with securing the trade or patronage
of such person.
"Mobile home subdivision means a subdivision designed
and approved for the sale of lots for residential occupancy -
in mobile homes only.
Chapter 18. 94
MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS
Sections:
18. 94 .010 Purpose,
18.94 020 Manufactured/mobile home subdivision
standards.
18.94.030 Manufactured/mobile home park standards .
18 .94.040 Nonconforming mobile holes.
18 .94.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to
establish criteria for the placement of manufactured/mobile
homes in mobile home subdivisions and park developments within
the city of Tigard. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) .
18 .94.020 Manufactured/mobile home subdivision standards. j
In addition to the standards of the zoning district in which
the project is located and other standards of this code, a ::'
manufactured/mobile home subdivision proposal shall:
(1) Comply with all applicable state standards and other
city standards for the subdivision (see Chapter 16 .160) ;
(2) Satisfy all the standards of the applicable zoning
district, and the provisions of Chapter 18 . 92; and •
(3) Be limited to manufactured/mobile home housing
types . All other types of residential units are not permitted.
(Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983)
4 314-11 (Tigard 4/84)
78 .94 ,030
18.94.030 Manufactured/mobile home park standards
-
(a),. The design of the pro p osed mobile home Park shall be
submitted to the planning department for` review in accordance
with Chapter 18. 120, Site Development Review, and Chapter
18. 130, Conditional Use, where applicable.
(b) The design for the manufactured mobile home park
shall conform to all applicable state standards established
by the state of Oregon, Department of Commerce mobile home
park standards .
(c) The manufactured/mobile home park shall: `.:.'
(1) Have a minimum lot gross area of one acre;
(2) Have a minimum frontage of one hundred feet;
(3) Have a minimum depth of one hundred fifty feet;
(4) Have a front and rear yard setback of twenty-
five feet,
(5) Have a side yard setback of ten feet, except on
a corner lot the side yards shall be twenty-five feet„;''"
(6) Have a minimum of sixty square feet of outdoor
recreation area, suitably improved for recreational use,
provided for each unit exclusive of required Yards - Each
recreation area shall have a minimum size of two thousand
five hundred square feet
(7) Have landscaping equivalent to twenty percent
of the manufactured/mobile home park, area;
(8) Be partially screened from the public right-of
I way and adjacent residential areas by a combination of a
sight--obscuring fence, vegetation, berm or any` combination
. of the above as aPproved by the approval authority; except,
that within the required front yard, any fence shall not
exceed three feet in height.
(d) Evidence shall be provided that the park will be
eligible for a certificate of sanitation required by state
law.
(e) Each site shall be adequately serviced by public
facilities such as water supply, sewers, sidewalks and
improved streets.
(f) Each unit shall be provided with a water, sewer and
electrical connection. The electrical connection shall pro
vide for 110 and 220 volt service.
(g) No mobile home, accessory building or other struc-
ture shall be closer than ten feet from another mobile home,
accessory building or other structure . -
(h) No structure shall exceed twenty-five feet in height.
(i) Each mobile home placed in a mobile home park or
subdivision shall meet the following standards and shall be
inspected by the building official, and
(1) A state insignia indicating compliance with `
Oregon state mobile home construction standards in effect
at the time of manufacture and including compliance for
reconstruction of equipment installation made after manufacture
shall be displayed on each mobile home;
314-12 (Tigard 9/84)
tr ...... .__ . .mow:
•
•
. L '` .r .12•.J 4 a 030
(2) Each mobile home shall be in good repair, not
withstanding deterioration which may have occurred due to
misuse, neglect, accident or other cause;
(3) Each mobile home shall contain a water closet,
lavatory, shower or tub, and a sink in a kitchen or other
food preparation space; and
(4) Each mobile home shall be installed under the
provisions of the administrative rules adopted by the
Director of Commerce and administered by the State Building
Code Division.
(j) Each vehicular way in a mobile home park shall be
named and marked with signs which are similar in appearance
to those used to identify public streets, and:
(1) A map of the named, vehicular ways shall be pro-
vided to the applicable fire district, the
PP '� police department
and the public works department.
,; (k) If a mobile home space or permanent structure in
the park is more than five hundred feet from a public fire
hydrant, the park shall provide
(1) Water supply lines designed with fire hydrants
which shall be provided within five hundred feet of such
space or structure and
(2) Each hydrant within the
y park shall be located
on a vehicular way and shall conform in design and capacity
to city and the applicable water district standards.
(1) Each manufactured/mobile home in a mobile home park •
or subdivision shall have a continuous perimeter skirting
installed pursuant to state regulations, which shall be of
the same material and finish as the exterior of the mobile
home
(m) The wheels , tongue and traveling lights of each
,j.
manufactured/mobile home in a mobile home park or subdivision
shall be removed upon installation of unite
(n) There shall be no outdoor storage of furniture,
tools, equipment, building materials or supplies belonging 2 .
to the occupants or management of the park
(o) Accessways or driveways shall be lighted in accord-
ance with city standards.
(p) Primary access to the manufactured/mobile home park
shall be from a public street and shall be in accordance with
Chapter 18 .108, Access and Egress , and
(1) Where necessary, additional street right-of-way
shall be dedicated to the city to maintain adequate traffic H.
circulation;
(2) Access driveways connecting units to a public •
street shall have a width of not less than thirty-six feet, ,
of which not less than twenty feet shall be paved;
(3) Driveways shall be designed to provide for all
maneuvering and parking of units without encroaching on a
public street.
314 -13 (Tigard 4/84)
•
r' u
(q) The maximum number of manufactured/mobile homes in
the park or subdivision shall not exceed the amount calculated
in Chapter 18.92. (Ord. 84-29 §1(Exhibit A(part)), 1984;
Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983)
18 .94 .040 Nonconformin. mobile homes. (a) Mobile home
parks existing at the adoption of the ordinance codified in
this title not meeting the standards set forth in this title
shall be considered nonconforming and are subject to the
standards set forth in Section 18 .132.040 (b) .
(b) Nonconforming mobile homes in such parks may be
replaced with like mobile homes that meet the standards of
Section 18.94.030 when they are moved or destroyed. (Ord
83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983)
Chapter 1 .96 : •
ADDITIONAL YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS
Sections:
18.96.010 Purpose,
18.96.020 Additional setback from centerline required. s
18.96 .030 . Distance between multiple-family residential ;
structure and other structures on the site. ,'
18.96 .040 No yard required--Structure not on property
line.
18 .96.050 Exceptions to yard requirements.
18 .96.060 Storage in front yard
18.96.070 .Projections into required yards.
18.96.080 Lot area for flag lots, r u
18.96.090 Front yard determination.
18 .96 :010 Purposed The purpose of this chapter is to
permit or afford better light, air and vision clearance on
more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard
width, to make the location of structures, compatible with
the need for the eventual widening of streets by providing
for additional yard setback distances, to assure there is
adequate distance between buildings on the site and to pro-
vide standards for projections into yard areas. (Ord. 83-52 . ,;
Exhibit A(part) , 1983) . '
18 .96 .020 Additional setback from centerline required.
(a) To assure improved light, air and sight distance, and to _
protect the public health, safety and welfare, structures
in any zoning district which abut certain arterial and collec-
tor streets shall be set back a minimum distance from the
centerline of the street. j,
314-14 (Tigard 9/84) a:..
}
1
AGENDA ITEM 5,6
TIGARD`PLANNING COMMISSION;
January 8 1984
ZOA 8-84 (18.96 & 18,98) ..
TO: Members of the. Planning Commission
FROM: William A. Monahan Director of Planning n ing end Development .'..
DATE: December 28, 1984
SUBJECT: Flag Lots and Height Limits
e . Tigard's Community Development Code contains a special section concerning
height limits which are applied to flag lots. The section has been applied on
a few occasions with mixed results. In order that we may assess the adequacy
of the code provisions, I conducted a survey of Oregon communities to
determine if there are other ways to regulate flag lots which may better suit t ;.
our purposes. The survey was sent to twenty four jurisdictiohs with fourteen
responding, (See Flag Lot Regulation Survey — Attached) , Although the
majority of cities do not apply any special standards to flag lots some
w. interesting restrictions and definitions were provided to us_. I have
attempted to analyze our code provisions and apply the alternative standards
so that you may review the current language to determine if any modification
should be made.
Present Code Landuage r.
Section 18.96.080, 18',96,090, and 18.98.030 relate to flag lots In addition,
a Flag Lot is defined in section 18,26.030 as "a lot or
�� - g parcel which includes ,;.
a private accessway as part thereof The purpose of creating flag lots is to
allow for maximum utilization of land by creating lots with less frontage than
normall y required to accommodate an access corridor to lots on
.: � parcels which �• :.
are located behind lots or parcels with normally required street frontage.
The particular concern which Ti.gard's present code deals with is that of
privacy. Each of the special conditions dealing with height. setbacks from
existing residential structures, regulation of windows, and tree planting were
established for the urpose of
p p preserving privacy Qn adjacent lots. It is
felt that a home on a flag lot has the potential to infringe on the
.. : g p g .privacy of
neighboring lots since the house may face the
g � y private rear yard area of one or
more lots. Whether or not this is a concern which justifies the continuance
of the present code provisions should be evaluated. The current language is
as follows: .:.
"18.96.080 Lot area for flag -lots (a) The lot area for a flag lot shall
comply with the lot area requirements of the applicable zoning district,
b The lot area shall be
( � provided entirely within the building site area,
exclusive of an y accesswa y (see figure in Section 18.96.090).. (Ord. 83--52
Exhibit A (part), 1983).
18 96.090 Front a determination. The owner or developer of a flag lot
may determine the location of the front yard; provided no side yard setback
area is less than ten feet, and provided the requirements of Section
18.98.030, building heights and flag lots, are satisfied.
Page l
t
i
18.98 030 Duildin -.- hei-hts and f1a• lots. (a) The maximum height for a
sing1e—fwmily, 'duplex, attached or multiple—family residential structure on a
flag lot or a lot having sole access from an accessway, private drive or
easement is one and one—half stories or twenty-five feet, whichever is less,
except that the maximum height may be two and one—half stories or thirty—five
- feet, whichever is less, provided
(1) The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable
dimensional requirements of the zoning district;
(2) A residential •structure on any abutting lot either is located $
fifty feet or more from the nearest point. of the subject dwelling, or the
residential structure exceeds one and one—half stories or twenty—five feet in
height on any abutting lot; and
(3) Windows fifteen feet or more above grade shall not face
dwelling unit windows or patios ,on any abutting lot unless the proposal ,
includes an agreement to plant trees capable of mitigating direct views, or '
that such trees exist and will be preserved,
(b) Where an agreement is made to plant trees capable of mitigating
direct views, the agreement shall be deemed a condition of approval under the
Provisions of Section 10.32.250(f).
(c) The tree planting agreement shall be a condition of Chapter 13.120, `.
Site Development Review, for three of more attached units or a multiple-family
residential structure, or for single detached units, one duplex or two y '
attached residential units, at the issuance of building permits
Specifically, Tigard's code provides for special height limits for flag lets
unless the proposed house complies with. the dimensional requirements of the •
zoning district, a house on any abutting lot is either 50 feet or more from
the proposed dwelling or that existing house is greater than one and one—half
stories or twenty five feet in height, and windows of the house which face
adjacent dwelling unit windows and patios are not more than fifteen feet above
grade unless tree planting to mitigate direct views is provided for These
conditions place all of tine responsibility for presereing privacy on the;
developer of the flag lot, however, the conditions fail to meet their intended
purpose if all surrounding lots are not developed prior to construction of the
home on the flag lot. In addition, the code does not apply properly where the
flag lot is the initial lot to be developed in an area nor does it provide for L."
the privacy of the residents of the flag lot when future development on t
adjoining lots take place.
Purpose of Restrictions
Ideally the code provisions will allow each flag lot to be developed without
unduly adding to the cost of development while meeting the intent of the
Code. But, why place special conditions on flag lots when similar
restrictions are not 'placed on other single family structures which may
similarly infringe on the privacy of others for any of a number of reasons?
Examples of conflicts which are not prevented by our Code on standard lots are:
1, The thirty five foot house in an R-7 zone surrounded by one or one
and one—half story homes.
Page
r ,
2. The house with second story windows which look out onto a
neighbor's patio (regardless of whether the patio pre-existed the
house).
3. Areas where only ten feet separate homes in an R-7 or R-4.5 zone o
could result in windows directly facing each other which limit
Privacy.
4. The orientation of a house on higher ground is such that even
though it is only one story, windows face dwelling unit windows or
look down on the' patio of an adjoining lot;
In terms of the preservation of privacy, it is difficult to anticipate the
many circumstances which could occur where privacy will become an issue, In
most of Tigard's subdivisions the development of an area is not completed in a
so called planned format as all houses to be developed are not ,planned in
• advance. Normally a developer will subdivide an urea, put in the public
facilities, and then offer the lots for sale. As a result, :the lots are
bought and developed by builders either on contract to a buyer or built on
speculation. Not knowing what type of home will be built on an adjoining lot
can result in home orientation and window placement which cause a conflict
when later development takes place or results in design modification by the
later builder. Unless the City imposes special conditions on builders on
standard lots the end result could be that the last home built is allowed only
limited windows and restricted placement of the home.
1 Instances where Tigard's Code nay -blot Accomplish the Intended Result
Tigard's code provision is geared towards the flag lot being the last lot
developed. When this occurs, if all homes surrounding it are one or one and
one-half story in .height' and all are built less than fifty feet from the flag
:'. lot home, some continuity and privacy can be achieved which may be preferable
to that which a two or two• and one-half story home would allow. However, when
the flag lot is developed early in the completion of a subdivision or if there
is -a difference in topography, the purpose of the code provision may not be
achieved (or insured) or application of the code may not be needed to preserve
privacy.
ita
1. Development of the Flag Lot is early in the build out of the subdivision.
If the flag lot is developed first, item 18.98.030 (2) cannot apply as no
structure is 50 feet or more from the structure to be built on the lot.
Also, 18.98.030(3) can not apply. As a result, the City must determine of
the lot can be developed at two and one half stories or if it is
restricted to only one and one half since item (2) can not be met. This
p
issue needs to be clarified. Y _
2. A difference in topography exists -- the flag lot could be situated in a
subdivision either above or below other lots in the subdivision or on f
adjoining lots. If a great difference in grade exists, the purpose of the
code provisions may be deferred. For instance, if the flag lot is //
substantially below the grade of an existing home on,an adjacent lot, even
if the existing home is of one story, section 18.98.030 (3) may not be
applicable if the windows "face" the existing structure, but in fact are
below them. This situation points out the problem in defining what "shall
not face dwelling unit windows or patios" means. I,
Page 3 k
a
4
,.. y
Alternatives to Modify the Code Provisions to Meet the Intent of Preserving
There are several ways to preserve privacy in those instances where a flag lot nn
4 An
is developed ..
1 Maintain the existing regulations and apply them to all existing; flag lots
as well as those which will be created in the future.
2. Carry out the Planning Commission recommendation of May . 1984 that the o.•,
Code provisions only be applied to flag lots which are not in subdivisions,
3. Reduce the maximum height of homes on flag lots to either 30 or 25 feet.
NPO 06 recommended in May of 1984 that Section 18.98,030 be replaced by r
° `• the following:
"The maximum ` height for a single-family, duplex, attached or
multiple family residential structure on a flag—lot or a lot having
sole access from an accessary private drive or easement shall be no
T.. higher than. the tallest house on an adjoining lot or twenty five
(25) feet, whichever is less."
4. Utilize the height limits regulated by the standards of the underlying
zone.` Each of the jurisdictions surveyed which allow flag lots allow the -:<;,`:
homes built on these lots to have a height equal to non flag lot homes, r
The city of Eugene, however, does requires that a structure to the rear of
another be at least thirty (30) feet from the structures on the front lot, F
5. Establish a procedure where development of a flag lot is a Director's j
Decision requiring notice, but no hearing. When a permit application is
processed for a flag lot the permit would be subject to a review similar
to that of Washington County which evaluates creation of a flag lot a.
subject to:
1. Buildings on flag lots shall be oriented to provide the maximum
privacy to surrounding existing and future residential structures.
2. Access and drainage are reviewed.
3. Landscaping and fencing to insure that privacy of existing
residential structures is maintained
4. The setbacks and minimum lot area requirements of the primary
a
ao : district shall be maintained. ,
5. Washington County's procedure could be applied to existing lots of
record in a modified site development review. Many potential j
problems could be avoid if at the time of parcelization or 1
subdivision consideration is given to the building location as well
as the access and circulation. ':
4
page 4 3.
e Via: G
6. Provide, special screening requirements in addition to the current
code regulations. The screening could be patterned after those
, used by the City of Eugene which prove an option to an abutting
property owner to request screening along the access drive or a
five foot high sight obscuring fence or wall, or landscaping that
will be five feet high and 75% sight-obscuring within five Years.
Eugene applies its regulations at the time of land division
review. The City of Portland also has a screening requirement.
• Portland requires screening along any lot line. between a flag lot
and an abutting lot where the abutting lot is in different
ownership than the. lot being partitioned/subdivided to create the
flag lot. Thus, the burden is totally on the flag lot property
owner to provide a fence for screening regardless of whether the .
adjoining properties are .developed first. Portland does provide
fora waiver if all owners give written consent.
A final alternative requires drastic steps:
y
7. Prohibit the creation of flag lots. Coos Bay took this step in
1. 1982, however, given Tigard`s density requirements, this proposal
would not apply properly. As land is subdivided or partitioned, ,
particularly within the older sections of the City, :developers will f
find that it is necessary to create flag lots to make 'the highest
use of the land.
,1 Recommendation
1 recommend that the Planning Commission review the various alternatives to ,
determine if any of those not now applied would better serve Tigard than the
existing code. I have not reviewed the code or the surveyed jurisdictions
}
concerning solar access or view rights. My review strictly relates to the
issue of privacy and how privacy is impacted by building height and window
placement. It appears that Tigard places more restrictions on everyday
application of the Code on flag lots than other jurisdictions. we have,
for flexibility. Flexibility can be worked
however, left out the opportunity y. � y ..;:
5 in if we require a special review of flag lot development under a Director's
Decision, similar to that applied to accessary uses.
" Please advise me of your .desire to look further at this issue. Specific code
language could be prepared for review at a later date should the Commission
s
wish to modify the `code, Please note that this issue has not been presented
to the CCI for NPR} input as no meeting was held in December due to the holiday
schedule. Copies can be sent to the NPO's for their input prior to any future
Planning Commission discussion.
,
(0872p)
S
Pages
0.
FLAG LOT REGULATIONS SURVEY
Portland No special building height regulations, regulated by r ,
provisions of underlying zone. Code Places emphasis on
access and impact rather than height.
Tualatin No special height limits
Beaverton No special height limits
Eugene Have an ordinance which allows a modification to minimum z
lot standards.
Height maximum is determined by zoning district of the
development.
Minimum of 10 foot placement between structures or a 5
foot setback on interior property lines.
Screening requirement gives the abutting property ' owner --
the option to request screening along the drive or a five
foot high sight—obscuring fence or wall. •
Lake Oswego No special height requirement.
Must have 25 foot frontage on street.
Wilsonville No provisions for regulating flag lots. I
Must comply with requirements of the zone in which they
are located.
Approval by PC since access does not conform to the code 4 ,
for minimum frontage. •
Troutdale Utilize same height standards for all types of lots.
Medford No special requirements other than a minimum street
frontage of 20 feet.
Lot range, setback, and height correspond to the
underlying zoning.
Gresham No difference in regulation than a standard lot
configuration.
Coos Bay Since 1982, do not allow creation of flag lots. Now
; require a 40 foot frontage on a publicly dedicated
right-of ay.
r •
Roseburg No special regulation of flag lots.
Salem No special height limits for flag lots. Height determined
by underlying zoning district.
Washington County Setbacks of the primary district are maintained.
Require landscaping and fencing through Development Review
to insure maintenance of privacy for existing residential
structures, ,
0
Forest Grove Do not impose more restrtactiue height limits on flag lots.
(0872P)
- r
e.'
,e r^t�+r�';t� .�; a,+ w�;:.s•xs::wxarr:P. a-v.yw•, ..
•
(-- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE No. 84_-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.84.045, 18.68.050, 18.42.010, 18.60.030,
18.62.030, 18.64.030, 18.66.030, 18.68.030, 18.70.030, 18.72.030, and
18.142..010 OF THE 'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AND EMERGENCY
(ZOA 8-84)
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise its Community
Development Code
periodically to improve the operation and implementation of -.
the Code; and
. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has reviewed the Community Development Code
and has adopted the same; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Code was submitted to the Land Conservation
and Development Commission for acknowledgement with other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed changes on December 4, 1984; and a
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the proposed changes
on December 10, 1984,
n '
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS
x Section 1. The Community y Dev elopment Code shall be amended as setforth in
'' Exhibit "A" attached. Items to be added are underlined.
Section 2. In order that the Community Development Code may improve the
operation and implementation of the Code and to protect the ''
' public health, safety, and welfare, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist and this Ordinance shall become effective upon
its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. ;. . ..
r
PASSED: By � vote of all Council members; prrese after
being read by number and title only this 10 day
of ILA Ax ,. S 1984,
Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard b
APPROVED: This /0 day of 1984: °,
.r City of Tigard
(dmj/0838P)
ORDINANCE NO, 84—r
Page i
'Y ..
if •• F
•
EXHIBIT "A"
Code Page No. Section No. Change
1 77 18.60.030 add: (3) Hc•ne Occupations subject to
provisions
280 18.62.030 add: (3) Home Occupations subject to r:.
provisions cf Chapter 18.142.
v 283 18.62.030(3) add: (8) Home Occupations subject to
provisions of Chapter 18
286 18.66.030(3) add fC� Nome Oc:cupatinns subject to
provisions of Chapter 18.142.
290 18.68.030 add: (4) j9me Occu�atior�s subject to
provisions of Chapter 18.142.
290 18.62.050(3)(D) add': Development in industa^ial pones
•
�= abutting the ROI NiIls nei hborhood
shall comply with polio 11.5 Y 1
. 292 18.70.030 add: (4) Name occu tons subject to the
• provisions of chapter 18.142.
295 18.72.030 add: (4) Home occaPations subject to the
( (: ovisions of �ha�ter 18.1,42.
• , 314-5 18.84.045 add: "Exceptions for Development in the
108th/ 13th Ravine Significant Wetlands
Area below the 140' elevation."
314--119 18,142.010(a) add: "it is the purpose of this Chapter to `'
regulate home occupations in resdential,R .. ;
commercial and _industrial zones in a 1
manner that will ensure that the use is
• 0838P
ORDINANCE NO. 8
Page 2
.t
ed`
.S3
v L�•
p•A
-.. q.. .1-
M, '.E
fi
t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 110, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: .1 3
". DATE SUBMITTED: December 6 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION'. NONE
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordinance
Amendment ZOA 8-84 PREPARED BY: ELIZABETH NEWTON
REQUESTED BY: PLANNING STAFF
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK'; .' CITY ADMINISTRATOR
INFORMATION SUMMARY
There are three sections of the Community Development Code that the Planning
Staff is recommending modifications to The three sections deal with
i
Sensitive Lands, the Rolling Hills 7Buffer Policy and Home Occupations
- Section 18.84.045 was added by ordinance 84-45 (attached). Section 1 of the , `.
Ordinance added the ravine at SW 108/113 north of the Tualatin River, below
150° in elevation as a significant wetlands. The elevation for the wetlands
1 areas, should be 140' Section 18.68,050 of the Code deals with dimensional
ii: requirments in the Industrial Paris zone. On November 26, 1984, the Council
.,'F voted. unani:mous1y,, to modify Policy 11,5.1 and t o".include ca reference to .Po1iCy'
11,5 1... in Section 18.`68..050 of the ."ode. Chapter 18,142. of the Code deals
with Home Occupations and was reviewed by the Planning Commission to consider
whether or not Home Occupati.ons. should. .be allowed wn residences located ,in
,` i.ndustri.al and, commercial zones. On December 4, 1984, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing and voted unanimously to 1.) add 140' elevation to
Section 18.84.045; 2.) add a reference to policy 11.5.1 to Section 18.60.051
of the Code; and 3. ) allow home ,occupations i.n residences in com;rierciral, and
industrial ;zones provided they greet the home'occu`pation. approval-, cri.teria An
ordiance approving the Planning Commission°s recommendation is attached. The .
Planning Commission minutes are not available at this time.
ALTERNATIVES CONSI_DERED
1. Approve the ordinace attached adopting the Planning Commission's
recommendation
2. Modify the attrached or dinance
SUGGESTED ACTION 1.:,
Adopt the attached -Ordinance. is
b
0835P '
dm J
,r b .1:.s a .*,.»1_e,,o"."".7..,l,, „._., Q ay 3.e-.,^,°•.-"ca,•w;. 4. .. ,,, f
.....
k , c ,
;:'.• CITY OF T:XGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 84—
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.84.045, 18.68.050, .8.42.010, 18.60.030,
1862.030, 18,64,030, 18.66.030, 18.68.030, 18.70.030, 18.72.030, and
` ; 18,142.010 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AND EMERGENCY
• 8. (ZOA 8-84) •
U
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise its Community
• Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of
the code; and
f+
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has reviewed the Community Development Code
! and has adopted the sane; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Code was submitted to the Land C,onserv&ti.on
and Development Commission for acknowledgement with other elements of the '
i . Comprehensive plan; and
.'' WHEREAT, the City of Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on the l
�, proposed changes on December 4, 1984; and
' • WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the proposed changes
on December 10 1984 M -.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS
Section 1. The Community Development Code shall be amended as setforth in
,'.. Exhibit ""A" attached. Items to be added are underlined,
Section 2. In order that the Community Development Code may improve the
operation and implementation of the Code and to protect, the -
public health, safety, and welfare, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist and this Ordinance shall become effective upon
its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. '
r.
PASSED; By vote of all Council members present after l
t
being read by number and title only, this day ,
• of , 1984 1.
f;t ••
...�- rr.-.rte #
Deputy City Recorder -- City of Tigard ,,
u APPROVED: This day of , 1984.
Mayor — City of Tigard
(dmj/0838P)
A
ORDINANCE NO, 84-... ,
:` Page 1 E> ;
a.
EXHT•Bil. '3A"
•
Code Page No. Section No, Change 1
277 18.60.030 add a) Home Occupations subject to 1
provisions of Chapter 18,142.
280 18.62.030 add .�. _. Homed Occupations subj ec
provisions of Chapter 18.142., j
283 18.62.030(3) add: ILD3 Home Occupations subject to
prow .lions of Chapter 18.142. '
286 1.8.66.030(3)
add: (G) Home Occupations subject to
• »rovisions of Chaster 18.142.
290 18.68.030 add (4) Home Occupations subject to
provisions of Charter 18:142. „
add: Development in industrial zones
..: 290 18.68.050(3)(D)
- abaftin` tf�e Rollin Hills r►eighbarhood -
shall com*1 with •olic 11.5.1
x: 292 18.70.030 add (4) Home occupations subeet to
provisions of Chapter 18.142.
295 18.72.030 add (4) Home occupations subject to the
�rov i ions�of Chapter 18'.142,
314--5 18.84.045 add: '"Exceptions for Development in the
108th/113th Ravine Significant Wetlands
Area below the 140' elevation."
•
314-119 18.142•O1Q(a)
add: it is the purpose of this Chapter to
regulate home occupations in residential,
commercial and industrial zones in a
,
manner that will ensure that the use is
r ,
,t)
0838P
ORDINANCE NO. 84--
Page 2
•
•
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ti
ORDINANCE NO 84--
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VOLUME 1,, RESOURCE DOCUMENT AND CHAPTER 18.84 OF VOLUME
3, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 83-52 AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY (CPA 14-84)
•
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City by
Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and
WHEREAS, Volume 1 Resource Document, Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and
Implementation Strategies, Volume 3 - Community Development Code and the
Floodplain and Wetlands Map were adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and .. .-
•
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983, and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission held an
;.: F
acknowledgement on Goal #' 5 with In Order to Comply Statements; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning commission on June 12,
1984 to consider the In Order to Comply Statements and a recommendation was j.
made to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on June 25, 1984,
for Council consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 84-36 was adopted by the City Council on July 25, 1984;
and •
•
WHEREAS, on June 25, 1984 ' the City Council directed staff to initiate a
' Comprehensive Plan Amendment to consider the inclusion of the Ravine at , ,
108/113th as a significant wetlands area; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 10,
1984, to consider including the Ravine at 108/113th as a significant wetlands
area and to consider an exceptions process for development near the ravine, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on July 23, 1984,
for Council consideration of Planning Commission's recommendations of the
Planning Commission's recommendations.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS
Section 1: Ordinance 83-52 is amended to revise a e 1-42 of Volume 1
P E -
Resource Document of the Comprehensive Plan to include a list
of those areas to be designated as significant wetlands to be C
protected and preserved. Language to be added in underlined
/ below and will be inserted at the beginning of "C. Special
Areas.,
ORDINANCE NO 84- 1/
. . • • I. • •• . . •• - • •.•
1
. •
r
"Protect the areas designated as significant wetlands on the
Floodplain and Wetlands map and prohibit conflicting uses
�:
those sites. The sites designated as! significant wetlands are: r
Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest
Krueger Creek
Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest at the east end of
SW 135th
Fanno Creek north of North Dakota •
Tualatin River, below 150' in i, . .
. . Ravine at SW 108/113 north of_, _9
elevation."
Development Code shall be
Community
Section 2: Chapter 18.84 of the Language to be added is
84 045•
amended by adding a Section 18•
underlined below and will be inserted after section 18.84oO4O
D. 4.
"18.84.045 Excettions for Develo•ment in the 108th/113th '
Ravine Significant Wetlands Areas.
A. Under the Sensitive Lands 'erit proces, &
the Hearin: Officer m allow •ortions of•
the Ravine at 108th........ and 113th dlesZnated as
a significant wetlands area to develo
provided that all of the f allowing cri�e
are met.
1. All of the land (within the ravine) being considered for
level®pmen.t is at less than 25: slope. #:
2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being
cons tiered f€ar developme
3a
The oyisions of chapter 18.150- TREE REMOVAL shall be
met.“
Inasmuch as it is necessary for this ordinance to become
Section 3. , {
_ effective with the other amendments relating to Goal 5, an
emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance hail
become effective on July 25, 1984. •
,- �sen of to
PASSED: By ,ti 5 vote of all Council member's pro-
being read by
number and title only, this ' day
of , 1984-
....__%1E:LIti__
��> , .. a, . (...t.) '
- City of Tigard
Recorder y
repdty City R
APPROVED: This P.e.' /V. jq _d ay of , 1984.00, ,,itsi -
i
+ 'or City of Tigard r
,',. , <: APPROVED AS TO FOIE:
City Attorney
ORD1 •R�NCE N®. 84
0522P
•
5.4 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8--84 CITY OF rIGc RD A REQUEST TO AMEND
SECTIONS 18.84,.045, 18.68`,050E?, AND CHAPTER 18,1.42 OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
0 Geraldine Ball, NPO R4 Chairman polled her members and they
unanimously supported staffs' recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING
o Discussion followed regarding allowing Home Occupations in Commercial
and Industrial Zones
Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to
forward Staff changes to City Council with a recommendation of
approval. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present;
5.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AMENDMENT CPA 28-84 'A REQUEST TO AMEND ORDINANCE 84-45,
CHANGING "1:50' IN ELEVATION" TO "140' IN ELEVATION."
Associate Planner Newton made Staffs' recommendation for approval
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
•
o Elton Phillips, 16565 S.W. 108th, supported the change as it would
make his land usable.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to amend
Ordinance 84-45 to change the elevation for the 108/113 ravine from 150' to
140' which includes changing page 1-42 of Volume T, Resource document. Motion
carried .unanimously
6. OTHER.BUSINESS
6.1 -Final Order for ZCHD 17-54 Fessler Commissioner Fyre moved and
Commissioner Owens seconded to adopt the final order as prepared by
Staff. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
6.2 Letter from Hyster Company` regarding zoning along 72nd Avenue by Sandburg
Road. Discussion followed regarding a work , session to deal with this
issue.
•
6.8 Final Orders were reviewed for items 5.1 and 5.2.
o President
Moen moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to adopt
the final order for SCE 4-84 proposed by Staff. Motion carried
unanimously by Commissioners present.
o Commissioner Bergmann moved and Commissioner Owens Moved to adopt the
final order for SCE 5 -84 as proposed by Staff. Motion carried
unanimously by Commissioners present,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -- DECEMBER 4, 1984 - PAGE 4
•
•
•
Speed Message
m Liz Newton From . 0re,,.on Manufactured. Hous in,
y o gar Association
127 55 SW Ash PO Box 12931 `
igar• , $R Salem, OR 97309
364-2470
Subject .. --
Date
Dear Liz:
Don Miner suggested that you adopt the standards as listed in the
attached copy of Senate Bill 53. If this is not what ou need *lease ;
r
call Don and talk to him and he will be ha to send ou what he has .
- He is usually at the Legislature in the mornin• s but is usuall in the
office in the afternoon. Hope this helps .
Alice Sorensen
•
•
Signed„.
WiisoilJoties
283
G1R4A6Y3 L•I NPE lf=NOTRC M(4N 4-U E SO A 2.-PART
r•
63rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-1985 Regular Session
..' Senate B ill
PRINTED PURSUANT TO ORS 171.130 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing rules,
indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President(at the request of Joint Interim Committee on
" Land Use)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly.It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.
Requires city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to allow the siting of certain
- manufactured homes on at least some lots zoned for single family dwellings. Requires local governments to
designate lots on which manufactured homes will be allowed.
l A BILL FOR AN ACT
2 Relating to manufactured homes.
3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
; r
4 SECTION 1.Section 2 of this Act is added to and made a part of ORS 197.295 to 197.307.
5 SECTION 2.(1)Upon and after the first periodic review,city and county comprehensive plans and land use
6 regulations shal?allow manufactured homes meeting the requirements of subsections(2)and(3)of this section to .
7 be sited on at least some lots planned and zoned,for single family dwellings.The comprehensive plan or land use .a—
8 regulations shall designate the lot or lots planned and zoned for single family dwellings on which those
9 manufactured homes are allowed.
10 (2)A manufactured home qualifies under subsection(1)of this section if it meets all of the following criteria: E:,
11 (a)It is multisectional.
12 (b)It encloses a space of not less than 864 square feet.
13 (c)It has a pitched composition shingle or wood shake roof.
14 (d)It is set upon a foundation approved by the Department of Commerce and if not placed at
O P FF y F p ground level,
15 it has skirting which complements the structure.
16 (e)It has exterior siding in color,material and appearance similar to the exterior siding material commonly
17 used on residential dwellings.
*
18 (3)A city or county may subject a manufactured home sited under subsection(1)of this section:and the lot
p
19 upon which it is sited to any development standard to which a conventional single family residential dwelling on
20 the same lot would be subject, except those development standards which would prevent all manufactured
21 homes from being sited on the lot.Development standards include,but are not limited to,building setbacks and
22 aesthetic and architectural requirements.
23 (4) Nothing in this section precludes a city or county from allowing mobile homes, as defined in ORS
24 446.003(19),and manufactured homes that do net meet the requirements of subsection(2)of this section on lots
25 planned and zoned for single family dwellings. a.
26 (5)City and county comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall adequately provide for the siting of
27 mobile homes,as defined in ORS 446.003(19),and manufactured homes not provided for in subsection(1)of
28 this section within areas planned and zoned for residential use,
NOTE: Matter in bold face in an amended section is new;matter[italic and bracketed]is existing law to be omitted. °'
•
•
•
S8 53
SECTION 3. Subsections(1) to (4) of section 2 of this Act apply to a comprehensive plan and land use
2 regulations upon and after the first periodic review of that plan and regulations.
•
•
•
•
t ..
[2]
r.e _
1 ... !,,1t J,.:. . $.n is • 1 �• ! •
.t".P .•' � ,_4.- °"ar :s t. ti^' •�,. W.u..,td ..o` yi t,». �*
•
•
a
•
•
•
m
3:-
•
SHORT FORM } .
MODEL ORDINANCE 1'-'
REGULATING f.._
MANUFACTURED HOUSING
•
i
• 6
• C:
•
1
1.
.e
7
a $,
S
Y
.r. !.
ji
MODEL ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT
OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
•
t t,
AN ORDINANCE regulating the placement of manufactured housing, amending the zoning j
ordinance, establishing permits, providing installation standards, and instituting
penalties for violation.
4
WHEREAS, the City1' of recognizes that manufactured homes built to the
state or federal construction and safety standards can provide many #
residents with decent, safe and affordable housing; and `
WHEREAS, manufactured homes on permanent foundations with conventional siding and
roofing materials built using state-of-the-art construction methods are
virtually indistinguishable from other forms of housing, yet can have a
significant cost savings; and
WHEREAS, the City? Council of find that the standards contained herein
can improve the public health, safety convenience, . rid welfare and aid in
the future development of t '
}
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THAT
I. INTENT
It is the intent of this ordinance to encourage provision of alternative
modest income housing in general residential areas by permitting the use
of certain manufactured homes, as defined herein, in all districts in
which similar dwellings constructed on site are permitted, subject to the
;; requirements set forth herein to assure acceptable similarity in exterior
appearance between such manufactured homes and dwellings that have been or
might be constructed under these and other lawful regulations on adjacent
or nearby lots in the same district.-
II. DEFINITIONS
A. EXPANDO ROOM
An expandable manufactured housing unit.
B. MANUFACTURED HOME
A dwelling unit fabricated on or after June 15, 1976, in an off-site
manufacturing facility for installation or assembly at the building
site, bearing a seal certifying that it is built in compliance with
the federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Code.
1. While reference is made to "the City of ", this ordinance can also be
used by cities and counties.
•
C. MANIFACTURED HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARDS CODE
Title IV of the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act (42 U.S.C.
5401 et seq), as amended (previously known as the federal Mobile Home .
Construction and Safety Act), rules and regulations adopted thereunder,
which include HUD approved information s'lpplied by the home manufac-
turer and regulations and interpretations of said code by the Oregon
Department of Commerce.
D. MOBILE HOME
A transportable structure built prior to June 15, 1976, the effective
date for the federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Act of 1974,
larger than three hundred and twenty (320) square feet, and designed 1
to be used as a year-round residential dwelling.
E. STATE BUILDING CODE
The mandatory statewide building code adopted by the Director of the
Oregon Department of Commerce.
}
III. STANDARDS
A. PERMITTED PLACEMENT
The establishment, location, and use of manufactured homes as
scattered-site residences shall be permitted in any zone permitting
'' installation of a dwelling unit subject to 'requirements and limita-
tions applying generally to such residential use in district and pro-
vided such homes shall meet the following requirements and limitations:
1. the home shall meet all requirements applicable to single-family
dwellings and possess all, necessary improvement location, building_
and occupancy permits and other certifications required by the
code;
2. the home shall be larger than 950 square feet of occupied space2
or meet the minimum square footage requirements for the appro-
.."
priate zone;3
2. This provision would allow certain single-section manufactured homes, since
addition of an expand() room could enlarge the size to over 950 square feet. Per- "
mitted placement by right, could be,limited to double-section or larger manufac-'
tured homes by amending the zoning ordinance's definition of a dwelling unit to
require that all homes, conventional and manufactured, "must be at least twenty- 1
three (23) feet in width"
3. Communities not wishing to prohibit all single-section manufactured homes could 1,'
have a:minimum square footage requirement applying equally to all single-family ,
homes.
•
..,
3_ the home shall be attached and anchored to a permanent foundation
in conformance with the regulations adopted by the Oregon Depart-
ment of Commerce and with manufacturer's installation specifica- i
Lions. •
4. the home shall be covered with an exterior material customarilly
used on site built residential dwellings, and such material shall
•
extend over the top of the foundation (or meet the community's
site built residential dwelling home standards).4
5. the home shall have a roof composed of a material customarilly. -
used on site built residential dwellings, such as asbestos, fiber-
glass shake, asphalt or tile, which shall be installed onto a
surface appropriately pitched for the materials used.
B. PLACEMENT WITH PERMIT
Manufactured homes not meeting the terms of Section III, Paragraph A,
and mobile homes, shall be permitted within the City of
only after receiving a special exception permit from the body authorized
to grant special exception permits.
C. STRUCTURAL ALTERATION
Due to its integral design, any structural alteration or modification
of a manufactured or mobile home after it is placed on the site must
be approved by the authorized building administrator (or other designee)
of the City of
IV. TEMPORARY USES
A. CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Subject to conditions, fees and standards otherwise required in the
zoning ordinance, a temporary use permit shall be issued:
1. to an applicant in the process of building a site built dwelling
to locate a manufactured or mobile home on a building lot during c
•
the course of construction of the dwelling; such permit shall not }
be issued until after a building permit for the dwelling has been
issued;
2. to an applicant to use a manufactured or mobile home as a care-
takers quarters or construction office at a job site;
'. 4. The appropriateness of sideing and roofing materials can be determined by the plan •
commission or their designated administrator on a case by case basis, or an approved }
siding and 'roofing materials list''can be developed (see example at end of ordinance)
's 5. These provisions are suggested.
•
•
f
3. , to an applicant. whose own health or the health of another necessi- ?;
•
tates care, and where the facts show that an unnecessary hard-
ship would occur if not permitted to locate a manufactured home
•
• adjacent to the residence of one who is able to Provide such care
or in need of such care.
B. LENGTH OF PERMIT ,.
A temporary use permit may be issued, at the discretion of the plan
6 commission or its designated administrator, for a period not to exceed i
two (2) years. " The temporary permit may be renewed for an, additional
one (1) year period upon showing of good cause and with permission to
•
do so. However, at the discretion of the plan commission or its
designated administrator, a temporary use permit ma y be issued to an
applicant for a health or age related circumstance for a period " . ;
coterminous with the health or age related circumstance.
C. PERMIT EXPIRATION
At the time the temporary permit expires, the manufactured or mobile
home and all appurtennances shall be removed from the property within
ninety (90) days.
D. UTILITY REQUIREMENTS '
Manufactured or moile homes used for temporary uses shall have an
approved water supply, sewage disposal system, and utility connections,
where appropriate, and at the discretion of the plan commission or its
designated administrator.
E. PERMIT FEE •
A temporary use permit shall be issued by the plan commission's
designated administrator. The fee shall be twenty five dollars ;$25)0 r
and is in addition to all other required permits for utilities and ?`
sewage disposal systems.
V. APPEAL
•
An action to review any order, requirement, decision, or determination made
by an administrative official or board charged with enforcement of the 4 .
zoning ordinance shall be pursuant to the appeal process set forth in this
case
b. While twenty five dollars ($25) is the customary permit fee, it is discretionary. (L
.--�.-
VI PENALTY FOR VIOLATION
A. FAILURE TO COMPLY
'' '' Each day of non—compliance with the provisions of this ordinance con-
stitutes a separate and distinct ordinance violation. Judgment of up
to five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day may be entered for a viola-
tion of this ordinance.
B. SUBJECT TO REMOVAL
A home, sited upon property in violation of this ordinance, shall be •
subject to removal from such property. However, the home owner must
be given a reasonable opportunity to bring the property into compliance
before action for removal can be taken. If action finally is taken by
the appropriate authority to bring compliance, the expenses involved
may be made a lien against the property.
C. REMOVAL METHOD
i
The Plan commission or its designated administrator may institute a
suit in an appropriate court for injunctive relief to cause such
:. violation to be prevented, abated or.removed.
VII. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such •
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or consti-
tutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. It is being
expressly declared that this ordinance and each section, subsection,
paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase would have been adopted regardless
of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs, senten-
ces, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional •
ADOPTED:: :
CITY COUNCIL OF: , OREGON ..
MAYOR;
1 .
-
a
7. The ordinance violation procedure for manufactured homes should be consistent
with the procedure used for other violations in the local ordinance;
, ...: '.-..-----.---7.---;-`;-7-`''',':----* `-
•
, o
APPROVED SIDING AND ROOFING MATERIALS LIST
1) The following siding materials are approved for usage on manufactured homes: t, � .'
a) residential horizontal aluminum lap siding,
b) residential horizontal vinyl lay) siding, s
c� cedar or other wood siding, i'
d) wood grain,' weather resistant, press board siding,
e) stucco siding,
• t) brick or stone siding,
g)
h) .
i)
1) other approved siding materials which are aesthetically compatible.
t
2) The following roofing materials are approved for usage on manufactured homes: ='
a) asbestos shingles on a roof pitches according to the design specifications
of the shingles, 1
b) fiberglass shingles on a roof pitched according to the design specifications
of the shingles,
c) shake shingles on a roof pitched according to the desir;n specifications
of the shingles
d) asphalt shingles on a roof pitched according to the design specifications
of the shingles,
e) tile materials on a roof pitched according to the design specifications
of the materials,
•
f)
g) ,4
k)
t h
J
1)
8. This is an example of an administrative form which can be used to regulate approved
siding and roofing materials. It is not a part of the ordinance. t.•;.
f
0 1 -
.. :: _
,
‹ <. AL 1.'t.• D. SORB}, -`
OM�g• gg Executive Assistant'' , ti,
OREGON MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOCIATION 1,
PLO.BOX 12931
SALEM',OREGON 97309 ` ,
PHONE(503)364-2470 I`. 4,' ;
l' 1'
t
.
,•
j:
i
•
•
• . it.'''.','..'...‘
•
. , '[.',',, ,.
/ o '�1�°7' .,, e
� A. >.
T,f'1� r�"f2f C �
1 alit_t.lt� j' ... .
}. .
COMPARISON OF CRITERIA FOR _.
FEDERAL MOBILE HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARDS
WITH THE STATE OF OREGON STRUCTURAL_ SPECIALITY CODE
AND FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY CODE WHICH IS THE 19 NIFORM ,.
BUILDING CODE WITH OREGON AMENDMENT
HUD OREGON
.,. -
MOBILE HOME
STRUCTURAL ;
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARDS
CODE ��; -:.
•• Structural Design
Roof live load 20 PSF (min) 25 PSF (man)
Ro
Depends on design zone Depends on elevation ,
15 PSF (min)
15 PSF (min) ,.
Wind load (horizontal) '.
Depends on design zone When less than 30'
. high .
Depends on location
in State
Wind load (vertical)
9 PSF (min)' 11 .25 PSF (min)
Depends on design zone When less than 30'
• high
Depends on location
in State
,a 40 PSF (min)
Floor live load 40 PSF (min)
Horizontal load on
interior walls
5 PSF (min) 5 PSF (min)
Load Deflection
Floors 1/240 Span (max) 1/360 Span (max)
Roof and ceiling p
1/180 Span (ma)c) 1/240 Span (max)
7
Supporting drywall
1/120 S
Walls 1/180 Span (max) pan an (max) s) p .
Engineered Layman
Plans & Specification Engineered ,
• Architectural Design
° ui ng Planning
Minimum room size
150 sq. ft 150 sq. ft.
One room 9. -
Double bedroom 70 sq. ft . 70 sq. ft.
r 70 sq ft. �..
Single bedroom 50 sq. ft. . .
Room width 5 ft. (min) 5 ft. (min)
t
-1_
s ,: r
..,.i'. . , ._'fir. ... �.
HUD OREGON
MOBILE HOME
STRUCTURAL
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARDS CODE
Room height 7 ' 0" (min) 7 ' 6" (min)
Hallway width 28" (min) 36" (min)
Hallway height 6' 6" (min) 7 ' 0" (min)
Closet depth 22" (min) None specified
Light & Ventilation :<
Glazed Area
8% (min) 10% (min)
floor area floor area � .
(min)
Unobstructed Area 4%
floor area floor area
Mechanical Habitable = Habitable =
2 air changes/hr 2 air changes/hr
Ventilation Bath = 5 air Bath = 5 air
changes/h' changes/hr
Fire Safety
Exit doors two one
Specific exit door
location relationship yes no
,.' to bedrooms
24" high
Bedroom egress window 22" (min) 24 (min)
opening size clear opening clear opening
,.
5 (min) sq. ft 20" (min) width
open area clear opening
5 . 7 (min) sq. ft.
open area
Egress
Windowsill height 44" (max)
in bedroom
36" (max)
Smoke detector yes y es
Flame spread in
living area
Walls
200 or less Class III
(Class III)
Ceiling 200 or less Class III
(Class III )
_2�
. t
HUD OREGON
MOBILE HOME STRUCTURAL
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARDS CODE
Furnace, water heater Special protection No special
and cooking area with gypsum/asbestos/ provisions
sheet metal
Flame spread of plastic 200 No special
bathtubs , shower units provisions
and tub or shower doors
Attic Ventilation
Fraction of floor area None specified 1/300 (min)
Interior Wall Cover
Thickness of material None specified drywall (min)
4 paneling (min)
Min. loading 5#/sq. ft. 5#/sq. ft.
Thermal Energy Conservation
Moisture Control (Vapor Barrier)
walls yes yes
Ceiling yes yes (when there
is attic space)
Floor no yes
Air infiltration control Specified Specified
Double glazing or
Storm Windows Specified Specified
Design basis for
heating (winter) 70 (max) 68 (max)
Thermal Insulation Performance Standard Specification and
r .r Performance. Standard
Electrical
fit,
Require listed materials
and devices yes yes
Aluminum wire in branch
circuits Not permitted Permitted
Receptacle locations Comparable Comparable
•
•
•
•
HUD OREGON
MOBILE HOME STRUCTURAL
} DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARDS CODE
> Load calculations Comparable Comparable
Separate neutral and ground
circuits on branch circuit
wiring and service panel yes no
Dielectric strength test yes no
Single disconnecting means
required at panel board yes no
Plumbing
Water supply piping Plastic allowed, Plastic allowed
Drain-Waste-Vent piping Plastic allowed Plastic allowed
Venting of plumbing futures Wet venting and anti Required for each
syphen (mechanical fixture
vents ) permitted in
addition to required
direct venting
Materials :. Nationally accepted Nationally accepted
standards standards
Tests & Inspections Water systems , drainage Water system, drainage
and fixtures are vent systems and
tested fixtures are tested
•
Prepared by: { •
James. Clevenberg, P.E.
Building Codes Division n=
Oregon Department of Commerce
February 5 1981 2.
-4-