Loading...
ZOA91-0005 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. t. . .: „,..17,,,,‘,:;....,.,,,,,..,:,,......,,,,,:i. „.t. . .. ..v. .•f... ...-=';'i,'''........1--..',:..' Fr.'..-:. ♦rl'• -:l.•. :'....;....'....,:','.-.....'..7,'C.,V:,''''''....?....:::'"•`.. .*,.-.*.'s,:.,.::',-;''''','''...*,*.':':"...:,.....'.. .''."*...'....r*".''''',4.':: •-.''' . .*°--;*.-."..' - LECISI STRIPi1:..:-.-''..°',',:-.:,..'.:,;_,•,.;'::..- .'_w' bry 3_.t:.'�..� L •. . i..�, .� art J . � \ •� � �r x -�R !. .7 t' • f $ s . T` r r r • D e ik 1 A • , i - • -.. s3 -ter..,. .,.>r c,..�.r .. -�:-... ...tr ..�...t .i• .u-.. • _ k .. .: .. ,... +. ., • r , r r .. • • ,. ♦. • PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION iu FILE NO.: ZOA 91-0005 '. FILE TITLE: NEIGHBOR PLANNING ORGANIZATION #5: APPLICANT: Neighbor Planning Organization #5 OWNERS TIGARD, OREGON :ft REQUEST: A proposal, to- delete section 18.96.060Af the City of Tigard J Community Development Code whi prohibits front yardstorage in a residential ;'4 zone. ; -1�, IP' Oto, 060 -£ ro- ;"' int* '�1a i4 .7rat c, ':, -....%..,..' LOCATION: CITY WIDE tai "Y'+est l.r.rs as vr.p�r p e v- b a ,b c s 1,ay.'', '/`re,..0/e...P." �1w"" c.+-4..1.N.a-� r Q,,`C rroi rn,c:,' 1>9-1 ..v-a-K4-4, 70 ,. �k, NPO NO.: 5 & 6 �:" '44+C „s c Zaf ^v c.:tri' S PI +0.4.40--.6 4,„ - ; NPO CHAIRPERSON: Craig Hopkins / Sue Carver y+ t A _re. ,s i"..01.3: (Pr5-. - five PHONE NUMBER: 639-5823 / 639-8507 , {� pJ i ,4 I.v e, v.,' ti. S 1.3s4",4-1-61_- .to.....¢.: 4. •s, 4 ,.. CRECX ALL'WHICH APPLY: "' STAFF DECISION COMMENTS ARE DUE BACK TO STAFF ON W�xyvmbtvt e/� 1�99� ' { ;` 5 XX PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 12/2/91 TIME ...:i.,1 ,:'4..;''., .____ HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: ___„__,__ TIME: ,;4 i; CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 4, ATTACHMENTS VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN :...','''''''....‘*,....,,'",.*:'.. , XX NARRATIVE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN i` SITE PLAN OTHER { ,r STAFF CONTACT: Richard Beweradorff - 639-4171 ,.`. CODE SECTION: 18.22.040, 18.96.060 ,7,.\\ 6,-) _ (..) C? 't . cS , • is a JS ( ; Y•„ . 0, . 0 • , . - Al -: • 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: i1 ,. ' ;. 4. Applicants; To have a complete application you will need to submit' attachments - *described in the , attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. S. THE APPLICANT(S),SHALL CERTIFY THAT; „r7 not A. The above request does noviolate ani deed.' restrictionsL that be ma x attachedimposed upon the subject property. • B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights .. " ' granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and , ,, limitations of the approval. f C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, , attachments, . and exhibits transmitted herewith, are trues and the i..4 ,. • • applicants - so acknowledge that any permit issuedr, based on" this _ . application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statementd are , false. ,.; D. The applicant has read the entire 'contents, ,of the' application including' „....,,,,,,,,„:,.i:1. the policies and. criteria, and understands „the requirements for approving , or denying the application. DATED this - day of a`�- 01,t.L l9 T r SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband,and wife) of the subject, property. E. 1 ,. ctv_ii Eyts) ,„.:.„ .-.:.,y..,,,,,,=',,...:.:4 . . 3 . 0 1,, . ..c .,,,„,. Al .,,:-.: P:. i` r_ r , . r. A . r ey+ m,r'. •. ' „J .. ..... , .. ,. r='^,' v u .J.. ;,,/,:,. :` , • ..;:f.'::,',.;./':' 0, Y ,t_ .t..ry _.,.....w.r la' >•,: t 1`$"t: 'rqs� "'t'33T.PC �� '''''''.'::'*•;' .. . vf l' .t :,,..,%:„T„,, '.t h ... ., .: .*:Y'. i'.,...:7. i; ...A', { 'T <. ' 4 y c. r . ',:4 i,.‘ ,...„,.„. , 0 ei, „ „ - .. .: iki P C) 4 tmizi, .. (i ea. 1Lvi_ qi y `i 4 k i u lt L .. ct.. s c o,t tej L (7 fCj� I.117 3' 144.1 cifIc s- Chit f t"y :•- '''...:'":' ..'' PA--‘ 1 LI Ai V C, IAA "I it e u4.11( C•tz tolev 76c,3v1 tilciit( . MOS e p -e*S0244/f 1. : Yom. 44 kw& % tek.e4- b,D11st c,�fey. r tio.gift° osi ci, a..)cects . ri a' h 0 (c. ifeAA4 c- b()LS W L't 5 5 !�/� 1I 'c. (44j r 0, $ ~ r F j? $ c -� S( -4 cl am el /0 P6 X1,6 �-�e o e e.tivi Wte J GiA ,4 A .. 9A * A+� �p�jy � aj p ;. ir. Y'i i lyt tas f i�G./ /t CtC Y�.�.,} Jl W L•''• ! C• s ir�„ C C -i ! `moi Ct '�.ec ' d. vii P 4 (?4 c e A� 4� V\/G✓ ..f Y YVbM1r �� �.. ''..4•••': J ! Jle(nr ii ••YY ! Cv pr 7 '� �Y 1, 6/r1G.36.JIde4e4 � �r✓St �,Ib {/fy��V G'' �..�1 cc-es Fi l s AN,if 61E ee l.d' _ , 3 '' „,: a Jg ,� [-C$'t!� ' 4-.5 b+`l e'tl�.. � �rC-/.3 yy��v"t c�' -1'6 }t- IAA�^�id�o y1»�,/\�/�<�JIF�/�f i/vi rt f •. ,t v-ej •a - C..,1 x,. i' x.(4,1- 5,urtifi e4(i2.ect, aft Pots ._F Ccrt. 1 tn-4 -/-4t; is Sc €t I ,' .,-„-4.?--,. Fiftcy 111,1:-5 6,14 A.)poi, etct4 ,1,,,,,,,,0 46 --titecir 6 ef e crizere , Ef', C4jfliA,° . • ( g 144 0,YC "6 tc L'YvvQ.4s G ' cs.SLies 0�'i�r 1 Vs7jl��f/p��j/.j 4144e ♦y`� L' V t 3x 0. l I , /L'�.+�$/fl{i� if 6l.,g` .� J� � C�/� (le € a ' * ' V 0 2.,„c). sof5y-c,cie „,,,,A.,„.c ,,,,,,,,„i pveltosq,(4,, we .c.,/,,j_ , ctil , . e ec3'✓t.st3. 511. V e , (4,c IA Gdel`se 11 .& avA , I- 1 . coi ...,. -.: 0,4,44." ct,tA, AtAii„dividtrj- tAt(5 t,..k.d ha 4-45 .., e s ettpu i(4 a. _ yy ; A : cc.;.,„, I El c.it t ' i-is 7-hove /•.•i IL , Ike v tzsi t-ect..scr--o cz [ liitti71, tf6 ets ILAN,5 .` _.! p-gki I tkci /At ek ts1 ¢tri, Irjt,V9 (3,k4 o e '4,t4d J+ej 40144 lie ,:::,' ,, , , each. 0 , . ..,. .„,z -.' '.'..z : z Lrzt,tc. 4-,..ete..t,vt.s It._ : . .. ,;), I i otelcet, 03 1t ,1ceJ 6.31474444e t, bliccvm 1 tt9dt L. , m t.o4 eu1 f c, , e.v dyevicf- tovvi9,a4Cte 41r em i a 1 ', cum vl/ ' t t.4+4 Y :t i)4 t` i (icq4cs k:,„hdt,t A,,„iciwi 'TS Ns, :, ., .. , , y 14`.` ! t y� t i. r n t ..%:. ,..,"-d%t:. y �; , , Y .. '. ; 1. h.�. }4 �•'' ° x' 3 �i c4 ° Cb�.�t,tc t 1. £. it•it L. to. . - . ‘f.- f % ,,h _ 4 _te ,.fri,c4„ej ,.t.14,e4 :; y Q -01-44.t. P--ct -c.. s'll-ctdr,Y4-is 0 L e of .,::::-:''' .'10 Pa s czNAAvtiteliels . .... , ,_ ;,:....:,.,..,...7.... a �� c ,y O t,e ec is u �, �� t . ' '. cue ► c, • z, i Kt tsi` Ar b c.s cIA.e s cam, s ct 4 Wg4/5 `,'' ...:7-:,,:.:....,,,,:::••.,........4.,,,..: 1 ) lcicr..... t ..:.. S (40 ci -..-,_ esff.0 k, . a !,1-4-4, ' 7' ''':' i 5 s:'.^ - r= 1. III . ' -1 j II Ij 0 '''1 a 'r...0.-4.''''::',;?:..' . 1!111 • ;H '-'...,:.1„.', -,....'' ,i '' 4.i1.% ' . ' ' '....' '...$..,...1.7;:s.7.1,.::-%''' - 4 _ , i•. ,� �� Irl 7 ,. ., , , _ _ , .. -, • 1 ' ss , . .., AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING a STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) as. City of Tigard ) { i, lbw/ A 1 1V .Aa"-- ,, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print) ..c.• -. s, That I am a lalfor `. The City of Tigard, Oregon. ,..,..' v�'= That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC E.3ARING FORS- { " - That I served NOTICE OP DECISION FOR: • \: t City of Tigard Planning Director 'Tigard Planning Commission " s`: Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy (Public Rearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the addres shown on the attached list marked exhibit B on the . S zw'- day of f o eih�t 19 1, �• said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the day of I. 19 .; and deposited j in the United States Mail on the 1 day of _ TAT ',et '_*, , 19 'I! postage prepaid. r ,• ; ± -' j � 1 { V, iV yl4... '' V_. Prepared Notice. Posted (For Decision Ong am`� `:* r-`9 p a ,ed and sworn/affirm to me on the, day x yS�,,, 4aa1, e " oftt .e f rK^ni. i .X'7'oar?.. "It it>, .. i d o r, 4101,0110. I1:3 �Oa '1�tom a-y.I 4' - :.. .�� •/'`.- delki ."o4s,"r ,, -F,4 4 NOTARY PUI3lLI FORE • ?' •: t• i; % d... ,�gA, �? ),..° My commission Exp te+►,' #J' *. "„,,,,ltttltl11911l116� c -�� '' Person •'ho delivered to POST OFFICE Sub ribed and sworn/affirm to me on the ,�_1 day o ! 1°l,�w.;L' a 14 Ka y 1 .i11. ,Ii,,. . A • ,i-k-,-.1-1-i-1 f ..'� NOT'. Y PUBI,'C OF OREGON' 1 p f . My Commission Exvires: J f f bkm/AFFIDAV.REFI s Ii 1 1. 14• `f „:ti ;.,r, .,. , '• ..: r.' 4 - f% A ". Y 4 r { , 7, y, .t`4 .a', t_ J - - , al 0 0 P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' Y- d ' ' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, December 2. 1991, AT 7230 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OP THE TIGARD CIVIC � ' CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING . APPLICATION: BILE NO: ZOA 91-0005 NPO NO: All ,. FILE TITLE: Front Yard Storage � APPLICANT: Neighborhood Planning Organization #5 Tigard, Oregon REQUEST: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0005 FRONT YARD STORAGE (ALL NPO'S) A proposal to delete section 18.96.060 (A) of the City of `. Tigard Community Development Code which prohibits front yard storage ,4, in a residential zone. Section 18.96.060 Storage in Front Yard (A) = $; ': states: Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, > recreation vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton ,{, capacity shall not be stored in a required front yard in a residential zone. 1 ` y j, } . LOCATION; Citywide , E. < APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.22.040 and • ;'; ,r' 18.96.060 NI THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED .' }. BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET ,, FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN '`` WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT CE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECIEVE DC A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND E. ' INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE 4 SO PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER ISSUANCE OF THIS NOTICE, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE d.- GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE H2 RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. ..7 INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS . RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. ;a ; R',.. • {.4 z 4 i ; ---/.. .,...,. I ,. 9 iv . . ., ., • y FAILURE TO RISE' AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR.BY LETTER AT SOME POI PRIOR TO_ CLOSE . z OF THEMat' INN ON TTHE REQUEST OR FAILURE .TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY TO AFFORD THE DECISION MAKER, AN OPPORT aTY TO RESPOND 'TO TSE ISS E PRECLUDES AN ' APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS QED C TROT.I SUE. r; ALL DOCENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR �' INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN PE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEIEN DAYS THEHEARING,` A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRIOR TO INSPECTION e`sT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOB TEN CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FURTHER I 1 iTION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER Dick Beweredorff AT 639-4171, TIGARD' CITY BALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., OR CONTACT YOUR. NEIGEBBOY HOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) t ALL : i rt Y�. d' a / { c. ,t I i 1 i . .a `' t. ., L 4} ''ri. f «4._..a. '. tf k 'da .r! .3 t •j '.,,''i } I ':.. ..* , 1, ` y [X � r WENDI HAWLEY 0 •'1,...'':'*--':.;.'. 14790 SW 79TH TIGARD OR 97224 VLASTA N BARBER ,7 11120 SW SUMMER LAKE DR TIGARD CR 97223 .4'; f: JAMES CASTIILE 9563 SW INEZ ST , TIGARD OR 97223 f4. .; JUDY FFSSLER 1 11180 SW FONNER . , ; TIGARD OR 97223 MILTON F PYRE 12725 SW 121ST AVE { TIGARD OR 97223 j .' BRIAN MM00RE "Y," 9835 SW KIMBERLY DR r ti TIGARD OR 97224 ; 1 .;'1'4f ...:7:'.:1' I a. :F, DOUG SAXTON 13415 SW VILLAGE GLENN DR ,.... ' ' '.. ` TIGARD OR 97223 sj HAROLD B BOONE 12417 SW MORNING HILL DF3 W ' TIGARD OR 97223 `: - eaHARRY SAPORTA .o 0 14862 SW SCARLETT DR TIGARD OR 97224 • 11 iy • s* o M 7. PUBLIC BEARING ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZQA: 91-0005 FRONT' YARD STORLGE (ALL NPO'S) A proposal to delete section : . 18.96.060 (A) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code which prohibits front yard storage in a residential zone. Section 18.96.060 Storage in Front Yard (A) states: Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, recreation vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity i , shall not be stored in a required front yard in a residential zone. LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: •. ,; Community Development Code Section 18.22.040 and 18.96.060 .' t a. Public hearing was openedo w b. There were no declarations or challenges. c. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the Staff Report as submitted to the City Council in their meeting packet. '' d. Public testimony: {- - Opponents (against amendments) , • Harry L. Schukart, 11910 S.W. Morning Hill Drive, Tigard, Oregon advised he was testifying as }: President of the Morning Hill Homeowner's . Association. He said 95% of the association . members were opposed to the amendments because such .:d action would likely lead to other unsightly front yard storage. f Mr. Schukart advised that if people can afford recreational vehicles (rv's) , then they should be c; able to afford to store them in a proper place. He '-; said covenants and restrictions would be one way to �., regulate front yard storage; however, residents r= h: would have to file a civil suit and go through the court system. This, he advised, would be too N ; costly. • Teri. Wasco, Tigard, Oregon, noted problems with - cars parking on sidewalks or streets because of F- front yard storage of rv's. She noted aesthetics ca would be damaged and front yard storage was "visual harassment." She cited several existing problems `` near her neighborhood. F • Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, x Oregon, testified as Chair of NPO 7. He said the NPO would not want to see any change in the current ordinance and recommended improvement of CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 PAGE 6 ,•a r - : ;. + q., recommended that the Council maintain the existing regulations, citing neighborhood aesthetics as the main ; rationale. In addition enforcement, safety, and infringement of another's property rights were of concern -, to the Council. ',,.' e. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to deny the NPO 5 application for the repeal of : Section 18.96.06 A. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council . present. f. Councilor Johnson requested a conversation by Council at a future study session meeting regarding policy on Code E Enforcement. 8. CONSIDERATION OF REVISION OF CITY STREET VACATION ORDINANCE ` a. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed this agenda item. The proposed ordinance would revise the City's street vacation notification requirements to coincide with 1991 ;_ . changes in Oregon State Statutes. ;. b. ORDINANCE NO. 92-05 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF .. THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR STREET VACATIONS, SECTION 15.08.120. c. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwab, ; _ - to adopt Ordinance No. 92-05. ' ` The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council f present. ; s. .,i 9. EXEc nTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into ; Executive Session at 8:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) , -(e) , & (h) to discuss labor relations, real. property.transactions, current and pending litigation issues. ,3 ,,F 10. ADJOURNMENT: 8:55 p.m. 7 M Md Attest: ,:'' Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder , ) (// /-/ (///,/,/ -,,., CI ,Mayor Cyi -df`Tigai d ..1Date: 3- 1 C3- q 2 h:LrecorderecoAcum0211.92 `t. .,: CITY COUNCIL.MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 PAGE 8 A fk r`; M d # 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0005 FRONTYARD STORAGE (ALL NPO'S) . A • proposal to delete section 18.96.060 (A) of the City of Tigard Community ,.. Development Code which prohibits front yard storage in a residential zone. Section 18.96.060 Storage in Front Yard (A States: Boats, a, n, "' trailers, campers, camper bodies house trailers, recreation vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity shall not be stored _ . f_;; in a required.front yard in a residential zone. LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section es 18.22.040 and 18.96.060. {.x ' o Senior Planner Richard Bewersdorff explained the applicant, NPO #5, was { s seeking to do away with the rule prohibiting storage of items in the - ; front yard. He explained that this is an issue of community values revolving around aesthetics. He. discussed..the C CA R's set up i n % developments to deal with this issue. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION y o Craig Hopkins, Chair of NPO #5, spoke representing the NPO. He said that this section of the Code was complaint driven, and therefore tended . '. to be unevenly enforced. He described a specific incident where there was some animosity between two neighbors, and this resulted in a .: complaint bei ng mFi l-e efe He suggested removing this section from the Code because it is too difficult to enforce. ` `.:, o Discussion followed pertaining to C C & R's. President Fyre expressed - ' concern, as this was the only method of dealing with problems of this • en nature and many communities did not have C C & R's set up. ° o Commissioner Barber inquired of Mr. Hopkins whether the NPO would be in s ' favor of keeping this section of the Code if there were enough code }fi enforcement officers. Mr. Hopkins advised that the NPO would look ., ne.;'` - favorably if the Code were consistently enforced. �' q ' o There was discussion about the term "required front yard" and Senior ' Planner provided definition and clarification. OPPONENTS 1 ::.`.• o Bill Gross, 3019 SW Hampshire, spoke on behalf of NPO #7 opposing the proposed +ei imi nation of this section of the Code, as it would tend to , have a detrimental effect on the appearance of neighborhoods. He stated �' o- K that NPO members do not believe that C C & R's are the best method to deal with yard clutter problems. He advised that the NPO finds that the policy is sound, whether or not the policing is difficult,• He said there was no basis for the proposal to allow larger yards to have more t clutter. CD In response to a question from Commission Saporta regarding any middle •-,,' ..e ground which could be taken, Mr. Gross stated that the consensus of the NPO membership was that the Code ought to be retained as is. yPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 2, 1991 PAGE 5 { r .. 0 * '. REBUTTAL 4. o CraigHopkins spoke again about the possibility for misuse of the Code. , He described the loss incurred by the person who was cited in the particular instance which occurred in his neighborhood. He suggested , • : : there were other avenues to deal with nuisances. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED n Commissioner Boone did not favor rejecting the code, because maintaining 4,.? the community is important. o Commissioner Saporta said, while the specific incident Mr. Hopkins spoke 4 t, . j ' of was unfortunate, thi s.yas no_.basi s for altering.the Code. He said he '-'n would consider a modification to the reequirements, but since the f ` applicant did'not favor this, he would vote to leave the Code as is. o Commissioner Moore agreed with Commissioner Saporta. He described the C ' C & R's in his neighborhood, whichhe chose specifically for its ,, 3,. .. ).:= maintenance benefits. He noted that storage is a self-imposed problem. ;;, He favored keeping the Code as is. ti _ o Commissioner Castile commented he woild ^efer to arrive at some a compromise that would allow for some amount of limited storage. Since there was no compromise currently available, he favored keeping the Code. n: • a o Commissioner Barber advised she did not like to see uneven enforcement. She suggested there should be more than one code enforcement officer. x4 - • There was discussion about current resources in this area. She favored ' keeping the regulation but with .modifications to make it more -n1 -° " understandable. f: � ` o President Fyre commented that having limited enforcement ability was not ' nt, justification for eliminating the regulations. He favored keeping the .•: Code as is. * Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Saporta seconded to make a nn .„ recommendation to City Council against repealing the City Code •4 Section `f 1.1 18.96.06 (A). Motion passed unanimously by Commissioners present. 6. OTHER • nV x o Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that City Council had upheld the . Planning Commission's recommendation and study concerning Note 2 on the c study areas on the Transportation Plan Map. �:j { y x. ' !i 1 RIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 2, 3.991 PAGE .6 t < • a x ` ^ y 414 o He provided copies of "Chairman's Guide" he received from the City • Attorney regarding hearing procedures (see Exhibit B). He advised there was a suggestion to add certain procedures and provide sufficient specificity. There was discussion of who was entitled to a rebuttal and t„' criteria details to be stated. Senior Planner agreed to check on who ' can rebut during a hearing. There was discussion regarding the discussion portion of each hearing and ways to limit time spent by speakers, as well as repetitiveness, during public hearing. Senior Planner answered questions pertaining to appeal process. >, ,, ADJOURNMENT - 9:43 PM Ellen P. Fox, Secretary 4 ATTEST: Milton F. Fyre, President • - .�' V/ • J. • i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1991 PAGE 7 a .. is .. ,..: i .. .. • . .. .. ft ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM .. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: January 28, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: January 9, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing,/ PREVIOUS ACTION Planning Com. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Front f.. • Recommendation - 12-2-91 storage--RV's, iboats etc. /1 PREPARED BY Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK TF CITY ADMIN OK 1//I REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy . A _ _ `' ISSUE BEFORE t HE COUNCIL Should the City Council repeal the res rictions on storage of recreational ..- .ee , vehicles, boats, trailers, campers, cam•er bodies or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton in requim.3 front yard areas within residential zones? The issue is primarily one of neighborhood aesthetics from a community standpoint versus the convenience and desire of individual property owners to ,:e-, store this type of vehicle on within the front yard setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' - ' .f It is recommended that the regulation be repealed for the following reasons: 44 . in many areas storage of campers, recreational vehicles, boats, etc. can still be stored in the front yard because they are placed beyond the required ` ` setback; and there appears to be strong sentiment against enforcement by many property owners. On December 2, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council retain the existing regulations, citing neighborhood aesthetics as the main rationale. INFORMATION SUMMARY • The development code restricts storage of recreational vehicles (etc. ) in the A'; required front yard area, although enforcement of this section of the Code .t ; ''' has been lax over the years. As outlined in the attached staff report, NPO 5 initiated an amendment to repeal these restrictions, following a series of neighborhood complaints and discussions on the issues. Reactions from the 1 ,1 NPO's were mixed. Since the code applies only to the required front yard (normally 20 feet) campers, recreational vehicles, boats, etc can be legally o. stored in many front yards. Many newer subdivisions offer protective covenants that restrict such storage. Older subdivisions, many times, have greater setbacks which would allow front yard storage. • .. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES ' 0 1. Approve NPO 5's application and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to ' ILI repeal Section 18.96.060 A. 2. Deny NPO 5's application and retain the existing regulations as i' t: recommended by the Planning Commission. ' FISCAL NOTES i None anticipated one way or the other; staff would shift priorities depending ' on the Council's resolution of this matter. i. M• '4 ' ; .-• 0 •GENDA ITEM 5.3 l MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ,, w TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Division DATE: November 12, 1991 �a r" SUBJECT: NPO 5 application to repeal requirements limiting vehicle storage in front yards r `> 1 a § •;a a OVERVIEW: ' Summary The Tigard Development Code Section 10.96.060 A. requires , the following: ' Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, recreational vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity shall not be .', % stored in a required front yard in a residential 1 zone. e. `i f This section applies only to the required yard which ranges from 15 to "30 feet depending on the particular residential zone. NPO 5 has made application to repeal the above requirements. `, '" X Po.licjmplications: Should the City continue to restrict recreational vehicle and other similar types of storage in front {' yard? Financial Impact: Because of the variety of circumstances relative to the number of recreational vehicles stored in yards and l individual circumstances, a considerable amount of code enforcement .' time would have to be expended to consistently and uniformly a. 3 enforce existing regulations. No fees are involved. W I- Recommendation: It is rec• °bmmended that the regulations be repealed unless it becomes City policy to proactively enforce the existing regulations. V .3 ANALYSIS: , in , . # Background: INFO 5 has made application to delete Section 18.96.060 A. of the Tigard Development Code. In late April, 1991, the City -, Code Enforcement Officer cited a property owner for parking a recreational vehicle in violation of the above code section. The action was the result of a complaint. Thr City had not been i; , z;:; enforcing the requirement without receiving complaints. The 4 , . .. property owner who was cited pointed out a number of other similar ° violations. To be consistent, the Code Enforcement Officer then "4 = : cited a number of other property owners. As a result, the City -1. ''',-4 then received numerous complaints regarding the enforcement of the provisions. Enforcement was suspended and all NPO's were asked to review a proposal by NPO 5 to change the front yard storage > regulations to apply only to lots smaller than 'MOO square feet. , NPO review was completed during the summer. A summary of NPO comments is attached. Since NPO 5 did not find' a reasonable . solution to fit existing circumstances from the NPO sessions, it a4 filed an application to delete the requirements. i„ Issue: The issue of whether a recreational vehicle or other • similar boat, vehicle or trailer should be allowed to be stored in the front yard is primarily one community values revolving around , , aesthetics. Side yards are, in some cases, not large enough t,.o ,` allow storage. Some residential areas favor the existing regulations, others -do not. Many subdivisions have covenants or yam. deed restrictions that restrict such storage. Even though such ` ` {_ .;: CC&R's control the storage, some subdivisions prefer that the City - have a similar restriction so that the City would do the M'; enforcement. Recommendation: If the City is to retain the regulations, staff . agree that it should be enforced proactively. Enforcement by complaint is not the best policy even though it is sometimes necessary due to the lack of resources or time. Since CC&R's can ' control parking and storage in neighborhoods that so choose, it �" appears that repeal of the provisions may be warranted. -',, r�. a I:• l.. J a. MOD Lill . • t • '..,. 6 ::,..,,..„.„. ,:.4.3.--.....: .... .4. ..:%. .. ..,„ .. n 4, MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner /�-� FROM; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator 1/1 �// ...i::: :. DATE: July 17, 1991 ?' SUBJECT: NPO Comments on RV Storage Ordinance , , 1, On Wednesday, July 10, 1991, I facilitated a discussion pith NPO's 1/2, 4 & 8 to te: ,V',. discuss the NPO 5 proposal regarding RV storage. By a vote of 13 - 2, the members present favored some regulation of RV storage in front yards. Six people favored leaving.the ordinance as is, 5 favored some '4', ".' modification to regulate front yard storage. Suggestions for regulation of front,yard storage included the following: o Prohibiting front yard stooge except in cases of hardship. , •. o Allow front yard storage as long as vision clearance requirements are met. • o Allow front yard storage as long as the vehicle is behind a legal { 1 fence. • hi o Allow front yard storage where there is a minimum of 50' frontage. Most of the people in attendance felt that the 7500' minimum proposed by NPO #5 :f is discriminatory. There were concerns raised about pie shaped lots that may meet ••!..;!-',',,,, the 7500 minimum but may not have room in the front to store an RV or smaller lots .with front yards that are adequate. 4 `3 There were some concerns raised regarding the city's current 'enforcement by t complaints policy. Some felt that if ordinances can not be actively enforced they �` ' should be repealed. The biggest concern expressed was that if RV storage is permitted in the front yard vision clearance provisions must be met. x t a^ 1, q y { i'..+.':. i, x;. • NPO#5 MINUTES July 17, 1991 r ROLL CALL: Present: Hopkins z: Bieker Doty , Hawley } Absent: Takahashi (excused) ,r Mackinnon J { w The meeting was called to order in joint assembly with NPO#6 in`sown Hall at 730 p.m. The only item of business in the joint meeting was consideration of NPO 5's proposed amendment to the municipal code having to do with R.V. storage. After a brief background presentation by Craig Hopkins, Dick Bewersdorff moderated the subsequent -: discussion„ Most of the comments were in response to the memorandum he read from Liz Newton that summarized other NPO's comments on this issue. r,, * After the discussion, both NPO's adjourned to their separate gatherings in order to further h .a deliberate issues pertinent to their areas. - . As a matter of old business, we continued to evaluate our R.V. storage amendment proposal. We concluded that considering Tigard's uniquely diverse neighborhoods, any .'{}''t amendment would tend to be discriminatory. Therefore, it seemed that the most -.:4:. . ' reasonable thing to do was pursue having the existing ordinance;moved from the Code. • x'` Craig Hopkins and Bill Bieker volunteered to continue working with Liz Newton on proper { x# draft language for an amendment presentation to Tigard's Planning Commission and City } y Council. +'-.....r::::= Under"New Business"Wendi Hawley shared that NPO 5's comments regarding the Raze Meadows project were part of Hearings Officer's final decision. ,,.' a — a�,, sa With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Craig Hopkins h:tlogintiotnpo5min.712 w , z . .r `ad s 1. 4 .a . 1... � , . } �4 jy ,. o . 1. ••.: , , i " .. - _e , '"'.;'.** e '*: ,e,.'. -' e;.: -'''''. se,•,e.*e. ..e -ee, e.,e- :,,,,...-e:.--e, e-...e. .-„. .:.,- - : -. ... . ,. . . . , . . . . , ,, .,',4'i'4, , •'1' ••'..- . ..:''.,•' ..'' c• , • ..- miNuTES -e :e. NPO #8 -...,e .- ; WEDNESDAY JULY 10, 1991 .-..- .., Meeting began at 7:30 pm with a joint meeting of NPOs 1/2, & 4 to e discuss the present RV Storage Ordinance, with the possibility of recommending some changes. The present ordinance requires that Rye not be stored in the required 20 front yard setback. They may be stored in the side or ..e. back yards, and may be stored in the front yard if the yard is deep -enough There There were suggestions from NPO 5 that front storage be -ee allowed if the lot exceeded a certain minimum area. There was a •-e .'''' - variety of opinion in -NPO 8, •which was generally against the "area" ..1.- "! '''A• exception. Some members were interested in some modification of the present ordinance, but most favored staying fairly close the ' • e4'.' .. . e ordinance as written. - . Chairwoman Chase called the roll for the regular meeting at 8:35 pm. Present were: Chase, Blomgren, Epler, lford, Hein, Juve, and Stevens. John Nolan is no leaving the NPO. Alice moved that the Minutes of the June 12 meeting be approved as presented. John seconded. 'Passed unanimously. . Cathy said that the areas of "special concern" will be discussed in the August meeting. e , '•'-•-i.: 1..' -: We continued the discussion from last month on the problem of brush • I, ,------'%4 and other sight obstructions at corners, There does appear to be a Tigard City ordinance which addresses this problem. . e..... , .: . ''''''' * .:4 ` .''',1;:.-.1%• Cathy reported that she had received no notices of decisions. .' , -. ..1 -.7'. e. ee?tee Cathy presented a notice of the WESTERN BYPASS MEETING ON JULY 17. e We will discuss the town meeting at the August NPO meeting. .-1 - c‘ We discussed the Minor Partition request by Cloy Haeffele on ..: property at 10900 SW Hall Blvd. After determining which piece of a -, CO , .., , property we were discussing, we noted that there were problems accessing the property, because the State did not want to grant 0 .1- additional entrances on HALL Blvd. Cathy stated that if the owner could get the necessary access, she would not have a problem. Joel ,... ,• le said that we should approve the minor partition, with a note e ee . mentioning the possible access problem. Cathy was concerned about e : - ' the possibility of creating a flag lot because of the access -. ,. •• --- . - problem. Joel felt that the parcel was to large to cause a flag -e lot concern, that it would probably be subdivided eventually. „f :.e ... ..e.- Cliff pointed out that the property is 270' deep which would be - reasonable for a cul de sac. ,. e :` -'-'_=-• e • .-'4.-'t, •,.. , -.e- efle e,•,;;i:Lt.: '. e -*.e:e:-., . .. , " --..-,. ' - -?'- e eeee -0,---••,-- '..z ee-II. --. --(Zee.,- ,-,•-,;• eeee---,„ ....e-e, *.e..e.•,-. . .:".., : •„Le.,,-e --',,e.,:' ' ...,: ,,,'* ,.**:-''.•';'".e. ,*:r.f..e'.:,..e`': --;' • 'te �' •' �! r "' Adri . 0 lir r r NPO 8 'JULY 10, 199.1 �'f ry } Jim moved that we have no problem with the minor partition, but that we had some concerns about the access. Stevens seconded: r, ,a Cathy questioned the Zoning. Bob noted that it was already zoned j, :-. R12. That the MP request did not ask for a zone change. The R12 zoning is des i•gned for apartments =* , Motion passed unanimously. `-. John moved adjournment at 9:00. Stevens seconded. Piot i on carried, Meeting Adjourned at 9;OOpm, 1 , 4.y'. ',...‘r:'• b. i use aY :=:, 4 / 5j ° ' NOTICENOTIt`E OF PROPOSEDACTION - Must be sent to DLCD 45 days prior to ttie final hearing See OAR 660-18-020 ° :.: Jurisdiction •�--1 v , .Tt,c - -n Date Mailed I H Ci i Local File number d V -- —9,i-- Date Set for Final Hearing on Adoption 1_T___-_-_______± Month Day Year Time and Place for Hearing - T i -cD Gtr' i •'� �� - Z"� 3 p Y r-_: i 3 EZ S S 1._____:. 1,1 F}-ra-L� -13- .• s3-s 0 TZ- , Type of Proposed Action (Check all. that apply) Comprehensive _.?c,..._Land use New Land Use Plan AmendmentRegulation Amendment • Regulation • • Please Complete. (A) for Text Amendments and (B) for Map Amendments '''''-'-'-:'-,:,i'' A. Summary and. Purpose of Proposed Action `Write a; brief t.�, description of the proposed action. Avoid highly technical ` terms and stating "see attached". ): ' -}"v-�+;` e� a , t��r)- , - f . J-t p, s r t✓c ,,41.e.'c.. ) v u o. + c-t el :4:1 ; :f B. For Map Amendments Fill Out the Following. (For each area to. ' ' ;: be changed, provide a separate sheet if necessary. Do not use ,,` 4 tax lot number alone ): ,• Current Plan Designation: %' . - Proposed Plan Designation: s E'' a Current *Zone: Proposed Zone: t Location: {: Acreage Involved:.. - ,.' aDoes this Change Include an Exception?.` - • •Yes No • For Resildential...Changes Please Specify a Change..in Allowed , Density in Units Per :Piet Acre: Current Density: Proposed !.Density: -',.• 1 :; . List Statewide Goals hick Nay;Apply to; the ',Proposal: 6 )*-- 't....,',..1,,,,,:....,:;... Last any Staff a orFederal Agencies, Local G-over[ ernt.or mal Special Service ...... :,:.: Districts Which,,may b� 7Cn erestcd in or Yasipacted y t ae proposal- . L'. Direct Questions and Comments'To ...kms = .-4 �L.5'�a1 � (Phone) �' °-- l 71 X ,.1':::::::::.--...:;':'''''''-':11.''I'S'4".....::;-.... • I , .:',:','11', Please Attach Three (3) Copies of tine Proposal to t=ab;s Form and y, ' Department of Land •Conservat cin and,bevelopment A ,, . 1175 Court Street, N.E s r < Salem, Oregon 97310.89590 a t1�®TF: f more .copies of this form ark needed, please contact the DLCD '' office at 373-® 5®E o this .form may .be duplicated n green paper. ''' ' °. Please be advised that statutes rewire eche " ext" o a proposal to be R-` ,.. provided. A' general description of the intended action is hot sufficient. Proposed plan and land base regulation a eudments mast he , sent to DLCD at least 45 days pricer: to the final hear3.41g �- (See OAR 660-18-02u1 . • t * * FOR DLCD OFFIC USE ; DLCD File Number • .Da s otic . 7 "+E � � spa>pr©posedform h, V F -