Loading...
City Council Packet - 02/23/1981 TIGARD CITY COUr:CIL - REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 1981, 7:00 P,M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME ON THE APPROPRIATE SIGN-UP SHEET(S) LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM. PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK WILL THEN BE CALLED FORWARD BY THE CHAIR TO SPEAK ON THE INDICATED ITEM(S) . AGENDA: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT l�ln��l .1ETri0ll OF FUNDI2IG (MSD) (a) Presentation by Rick Gustafson 5. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 6. CONSENT AGENDA: (All matters under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted in one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired by any Council member or member of the audience, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately. ) (a) Approvalof Minutes: February 9 & 17, 1981 kb) Approval of Expenditures and Investments: $ 98,243.20 (c) Written Communications - Receive and File . Transmittal from Metropolitan Service District (MSD) re: Burning Ban . Transmittal from TCYS re: increase in ballot measure request See Agenda Item No. (d) Street Improvement Consent Covenant - Approve and Authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign. Lyle & Georgia Lilja - MLP 18-79 Requirement - 11405 Std 90th Avenue Tax Map ISI 35DB, Tax Lots 2600 & 2603. (e) Monthly Reports - Receive and File Building Library Police s'. Finance Planning 7. TOWN AND COUNTRY CELEBRATION DISCUSSION (a) Discussion by Council and Committee_- presentation by Carol Dendurant. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. SW HA14PTON STREET - STREET & SANITARY SEWER I2IPROVEIIENT DISTRICT PROPOSAL (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Summation by Director of Public Works (c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Director of Public Works (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) Consideration by Council (o) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AIID RATIFYING THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF JANUARY 26, 1981 AND FEBRUARY 9, 1981 , WITH RESPECT TO SW HAMPTON STREET - STREET I14PROVEMENT DISTRICT; APPROVING, RATIFYING AND ADOPTING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS A.D ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STREET AND SEWER IMPR0VEI4ENTS; DECLARING RESULTS OF HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT THERETO; DIRECTING SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR THE MAKING OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL V15-80 & CU 14-80 DAVID CHURCH NPO #2 The Planning Commission denial of a request by David Church for a variance and conditional use to construct a single family attached unit in an R-7 zone on a .52 acre parcel located at 12533 S14 Grant Avenue (plash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2BB, Tax Lot 1801), which decision has been appealed to the City Council . Testimony will be limited to summation of previous statements. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Summation by Planning Staff (c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Planning Staff (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) Consideration by Council 10. SITE DESIGN REVIEW SDR 1-81 APPEAL GEOFFREY LEVEAR NPO u5 The Planning Director approval of a request by Geoffrey Levear for a site design review of a Start Right Day Care Center (condition #4 which requires the applicant to dedicate street right-of-way along Hall Blvd. ) located at 12360 SW Hall Blvd. in an R-7 zone (plash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11BC, Tax Lot 900) which decision is being appealed to the City Council. This hearing will be a full evidential hearing. Both proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to give evidence and to cross-examine. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Summation by Planning Staff (c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Planning Staff (e) Public Hearing Closed LN (f) Con:idera tion by Ciouncil. 1 1111 i MIN PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 23, 1981 11. CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL CU 23-80 TUALATI`i DEVELOPMENT COiIPADIY NPO #6 The Planning Commission approval of a request by Larry Grayson for a conditional use to construct attached single family units in Kneeland Estates Subdivision, on a 20.8 acre parcel located on the corner of Durham Road and 92nd Avenue (Tax slap 2S1 14A, Tax Lots 400, 500, 700) which decision has been appealed to the City Council by Tualatin Development Company. This hearing will be a full evidential hearing. Both proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to give evidence and to cross-examine. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Summation by Planning Staff (c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Planning Staff (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) Consideration by Council PUBLIC NOTICE HEARING 12. ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZCPD 30-80 (GENTLE WOODS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY UNITS) Phase I and II NPO #5 A request by Gotter - Jaehrling Partnership for a Preliminary and General Plan Review of Gentle Woods Planned Development single family units on 22 lots located at 15180 SW 79th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax slap 2S1 12C, Tax Lots 1200 and 1300). (a) Recommendation of Planning Conunission. (b) Consideration by Council (c) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AI4D FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Gentlewoods Phase I and II. ) 13. OLCC APPLICATIONS Shakeys, 11475 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, Was Restaurant-now requesting Retail Malt Beverage License . Town Tavern, 12370 SW Main, Tigard, Retail Malt Beverage License . Peabody's Pies & Sandwiches of Tigard, 13620 SW Pacific Highway - Retail Malt Beverage License . Gaffer's Pub 206-207 Tigard Plaza, Tigard, requesting greater privilege to Dispenser Class A License (See Chief of Police special recommendation) (a) Recommendation of Chief of Police. 14. NPO #5 MEMBERSHIP REQUESTS .John Smets; John W. Havery; Walter Durham, Jr. ; Bill Bieker; (a) Recommendation of Planning Director 15. CABLE TV REPORT (a) Recommendation of Planning Director i 16. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIG.v.RD CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIOt:. (a) Reco-,=endation of Selection Co=ittee. PAGE 3 — COUNCIL AGENDA — FEBRUARY ??� ln$1 17. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPOINTI-TENT TO THE TIGARD PARK BOARD. (a) Recommendation_ of Selection Committee. 13. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE TIGARD BUDGET C0112111ITTEE. (a) Recommendation of Selection Committee. 19. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPOINTMENT TO THE TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD. (a) Recommendation of Selection Committee. 20. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO VOTERS TAX LEVY FOR TIGARD C01,114UNITY YOUTH SERVICES, INC. , AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. 21. OTHER 22. ADJOURNMENT PAGE 4 - COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 23, 1981 T I G A R D C I T Y C RF_.GULAR LMEETING M I N I1TES , FLI3RVARY 23 , 1981 - 7 : 30 P .�I . 1 . ROLL. CALL: Present : `favor Wilbur A . 13i shop , Counc i Imen Tom Brian , John Cook (arrived 7 : 10 11M) , Kenneth Schc-ckla , Council- woman , Nancle Stimler ; Chief of Police , Robert Adams (arrived 7 : 30 P.;1. ) ; Lef*a i. Counsel , Joe Bnilev (arrived 8 :00 pM left 11 :04 P,,I) ; City Administrator , Raeldon R . Barker ; Public Works Director , Drank Currie ; Finance Director/ City Recorder. , Doris Harti,-. , Planuin!L; Director , Aldie Howard ; Research and Development Aicle , Linda Sargent . 2 . METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT METHOD OF FLINDIING (MSU) (a) Rick Gustafson , Executive Officer of Metro , and Cr. ait,, 13erkman Metro Councilor for Tigard District , discussed the status Fluid- ing for METRO. Mr . Gustafson noted that Tignrd pays annual dues of $7 ,000 Per year to METRO in return f.or coordinating receipt of federal funds and planning services . (b) Councilman Scheckla requested to see Motro ' s budget . Craig Berkman noted that METRO meets jurisdictional requirements for eligibility of federal funds . (c) Councilman Brian stated that Tit,ard appeared to be s!.etti.nP. it ' s share of services . (d) Mayor Bishop inquired abort the fate of federal fundins; . Councilwoman StinrLer expressed a treed for more commt:nicat loll with METRO representatives . (e) Concensus of Council- was not to make a decision regardin:, funding tonight . 3 . CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITFMS . (a) No one appeared to speak . 4. APPROVAL OF MINI?TES : February 9 & 17 , 1961 . (a) Mayor Bishop made a correction in the roll call section of the minutes of February 17 , 1981 . John Mannings name is to be deleted as he was a guest . (b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Counciliaoman Stimler to approve as amended. Approved by unanimous vote of Council . 5 . APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND INVESV-IENTS : $98 , 243 . 20 (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council . 6 . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Receive and File Transmittal from Metropolitan Service District 011SD) re : Burning Ban . Transmittal from TCYS re : increases in ballot measure request . See Item No. 10 . (a) Motion by Councilman Brian , seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to receive and file . Approved by unanimous vote of Council . 7 . STREET IMPROVE"IENT CONSENT COVENANT - Approve and Authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign. Lyle & Georgia Lilja - MLP 15-79 Requirement - 11.405 Si4 90th Ave . Tax Map 1S1 35 DB, Tax Lots 2600 & 2603 (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve and authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign. Approved by unanimous vote of Council . 8 . MONTHLY REPORTS - Receive and File Building Library Police Planning (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to receive and file . Approved by unanimous vote of Council . 9 . TOWN AND COUNTRY CELEBRATION DISCUSSION (a) Carol Dendurant recommended to the Council that monies be available in the budget for police officers to patrol the beer gardens along with other considerations and that a li.ason com- mittee be established to develop guidelines in dealing with problem situations . IBM (b) AIs Dendurant requested the City to prepare such estimates for the budget. (c) Chief Adams noted that the recommendation for police officers to work as bouncers is contrary to Tigard Police Departmental policy. Chief Adams stated that the Police Department would be willing to train, individuals . (d) Councilwoman Stimler suggested that_ the rules be reviewed in order to allow police officers to work at a civic event . (e) Concenus of Council to meet again with Town & Country Days representative prior to 2nd scheduled budget meeting. PACE 2. - REGULAR COUNCILALLTTNG IMINUT - FEBRUARY E S 23 , 1981 10 . ORDINANCE NO. 81-07 AN ORDINANCE, CALLING FOR A SPECIAL FLECTION TO SUBMIT TO VOTERS TAY LEVY FOR TIGARD COHMUNITY YOUTH SERVICES , INC . , AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) William Knudsen, Director TCYS , was available to answer any questions and requested amount of levy be increased to $66 , 383 to take care of uncollected taxes . (b) Councilman 13'r an moved to amend the amount in the levy of $66 , 383 or estimated $0 . 123 per $1 ,000 and approve the ordinance . The motion was seconded by Councilwoman. Stimler . Approved by unanimous vote of Council . ll . OLCC APPLICATIONS . Shakeys , 11475 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, was restaurant-now requesting Retail Malt Beverage License . Town Tavern , 1'2370 SW Main, Tigard, Retail ,-Ial t Beverage Peai�ody ° s Pies & Sandwiches of Tigard , 13620 SW Pacific Ili¢hwa , Retail. Malt Beverage License. � } Gaffer ' s Pub, 206-2.07 Tigard Plaza , Tigard, requesting; greater privilege to Dispenser Class A License (see Chief of Police special recommendation) (a) Chief of Police recommended approval to OLCC with Gaffer ' s application conditioned to require the Pool room be deleted and converted to a dining room. ? (b) Motion by Councilman Cook , seconded by Councilman Scheckla to forward to OLCC for approval with special conditions for Gaffer ' s Pub application and authorize Mayor ' s signature . Approved by unanimous vote of Council . 12 . NPO #5 MEMBERSHIP REQUESTS . John Smets ; John W. Havery; Walter Durham, Jr. ; Bill Bieker (a) Planning Director recommended approval of John Smets , John ld. Havery, Walter Durham and Bill Bieker. y` (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, Seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council . u. 8 :00 PM PUBLIC HEARING 13 . SW HAMPTON STREET - STREET & SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEI-IENT DISTRICT PROPOSAL (a) Public Hearing Opened rte' }..s (b) Public Works Director. Frank Currie , reviewed the process for establishing LID 's . Currie stat ed with recent and impend- ` ¢ PAGE 3 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1931 ing annexations , we ' re in a need for sonic drainage and sewer to be developed in the Hampton Street area . Public Works Director introduced Keith Thompson, Cooper and Associates , Engineers , to Council . (c) Keith Thompson addressed the status of Hampton Street . He reported that roads could be widened to 44 feet with islands ; storm drains , sidewalks , street lights , and bus pullouts could be constructed along the Hampton Street corridor . Mr . Thompson stated that two plans had been developed for consideration . PLAN A - which deleted islands at a cost of $375 ,000 or PLAN B - which included islands at a cost of $430,000 . Mr. Thompson con- cluded that the project was feasible and economic indication positive . (d) Councilman Brian questioned whether the islands served any engineering function. Mr. Thompson stated that islands provided barriers for high volume traffic and enhance safety. (e) Councilwoman Stimler expressed concern that the islands would be constructed and later torn up as development increased . ( f) Public Testimony Proponents : 1 . Gary Vandevetter, 13333 SW 68th Parkway, questioned the assessment formula . He also expressed concern over the urgency of the Hampton Street LID and whether the area needed beautification. 2 . Eldon A. Hoekstra , 6950 S .W. Hampton , Manager, Federal. Employees Credit Union, expressed concern regarding access , fire protection and the identity of his newly relocated building. 3 . Charles Hogel , 7035 SW Hampton , questioned the scale of the proposed street improvements . Iie noted that islands are too expensive for what they are suppose to accomplish . Opponents : 1 . Michael. J . Jensen, Commerce Park , submitted a written objection for the record. (g) Public Works Director , Frank Currie , recommended approval of project . (h) Public Hearing Closed (i) Councilmen registered concern over islands and Tri-net' s funding for bus pullouts PACE 4 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1981 (j ) ORDINANCE NO. 81-08 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF JANUARY 263 1981 AND FEBRUARY 9 , 1981 , WITH RESPECT TO SW HAMPTON STREET - STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; APPROVING , RATIFYING AND ADOPTING PLANS , SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STREET AND SEWER IMPROVE- MENTS ; DECLARING RESULTS OF HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT THERETO; DIRECTING SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR THE MAKING OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (k) Councilman Cool-, moved to approve, seconded by Councilman Scheckla . Approved by unanimous vote of Council . 14. VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE APPEARL V15-80 & CU 14-80 DAVID CHURCH NPO #2 The Planning Commission denial of a request by David Church for a variance and conditional use to construct a single family attached unit in an R-7 zone on a . 52 acre parcel located at 12533 SW Grant Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2SI 2BB, Tax Lot 1801) , which decision has been appealed to the City Council . (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Liz Newton of the Planning Staff gave a brief history of the situation concluding that the Planning Commission had denied the request for a variance to construct a single family , attached unit in an R-7 Zone on a . 52 acre parcel located at 12533 Grant Avenue . (c) Public Testimony Proponents : 1 . Larry Derr, Attorney for David Church, summarized the notice of appeal . He stated that the applicant applied for a con- ditional use in addition to a variance application. i`Ir. Derr stated that two single family attached units were a good use of this land . Mr. Derr suggested the conditions 2 ,3 ,4, and 9 be replaced and that staff be given flexability to act on the one foot access issue. Opponents : No one appeared to speak (d) Liz Newton of the Planning Staff recommended denial of appeal . (e) Public Hearing Closed. PAGE 5 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1981 .z ( f) Councilwoman Stimler opposed changing the use of the lot to attached single family. C;ourncilmnn Brian staled that the lot was not the place to add two extra living units . (g) David Church , 6328 SW Haines Road , stated that the proposed development is consistent with RPO 7#2 goals . (h) Councilwoman Stimler moved to deny appeal , seconded by Council- man Brian . Motion carried four to one vote with Mavor Bishop voting Nay . RECESS : 9 : 27 PM RECONVITNE 9 :40 PM 15 . CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL CU 23-80 TUALATIN DEVE'LOPMEANT COMPANY NPO ,1,-`�6 The Planning Commission approval of a request by Larry Grayson for a conditional use to construct attached single family units in Kneeland Estates Subdivision, on a 20 . 8 acre parcel located on the corner of Durham Road and 92nd Avenue (Tax Map 2S1 14A , Tax Lots 400 , 500, 700) which decision has been appealed to the City Council by Tualatin Development Company. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Planning Director Aldie Howard summarized the appeal of a conditional use for Kneeland Estates by the Tualatin Development Company. (c) Public Testimony Attorney Joe Bailey, Council , Staff and Attorney Rask representing TDC, discussed legal technicalities regarding public notice stating matter be' heard "on record" and malfunction of recording system whereby there was no transcript of Planning Commission proceedings . For Council to have a transcript of the proceedings , the matter would have to be remanded to the Planning Commission. Proponents : 1 . Larry Grayson , owner of Kneeland Estates , stated that he had put in two additional streets for access for TDC and construction was being held up due to TDC ' s appeal . 2 . Paul Rask, Attorney for TDC , Larry Grayson and Aldie Howard adjourned outside the hall to sort out the issues of the appeal and reach an agreement . Aldie Howard recommended that the two street plugs stay until formation of an LID, that temporary access on Durham remain until a traffic study specifically addressed to access onto Durham Read IWO- and that some notification be given to property owners regarding temporary access . PAGE 6 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FFBRITA.RY 23 , 1981 (d) Councilman Cook moved to table consideration until the next meeting, seconded by Councilwoman Stimier . Motion carried unanimously 16 . SITE DESIGN REVIEW SDR 1-81 APPEAL GEOFFREY LEVEAR NPO #5 The Planning Director approval of a request by Geoffrey Levear for a site design review of a Start Right Day Care Center (condition #4 which requires the applicant SW Hall street right-Of-way along Hall Blvd. ) located at 1236 pealed to Tax Map 2S1 11BC, Tax Lot 900) which decision is being appealed the City Council . (a) Public Hearing Opened m 45 (b) Planamaximum o ningStfrecommended h � dlot ogoo 4&b1000easennecessary . feet (c) Public Testimony Proponents : 1 . Geoffrey Levear, stated that he was appealing the 45 foot public right-of-way dedication. He also noted that site design review only applied to Tax Lot 900 . Mr . Levear stated that he would sign a non-remonstrance if condition #4 was rewritten. Opponents : No one appeared to speak. (d) Councilman Cook moved to approve a modification providin`, that a maximum of 36 feet from center line on both tax lots 900 and d that a strance on00taxelotd900nonly. Councilmannb e signed Scheciclaseconded the�imotion . Motion carried unanimously. 17 . ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZCPD 30-30 (GENTLE WOODS PLANNED #5 DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY UNITS) Phase I and II A request by Gotter - Jaehrling Partnership for a Preliminary and General Plan Review of Gentle Woods Planned Development single family units on 22 lots located at1300SO SCAT 79th Avenue ([~Yash . Co . Tax Map 2S1 12C, Tax Lots 1200 and (a) Liz Newton of the Planning Staff recommended approval as per the proposed zone change . (b) ORDINANCE NO. 81-09 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Gentle Woods Phase I and II . ) PAGE 7 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23 , 1981 (c) Councilman Brian moved to adopt , Councilwoman Stimler seconded . Motion carried unanimously. 18 . RESOLUTION No. 81-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION . (a) Councilman Brian registered concerns over the selection process and the practice of making re-appointments . (b) Motion to accept recommendation of selection committee made by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler . Motion carried four to one vote with Councilman Briar: voting Nay. 19 . RESOLUTION No. 81-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING .APPOINTMENT TO THE TIGARD PARK BOARD (a) Councilman Cook moved to adopt recommendation, seconded by Councilman Scheckla . Motion carried four to one vote with Councilman Brian voting Nay. 20 . RESOLUTION No . 81-16 A RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THF TIGARD BUDGET COMMITTEE . (a) Councilman Cook moved to adopt, seconded by Councilman Scheckla . Motion carried three to two vote with Councilwoman Stimler and Councilman Brian voting Nay. 21 . RESOLUTION No . 81-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPOINTMENT TO THE TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD . (a) Councilman Cook moved to adopt , seconded by Councilman Scheckla . Motion carried three to two vote with Councilwoman Stimler and Councilman Brian voting Nay. 22 . CABLE TV REPORT (a) Planning Director Aldie Howard , distributed request for proposals and recommended that Council agree to continue as a member of the Metropolitan Area Communication Commission on cable commission franchises and review recommendation of the committee in June . (b) Mayor Bishop expressed concern whether the City could be locked to the recommendation agreed by the committee and the degree of control the City would have in decision making. ( c) Councilman Cook moved to continue as a member of the commission, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler. Motion carried unanimously . PAGE 8 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23 , 1981 23 . OTHER : (a) Mayor Bishop announced a meeting of Washington County elected officials at Portland General Electric building Febri.iary 26th at 7 . 30 P .M. (b) Councilman Cook expressed concern over problems in paving Frewir_g Street and as a solution moved to direct staff to prepare a Resolution to annex approximately 25 lots in the Garrett - Frewing area . Motion seconded by Councilman Brian. Motion carried four to one vote , Councilman Scheckla voting nay . (c) Mayor Bishop requested to review unclassified employee perfor- mance evaluations before budget is complete (d) Councilman Scheckla noted that barrels of chemicals were stored on 74th Avenue and directed staff to check out the situation and possibly contact DEQ. (e) Frank Ci -rie , Public Works Director , requested tha Council con- sider tie City taking over jurisdiction of County roads where the City and County currently share jurisdiction . Concensus of Council was not to make a decision at this time . ( f) Councilwoman Sti.mler noted that several large holes need to be filled at 115th and Gaarde and at 121st and Walnut . (g) Frank Currie , Public Works Director, su'-gested that the Council consider a resolution of intent for the development of Knoll Drive LID. 24. MEETING ADJOURNMENT 11 : 50 P.M. City -Recorder i ATTEST: Mayor PAGE 9 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23 , 1981 Date 2/23/81 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: AGENDA XTP DAVID CHURCH VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL Proponent (for) Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation / R LIM Date I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description_: AGENDA ITEM # 10 r,FOFFREY LFVEAR SITE DESIGN EEVIEW Proponent (for) Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 17 Date �oZ7-Ii I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: AGENDA ITEM # 11 KMFFT D FSTATFC CTTR (`/1=TTTnMM T TTCT: APPEAL BY TFjftbftTi1N -BEV' Proponent (for) Opponent (against) :Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 20 tG;,.� ��u {<. Bid ;. _ Date 2/23/81 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following items.: (Please print your name) Item Description: A EHDA-I 1 r ED J!HA •roponent (for) � ranent (against) 'ane, Address and Affi ion Name, Address and Affiliation 1 c >5 ScJ Rolm METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT 527 S.W.HALL ST.,PORTLAND,OR, 97201, ;03 221-1646 METRO Rick Gustafson EXECUTIVE OFFICER MSD Council Marge Kafoury January 29, 1981 PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICT I I lack Deities DEPUTY PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICT 5 Donna Stuhr The Honorable Wilbur Bishop DISTRICT Mayor of Tigard Charies w5iiiamson a.e-V-UP .,7. r.? • aiwi is DISTRICTI ++}} Tigard, Oregon 97223 .C OISTReI rCT3�F'-Z-X'8-1 0 Dear Mayor Bishop: Corky Kirkpatrick DISTRICT 4 Jane Rhodes I am writing in regard to your questions on the action to DISTRICT6 seek legislative extension of Metro's authority to assess Betty Schedeen mandatory dues. Attached for your review is a summary of DISTRICT the services provided to Tigard, by Metro, during the last Ernie Bonner year . COUNCILOR DISTRICT 8 Cindy Banzer Briefly, payment of dues by your city and other DISTRICT 9 jurisdictions allows the three important functions of Gene Peterson DISTRICT 70 Metro to continue. These functions include: Mike Burton DISTRICT 12 1. Serving as an areawide planning agency which allows local jurisdictions to remain eligible for State and federal grants-in-aid funds; 2. providing assistance to local governments for direct services, where a regional approach provides economy of scale; and 3. Dealing with regional issues that transcend the boundaries of local jurisdictions. The attached paper indicates that because of programs being carried out by Metro that Tigard has received approximately $300,000 for transportation projects during 1979 and 1980, a favorable recommendation on its $28,710 A-95 proposal, participation in the criminal justice information system plan, $2,700 worth of support for recycling in Tigard, and many hours of technical assistance. Tigard paid $7,325 in dues during FY 1980-81. Metro's legislation proposes a four year extension of our current funding authority which is now billed at 500 per - ------The_Sonorable-Wilbur Bishop January 29, 1981 Page 2 capita. During this time, Metro council is committed to exploring other avenues of funding and funding sources. I hope that this information is helpful to you and provides the necessary information to support Metro's proposed legislation. Sincerely t f Rick Gustafson Executive Officer RG/SR/g 1 1869B/201 Attachment METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT 527 S.W.HALL ST.,PORTLAND,OR. 97201, 503/221-1646 METRO MEMORANDUM Date: January 29 , 1980 To: City of Tigard Mayor Wilbur Bishop and City Council From: Rick Gustafson, Executive Officer Craig Berkman, Councilor , District 3 Regardinggervices Provided by Metro to the City of Tigard In response to requests for more information on Metro' s programs and how dues paid by your CILy are used by Pietro, the summary provided below has been prepared. Broken down by functional area, the information provides 1) specific dollar amounts received by Tigard because of planning, technical assistance and/or review by Metro; 2) specific services to Tigard by Metro for which no dollar amount is associated; and 3) regional services which Metro provides that benefit the metro area, including your city. TRANSPORTATION Metro is responsible for developing a regional transportation system that balances the growing demand for mass transit with ongoing needs for the private automobile. The Metro Council allocates federal funds for transportation projects by use of the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) . As a result of the regional TIP, the city of Tigard was able to benefit from over $300,000 in transportation improvements during 1979 and 1980. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) : The Metro Council is studying a RTP to meet the area's travel needs to the year 2000. The plan also seeks to improve the air quality of the region and reduce energy needs through programs to reduce vehicular travel, encourage carp000ling and vanpooling, implement land use policies that support transit and decrease the need for travel, and protect options for future light rail routes. The RTP will be used by ODOT and Tri-Met for making respective project financing decisions. AIR AND WATER QUALITY WATER QUALITY: The Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG) , Metro's predecessor , adopted a regional wastewater treatment management ("208" ) plan which is still in effect. Metro is implementing that plan, and has worked with local governments to identify key projects for each part of the region to improve water quality. Metro is also working with local governments to plan for the most efficient use of limited federal money for sewer projects in the region. Currently, much of the land available for new housing cannot be developed because local governments cannot afford to provide the necessary sewer facilities. In 1979, Metro Executive Officer Rick Gustafson testified before the Environmental Quality Commission for a more equitable distribution of federal funds for sewer projects. As a result, the 1980 allocation system was changed to provide more money for projects needed in the metro region. Over the past five years Tigard has benefited from the over $40 million received by Washington County for sewer construction. Metro has also completed and made available to local jurisdictions a stormwater design manual, a stormwater management inventory and maps of sewer and water supply systems. A regional water supply plan was also completed by the Corps of Engineers under the sponsorship of Metro. AIR QUALITY: The Portland metropolitan area is currently in violation of Federal Clean Air standards--standards which must be met by 1987. Metro is responsible for planning transportation strategies to help achieve these standards and to help develop an overall air quality improvement plan. Once Metro has developed an air quality plan, and it is adopted by the State, DEQ will be responsible for ensuring its implementation. The State, Tri-Met, cities, counties and private industries will each have a major part in carrying out the plan. Metro will help implement programs to reduce auto travel, and thereby reduce pollution from vehicle emissions . LAND USE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB) : In December, 1979, Metro gained state approval for an UGB for the Portland metropolitan area. The Boundary will allow more efficient and economical delivery of public services, and provide the certainty needed by both developers and planners to guide investment and development decisions. Metro has reviewed the comprehensive land use plans of cities and counties within the region, including Tigard, to assure compliance with State land use laws. Metro helps the local governments develop and refine their plans in accordance with LCDC land use goals and with Metro policies for the use of urban land within the UGB. Metro has also provided coordination between Tigard and LCDC, Washington County, special districts and special interest groups. 2 - HOUSING: Metro has also adopted a Housing Opportunity Plan to allocate assisted housing throughout the region on a "fair share" basis. The HOP is used as a guideline by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in its distribution of public housing funds to local jurisdictions . SOLID WASTE Although no local dues are used in the region's solid waste Program, local jurisdictions benefit from Metro's efforts as outlined below. RECYCLING: Metro estimates that as much as 30 percent of an individual's garbage can be recycled. Recyclable materials include glass, newspapers, cardboard, tin cans, motor oil and aluminum. Metro currently provides $2,700 in support of the monthly recycling project which serves the Tigard area. In addition, Metro has allocated $50,000 to fund the region, = switchboard which provides information on recycling on a call-in basis. RESOURCE RECOVERY: Metro plans to build a Resource Recovery Facility across from Rossman' s Landfill, near Oregon City, that will burn garbage to create energy. The Resource Recovery Facility, expected to open by arid- or late 1584, will burn up to 500,000 tons of garbage per year , or about two-thirds the amount produced in the metro region that can be processed. The resource recovery process will produce sufficient energy to replace 25,000 gallons of oil currently used daily by Publishers Paper Co for its paper drying operations, and leave metal and ash after the burning process. The metal can be melted down and reused. Metro staff are proposing that the ash be used as a foundation for new roads. Even if the ash cannot be used in roadbuilding , it will still be more compatible for a landfill than unprocessed garbage, because ash does not emit odors or attract rodents or insects . WASTE REDUCTION: Metro recently adopted a comprehensive Waste Reduction Plan. The plan spells out ways for Metro to encourage: 1) recycling, 2) source separation, 3) less commercial packaging, and a_) proper yard debris disposal. Currently, $480,000 is budgeted for general implementation, none of which comes from local dues. LANDFILLS: Metro assumed responsibility for operating St. Johns Landfill in June, 1380. Since then, Metro has cleaned up the site and strictly enforced federal requirements for landfill maintenance and environmental controls. Metro has required improvements at Rossman' s Landfill in Oregon City to reduce odors . One of Metro' s main activities has been searching for a new landfill site to serve the region. Rossman' s is expected to 3 reach capacity in 1982, and St. Johns Landfill , in mid-1980s. Metro recognizes that even with extensive recycling , resource recovery and waste reduction efforts, some garbage will always have to go to a landfill. CRIMINAL JUSTICE Metro is currently responsible for planning , coordination and financing of approved criminal justice programs. Because of this work, Tigard is able to participate in the criminal information system plan at no cost to the City. Federal funding to local jurisdictions and some private agencies is based on the recommendations and priorities set by Metro. COORDINATION SERVICES A-95 REVIEW: Metro is responsible for review of requests for federal and State monies coming into the region. Tigard received a favorable recommendation for funding by Metro on the request for $28,710 for the Cook Park West Addition. GRANT INFORMATION: Metro staff researches and makes available to local jurisdictions information concerning federal or State grant applications . Specifically, City staff has received assistance/information with regard to bike paths and park funds . DATA COLLECTION: Metro provides the resources and the manpower to complete and maintain data collection efforts in the region. Specifically, Metro makes available to local jurisdictions regional building permit data, census documents and housing market analysis. MAPPING SERVICES: Maps and mapped data such as streets , water lanes, soil types or floodplains are completed and maintained at Metro. Maps may be obtained, by request, by local jurisdictions. RG/SR/gl 18C2B/201 4 - CZ MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE : FEBRUARY 2�, 1981 FROM: BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT FOR MONTH OF JANUARY , 1981 January ' s building activity included permits for 7 signs, 36 single family residential, 2 residential alter and repair, 11 commercial alter and repair and 1 miscellaneous for a total valuation of $2,320, 976. 00. Fees for 50 permits $ 8, 339.00 Fees for 7 signs 160.00 Plumbing Activity - 35 1,035. 00 Mechanical Activity - 44 773. 50 Business Licenses - 93 3, 984. 00 TOTAL - - $14,291. 50 Sewer Permits - 38 $26, 700. 00 Sewer Inspections - 38 950.00 King City activity included 1 commercial alter and repair for a total valuation of $4,250.00 and fees of 432. 00. C O . . e . . •ri O p O 0 C) 0 CD CD CD CD C) 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O O p O p O p O 0 0 0 0 p O p p 0 0 4.7 O O P CJ CD p 0 0 0 0 0 p O p O CD 0 CD CD C) 0 0 0 0 CD O O CD O 0 C) p p M C) 0 CD CD ro NNLfIONmlOt.OmO .•-1Mcn LnmOON CDN CC) NOOK LO LO C\i r-q Ilz mOO :1 Ln M O M m Ol r-1 O O Ol d O C r i Ur m M Cr) m C11 CO O� CD M M �O lO d CO M L[7 tD CO Ln O\ Ln Lt7 Ln lO l0 N l0 ;3' lS) l0 Lr) l0 lO \O Lf) Lam• Lr) U) Ln Ln Ln LO LO M Lc7 Ln d• QO LO Ln lO N tm H H ro c0 -q r-1 r-1 r-{ r-i r-i r-1 r-1 I r� r I r; r-1 r-I I r-1 •-I r i r-1 r-{ r i •-� r-I r-1 •--1 .-1 ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro (a cu ro ro ro M ro cu co ro cD cu ro "'{ . cD ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro D ro ro ro ro ro .,..1 .,..1 .,•.1 .,1 .,..1 .,..1 .,..1 ,..1 .ri •ri r♦ ri r i ri •.-i r-I H '•1 r-r •ri r; ri -r-I -I ri •-i ri ,1 1 .-1 1 -r-i ,I ri -r-I ri r-i -P -P 4-) 4-) 4-a 4 , -4-) 4-3 4J 4-3 4-3 -4.3 4-3 4f 4-) 4.3 4-3 -N 4-3 4-3 4.3 4') -3 4' '4'3 -{) 40 4J 4J 4-3 4-3 -ice -t -P -P -P -i-� a) m a) N m O ro a) ro a) ro N Ql O a) al N O a) al al m a) m O O a) m Q) m ro ro ro a) a) m ro O a) U r i 'r•1 "O"1U -0 " 1 -0 O O D m O OO A "1 -1 1 •-1 rO •m"1 .m,..1 .-,0 ..1 .m,..1 'Or•I ••Dri •_r3i •Ti •mi •m •-OT 'OmUOm m "O O co U) co O •r4 -H •r-1 •ri •rOi •rOi •Uri •rOi O O O O O CA N N Cn V1 U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n Cn O m m O O al a) m O O a) a) ro a) O al a) ro O O O O O O O O a) ro al a) m a) a) m al m ro O O a) Ol i H H H 44 H L+ H L+ 44 H H N L H cH H H 94 44 H H H H H H H H H H c-I (H H 44 H H H H H } 'Z Q n a) a-) O > 4-) 4-) H (i) a) aro) a) ::3 w U7 OH > > H H U •ri H -1 •r♦ p..4 a) -1-� -N H H -P 4-) -N 4-3H C r i (1) a) -4-) C: p a) a) 4-3cn a) p 4-3 CO r-1 a) (Dm a) H Ol CC H 4� + J •,.. 3 -P i 7 3 -4-) -cam -4 7 4-3 H H 7 1 1 4-) -4-3 4-) -c P4 H -3 -i-) > 4.3 .4J >,� � 'D � L+J >.4-3 >. 3 H H H ;4 = C C H H H H -P -43 >, O a) a) H k H 4-3 -N H H O H 4-H cD cD M 4-3 m a) C- ro H ro 0 3 3 3 3 'IJm ro 3 3 3 3 Co to ro U m m 7 3 3 U7 U] 3 3 0 3 3 3 ro a) H - H U 3 0 3 0 O O O O O m > > 0 on 0 0 3 k H 0 0 0 O O O O m m 3 >> U U U U U O C ¢ Q U U U Li -Y -C a) U U ci U U -Y -Y U U C U U M O a) H Z CO U ro '4.3 3 - I U U ro H U U a) C w to U C a) 4 C C CLLLL H C -C "O .J= LLL O O C cD O OL -CL O O LL > LL a) .Y -Y E E M a) -N ro ro +3 +3 -P +i a) H 4•') C -P 4.3 4-3 U U a) > C C -P -4�m -P U O 4M-) -P a) -P +) H 3 3 4-3 •ri E J O H C H OmNO �- r L4 L+ H O C Cd d H H00 +� 00 ro ro m CL 3 4-4 CA a) al G7mmmm ii= tnOlmo7mm 3 3 roz ro rommm 3 3m m MMM M = = (1) UU) p m cn Y U7 c U) Li Lr_ [D !+ 33333 3333333 3 -3 ::33333333Y33 0 3 33cnu7 (r) cnU73cnU) cnu7U) cncn333U) 33cncrnU) 33LOCnU') U") M M m3coco o ca U') U) U) co LO cn cn cn U) co UD LO ro Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O O Ln O Ln Ln O O 0 0 0 m U7 O O Ln p 0 0 to p Q O O Ln L� r--1 M c- Ln O l0 �• N M M M M O O Ln ko U Ln N r-1 M O O M Ln -4 N CO M -i O O ON k.0 C-9 N N N c0 lO tO M r-1 r-i O O N N �O 01 CD m r-1 N iD lD Ncl- UD ---f r-i .-1 l0 O O M O m N N M l0 mlOOlzr I;zj' CON LnLn � �' � �- M 'yON ,-1Ol On �• �" � M �• �' M � dO N MN C4M ! ' Ql Q• O� r-I r-I r-i r-i r-i O� r i r-i r-i -I r-i r-1 14 m CD 01 r-I L- N r1 r-i r•i m m r q ri r--i r-i r--I r-1 r--1 .-c m .-I r-4 C 0 o +a U U U H C1 3 C a) C O O C C C C C C H H 'O -O O H H O O O O • -cam C r-i •ri e • Q 0- •r-1 •r-1 CL O O C Cl a Cl Cl N N 3 •ri •-) C- C;- CD Cl CL 4-3 4J H C1 L1 a O-•-3 4-a -N -P (J) U) cl) H H H H H H C O r-4 3 U H H " H H co ro U U G H H H H U U U U a) m aJ H E ro 3 o 0 0 0 0 ro -P m 3 0 0 0 0 0 4J -P 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 E E m O E r-i O +� UUUUU E W HUUUUU U w H k ULJUU H H H H O O E 4-3 O r-i J a) O a) ..-4-3 r1 •r1 4� +s N 4-3 -' +� O = = C U = •ri U ro a z 3 H cn . t» CO) r-1 o m m O rU) z H cu L ro E > > > > C a) C > > > > > C > > > > > C C a) C C ro 1 H ro H �C U r 4 E a) () a) a) 3 -O 0.+3 r-t O a) a) ro a) a) C C O O a) a) W ro m O O m C 0 3 H H ro U r i 4: a3 cn m W 4� O C) D O r-1 U o O 0 C) C) •r 1 •r1 U U C3 C) M 0 U U U CO U U E cu co 3 d a) C a) f' O C •r-i O H O U r-1 r-I r-i r-{ 3 d4� � -I•) r-I r i r-i r-I r-I -0 -oro] -P -4J r-1 r-i r-4 r-1 r-4 -4-) -+a U 1 i� Cn N c 7 @ U 1] •> E •> ro ro ro ro C O► Lr C ro ro ro ro ro C C C C cD ro ro CO ro C C a) C C 'O -O E1 } > E U U U U L -0 H E W U U U U U 3 3 W L LJ U U U U U W W 1 W W L ca c0 U U C ro c0 ro ro ro ca ro ro O a) ca O 1 co ca CO ro cu O 0 1 1 cD ro ro ro ro 1 1 •ri I 1 OH H O m ro 0 ono � � � � n331— n � � � � � � � nn � � � � L rnn � 4'7n m1— I— Cr3C) CV • • o 000000C7000C) LD CO C; a) CDC3000C3C300ooL- C Ln OL CD O O o C3 C3 C3 Ln Ln p 0 Go U) Cy m C1 r-1 C3 17 Ln 1;.- V 1 0 Ln 0 r-I O r-I d CV .-I d rl *V# C 7 . CV t#3 I H H H H H H H H H H H H H \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ CU ro m CO CO m m CO CU (0 CO m I m ri r-i ri r-i r-i r-i •--I r-f re r-i ri ri r-I m m m m m m m m m m m m cu •,-{ .,i •ri .,.! •ri •ri -ri .,i..,i .� .,.� .r.1 .. 1 •ri U U U U U U U U U U U U U H H H H H H H H H H H H H a) m O m 0 ry CD m m m a) a) 0 0 0 0 Ci o m E E E E E E E E E E E E r-t o .-1 d' o Ln Cl CD E E E E E E E E E E E E E 00 QD -zl- N m Ln C) tiY E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O U U U U U U U U U U U U -I r-I -1 Ln CD U r-I lr CV Q � -0 -0 z m m ¢ ri O o n ao cr- rn T >. o "0 m H H m O H H S O } O O h- >. >. C= Lam. LL 43 z m m m m Q >. CD a) a) O 3 3 >1 3 3 0 H CD 3 3 G) O CD m -P L t H L L z 0) H U C C a) CD U f4 N CT C314-) H CTI C31 Q a) m CD O C C m 4.3 a) [r •rI •r•i CD a) •.i -4 f7 C L� r-1 > > 0 0 r-I cn H CD S S CD Lam. S S al CZ Q Q O O C1 -P L- H L- co H m m H cn U U 4-) CA U U o az G) r-i CD C C CA CA C a) _1 r-I •ri U7 r-i •ri •ri 7 -i 1 CD O 3 3 H H (1) -Y o Q q- Cs- 1-1 C:- G- S L L O •ri U -P L L a) CD •O •r1 H F- •ri -H C O ri •r1 F- 4-� E L N H C3. E E C1 CL H N CO o U U -ri L U U z Cp -ri U C CO E •ri -r-I C1 C1 CO C (T I-- m m Co U m m o r i zCO 3C' mzz =3 LO :3 -r-I0- CL Lf) CL CL � ri 2 S S f- 3 cn m 3 cn 3 u) (n cn cn (n 3 3 cn cn cn (n cn cn o 3 cn m cn Cn L._ Cn co 'It o 0 0 0 0 0 Olt Ln Ln -zr Ln LO zi- %.0 Ln Ln O I�t r-1 r-I CV Ln o O LO N N t0 co V) _.1 Lf) CV " o r-I Ln CV r-1 00 M o CV '�* m -i r-i CV to ;;j- ¢ C01 C:) CV GO CV M o o Ln Ln " 'Ct Lr " CV CV CV 'zt I:T H In l0 r-i r-I r-i .-i r-i N m r-, ri —1 ri r-I ri O Ln H � ri Go m r� OD > C m lr O r-i Q .H S C z o > H D= n H CD -P Q CD -P •rf 4-I C -O C 2 C m a) O s cn a) m U • H 3 3 ri n 0 0 0 C1 0 !- U H OC, zz O -P UUU H U L-i 3 • U U C1. U I CO O Cn -N 'O o r-I r-i 0 3 C C C C U C [r C Cid X C 3 'O m m 3 H H En CTI OL Ol U 07 LJ L-L CD •ri " O (D CD CD O m 4.3 !- •ri •ri .,..I •ri C •ri 0- C C.,_ H L� H H H CO !1 G7 Cn Cn CO CT U3 a) t •r1 Ca U a] CD U L C r-i }• CT CR _0 (D •O -1.7 4.3 •-) -P •-3 O [r CD CD CD T Cn a) }- •0 3 C •ri -1 C C C G) Ca r-i H U L..I -P 4-3 -P 4-) 4-3 L-t .-1 CLT m CD m r-4 " 3 3 a) O C]. •rI •ri •ri -ri C -r-I U H r -r-i E r-i H H E 3 aC C C C H O C -A-- ­4 r-i -I.3 r-i E 4J r-i ri •-3 -N E -0 ;a .-I •r1 -r-I 3 C31•r! LO -H r-i H i m H r-i .-f U U m O -d U E E E U CD E z F4 ••O O -P H O O O m CO H 0 L-a 3 3 3 a) H 3 f-L O veCL =3I- C3. Y -1 mm -3S _1 -1 --1 En C) -iY <. TITARDLIBRARY• PUBLIC 639-9511 12568 SW Main•Tigard, Or. 97223 AGENDA February 9, 1981 1.. Call to Order 2. Reports a. Minutes - January 12, 1981 b. Monthly Report for January 1981 3. Old Business a. Building Plans b. Computer Serial Levy C. Budget FY 81-82 4. New Business a. Loss of Books b. Reciprocal Borrowing BRAW PUBLICPh I 539-9511 12555 SW Maine•Tigard, Or.97223 MINUTES Tigard Library Board January 12, 1981 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Tigard Library Board was called to and Roll Call: order by Chairman Betsy Chick at 7:15 PM. Excused: Dick Bendixsen, Jean Carlisle and Madalyn Utz. Reports: Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as circulated. Librarian briefly reviewed the monthly report. Old Business: Librarian reported that the Friends of the Library building Building Plans committee will be formulating a needs statement to be presented at the Washington County Cooperative Library Services Citizens Advisory Board (WCCLS CAB) meeting March 11, 1981. The WCCLS CAB is planning to put a bond issue on the ballot next fall to build libraries throughout the county, Serial Levy for Librarian reported that City Council had approved the resolution Automated Circu- to support the automated circulation levy to go on the Feb. 17, lation: 1981, ballot. In discussion, it was decided that the Library Board would enlist the help of the Friends of the Library in conducting an information campaign if Washington County Commissioners approve placing the levy on the Feb. 17 ballot. This would include distribution of pamphlets, news item in the Courier (newsletter) and telephone follow-up. Budget 1981-82: Librarian discussed personnel requests and capital outlay items that are needed. Board expressed concurrence with proposed requests. New Business: Chairman Chick passed letter from Roger Pitsinger who is resigning Resignation from the Board. Chairman Chick will write a letter of appreciation from board members. OLA Legislative Chairman Chick read a letter from the Oregon Library Association (OLA) Committee: legislative committee seeking support for library issues to be pre- sented to the 1981 legislature. Librarian was asked to send copies of the letter to all board members and send affirmative reply to OLA. Meeting adjourned 8:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, Irene Ertell Accepted: City Librarian Accepted as corrected: t PUBLr Phorsa 639-9511 12568 SW Main-Tigard, Or. 97223 MEMORANDUM February 9, 1981 TO: LIBRARY BOARD CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY LIBRARIAN SUBJECT: Monthly Report, January 1981 1. Administration: a. Library Board held its regular meeting on January 12. Minutes are attached. b. Librarian attended Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) Professional board on January 28. Of interest: Washington County commissioners turned down the request to place the computerized circulation system on the February or March ballots. Pam na;.e.. ��.- - �, Chairman Of WCCLS ri t-4 e dvis-_­ boar;' has requested that the possibility of forming"""a special service district for libraries beexplored- Inlight of the increased use of libraries and lack of money for adequate staffing, this is a real set-back for us. C. The library staff has been requested to look for ways to cut tasks without crippling our service reputation. Some ways which we have devised include: (1) shelving certain categories of paperbacks by the first letter of the author's name only; (2) eliminating the book cards for w.esterr_; mystery and romance Paperbacks; (3) restricting patrons to three inter-library loans at one time; (4) suggesting patrons call other libraries in the county when we do noLhave their)request; (5)tbeing especially careful to do small tasks right the first time. 2. Personnel: a. Volunteer hours totaled 171 for a daily avers cf 3. Statistics: a. Circulation 8898 Books 8424 Magazines 322 Adult 6083 Audio-Visual 50 Juvenile 2345 Other 27 ILL 71 b. User cards 249; in town 120 - out-of-town 139. C. Story hour: 73 total; 9.1 average. d. Materials added 138. - e. Materials withdrawn 257. f. Money received: Fines $34.35 Lost Books $32.85 Misc. Replacement $12.45 a Donations $4.50 Tigard Public Library - Monthly Report, January 1981 - page 2 4. Youth Services - Kathy Tremainee a. The Friends of the Library presented the Library with a check for $200 for the successful Christmas Tree chain. Cassettes and filmstrips have been purchased and received. b. January's "special" was a weather prediction project. Children colored pictures of the library depicting different kinds of weather. When the picture matched the weather, it was displayed on a large calendar and the "artist" won a "Reading in the Rain" book bag. C. Story-hour attendance is growing. The volunteer storytellers remain dependable and creative. MONTHLY REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT JANUARY 15, 1981 - February 15, 1981 The following projects were acted on by the Planning Commission over the past month. ZONE CHANGE ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ZCPD 30-80 (GENTLE WOODS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY UNITS) APPLICANT: Gotte r-Jaehrling Partnership REQUEST: For a Preliminary and General Plan Review of Gentle Woods Planned Development single family units on 23 lots. SITE LOCATION: 15180 SW 79th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S112C, Tax Lots 1200 & 1300) ACTION TAKEN: Approved February 3, 1981 CONDITIONAL USE CONDITIONAL USE, CU 14-80 AND VARIANCE, V 15-80 (DAVID CHURCH SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED) APPLICANT: David Church REQUEST: For a re-hearing of Variance, V 15-80 (a variance of Condition Number 6 of Minor Land Partition, MLP 20-79) . Also, a Conditicnal Use, CU 14-80 (to construct a single family attached unit in an R-7 "Single Family Residential" Zone) . SITS LOCATION: 1.2533 SW Grant (Wash. Co_ Tax bap 2S,12Bn, Tac Lot 1801) ACTION TAKEN: Denied February 3, 1981 VARIANCE VARIANCE, V 14-80 (SILCO CONSTRUCTION SETBACp VARIANrCi) APPLICANT: Silco Construction REQUEST: For a re-hearing of Variance, V 14-80, Silco Construction's request for a variance in the setback requirements in an M-4 "Industrial Park" Zone to permit construction of a building. SITE LOCATION: 9350 SW Tigard Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S12AB, Tax Lot 1901) 1. �C POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATED MONTHLY REPORT FOR MONTH OF JANUARY 1981 DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL AVERAGE NUMERICAL STRENGTH DAILY ABSENCE 11 AVERAGE EF-;ECTIVE STRENGTH End of Same This SameThis 1 Last Same this Month Month Month Month ° Month Month Month Last Last Last Year Year Year TOTAL PERSONNEL 27 27 10.8 10.2 16.2 15.0 16.8 CHIEF'S OFFICE 1 2 .5 .5 .5 .6 1.5 SERVICES DIVIS. 7 6 3.2 2.2 3.8 4.3 3.8 .PATROL DIVISION 16 16 6.1 6.5• 9.9 8.2 9.5 TRAFFICDIVIS. -------------------------- -------- --------- ------- ------- -------- INVEST. SECTION 3 3 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 FORCE ONE 12 11 F4.5 3.1 7.5 7.0 7.9 FORCE TWO 8 10 3.3 5.2 4.7 4.3 4.8 FORCE THREE 7 6 3.0 1.9 4.0 3.7 4.1 _ CHANGES IN PERSONNEL DAILY AVERAGE PATROL STRENGTH 1. Present for duty end of last month 27 This Same Month 2. Recruited during month 0 Month Last Year 3. Reinstated during month 0 1. Total number field . officers 16 16 Total to accounts for �- 2. Less Agents Assig- 4. Separations from the service: ned to Investigat. 0 0 (a) Voluntary resignation 0 3. Average dally abs- (b) Retirement 0 ences of field off- icers owing to: (c) Resigned with charges pending . 0 - (a) Vacation, susp- (d) Dropped-during probation 0 ension, days off, - comp. time, etc. 5.5 5.6 '(e) Dismissed for cause 0 -(b) Sick g Injured .4 .8 .- (f) Killed in line of duty 0 (c) Schools, etc. .2 .1 0 Total average daily (g) Deceased 6.1-- .. 6.5- - absences Total separations 0- 4. Available for duty 9.9 9.5 5. Present for duty, at end of month Page one TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT Monthly Report I. Calls for Service- This Month X91 Year to Date 91 A. Obligated Time 1,387,6 B. Non-Obligated Time 95y,q II. PART I CRIMES No. Cleared Arrests_ A. Homicide B. Rape 2 C. Robbery 2 i 2 D. Assault 1 E. Burglary 35 5 F. Larceny '- 7 G. Auto Theft 6 • 1 Totals 111 31 25 III, PART II TOTALS ?9 4s 54 TOTAL - Part I and II 190 74 79 IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: ' 79 a. Adult Yale 46 C. Juvenile Male 20 b. Adult Female " . - d. Juvenile Female— V. WARRANTS SERVED 12 VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 53,108.92 . TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED S 26,669.87 VII. TRAFFIC a. Accidents Investigated 38 Injury Accidents 12 Fatal 0 b. Citations: VBR (Speeding) 61 Yield Right of Way 10 Following too Close 0 Red Light 18 Stop Sign n 12 —� Improper Turn 1 Reckless Driving_L Careless Driving 5 Driving Under the Influence 10 Driving While Suspended 13 Other Hazardous 13 _ Non-Hazardous97 Total Hazardous 144 c. Enforcement Index 22.00 d. Traffic Enforcement Totals Citations: This Month This Year 241 Year to Da to 241 This Month Last Year 234 Last Year to Date 23�- Warninse This Month This Year. 89 This Month Last Yeax fl Year to Date $9 NOTE: � �2 Last Year to Date _ Part I Crimes (Rfiajor Crimes Part II Crimes (Minor Crimes) Ciearance Pate 2 .cw Clearance Rate 54.4 VIII. TRAINING �z. A. Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program tICAP) . Chief Adams and Records Supervisor Alice Carrick attended a 3-day workshop on Jan. 20, 21, and 22nd at the Holiday Inn in Wilsonville. Training was received on how the ICAP system works, and how it will benefit our department. 48 man hours were spent. B. Introduction to Computers. An 8-hour workshop was held at Portland Community College, Southeast Center, on Jan.. 23, giving an introduction to various computers. Chief Adams and Alice Carrick attended this, spending 16 man hours. It was felt this will be beneficial to the department when instituting the ICAP system. C. Chiefs and Sheriff's Executive Seminar. Chief Adams attended a 2-day workshop on Jan. 14 and 15, in Bend. Topic discussed was Executive Development and Labor Negotiations. D. TNT Training. Sgt. Newman attended the monthly TNT training session on Uan. 29, receiving additional physical fitness training. Also, tack bags were checked to see that they are being kept in proper order. E. Advanced Officer Course. Cpl. Johnson completed his training at the Police cademy; receiving 40 hours of instruction in the Advanced Officer course sponsored by the Board on Police Standards and Training. F. Dispatch School. Dispatcher Dave Kennell and Dispatcher Sandi McCammon attended a 3 day school learning proper dispatch procedures. This 4 school was held in Salem, and was sponsored by the Board on Police Standards and Training. 48 man hours were spent. G. Police Reserves. See attached report from the police reserves for their monthly activities. IX. CIITY RELATIONS A. See attached report from Officer Joe Grisham, Juvenile Officer, for his activities during January. � V C-a Qj- z t 3+ co 14 d %1. O \� coISO 4 $4 U Co N Q La f]. r4 P. N c0 C; CO Ca Q •,i e ?e Iii CdO $ i ! 'b p� g�fto1 I � `$ ` - a a va cry . •� � - xxacxx . � fk co •.r •4� coas u Ilk 9)..2 �. > - N co cA •r8 •.i C4 CO rA P. fie 4.1 co w H —1-9 _ �/ i�+ v Q. 41 .rte cc C14 'r`s c7 c-) r`t rs 1-1 .-1 - FT- 7H Q H V o--i •� -H .-I ., 'moi •M co C> Ln CV Co � N CM O. N N Ta O .moi NI .4.), 1 4-" ) 4-1 6. a PS.. 10 C1Srr O 00 0 0 n O O 3d .O Cd O O Q. ca •�•� � O y � N 2 >, .N tO/) 002 4 p 'tea •.�-1 CD SO.. SO.. N N >.A Ewe 4w� tt�-E U O CY. H C4 O O R. Qi pa >, 4-3� .N >. >, S O CS. Ltd.. A. W CS. S.. CH~ 2 v2 A S. � t, S. E+ S. U 4-r 1� 14r1Ui 4 Q d N ct,y� p! dHd H A P.41 O . Fs Lr' 0 O q _ 4,3 V2 O V2 QJ C!2 .t O 41w 0 0� `. w toom UrOi 8 P:: U CH7 • f� 'CS � N r.b .cd � O � - •� C!2 H ca H R.. H H ye, 0? f grill .4 r r-i ri rI7 r1 A 1, r i e 4 rt ri B PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL PROGRAM BUDGET FEBRUARY 23, 1981 Community Protection Police 5,136.40 Public Works 3,378.66 Municipal Court 868.65 Planning 862.73 Building 804.46_ Total Community Protection 11,050.90 Home & Community Quality Public Works 4,447.00 Social Services Library 2,151.96 Aged Services Youth Services Historical Total Social Services 2,151.96 Policy & Administration Mayor & Council 881.57 Administration 416.45 Finance 1,216.52 Total Policy & Administration 2,514.54 City Wide Support Functions Non-departmental 3.542.28 Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 34,831-81 CAPITOL BUDGET Community Protections Road Acquisition & Dev. Parks Acquisition & Dev. Storm Drainage Total Community Protection Support Services Building Improvements DEBT SERVICE 4r General Obligation Bond Bancroft Bond 5,502.80 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Contract _34,201.91 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 98,243.20 G qWMETROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT 527 S.W.HALL ST.,PORTLAND,OR. 97201, 503/221-1646 METRUID Rick Gustafson February 18 , 1981 EXECUTIVE OFFICER MetroCouncil Jack Deines PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICT 5 Betty Schedeen DEPUTY PRESIDING OFFICER The Honorable Wilbur Bishop DISTRICT Mayor of Tigard BobOleson P.O. Box 23397 DISTRICT Tigard, Oregon 97223 Charlie Williamson DISTRICT Dear Mayor Bishop: Craig Berkman DISTRICT3 As you are aware, the State Environmental Quality Corky Kirkpatrick Commission has imposed a ban on the burning of backyard DISTRICT debris. in an effort to assist jurisdictions, the Jane Rhodes Metropolitan Service District has accepted the DISTRICT responsibility of coordinating an immediate effort to Ernie Bonner provide local residents with alternative disposal methods. DISTRICT 8 Cindy Banzer With the assistance of a $265,000 grant from the DISTRICT Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Metro will proceed Bruce Etlinger immediately in the job of developing collection DISTRICT 10 alternatives, information on home composting programs and Marge Kafoury any commercial markets that might be available to actually DISTRICT I1 buy and process the yard debris for a profit. Some or all Mike Burton of these pilot programs are expected to be in place to DISTRICT 12 handle this year' s spring clean-up. Because jurisdictions retain control of local collection practices, a portion of the grant will be dispersed directly to local governments to implement collection alternatives. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will also be providing technical assistance in this area. To ensure proper implementation of the grant and coordination of varied collections, local jurisdictions are being asked to a) designate one staff person to act as a contact point on this project; and b) provide names of representatives willing to participate in a project steering committee. The committee will be composed of one person each from Metro and DEQ and three local jurisdiction representatives. Designated contact staff :� person and names of the people interested in serving on February 18 , 1981 Page 2 the steering committee should be submitted to Gus Rivera, Project Coordinator at Metro, by February 23. There will be a meeting at Metro to explain the direction and intent of the yard Debris Program on Wednesday, February 25 at 9: 30 a.m. in Conference Room C at Metro. The purpose of the grant is to assist local jurisdictions in providing their citizens with irunediate alternatives to backyard burning. From these short-term solutions will come the viable long-term alternatives to either burning the debris or placing it in the landfill. I look forwa.. -7 to working with you on this issue. Please submit your jurisdiction contacts and steering committee representatives as quickly as possible. If you have additional questions or concerns, fees free to call you Local Government Assistants Sue Klobertanz or Tom O'Connor at 221-1646. Sincerely, f� Rick Gustafson Executive Officer RG:MH:ss 1977E/D1 cc: City Manager i $ gal Tigard Community Youth Services 'aj 11981 S.W. Pacific Hwy. Tigard, OR 97223 February 18, 1981 Mayor Wilbur Bishop Tigard City Hall 12420 S.W. Main Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mayor Bishop, After the City Council approved preparation of a ballot title on February 9 requesting voter approval of a levy of $62,041 for Tigard Community Youth Services, I learned that past practice has been to allow about 7% on a levy request to account for unpaid taxes and for taxes paid at the discount rate. I regret that the figure I presented February 9 did not make such an allowance. I therefore ask that the amount asked for in our ballot measure be amended to $66, 383. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, William A. Knudsen Director Tigard Community Youth Services WAK/mdl BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON _vUTICE OF APPEAL File No.V15-80;CU14-80 1 . Name : Lawrence R. Derr, Attorney for David Church 2 . Address : Norton House, 33 N.W. First Avenue Street P.O. Box Portland Oregon 97209 City State 'p—C e) 3. Telephone No. : 227-3331 4. If serving as a representative of other persons, list their names and addresses : David Church - Applicant 6328 S.W. Haynes Road Portland, Oregon 97219 5. What is the decision you want the City Council to review? (Examples : denial of zone change; approval of variance. ) Approval of variance as revised and denial of conditional use. 6. The decision being appealed was announced by the Planning Commission on November 25, 1980 Date 7. On what grounds do you claim status as a party? (See Section 18. 92.020 Tigard Municipal Code. ) Attorney representing the applicant 8. Grounds for reversal of decision. (Use additional sheets if necessary. ) Your response should deal with the following: (a) Explain how your interest is damaged. (b) Identify any incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the decision or recommendation from which you appeal . (c) Identify any part of the zoning code or other law which you claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation from which you appeal . (d) Describe what decision you are asking the City Council to make. See attachment Page I of 2 9. Estimate the amount of time you will need to present your argument to the City Council . (The Council will schedule more than 15 minutes per side only in extraordinary circumstances. Each side will be given the same length of time for its presentation. ) see Attachment Signed- -� Lawrence R. Derr, Attorney for Applicant Date: December 15 , 1980 ##f-`####7r#####rar##########r`######,#########################################4-r#### FOR USE BY CITY Date and time of filing: Date of Planning Commission decision: Date set for Council consideration: Time allowed for arguments : per side Entered by: Amount paid: Receipt #: Page 2 of 2 Notice of Appeal ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL IN V15-80 and CU14-80 1. Description of Proceeding. The applicant is the owner of Tax Lot 1801, which is a . 57 acre flag lot that has previously received partitioning approval for division into two lots (MLP 20-79) . The applicant wishes to construct a duplex residence on the rear lot and is completing rehabilitation of the single-family residence on the front lot. The applicant proposes to place each of the duplex units on separate lots. In discussion with the Planning Director prior to application, the applicant understood that his proposal would require a conditional use permit for the duplex, a minor land partition and a variance for the 29-foot access available to the proposed three dwelling units, a 1-foot variance from the 30-foot requirement of the Municipal Code. It was understood that in the process of obtaining approval for these three items it would also be necessary to modify condition No. 6 of the Minor Land Partitioning Approval that divided Tax Lot 1801 into two parcels in order to remove the restriction to a single family dwelling on the rear parcel. The staff report, which the applicant did not see until the time of the Planning Commission hearing, treated the variance request as a request to vary condition No. 6 and included the con- ditional use request but did not include minor land partitioning request or the access variance request. The action of the Planning Commission as reported by the Planning Director 's letter dated December 3, 1980, is even farther removed from the intended application. The Planning Commission approved an access variance for the two existing parcels created by MLP20-79 to authorize "two 9. 5 foot%-.easement strips". and denied the conditional use request for a duplex. The variance approval is unrelated to any request of the applicant or to the existing or proposed configuration of access rights of the several parcels. 2. Reconsideration by the Planning Commission or de novo review by the City Council. Given the confused state of affairs described above, it would be impossible for the Council to knowledge- ably and fairly rule on the minor land partition, conditional use for duplex and one-foot access variance requests upon which the applicant is entitled to a decision if the Council's review is limited to the present record. It will be necessary either for the Council to agree to a de novo review, which must begin with a clarification of the approvals sought by the applicant and allow introduction of evidence relating to those issues as well as to the erroneous interpretations •adopted by the City Staff and the Planning Commission, or the same matters must be addressed upon a reconsideration by the Planning Commission. The applicant files this Notice of Appeal in order to preserve his appeal rights while the most appropriate course of action is determined. It is difficult under the current state of the record to respond to the four subject areas cited in the Notice of Appeal. The responses set forth below are brief and are not intended to be complete, upon the asstunption that a further evidentiary hearing will be provided. In the event that the appeal must proceed on the record before the City Council, the applicant reserves the right to attempt to respond more completely in writing to the appeal criteria. 3. Damage to Interest. The applicant' s intended use of the subject property is for the construction of a duplex resi- dential structure and rehabilitation of the existing single- family residence. The action of the manning Commission pre- vents construction of the duplex. 4. Incorrect Facts Mistakenly Relied Upon. The staff did not properly characterize the nature of the application. The Staff Report generates confusion with respect to fee ownership vs. easement access strips to the three proposed lots. The Staff Report applies a subdivision requirement to a minor land partition. The staff erroneously advised the Planning Commission that it could not grant the conditional use requested. The Planning Commission erroneously assumed that to grant the applicant' s requests would violate the City Code. 5. Incorrect Interpretation or Violation of the Zoning Code. The modification of a condition of a prior minor land partition does not constitute a variance. A subdivision requirement that a lot abut a public street is not applicable to a minor land par- titioning. The zoning ordinance access width requirement can be satisfied by a recorded easement as well as fee ownership, con- trary to the apparent understanding of the staff of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission staff misinterpreted the intended application of the applicant and the Planning Commission exceeded its authority by further modifying the applicant's request to grant an easement that was irrelevant to the initial request. The decision of the Planning Commission is not supported by adequate findings as required by the City Code. 6. Requested Decisions. 6. 1. Approval of a minor land partitioning to create two lots from the rearmost lot of Tax Lot 1801 according to the plan submitted by the applicant. 6. 2. A variance from the 30-foot access requirement of Section 18. 64. 020 to allow a 29-foot access strip where -2- "NNW= 30 feet is otherwise required. 6.3. Approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a duplex on the two lots created by the minor land partitioning above. ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT OF TIME ON APPEAL If the appeal is heard on the record, at least one-half hour will be required to clarify the issues before the Council and explain the applicant' s position with respect to them. If the appeal is heard de novo and if the proper issues before the Council are clarified between the applicants and staff in advance of the hearing, the applicant can present its case within the same one- half hour. If the issues cannot be clarified before the hearing, more time may be necessary. -3- i r TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COV1MISSION HEARING February 3, 1981 - Agenda Item 5.1 - David Church Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon Present for this hearing: Commissioners: Bonn, Helmer, Herron, Kolleas, Moen, Speaker Presiding: President Tepedino Absent: Funk Chairs Vacant: One Staff: "Howard, Newton STENOGRAPHER'S NOTE: The recording of speakers while illustrating points at the blackboard, and those at some distance from the recorder was not very clear. Where their words were not decipher- able the record so indicates with . . . . . I feel nothing really perLliiant was 1::t, but the rr=__J c vrnrr3i no of rnmmi cmi nnan Nfnpn og motions cannot now be ascertained. (He was sitting farthest from the recorder.) The president opened this hearing by calling for the reading of the staff report. Howard: (He read the staff report through the staff narrative and the Introductory paragraph of staff recommendations suggested by staff should the commission approve the applicant's request.) There are twelve of those. If you want me to read them now -- Tepedino: No, I don't think so. Howard: I don't think we need to. Tepedino: And it's in the public record. Howard: Right. One more thing: are have received a letter from Mona Rosa-- in fact are have two letters from Mona, and she's the owner of Talc Lot 1800. (He read letters dated December 8, 1980, and Janaury 30, 1981, copies of which are attached to this transcript. ) I apologize for laughing, but I talked to this lady in New York a couple of times (chuckling). That's the record, that's the staff report. It's in your court. Tepedino: May we have the applicant's presentation, please? Incidentally, if you'd like to speak tonight, are would like to .encourage you to move up close to =' front and save a few moments time. Church: I arca David Church, the applicant in this case--the "greedy speculator". Let's first clear up the clarifications about ghat -1- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HR.ARING David Church February 3, 1981 t Church: needs to be cleared. I don't know if you have had an opportunity (Cont.) to speak with staff about the clarifications and consensus we have reached regarding the initial confusion of access require=ts, and that's what I would like to address first. The application is for a conditional use permit to allow construc- tion of a single family attached on the rearmost lot represented on that sketch back there (referring to a sketch of the property on the blackboard) . This would require two 92 foot strips--okay-- a one foot variance which is an insignificant variance, and as you have in the staff report, could be granted. The confusion has existed as to whether this 10 foot easement could be considered for access purposes as part--could be considered an easement and not the ownership--could be considered for access purposes. V7e have at the staff level, we have talked and clearly reached the consensus that that is in fact possible so that we have--I don't know if there is any doubt here--but we have reached that level and consensus that in fac: what we are talking about is something that can under the existing ordinances be done and that the one foot variance is not considered extraordinary. So on that level, then -- I would like next to address -- maybe it needs to be, because you are concerned about it -- traffic or density to the area. What I propose is an improvement over an as-travelled road, and in fact I have been out on the ground to measure the distances involved, and there is some reference to that in the staff report. The actual as-travelled road in no way encroaches upon or affects the present use of her property in any way, including the off-street parking which is there. The easement--the distance of the easement which is shown in the left-most dotted line, is some 10 feet, 112 feet to the structure. The off-street parking that is currently taking place the-^e is an encroachment onto my property--one which is allowed and one which I will continue to allow, becar3 e the as-travelled road is further to the right on that drawing of that easement; so what my proposal has is absolutely no change in the use of Miss Rosa's property. There are--in reference to that--I can get, to the staff recommenda- tions now: Item 3 is a requirement for 24 feet of the 29 foot easement strip to be paved to serve three units for access and egress. That requirement would in fact--although it could be legally done, and I could do that if the planning commission so requested--that would in fact eliminate the off-street parking that Miss Rosa is talking about, so if that is a consideration I would like to address that on that ground and on other grounds. I would like to have the planning commission remove this recommend- ation. What we had planned to do is to improve an as-travelled road which is a distance varying anywhere from 12 to 16 foot. It -2- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Church: should be noted that the 24 foot distance of the 29 foot is (Cont.) derived from the formula for access that 80;, ^f the required easement width be paved. The 29 foot requirement is the require- ment that operates for anywhere from three to thirty units. Our request actually only concerns the single family attached, and therefore only two. It is an incidental use of that same strip, or howeverwise it be that the single family residence used that, so it is argueable as to whether there is two or three units. But whether two or three units are being served, allow them to use that access strip. But in any event it's pretty clear that if the requirement is 29 foot for two, three or thirty units, then clearly something more is called for for thirty units and something less is called for for two or three units. So what I an suggestir_; JS that this recommendation be amended to include the paving of an as-travelled road, and I will submit a design specifying the actual width that staff or the building department or whoever would like to see that. Also Item 22 a six foot sight-obscuring fence shall be constructed around the perimeter of the parcels 1 and 2 and down both sides of the 29 foot easement strip. Here again we run into the same problem as to changing the use and enjoyment of the off-street parking in the front lot if one did improve--put a six foot fence along that side. we are talk-Int; about 900 feet of fencing, and I don't think that was envisioned by the staff when they included that -- that's the first thing. And secondly, parcel 12 the single family lot that is there, is not part of this application, not part of this proposal. Vie are talking about something that is proposed on the back lot, so what I am suggesting is that I submit a landscape plan which includes some sight-obscuring means--I propose some sort of arborvitae, laurel hedge--something of that sort--rather than a fence. I like to do a very thorough job of landscaping on houses, and that plan certainly would be submitted before to be coordinated with the planning director or with the building department at the time we construct. But to put a fence all around all my parcels--parcel 1 and parcel 2--I think would not be the best way to develop the property. It doesn't make sense. There is already a fence that I constructed along one side of that lot which does not go to the property line, so the literal interpretation of that is we would have a fence some ten feet next to an existing fence. So I will ask that that be amended to allow a landscaping plan to be submitted to the planning director prior to work on that building. The other recommendations, I have no quarrel with. I can live with it, will accept. Tepedino: Thank you, Pir. Church. Are there any other parties wishing to -3- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Tepedino: speak in favor of this proposal? Those in favor? Are there any (Cont.) parties wishing to speak_ in opposition to this proposal? Now is the opportunity for cross-examination and/or rebuttal on any of the evidence presented, from the public or the commissioners. Ques- tions? Yes, sir -- Commissioner Moen? Moen: Yes, I am going to ask Aldie for the record No. 1, what has changed since our last act here; and No. 2, T_ am kind of curious about -- on this diagram you show us -- right now is it proposed that you have three driveways coming, reaching the street there? One relying on a 10 foot easement, and the other two coming off the back -- or what? Howard: Liz Newton will explain that diagram to you. Speaker: Mr. President, I would like to have an explanation, and I think Liz can give it to us, of the history of this property -- the appearances before the planning commission ar.d what was done and the conditions that were imposed. Tepedino: Will you yield to that on your question, Commissioner Moen? To Commissioner Speaker's question? Moen: I certainly will -- I think" it will answer my questions. Thank you. Newton: Okay -- the first lot, the single family lot, was created in the staff report for the March 19, 1974 request to split this property. This lot had already been created illegally (pointing to the second lot from the street) and a violation--a Tigard subdivision viola- tion--was placed on the lot. When the owner found out that, he went through the minor land partition process. He had already created it and recorded it, but the city found out that he created it through their records and told him, so he went through the process to create it through the city, and the planning commission granted approval to create this lot with the following conditions: that the property owner cause any lot on the proposed partition and/or partitions to have a minimum 7500 square foot lot size; that the property owner dedicate an additional five foot right of way for future improvement of Grant; that the lot be surveyed; and that an easement be recorded guaranteeing access to the rear portion of the parcel, said easement to be approved by the city attorney, so that this single family lot was approved -- Speaker: Okay, now what is the easement? Newton: Just this one, okay? I am just saying it was approved--okay?-- with those conditions. Then in 1976, September 7, a request .by a neer owner--Kelsey--for. a minor land partition, a variance of -4- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Newton: driveway width--for this driveway--and a conditional use to construct (Cont.) two duplexes. on this back portion of this lot--that was what his request was; so that hadn't been built on yet. It was split off okay? and his conditions were -- what happened to him was, they were denied. He was denied on all counts. The minor land partition was denied because of failure to comply with conditions of the previous partitioning. He hadntt recorded an easement, and he hadn't dedicated the right of way. Okay. The variance was denied because any hardship imposed was self-created, It was determined by the planning commission, and not a creation of the land itself. And the conditional use was denied because conditions of the previous minor land partition had not been fulfilled. Okay. Then on January 24 a request by Garvin, a new �� ^re lot -into tyro lots was approved, owner, to partitiona .�, with the following conditions, and there are the conditions that we got in your staff report--Condition No. 6 being that this be single family because of the easement situation. Tepedino: I have a question. The single family lot had already previously been approved. But the third owner wanted to cut it7 And what did he want to do with that? Newton: He wanted to partition this again. Tepedino: Just the back portion? Newton: Right. So what happened was, when this guy went in he didn't record it again -- somehow the recording was lost of this middle lot, and that's real important -- I called today and got some background on it -- so it kept being applied to this split (I forgot to tell you that) as it was originally partitioned was recorded, and he didn't meet the conditions and it somehow lapsed, and so this was not thereby recorded. So Aldie's request was for partitioning the lot the same way with this lot being split off again, and this being split off. The last request allowed this person to split this lct off and construct a house, and that was when Condition No. 6 was applied to this lot. However, like it says in the staff report, at that time when he applied, Condition No. 6--based on adequate access-- was not valid, because easement situations as granted by the plan- ning commission were okay under the ordinance. A previous ordinance had read that each lot must abut a public street at least 10 feet being used for easement, must abut a public street, and it must be ownership, not just an easement situation--it must be fee owner- ship. But on November 5, 1979, when that new ordinance was written, that portion was deleted. I understand by accident (I was not here)--I understand it was not intended -- --was Tepedino: Okay, but the condition insofar as the use of that back lot -5- TRANSCRIPT OF PLA14NING COMISSION HEA2ING David Church February 3: 1981 Tepedino: it extraneous today of the requirements . . . . (Cont.) : Newton: In terms of that condition? Tepedino: single family--of that condition? Newton: Okay; Condition "No. 6 exists on the property. But what I am saying Is, the reason that the planning commission set xt, or that the staff recommended the planning commission set it, was not a valid reason. The first time it was placed on, for whatever reason when it said that each lot from here back must be 7500 square feet, it was valid, because that was part of the Code in 1974; but in 1979 when it was required that this must be single Family because of the access problem, that was not a valid requirement because it was not covered in the Code at that time. When I wrote the staff report for the November 25, 1980, meeting and used the same argument, looking through the Code and talking to Frank Currie, I didn't have an up-to-date copy of the Code in my office, so I found that I hadn't had the new ordinance put in. And in talking to David Church's attorney, he had an up-to-date copy of the Code, and he pointed out to me, and I talked to Frank, and that is when going through all the ordinances we discovered that the ordinance had been rewritten with that section left out. If we use the copy of the Code that he had, it isn't valid to require that for that reason--it isn't a valid reason. Speaker: Well, then, we required something for the wrong reason. I wonder If we can't require it for some other reason--for a proper reason? Bonn: M I have a question, then: are you through with the history? Newton: Yeah. Bonn: . last time and finally got . . . . . . . how is it Intended now that it is split into two lots, how is it intended that 1800 and the two rear lots, Lot 2, have access to the street? Newton: Well, because -- yeah, this is an area --like he was explaining, there is an as-travelled road, and it is just about 12 feet, 16 feet Church: it varies, because it generally winds around some existing trees. Bonn: Is it on Lot 18007 Newton: It°s right here. -6- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Church: There. Okay, I am worried about Newton: There is nobody travelling on your easement now. Church: Is it suggested that -- Newton: If you go with the access requirements for the three parcels, you have to have 30 feet of access, which would take you to here for 29 feet and -- Church: Which is legal, but you wouldn't be taking -- (Confused, because both talking at the same time) Newton: That's a legal easement; you could use that . . . . . . . . . Church: Okay, how did we leave it last time? I guess you denied the request--in any cane, what kind of a situation does that leave us with? Does that leave us with a single lot in back, and both lots would be served off that 19 foot? Newton: . . . . . . you know, they would have to have a six inch variance. Speaker: Liz, about what is the area of the thre3 parcels? Church: The rearmost is some 15,000 feet--the body of the lot is almost 12,000 feet. Speaker: By the body you mean -- Church: The rectangular part. I believe you have a copy of a sketch -- (Several people talking at once into the microphone.) Tepedino: I hare--since we are on cross-examination--I have a question for staff, and the question simply is this: that this has been remanded to us for review, and the question I have is this remanded for a de novo review--in other words are we hearing this as though this was a new item brought to us for our contemplation today, and if that is the case and it is a de novo review, I would suggest that this planning commission sit here and look at this as though it were a new item to us, and would then consider it under the present requirements with all the factors that we normally take into con- sideration in this kind of a request--that is, whether it is a good application within the confines of our goals and guidelines of the Code of the City of Tigard. Is that your understanding? Howard: Fes. Tepedino: Are there any other questions or cross-examination or rebuttal? -7- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Speaker: I tell you -- Liz, the applicant gave the information I was really Interested in on the size of the lots. Now I have a question: Mrs. Rosa apparently says that the house was built within a foot of her line. Is that true, and if so, does that give the proper setback? Church: I can state it is not true. I have had the property surveyed, and there are stakes set, and the city engineer went out and looked at those stakes and he said the setback was fine. But at any rate as I was pointing out, my propoaal is affecting the rearmost lot and not the single family that is already constructed. It's already there. Speaker: Well, I think the planning commission has the opportunity to consider some other things, and one other thing I am interested in Is .how close to Mrs. Rosa's house does that easement that she protested about, come to her house? Church: Eleven and one-half feet. Newton: Her house is here, there's 11i feet; she's got a porch which sticks out from her house; there's q feet from the easement to the porch. She's got a single story house--at the most it could be construed as a story-and-a-half, with a basement slightly above ground level; but it is only required to have six feet. . . . . . . (Several people tall-.Ung at once) There's cars parked In here, kind of off the street. Helmer: Is somebody living in this home behind? Church: No; it's a new, completed house. It's on the market. Helmer: It is on the market? You built it? Church: I acquired the property when it was partially completed, and completed the house. Tepedino: Any other questions on cross-examination or rebuttal? Commissioners? Bonn: Were all the other conditions met? Eventually they did divide that rear lot? You mentioned about a five foot in the front -- Newton: (Her fairly short response did not record adequately, since she was talking at the blackboard.) Tepedino: That's a question I have, too: are we suggesting still that there are some problems with the lot containing or having a single family home on it, insofar as recordation of easement -- Newton: There is a legally recorded easement -- -8- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3s 1981 Tepedino: But are all the conditions that were placed during -- Newton: Other than there was the one outstanding condition that the dedication of 5 feet in front of the property has not been made. Tepedino: And everything else is -- Newton: There is a recorded easement. Tepedino: Although when one of these movements had taken place, was notice placed on the property owner that the back lot would be for a single family type? Newton: One time it was placed that they have 7500 square foot lots in the rear, and the other time it was that it would be single family houses. Speaker: Now that one that has the single family--that is better than 7500 square foot lot? Newton: I believe so. (Several people talking at oma.) Tepedino: Commissioners? Cross-examination? Bonn: So down in here, then, we do not have the easement between the right-of-way dedication here? Newton: Across the front of this property is where we lack the five feet. We dontt have a recorded dedication. Speaker: Now there is a ponderosa pine, I believe? Newton: I think it's right hare, Isn't it, Mr. Church? Church: It°s within two or three foot of Grant Street, and within about four feet of the rightmost property corner. Speaker: I presume in site design review you would mandate that to be saved? Newton: One of the conditions on there is that if we decide to save the tree, then we could thus vary the pavement slightly here . . . . . Tepedino: Any further questions, cross-examination or rebuttal from the commissioners? Or from the public? I close the public hearing portion on this issue. Commissioners? Commissioner Moen? Moen: Well -- in looking at it, I am not quite sure what Condition b . . . . One of them, I am sure, is the problem of the access; and even though that may have been one of the reasons, in in looking at the lot, what we have there, I still feel very strongly -9- ; TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COI-U41SSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Moen: that what we set ups which Was a single family on each one of those lots, with access to the street via the 19 foot . • . . . looks to me like the best deal. Tepedino: Oka Commissioner Bonn do y� � you have any comments? Bonn: Yes, I have a couple. Was that condition on the Property the public street there inadvertently left out ofthat rordinance? � Tepedino: Mr. Church, I recognize you. Church: Actually we are talkie about o.zt the rear lots. The rear lots actually has 9-- foot driveways. The single family lot is the one with the easement, and we are not even talkir� b Arid the only comment I would have: _'d -out, that here. (1) I believe you should grant that right of way on Grant; and under Condition No. 2, my thought on that is that the sight-obscuring fence maybe should be some sight-obscuring material, whether it be arborvitae or whatever, but that should be left to the discretion of the site design review. And then on the 24 foot pavement, there are going to be three families using that particular roadway. Tepedino: Commissioner Helmer? Helmer: I think we should leave the 24 foot pavement area there, if nothing else, for access by fire equipment and so forth, to get back over 200 foot to the rear there. If someone happened to be parked In the driveway or blocking it, there is no way they can get back there with their equipment. There is--if I remember right--there Is an old abandoned oil company there: in fact, I think they are still using the storage facilities, on the other side of this, to the right. I am not really sold on the idea, the gray it is split up, but it Is one of those things. I don't think that we can ask for a five foot chunk off the street other than through the property this gentleman has, because Lot 1800 is owned by a different party. That's all I got. Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Speaker? Speaker: Well, frankly, I am not very happy with the prospect. Now the 24 foot pavement would go up only as far as well,, past Mrs. Rosats Lot 1800 -- is that right? Newton: . . . . . (Agreed, illustrating on the blackboard. Her response not intelligible on the tape.) . Church: (In response to a coramissioner9st1on about _ driveway to it.) ['There is the drive? Thereis noeg aged and the -10- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Church: Mrs. Rosa's plans do not really take into consideration what the (Cont.) real property is. Bonn: You finished a new home -- Church: Oh, yes; oh, the garage to the new home? The garage door is parallel with the long strip, faces the long strip, and is within 6 or 8 feet of the property line. Helmer: The front of the garage is? Church: The side. You make a 90 degree turn into the garage. . . (Some indistinct discussion about whether it is a 90 or 180 degree turn. Newton at the blackboard illustrated the situation) That's correct. But it0s not that far back. In point of fact, from the rightmost property line the garage is some 10 feet at the most. It*s not practical--you could not construct a road in the 10 foot easement, the -easement the way it exists--you couldn�t construct a road on that easement unless you--I mean it w-ouldn't do any good, it would go right past . . . (moving to blackboard) . the 19 foot strip is from here. 'fie garage sits somewhere in this vicinity. The body of the house is something like that-- it is an ell shape with this leg being somewhat smaller, 20 feet across. It's not practical at all to pave any more than at the maximum 18 feet. It simply isn't practical--you couldn't turn-- you would go right past what is normally used as off-street parking in front of this (Helmer and Church clarified the location of the garage and pavement) . Yeah 24 foot, 19 foot here. There is a requirement of five feet, or whatever, of landscaping on both sides. It is a totally impractical design. You would have to place this road somewhere in the center . . . . . Whatl would point out is there Is some existing vegetation--some trees--along here that that plan would not allow to develop, consistent with the natural vegetative line that has grown up; so that what I am proposing is simply a landscape plan where you design for an inclusive site plan--a road and landscaping that are consistent . . . That's why I would like it to be in site review. Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Speaker: Staff, I would ask what is the prospect of development to the west and south of that property; what is the use now, and what sort of development is going to come in the future? Howard: R-7 single family residential; there is one log house being built in the field behind this one; there is a couple more on Johnson that have been constructed similar line -- single family residential. -11- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Speaker: In other words, it looks as if the city is kind of stuck with a-- well--large lot pattern that has seen better days so far as devel- opment is concerned? Howard: Well, that's hard to say. The structures are old. Speaker: What I mean is, it doesn't cut up into neat 7,000 or 7500 foot lots without a lot of flag lots--that sort of thing. Howard: That's exactly right; and that's why you have things like this. And this isn't the first in that area. Speaker: And I don't imagine it will be the last. Howard: No, sir, it won't. Tepedino: Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Herron? Herron: All the questions that have been asked have covered my concerns. Tepedino: Okay. Commissioner Kolleas? Kolleas: What kind of vegetation goes along that property line? Church: Existing vegetation? I think it may be something like hawthorn or -- I don't really know the kind. It's dormant now in this season. I can't really get any picture of what it will be, to identify it. I mean it is a height of twelve or more foot. It's a native shrub, I believe. Kolleas: Okay. Thank you. Tepedino: Thank you, commissioner. I have a few comments. First, a question of staff. Staff, what specifically is the applicant asking us for--a variance? And a conditional use? And a variance for what? Newton: Condition No. 6. Tepedino: Condition No. 6 is still in existence--a valid condition. Is that correct? Newton: It's still a condition on the property. Tepedino: And Condition No. 6 required him to -- Newton: Only construct a single family. Tepedino: And that was because of the access to the street, which we found may be in error? TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Newton: Right. Howard: I think we need to clarify the error now. If you would look under the Code for three units, it takes 30 feet. One of the points of the variance is he wants me to grant that one foot variance. Okay. So you have got to look at that. The requirement under the Code is exact--that you will have 30 feet abutting a public street, but it may be by easement. Tepedino: And a conditional use he is also asking for? Howard: Conditional use for an attached single family on the 10 thousand plus square foot lot at the rear. Tepedino: My feelings on this application, with all due regard to the applicant's good faith position on this thing is -- this is to me one of the most totally confusing applications I have seen in a long, long time; and one way to assure my negative vote is to confuse the devil out of me, because I am not going to approve something that I don't know what I am approving. That's one point. The second point is the variance: the requirements for a variance are pretty clear. He has to come forward and show that he has been somehow adversely impacted by something that he has little or no control over. And I would maintain that people who buy and sell real estate have a burden to investigate quite thoroughly, I would think, in the caveat emptor regime, what they are buying--what they are getting into. Now clearly that's not the city's responsi- bility to ascertain what the situation, the history of a piece of property like this, has been. I think it is the burden and responsibility of the individual investor or buyer of the property. And I would suggest that that burden lie on the buyer, and not come forward to me that he needs some release or relief under our variances, which again comes forward and says, "Well, if you want a variance, you have to come forward and show these three or four things," and that you didn't cause your problem, that your property has.been unduly burdened, unfairly burdened . . . (the sense being in relation to other nearby properties.) I feel in my own sense that the applicant has not persuaded me, and it may be due to the fact that the facts are not clear, or whatever. But I am not persuaded that I should vote for granting a variance for a conditional use on this property. All the com- missioners have spoken on this. I would like to call for -- if there are no further questions or cross-examination, the public hearing is closed -- I would like to call now for a motion from one of the commIssioners. Commissioner Herron -- would you like to volunteer? Herron: No, I don't Grant to volunteer. -13- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Tepedino: Commissioner Moen? Moen: I move that we deny the application for a variance of Condition No. 69 and also deny the Conditional Use CU 14-80 . . Tepedino: Okay; motion is made for denial of the variance, and also the conditional use by"Commisai.ouer Moen. Do I hear a second? Kolleas: I second. Tepedino: Made and seconded. Discussion? Speaker: Yes. I would wonder if we shouldn't be rather specific in stating why we deny it. Tepedino: That's a good point. Commissioner Moen, do you want to reference your motion for denial more specifically -_ the variance codes staff, do you have -- Speaker: Well, I feel after having read today the reasons for a variance that the real reason for a variance in this area of large lots and single family homes--I think it's very doubtful that the reasons as given in the Code for a variance are there. The matter of the 19 foot vs. 20 foot -- you might say right of way or access shilo it may not .have been, should we say, on the city's books at the time the application was made -- I think that we as a commission can consider that it was not there more through inad- vertence rather than lack of desire on the part of the city council, and that there was this requirement of 10 foot right of way for each parcel to a street--it had to abut against a street. I think there's very good reasons for that. Now we are faced wittL a fait accompii on that ten foot easement, but there isn't much we can do about that. But we don't have to, as I see it -- we don't have to allow that variance that the planning director could give, but I think we as a planning commission can say to him, "You shall not give that variance." Am I right on that? Howard: Yes, sir; you are. Speaker: If I read the Code correctly, that is an area where the planning commission can take authority, and I think in this case I would like to see us exercise that authority to that end. NOW I would gather from Mrs. Rosa's letter that whichever way we decide the thing is going to go to the city council; but I do think that we should make rather explicit our reasons for denying the applicant's request, and I think what I have just stated is why I would vote for them. Tepedino: Okay; you are suggesting, Commissioner Speaker, that we clarify or -;4.. TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING- COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Tepedino: at least buttress the motion for denial with some specifics--is (Cont.) that correct? Would you like to crystallize a few of those points? Speaker: Well, I think one of them is the requirement in this case of a 20 foot access to the street as being one of the principal ones. Howard: It should be 30 feet for three units. Speaker: Yes, 30 feet for three units. Tepedino: Okay. Church: That is not in the application. I am only applying for something that affects the rearmost portion, as I said -- single family --- I am making no application -- Speaker: All right, then; you have got 19 feet, and you need 20 feet, and we can hang on that, and you can go to the city council for relief if that's the way you prefer. Tepedino: Since this is the opportunity for discussion, I would suggest that the requirements for the variance, right out of the Code, page 307, should be the reason for denial. For example, in my estimation I have not seen exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to this property that don't apply generally to other properties, or "wtUch aro conditions of a lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control." But the applicant has control. I don't think the variance is necessary "for the preservation of a property right of the appli- cant substantially the same as is possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity." They are single family. It says, "The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to the pu-Tposes of this title." I think it is by Its impingement on the kinds of access we need. Why do we need access? Well, for emergency vehicles--things of that nature. There isn't a whimsical or arbitrary type of thing that we invented here. And I don't think the variance is the minimum requested variance which will alleviate the hardship. In my estimation I think the requested variance fails on those issues--at least that's my feeling. What I would like to do is clarify that. Commissioner Moen, you made the motion for denial. Would you like to modify that motion to include those points that were raised? Moen: I amend my motion to include . . . (the reasons stated). (Note: the record is unclear, but the meaning apparent.) Tepedino: Do I hear a second on the modified motion? .�15- TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING David Church February 3, 1981 Helmer: Second. Tepedino: Second; okay. Further discussion? I call for the question. All those in favor of the motion for denial signify by saying aye. Chorus: Aye. Tepedino: Those opposed -- which means those which would be in agreement with the proposition -- signify by saying nay. (No response.) Okay, the motion is denied unanimously. (To Mr. Church) You have the right of appeal. -16- STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION February 3, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard NO SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BY APPLICANT SHALL BE MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED TO DO SO. SHOULD THIS OCCUR, UNREQUESTED, THE ITEM WILL BE TABLED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING HEARING. DOCKET: VARIANCE, V 15-80 and CONDITIONAL USE, CU 14-80 (Attached Single Family Residence in R-7 Zane) NPO #2 APPLICANT: David Church OWNER: SAME 6328 SW Haines Road Poitland, Otegon 97219 APPLICATION DATE: October 15, 1980 REQUEST: For a re-hearing of Variance, V 15-80 (a Variance of' Condition Number 6 of Minor Land Partition, MLP 20-79 - see attached) _ Also, Conditional Use, CU 14-80 (to construct a single family attached unit in an R-7 Single Family Residential Zone) . SITE LOCATION: 12533 SW Grant (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2BB, Tax Lot 1801) SITE DESIGNATION: R-7 "Single Family Residential" PLEASE READ ATTACHED STAFF REPORTS STAFF NARRATIVE: On November 25, 1980, the Tigard Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a Variance (V 15-80) to Condition Number 6 of a Minor Land Partition (MLP 20-79) which states "Applicant agrees to construct only one single family dwelling on the rear lot" . At the same Hearing, the Planning Commission denied a Conditional Use (CU 14-80) to allow an attached single family unit on the property. The applicant filed an Appeal of the Planning Commissions' decision to City Council. While preparing for the Appeal, Staff noted some inconsistencies in conditions placed on the property and the Code. Because of this new information and on the advice of legal counsel, Staff asked the City Council at the January 12, 1981 meeting to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for review. Council approved the request. Inconsistencies in the Staff copy of the Code and Ordinances axe as follows: 1. Chapter 17.36.020 of the Tigard Muncipal Code reads "... .each lot shall abut a public street". At a minimum, it was required that the access :width abut the street. Further, the required access width was to be held in fee ownership with the property the access served_ An easement rt agreement to allow an access to jci.ntly serve properties or serve one property without being held in ownership was not allowed unless the Planning Commission granted approval. Z �r STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1/V 15-80/CU 14-80 TIGARD PLANNING OOMD11ISSION February 3, 1981 Page 2 2. On November 5, 1979, a new subdivision ordinance was passed (Reference Ordinance 79-96) which deletes Section 17.36.020 making the requirement that each lot abut a public street no longer mandatory. 3. Condition Number 6 was placed on Parcel #1 on January 24, 1980 due to inadequate access. Lot 2 has the required ten (10') foot access as a ten (10') foot easement over 12535 SW Grant, Tax Lot 1800. The easement was granted by a previous owner and recorded in gook 902, Page 614, 'Giashington County Records. The ten (101) foot easement leaves six and one-half (61s') feet to the Fiore, on Tax Lot 1800 —and _-'-Proximately eleven and one-half (111:1) feet to the structure on Tax Lot 1800 which exceeds the required sideyard setback. The remaining nineteen (19') foot strip (see attached map) could provide two 9.5 foot easement strips to the proposed single family attached units. A variance could be granted for six (61 inches for each easement by the Planning Director. Single family attached units are allowed as a Conditional Use in an R-7 Zone on 10,000 square feet_ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reconsider Condition Number 6 placed an Parcel 1 of Tax Lot 1801 with Minor Land Partition, MLP 20-79 and approval of Conditional Use, CU 14-80 for the construction of a single family attached unit on Parcel 1. If the Planning Commission approves Conditional Use, CU 14-80, the Planning Staff will approve Minor Land Partition, MLP 19-80 and Variance, V 19-80 to allow for two (2) 9.5 foot easement strips, one fon each unit. if Conditional Use CU 14-80 and Variance V 15-80 are approved, the following conditions are recommended. 1. A Nonremonstrance Agreement shall be signed for both units on Parcel 1 and the unit on Parcel 2 for the future improvement of Grant Street prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 2. A six (6') foot sight obscuring fence shall be constructed around the perimeter of Parcels 1 and 2 and down both sides of the twenty-nine (29') foot easement strip. 3. Twenty-four (241) feet of the twenty-nine (29') foot easement strip shall be paved to serve all three units for access and egress. The asphalt may be narrower to accomodate the Ponderosa Pine at the northeast corner of the driveway, the exact width to be determined by the Planning Director prior to issuance of Building Permits. STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1/V 15-80/CU 14-80 TIGARD PLANNING COMISSION February 3, 1981 Page 3 4. Landscaping will be required along both sides of the paved access drive_ The landscape plans shall be approved by +he Planning Director prior to the issuance of Building Permits_ 5. A metes and bounds legal description and map shall accompany the easement agreement for the three parcels_ The legal description shall be prepared by a registered engineer or land surveyor. The. easement agreement shall be approved by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. 6. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this A-rel_p;_ t by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department. 7_ No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate City department and changes are approved by that department. Applications for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings. 8. Grading and construction plans for all work in public rights-of-way and all other public improvements shall be prepared by a registered professional k engineer in accordance with City standards, and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. All public improvements will require a Compliance Agreement and must be (design) approved by the Public Works Department, and must be either (1) fully and satisfactorily constructed prior to the recording of any minor land partition, public dedication, or issuance of Building Permits; or (2) bonded to the City for 100% of the estimated cost thereof prior o the recording of any minor land partition, public dedication, or issuance of Building Permits. 9. All proposed utilities shall be placed underground_ Street lighting installations shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 10. A City of *Tigard approved Nonremonstrance Agreement must be recorded by Washington County and returned to the City of Tigard Planning Department before issuance of Building Permits or change of property ownership. 11. All street and parking areas shall be concrete or asphalt. . All sidewalks shall be concrete. 12. No Building Permits shall be issued until the expiration of the twenty (20) day appeal period from the date of approval. V s1• 1, d Pre d by Elizabeth A. Newton Aldie Howard Special Assistant To The Planning Director . Planning Director F.M/AHvmc STA-T'F R2PORT AGE::DA 5.11 TIG_=L) PLANNING COMMISSION NO;'E:;BEP. 35; 1980 - 7:30 pm FCNLER JU:JIOR HIGH - LECTURZ ROOM 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard No submission of additional material by applicant shall be made at the Public Hearing unless the applicant is requested to do so. Should this occur, unrequested, the item will be tabled until the following Rearing- DOCKET: VARIANCE, V 15-80 and CONDITIONAL USE, CU 14-80 (David Church) NPO z2 APPLICANT: David Church 014NER: Same 6328 SW Haines Road Portland, Oregon 97219 APPLICATION DATE: October 15, 1980 LOCATION: 12533 SW Grant (wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2BB, Tax Lot 1801) REQUEST: For a Variance of Condition Number 6 of Minor Land Partition, MLP 20-79. (See attached.) Also, a request for a Conditional Use to construct a single family attached unit in an R-7 Single Family Residential Zone. �. SITE DESIGNATION: R-7, Single Family Pesidential Comprehensive Plan B-7 Single Family Residential PREVIOUS ACTION: A request by a previous owner (Finke) for a :Sinor Land Partition to divide Tax Lot 1800 into two (2) lots was approved by the Tigard Planning Commission on March 19, 1974 with Conditions. (Reference MLP 1-74.) A request by a previous owner (Kelsey) for a Minor Land Partition for a Variance of drive-way width, and for a Conditional Use Permit to construct two (2) duplexes was denied by the Tigard Planning Commission on September 7, 1976 and tabled in a re-hearing on February 15, 1977. (Reference MLP 7-76, V 9-76, CU 26-76.) A request by a previous owner (Garvin) to partition a .'67 acre parcel into two (2) lots (MLP 20-79 - see attached Staff Reports) was approved on January 24,. 1980 with conditions- 1. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1- The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission waive Condition Nun+ber 6 which was placed on the property at the time MLP 20-79 was approved. Condition Number 6 reads as follows: "6. Applicant agrees to construct only one single family dwelling on the rear lot." STAFf' REPORT AGENDA 5.11/V 15-80/CU 14-80 TIGARD PLANNTNG CW!.LT_SS1ON NOVEMBER 25, 1980 Page 2 2. The present owner and applicant was unaware of Condition Number 6 when he purchased the property and applied for a Minor Land Partition to split the rear lot for construction of a single family attached &selling. 3. Attachment A illustrates Mr. Church's present proposal. As shown, Easement B would serve lot 2 and the remaining nineteen (191) foot strip would be split into two 9.5 foot strips to serve as easements for the back property. Mr. Church intended to obtain a Variance for the two 9.5 foot strips. 4. Easement B as shown(attachment A) , to serve Parcel 2, is a deeded ten (lo' ) foot easement and not a portion of Parcel 2. Use of this easement as a driveway is impractical, however. The existing house on the front lot sits right next to the easement line_ 5. Condition Number 6 was placed on MLP 20-79 because of the easement problem_ The nineteen (191 ) foot easement strip was intended to fulfill the ten (10') foot easement requirement for a single family unit on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 (with a Variance of six (6") inches for each easement being granted) . 6. Parcel 2 is technically an illegal lot- .Chapter 17_36_020 of the Tigard Municipal Code reads as follows: "Access, The subdividing of land shall be such that each lot shall abut upon a public street-'* Easement B is not a portion of Parcel 2 , therefore, Parcel 2 does not abut a public street. At the time &= 20-79 was approv<^d, a ten (101) foot easement strip should have been made part of the lot. 7. The Planning Commission is governed by Chapter 18.76.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code in granting Variances as follows: Granting -- Conditions. No variance shall be granted by the Planning Commission unless it can be shown that all of the following ca-nditicns exist: (1) Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control; (2) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property richt of the 'applicant substantially the same as is possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity; (3) The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, be injurious to property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located, or be otherwise detrimental to the objectives of any city development plan or policy; (4) The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions and standards of this Title which will alleviate the hardship_ STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.11/V 15-80/CU 14-80 TIGARD Pr-ANNING CO C41SSION NOVEMBER 25, 2980 Page 3 II. CONCLUSI0NARY FINDINGS: i 1. Condition Number 6 o 9'!LP 20-79 was agreed to on Ju he 3, 1980 by the former applicant. (See attached Staff Report.) 2. A nineteen (19') foot strip is not wide enough to serve two units without a Variance. Serving three units ft-om a nineteen (191) foot strip would allow each unit 6 1/3 feet for a driveway easement. 3. The applicant does not meet all of the conditions required for granting a Variance. III. STAFF RECOMIENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this Variance based on lack o€ adequate easement to serve three properties. Staff also recommends that the Conditional Use request for single family t. attached be denied based on Condition Number 6 of :SLP 20-79. Elizabeth Newton Special Assistant to the Planning Director r4 ' 3 t F sem. `c f G Lots 1 and 2 Pro lots in an existing minor partition. I.ot 2 enjoys the use of an easement over parcel B, a 10 foot strip; and parr_el �, a 19 fcnt strip. Vnd• r the terms and corditinns of a reciprocal agreement beth units of orcposed 74nZ-12 •.!-n 1v :-tacked �_r••-:telling ::n!:1c: n+.:n use andnt�: n � road:v a; ; r. ^_ _ parcels and C; and have the 43e of an easement ova r paa a:-e rcal B. _ tot 2 Tvculd shire in the maintainancp of parcel B. and that :r:rt of aarczl _a_ recessa-y for his use and enjoyment n£ the roadway thereon0ci i1 deccriaticn to Pacify said o-rt.). 3. 9.5 font strip, extending td S:W. Grant Ave. 'c:ould be a portion of each unit of si--,;,le family :ttacl-ed. 77 MINUTES TT-GARD PLA!runrG commissm,r November 25, 3980 Page 11 r Award read theS!L= R-_MORT, consist;ng of staff co=cnts on the appeal. He expla-1-ad that ontr ar y to the statement of the applicant, he was not calUn for any addritlonal parking spsces—only to bring the present parking 3o�t, up to cp�de. `• The A.Pfrr. was made by Brian,`Jotnson of Seton Johnson & Odell,,,, consu ,ting e3�eers, Portland. He read a letter from Georgia Pacific to the•*Planning Commission outlining the reasons for constructing a truck ,ias�'Ling facll:Lty, hon it would be operated, and why they object to`'t'ne regtilxement for Modification of the employee parking 'area. He Yemen shore CT slides of the GP property from various points to''iI?ustrate 3to-a 1iti -of the parking lot can be seen fro= aff the premis�: `: j r '- O � There eaa'no PUBLIC T^_„STI_:O:iF, C0101ISSION DISCUSSION s7.1M ACTION: At the request of the president, Howard discussed the requirement by the city council that -prove.;ties such as this be brought up tn.'Lcoda whenever -permits for additions or alterations are requested. ,speaker commented favorably on the effort to bring older facilities ua -o code, but suggested the requirc-ment that every seventh space belandscapedmight be e13n371ated in this case because of the :destrre to I'use i.t at .tines for truck- .park3.ng. Moen expressed syupat\� Kith the..Georgla. Pacific 'position. Bona agreed with. the idea. bf ellnfaating the landscape islands., as did Amer mad $olleas.-. ' 1' ' Speaker MOVED rejectio of a appeal d the upholding of Site Design Review 28-80 w .th tIse exception of thee. fourth sentence in the first staff recom=endatlaii -- ":very seventh space shall be a landscaped Island.90 Helmer seconded the- motion, which carried, with Moen voting no. 5.11 CONDITIONAL USE A11D VARIANCE, CU 14-80SV15-80 (David Church) NPO #2 A request by David Church for a Conditional Use in an g-7 - "Single Family Residential" zone to construct a single family attached dwelling and a Variance of condition six {6) of Yitnor Land Fartition, MLP 20-79a located at 12533 SSt Grant d'Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 238, Tax Lot 1801). Howard read the STAFF R''PORT and BEC01r1M�L'MATIONS when, althou;h only the applicant, his realtorp.'aad Mayor-elect Bishop- rena-lned-In. the audi- ence, it became apparent the applicant had not yet received a copy of the staff report, and was .unavare the recommendation eras for denial of ( the variance. ' Newton of staff explained attempts to .get the report to him.; in any case, it w-:in in the N.I:Ti T� TIGARD PLAIRMING Ci7M415SION November 250 1980 Page L The APPLICANT®S PRESMITATION was made by David Church, 6328 S? 3ai.:es Road, .Portland- 3e eapl3.i.ned why he felt the discussion in the staff report of Parcel Iio. 2 on the Attachment A, part of the report should have no bearing on his request for a variaaco and conditional use on Parcel No. 1, the property under consideratlo.u. lie pointed out his request essentially is for a variance to allow two 9-j foot driveways back to the proposed two attached single family homes, and for a condi- tional use to build a duplex structure on the lot. (Note; A previous owner agreed on June 3, 1980, to all edz conditions of ,RLP 20-79- Condition 6 reads, "Applicant agrees to construct only one single family dwelling on the rear lot." This previous owner apparently was dissuaded by Splanning staff from requesting a conditional use to build a duplex on this same lot because of the complications of access to Grant street for this lot and two othora between It and the street.) i �YYC TESTI;:0;3y I-- favor was given by Nancy Doyle, 7700 5TJ 74-h Ave., Tigard, as 'Realtor representing Church in his sale of the property. She questioned whether conditions are put on the deed, and cc=. ented that the planning' for the area area around this property h3; been quite poor (agreed to heartily by Howard). She felt It not proper that Mr. Church should be made the victim of these circumstances. She did not feel that the fact Lot No. 2 on the sketch is an illegal lot should 'nava .` a bearing on Yr. Churchts request. Howard discussed Lot No. 2, pointing out there is legal access to both Parcels I and 2 (assuming a one foot variance is granted) if each has only a single -f=fly d:;ell`..ag on it. Parcel 2 must rely for access by usesownerahip of part of the 19 foot strip to the two flag lots. If parcel 1 13 to have multiple dwelling units on it, the whole 19 fact strip must be assigned to it, thus leaving Parcel 2 completely landlocked and iLes; 1, =--lar Cl.ty Coav, vlilch calls for 10 feet of access from each lot onto a public street. As to the problem of notifying possible future owners of liaaitations or restrictions imposed on the property, Howard stated the City files a "zoning violatioull with the county which does get on the title report and should alert the purchaser to lavestigate further Stith the City. - Under the circumstances he counseled the commission they could not grant the conditional use to Parcel No. 1; both parcels must have frontage ownership, and not access merely by easement. Doyle suggested a permanent easement for Lot 2 over the Lot 1 driveway, owner- ship of which would remain with the-Lot I owners. GROss-EXAIan- ATION AiID RMUTTAI.: Church argued that a recorded easement es3sts, which does giae.all lots useable access. Teped-Ino got clarification of Int identities and available drivevray access. He o9ined the Lot 1 was burdened with the single family limitation, apparently unknown to sir- Church as a subsequent buyer. Church pointed out the �LIh'tT a'JS TIGARI D PLUnaaxG c0"1.ISsiou November 25, 1980 Page �3 i practical aspects of his proposal--minimum coverage of pavement, hones t on reasonable aimed lots, etc. Flak raised the question of a subdivision. The possibility of puttia.- in a publIc street eras rejected because of p inadequate width and uneconomic to serve three residences. i COMMISSION DISCUSSION ID ACTIO:;: Tepedino sympathized with the buyer who was unaware of' the conditions placed on the property with the agreement of a previous owner, but saw that as no reason for the city to violate its own codes by granting this request. He felt to allow the use as requested would be to aggravate an already bad situation. Helmer agreed the situation is bad, and to go along with this request would' only make matters worse. Funk wondered why a building permit was aver allowed for Loy 2, and ques`si.oaed whetUer it was a planning comml.s- sion or a staff error. Howard stated it started out at the planntny commission. Funk opined the best solution would be to keep it single family an each lot. Speaker agreed with Fr2nk and expressed concern that there was nothing in the title report to indicate to future purchasers there Were some difficulties with the property. Eoward explained the circumstances In this case- the owner did not fulfill all conditions, but moved to Saudi Arabia. r _ After some discussion as to the proper motion to be made, Speaker E approval of Variance V 15-80 (so there is legal access to both d denial of Conditional Use CU 14-80; together with a condition on Parcel 2 (' the front lot") may be completed; that a single ne may be built on Parcel 1 ("the rear. lot") ; that ownership erred of ghat is necessary to allots both lots ownership of ess to Grant Street. The motion Was seconded by Helmer and nanimously. OTr�rR BUSI__ �iESS\Hogrard referred to the application. of Gene Richmaa, a CPA, for appointment`to NPO #'l. Speaker•,iO'M, Helmer seconded, the application of the\appointsent of Gene Rfrhnaa to NPO #1. The motion carried unanimously. '\ �•$ Howard stated the planning commission has called for a meander- ing sidewalk in the Creeks%d;e Subdivision, V 5-79.The reason-was to Pyoid trees, which have slap® been re owed. Therefore it is in `order to permit sidevralks to be placed along the\curb sere. "Tepedina FIOVED,the condition in V 5-79 be�odified 'to peraiNt", idewalks pi4ced next to 'the curb. The cation was rezuggested ed anct`e��.ea unanimo sly. s:o Helmer ,r some prepar ions sh uld b-e aade\Por under- ground instal.la�ion of cable television anectio s in the * ;ture. Eoeard discussed the'prQ3ent state of the-aft, era ch �giag rapidly, and promised to�voice the suggestion at th :ia meeting aT the cow ttee which iss.dl3ng the sable TV in the co �y d cin\:L ts ne_ t aeetin s� 0 The president declared the meetinZ adjourned �t SGG i•/ ' � Seo>' 00 Ri 9Go�' M Burl . I i � I { i � I ' .�tr I I I � +• }. �..-moi• • �(r � _V _ ^--.e.•- - .. STAFF REPORT -- .• FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DIRECTOR January 24, 1980 Tigard City Hall, 12420 SW Main St. a - DOCKET: MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 20-79 (Jack G. Garvin) APPLICANT: Jack G. Garvin —_ - "OWNER: Same 435 NE Birchwood Terr. Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 APPLICATION DATE: September 7, 1979 -" £•.I Tr : LOCATION: 12535 St-,7 Grant Co. Tax Map 2Sl 2BB, Tax Lot 1801) REQUEST: To partition a .57 acre parcel into two lots SITE - DESIGNATION: R-7, Single Farm%v Residential - PREVIOUS ACTION: - - A request by a previous owner (Flnke) for a minor land lot 1800 into two partition to divide tax . Zots was approved by the Ti March i9, 1974 with conditions_ gard Planning Commission or: (Ref. MLP 1-74) - A request by a previous owner (Kelsey) for a minor land partition, Of driveway- width, and for a conditionfora variance al use permit to construct two duplexes was denied' by the Tigard Planning Commission on September 7, 197 and tabled in a re-hearing on February 15, 1977. (Ref. MLP 7-76, V 9-76, CU 26-76) FINDINGS OF FACT: .' 1. The applicant is -requestingr permission, in accordance with Section 17.24.030 of the Tigard Municipal Code to partition a .57 acre parcel i 17,384 square foot lotsnto 7,445 and _ The intent is to sell the rear lot and' to construct a single family house upon it. 2_ The siie is ci=si ted as •O; ".W, Low L;cn--ity:: x-7 on NPO 972 Plan and is currently zoned R-7, 'Single Family Residential". 3. The site is a flat vacant field, except for a single family house in the southeast corner of:Tax Lot7le01. 4- Grant Street is designated as a collector street in NPO Plan # 2, requizin a sixty (60) foot -right-of-way and forty four (44) feet of pavement- g existing right-of-k�ay is forty (40) feet and pavement width twenty The (22) feet. ;' two - dr ti STAFF REPORT ' FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DIRECTOR 14.LP 20-79 P. 2 - a S. Sewers and water are presently available on Grant Street. 6. , On October 15, 1979, the Tigard Planning Director denied a request by the applicant for a minor land partition to divide Tax Lot 1801 into two lots because the owner of adjacent lot 1800 claimed that a ten (10) foot easement strip on the northerly side of her lot had not been granted. Subsequent to this denial, the applicant provided proof that a ten (10) foot easement of record had been granted by a previous owner of 'iax Lot 1800, recorder: in Hook 902, Page 614, Washington County Records. 7. There is a nineteen (19) foot access provided for the Pristtrg a�rglo house and a proposed single gamily house on the rear lot. Combined with ten (10) foot ingress and egress easement on adjacent lot 1800, this provides twenty nine (29) feet of access width. Section 18.64.020. of the Tigard. MmIcipal Code requires a minimum of twenty (20) feet vehicular access and egress for two dwelling units, with eighty (80%) percent paved (or sixteen (16) feet). A large Ponderosa Pine stands seven (7) feet south of the north prsa.Er`y lire of Tax Lot 1301 (subject site) at the intersect l n of the driveway and SW Grant Street which could restrict driveway.width. Exercising fully the ten (10) foot easement over the adjacent lot 1801 would bring the driveway against the foundation of the house on the adjacent lot_ 8. Surrounding land uses include Tiger Oil Company and a single family house to the northeast an Grant Street, single family houses to the north on Johnson Street, a single family house to the southeast on adjacent lot 1800, a large vacant field and a single family house to the southwest on Grant Street- Across Grant Street from the site is St. Anthony's Church and School 'grounds 9. The applicant's original intent was to construct a duplex on the rear lot_ After the Planning Director's initial denial, applicant requested reconsidera- tion of this minor land partition due to new evidence of proper easements_ Staff indicated to applicant on January 3, 1980, that adequate access did not •�..ist for- a dplex••on -the ,rear lot ( minimum access thirty .(30). feet, twenty four (24) feet paved) . Applicant stated that he understood the problem and _reguested that we proceed with the minor l.and.partItion since he is Interested in selling the lots. CONM.USIONARY FINDINGS: - 1. The proposal is In conformance to NPO #2 Plan and in compliance with the present zoning. 2. The proposed lot sizes exceed the minimum lot size requirement. 3. Adequate water and sewer facilities are available to the site. ' STAFF REPORT FINAL. ACTION f� �Al TjGARD PLA-MING DIRECTOR _ l� n �m 20-79 P. 3 4• SW Grant Street requires an additional twenty (20) ,feet of right-of-wa✓ along thLe frontage of the subject site. 5„ The combined vehicular access and easement available to the site 1-s twenty nine (29) feet wide, which exceeds the IILlnimum required access required for -two dwelling units. Location of the required sixteen (15) foot d_ ve, z•ear lots could be a problem since the large Ponderosa tree at the fror t of the driveway iuVinges on the most desirable driveway location which should be as far as Possible from the existing house bn adjacent lot la00_ 5• ff the applicant still wishes to' construct a duplex on the rear. lot, the atppl:cant will ::ave to apply Zor both a conditional use permit for 3 8L�1e in "? zone and a variance to the minimum vehicular access wid} d-+aelling units) of thirtytwenty -h (for 3 the Planning Commission's rejection of a similar conditionalause Corssideriny- request for this site on February 15 _ and variance single family development of the rear lot7a oearsoto beds stfequy� acca_ss, - - PP most feasible. FINAL ACTION: _ Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: I. That the applicant dedicate ten (10) feet of right-of-way alon of the site on SW Grant Street with half street improvg the frontage standards prior to the issuance of a Building Permit- pts to collector 2. Grading lsla.�s on all public right-of-ways shall be-s.inmitted and aeprovEd by the Public Works Director prior to com=enciement of work. 3- Public 'water service and sanitary service shall be -installed to this sit-- prior to —%e issuance of a Build_"n'3 Peruit. - • 4. NO Occupapcy .permLts shill be issued until all this develop co. d;t:.ars placed upon Ment by the City of T:•;.sr3 h :e_n sstissi verifying this :ta,-- been cac -;ed c:sc Ly tie _s,_,►�.,'iace ed and insoections - 'r- d_paztment. 5' .10 Building 2ermit shall be issre•i L the. e_%Pir?ton of the twenty day appeal period from the date of approval. �. STAFF REPORT _ FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DIRECTOR HLP .20-79 , P. 4 C+. Applicant agrees to const-.-,.:ct only one single family dwelling on the rear lot. 7.• Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, Staff receive detailed drawings of.proposed public improvements. Si mp 4nificant trees should be protected.- If your Minor Land Partition has been approved and you have signed and returned the acknowledgement, you should now have your partition recorded by the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation_ You should bring copies of your Partition Map and our staff Report to'the Co3nty to* facilitate recording. Your Minor Land Partition is not official until it is rj4 tee__ Prepared by RLchard N. Ross Approved by Ald' Planning Intern P1 i tar NOTE: This acknowledgement must be signed and returned to the City of Tigard, Planning Departnx--nt_ Failure to return this acknowledgement will result in no further action on this project with regards toissuance of Building Pe or .engineering apprgval_ JF tore �` Date Specs Note: Action of the Planning Director is final unless notification of - appeal to the Planning Commission la filed with the,-City Recorder- within twenty (20) days of the Planning Director's Action_ •�� ��F7�' /d6�1•i1�OV/�6d a96*PrT/oay0�- s 7 -9 -Or VAI Sri AD 030.0 l �s /�. CP � "tel \ = .. "y �• - . �•� „ _ ,_ _ "�-•. .% - - -_ ... _�=rte .. �'� .`' _ r -.'• -••_ _ �• E'E ILmND S.jRVE3QR !' rP 1236o s.w. Eall Blvd February 11 , 1982 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard City Council City Rall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Site Resign Review 1-81 Site Location: 12360 5.1;�. Hall Blvd (Tax Lot 90 Dear Councilors: We are appealing condition i , of , directly to the City Council at the Council's study session o br y 17th. This letter is to give you an outline of our position for your ful on at that time. SMR 1-81, relates to conditional use 15-80, which was approved by the Tigard Planning Commission on November 25, 1980, to use tax lot 900 (Zoned R 7), for use as a day care center, a use expressly permitted by the Tigard 1•1unicipal Code. Condition #4, of SDR 1-81, states, "The applicant shall dedicate the necessary property to allow for a forty five foot (45'), right of way along Hall B.-)ulevard for both tax lot 1000 and tax lot 900. We believe that this condition Is excessive as applied to a single residential lot, as it does not provide adequate compensation for the loss of this real estate which amounts to 7o of tax lot 900 and 9.8% of tax lot 1000. It is also excessive insomuch as it reouires dedication of real estate from the adjacent tax lot 1000, for which no change of use has been requested. Furthermore, it is excessive in that if imple- mented, it would inflict severe hard3hip on the operation of the existing day care center on tax lot 1000 for which no compensation has been offered. In all discussions leading to the approval of Conditional Use 15-80, no mention was made regarding the dedication of all this real estate without compensation. Conditional Use 15-80 required site design review for parld--g and fences. We have complied with all requirements relating to these items. We do; however, recognize the need for this right of way for the public good and therefore,_ do not object to the concept. We do; however, believe that we should be justly compensated for allowing this public right of way. This could be achieved by, and we could agxee to: 1. ?le agree to the formation of a local improvement district for the purpose of sharing equally with the State Highway Department, City of Tigard and local residents, the cost of improving Hall Boulevard to arterial standards. The cost of acquisition of the right of way through tax lot 900 and 1000 being a credit to our share of that local improvement district. i. Tigard City Council -2- 2-11-81 2. We will deed the complete right of way requested by Condition7 '4, for consideration of thereafter, being free from assessments for street improvements on Hall Boulevard on either tax lot 900 or tax lot 1000. 3. As this site design review applies to tax lot 900, we can accept deeding., Of the 11 x 105 feet to the City and sign for tax lot 900, a nom emonstrance agreement for the formation of a local improvement district, (outlined in #1 above). All conditions applying to tax lot 1000 to be waived. 4. Minor variations of the above three concepts which effectively reduce the excessive nature of Condition Tz4, or provide adequate compensation for the loss incurred. At the February 17th study session, we trill request that the Council amend Conditions ;}4, X site design review 1-81, to one of the above alternatives. Res. pec-tfully, Geoff 4Le-vea=4"-'� Copies to: Mayor VIlbur Bishop Kenneth Schekla John Cook 17ancie Stimler Tom Brian Aldle Howard, Planning Director a STAFF REPORT SITE DESIGN REVIEW TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT G! OF n(7044 RD January 5, 1980 V.IA.SHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON DOCKET: SITE DESIGN REVIEW, SDR 1-81 (LEVEAR, START RIGHT DAY CARENPO #5 CENTER) APPLICANT: Geoffrey W. Levear OWNER: SAME 13571 SW,6].st Portland, Oregon 97219 SITE LOCATION: 12360 SW Hall Boulevard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11130, lax Lot 900) SITE DESIGNATION: R-7 PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Five. (5) spaces plus ene (1) space per classroom. Eight (8) spaces required. Eight (8) spaces provided. PREVIOUS ACTION: A Conditional Use permit for the property immediately to the south (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11BC, Tax Lot 1000) was granted in 1967 and 1968.. (reference CU 13-67 and CU 16-68) for a day care center. An expansion was granted in ! 1975 (reference CU 15-75) . A Conditional Use to expand "Start Right Day Care Center's to the adjacent lot (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 17BC, Tax Lot 900) was approved by the Tigard Planning Commission on November 25, 1980 (reference CU 15-80) . STAFF DECISION: Staff approves subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of Conditional Use, CU 15-80 shall be met. 2. The fence along the eastern edge of Tax Lot 900 shall be eight (81) feet in height and site obscuring. The remaining fence around Tax Lot 900 shall be six (69) feet high. 3. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit before installation :of any' signs. 4. The applicant shall dedicate the necessary property to allow for a forty-five .(45°) foot right-of-way along Hall Boulevard for both Tax Lot 1000 and Tax Lot 900. 6. A City of Tigard approved Nonremonstrance Agreement must be recorded by Washington County and returned to the City of Tigard Planning Department before issuance of Building Permits or change of property ownership. 12420 S.W. AAAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 i 1F I WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON December 2, 1980 Mr. Geoffrey Levear 13571 SW 61st Avenue Portland, Oregon 97219 REFERENCE: CONDITIONAL USE; CU 15-80 (Geoffrey W. Levear) NPO #5 LOCALION: 12360 SW Hall Blvd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2Sl 11BC, Tax Lot 900) Dear Mr. Levear: Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Commissicn at their regular meeting of November 25, 1980 approved your request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the "Start Right Day Care Center" by using the adjacent lot. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Project to be subject to Site Design Review for fences, parking, etc. 2. A nonremonstrance agreement shall be made for the improvement of Hall Boulevard for Tax Lots 900 and 1000. 3. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department. 4. No changes will be made to approved plans of specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate City department, avid changes are approved by that depar'tuent. Application for changes :•rill he mzde in writing and shall include applicable drawings. S. Grading and construction plans for all work in public rights-of-way and all other public improvements shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City standards, and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. All public improvements will require a Compliance Agreement and must be (design) approved by the Public Works Department, and must be either (1) fully and satisfactorily constructed prior to the recording of any minor land partition, public dedication, final plat, or issuance of Building Permits; or (2)lbonded to the City for 100% of the estimated cost thereof prior to the recording of any minor land partition, public dedication, final plat, . o r issuance of Building Permits. 12420 S.W. MAID! P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 - CONDITIONAL USE, CU 15--80 Page 2 6. All existing and proposed utilities shall be placed undergrour_a. Street lighting and installations shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 7. All streets and parking areas shall be concrete or asphalt. All sidewalks shall be concrete. 8. No Building Permits shall be issued until the expiration of the twenty (20) day appeal period from the date of approval. 9. A cyclone fence shall be placed around the property with the issue of v4h Eaza ca wlhathcr slats should be instal-led left for resolution at Site Design Review. The Conditional Use Permit shall expire in one year from the date of approval, if the use has not begun and continual progress toward its full .operation is not in evidence. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office at 639-4171. Sincere , Howard anning Director AHvmc NOTA: This acknowledgement must be signed and returned to the City of Tigard, Planning Departap..nt. Failure to return this acknowledgement will result in no further action on this project with regards to issuance of Building Permits or engineering approval. (Signature - Applicant) Date (Signature - owner) Date r The sketch below is made solely for the purpose of assisting in locating said premises and the Company assumes no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions and location ascertained by actual survey. Pioneer National Title Insurance Company ' A TICOR COMPANY 0 tes 1 s 'r• o �?. 700 L +� w 1'37.27 i ¢ 'i ;s> !s E VACATED S.W. p6j x2+sn o is er 157.217LS9 �6>o1s'ko ®�� �J��� i'•1... 'A c ?pqc ` t 600. 1400 qp 1500 t f , 138 V q f.is•M a ,fA • lC$•tkti12 A W 900 ^ 13017 a'. •° 3 .,. , ag>�is'r • CD 1C.S-NCL120331 � A'{• 4 8 e 1600 "-�. -w SEE MIA? 2S I ZAA a 1000 i 100 1700s�rs Y v 1200 5 y O as �$• W W 1800 60 f 3 T F®.., so 2200 .;22Ac. oda 4•s f`i"�iF S � 70 �0 34 SW as�•e sem, -�. 2 0 !a 8 ®P SEE MAP 2401 2S I ZAO s`ti BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON )TICE OF APPEAL File No._(z (A 1 . Name : T'UALATIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. - Vlad Voytilla, Rep. 2. Address : 15300 SW 116th Ave. Street P .O. Box Tigard Oregon 9722j City State Zip Co e) 3. Telephone No. : 639-3101 4. If serving as a representative of other persons , list their names and addresses : S . What is the decision you want the City Council to review? (Examples : denial of zone change ; approval of variance. ) Conditional Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Kneeland Estates Subdivision (CU-23-80) . 6. The decision being appealed was announced by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1981 Date 7 . On what grounds do you claim status as a party? (See Section 18. 92 .020 Tigard Municipal Code. ) Adjacent property owner 8 . Grounds for reversal of decision. (Use additional sheets if necessary. ) Your response should deal with the following: (a) Explain how your interest is damaged. (b) Identify any incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the decision or recommendation from which you appeal . (c) Identify any part of the zoning code or other law which you claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation from which you appeal . (d) Describe what decision you are asking the City Council to make. See attached brief Page 1 of 2 9. Estimate the amount of time you will need to present your argument to the City Council . (The Counc,_1 wi11 ie .sc—h-edutL __ •�� =.ore ��Ldu 1D minutes per side only in extraordinary circumstances . Each side will be given the same length of time for its presentation. ) Signed: , Vlad M. Voytilla Tual- atin Development Co. Date: January 23, 1981 T7 t #t ,r tN7f 77T ##7r#7r##7,#7 ####T4r#-#-- #4#47t717 7 � �f7m FOR USE BY CITY Date and time of filing: Date of Planning Commission decision: i Ae, AT/ Date set for Council consideration: �B, Time allowed for arguments : per side Entered by: Amount paid:_ _'© CS C, Receipt #: Page 2 of 2 Notice of Appeal (503) 639-3101 TUALATIN DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. 15300 S. W. 116th Avenue TIGARD. OREGON 97223 January 26, 1981 Outline brief Addendum to City Appeal Form Notice of Appeal of CU-23-80 before the Tigard City Council . Item 8 - Grounds for reversal of decision. A. As adjacent property owners, our interest is damaged in two areas: 1 . Proposal has a lack of consideration for compatability with existing housing types in area. a) Negative impact on our marketing program. 2. Increased density now approved will add strain to already over crowded traffic circulation in area. B. identify any incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the decision or recommendation from which we appeal : 1 . A conditional element of Commissioner Funk's motion for approval was that traffic analysis would be used to consider permanent access to S.W. Durham Road at Copper Creek to relieve pressure at 92nd and Durham Road. 2. Planning Director has not provided written verification of this. C. Identify any part of zoning code or other law which you claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation from which we appeal : 1 . Neighborhood Plan Organization #6 - Policies 2, 5, 6, S 7. 2. Conditional use process is being used to significantly change character of subdivision and increase density. i I'll I, I wllll D. Describe what decision we are asking the City Council to make: 1 . To review ability of applicant and planning staff to increase density, change housing types, and thereby change character of subdivision through use of Conditional Use Procedure. This change is contrary to N.P.O. /16 policies for urban low density residential zone. 2. To review the effect of traffic from this project, Copper Creek, and Pick's Landing (nearly 400 residences) converging on only two access points on Durham Road. Traffic study is required to consider retaining permanent access to Durham Road at Copper Creek Subdivision_ l MINUTES TIGARM PLANNING C01C1ISS T ON January 6, 1981 Page 6 r a 1 . a on of the pp is ti policy in cases such as this. The motion aas seconded by Funk and carried unanimously. The president at 9:15 declared a five-minute recess. 5+5 CO1U= EHENSIITE PIAN P.EFISION, CPP. 1-80 (CITY OF TI:ARD A70/80 IIUITI-UNIT HO1E FOR = AGED) NPO #1 A request for the Planning Commission and the City Coun-- c1l to review a Comprehensive Plan change L:h�ch would create a specific zone, A70/80PD i'_L+It i-i}fi. t Hoiur For- Mm Aged. Property included would be -bhe property abutting west side of Hall Boulevard, south of E7�cr:_ .:�2 ,:,treet- (Wash. Co. Tax Xap 2Si 2DA, Tax luo is i vG and 400j. Howard read the STAFF R71-PORT and RE+�C:u-IMATTOT"Is Since the city. through the pl � .''� --- �;;. Ap= u ni��-��' \iii ri t•V Vi vi0.� - .���. ri�Ji��.r iM.►JLi CANT'S PRESENT A""0111 was the staff re-nor-t. Howard brimm efly suar- ized the reasMis 2or t is s='a�asa3, wrich _na(i been d:s■-_uss.=d previousl ed ,. - _ _ .•�� •.�.�-.it feds y �• Time *i3r VUVr'-7u v�cnA �v� u _ .;_`vr. financed, together vJith a pha-macy .^.y.:i `ric ti J.G Com;., was presented as a tentative plan for development of -41 au raw zone, PUBLIC TES'r'Is*2O:dY Utas giveni�.1 _n vi i y pat ii,.�Lt iso:3 j Chair- maof NP0 r . e smatt S�� tated the er had been discussed by their NPO and they could see no real objections to it; and since this type of housing is needed, they felt thZs was aL gond place for It. Ann Schramm, 6292 Prealmess ;-,'ay, *est L-Inn, co=ented that while she had -,.4 v�Jvv�i ::ta+.u�..P'es. �.v -0•Ca �.rV�rc+�7 �ia�' felt �.�_-� she should point out that the planta of 'Schramm elastic Fabricators is just to the north, and that it is noisy at times. It will operate sometimes on more than one shift. COM,1ISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: After'-some general commentsamong fEe-commissioners, eller r 0 D the plsnni nc recommend to the ei council thea o tion of Comprehensive '� p mprehensive Paan Revision, CPR 1-80, establishing an A7O/80 Zone on certain desig- nated tax lots west of Hall Boulevard. The motion was seconded by golleas and carried unanimously. � 5.60NDITIONAL USE, CU 23-80 (Z MLAND I AMID Il .ATTACHED \ ,SINGLE FAMILY) NPC x-16 A request by Larry Grayson for a Conditional. Use to MINUSES TIGAP,D pI,ANNIrJG CO.M4ISSION January 6, 1981 Page 7 construct duplex and triplex dwellings in an R-7 "Single Family Residential" Zone located at SW 92nd and Syl Durham Road (Wash. Co, Tax Map 2S1 14A, Tax Mots 400, 5009 and 700). Howard read the STAFF REPORT and RECOP'9,1ENDATIONS illustrating certain points by reference to maps once wwa3" T; af trecounting the history of development over the last 31 years. The APPlichaTtSIESENTATION was made by Garr Petty of Burton Engineer fng an Shur veyors, Tigard Plaza. He- stated he was available to answer Jguestio_�ss. The owner; la,,, mr $946 SW r+ s0s�"r u s S ..vt 3.1 a, and T Tom 2 u {.on of dzitC. c=1Y i••r�X�izg company for the project spoke in favor of the recpue � PUBLIC TE'S^SIMONY in opposition TZIH gaz�_bg-t!=_= 0 r John Dougall, 16445 SW 92nd, prtisen - 4vo .signed by members of seven families living on 92nd opposing the re He expressed the sentiment, heartily seccmde bv- others t3. et the bought into the area fairly recently because it was zoned R-f and they felt they would have the stability of an R-7- come unI they perceived duplexes as a lessers of the suabili tY. Because opposed the conditional use request. He detailed the traffic they already existing at 92nd and Durham during hour, together with heavy traffic to Cook Paall the- mOrming rush four-amonth soccer season. during the *** Timothy Lewis, 16135 Std 92nd, characterized the 800 square foot units as apartments. *** Vlad Voytilla, representative of Tualatin Development Company, questioned the acreage included in density calculations, confirmed by Howard. He was concerned about the density which would result from approval of this request. He discussed the traffic and suggested at the very► least a traffic stu area, cr be made for the # Dave Hunter, 15835 SW Stratford Loop, is building a home In Pick's Landing. He reported the small duplexes- where he lives are almost completely rental properties now. on this basis he is quickly.osed to single family attached--they become rentals rather CROSS-E .kXINATION AND REBU'_L'TAT Gary Petty to objections o e s3.ze �t a un s, stating they haveresnded revisedthe them upward to 3.200 square .feet, but pointed out that is ghat the market these days will support. In response to the issues raised on MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1981 Page 8 traffic, Howard related the current status of Durham Road and plans for iaprovement. He then discussed at some length the pressures, both governmental and economic, which will result in substantially higher density in the Tigard portion and all sections of the Portland metropolitan area. He warned we will have to change our thinning about density, predict-I' Tigard would wave 25,000 residents by the year 2000, and 750 square foot units within three years. There was a general discussion of traffic, density, fencing, -school capacity, degredation of Cook Park and drug abuse there and around the high school. COMMISSION DISCUSSI 'l ANDACTIO=N s Fink. obt-_rw... � ••� __�, __ .. g•ca��o� v1 tl Ct11.L�i �JtS L kCZSl$, and suFg_es 1J4e Ibe den.�Ity , wasuo gr eena L under this proposal. Helmer agreed. After consldezYa'&A3_=- i sion Fmk MOVED approval of Conditional Use CU 2:5-8u az shorwn on Preliminary S to Plan for Kneeland Estates dated 12/17/80, Drawing- No. 1; and approval of single family dwellings only (not attached)4 .on Drawing No. 2, the southern portion of the Kneeland Esta Leff development. (This reduces density by approximately 15 units. ) After further ILIUM discussion the motion was seconded by Helmer an%d Carried unani- mously. 5.7 ZME ORDINANCE A-I]ENT, ZOA 9-80 (CITE' G.-F Ti GARD SIM DESIGN R VIE j A request by the City of Tigard for a Zone Ordinance Text Amendment for Chapter 18.59 Design Review revision. Howard outlined the Site Design Review Ordinance revision and the rationale behind the revision. Speaker raised the general question about whether the provisions calling essentially for aesthetics could give rise to court challenges of decisions made under the ordinance. Howard opined this is always a possibility, but in practice there have been very few challenges. Besides, there is no language possible that would eliminate this possi- bility. PUBLIC TESTIMONY was given by S. B. Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. H'e--o'b3ected tF the provisions of 18.59.061 which author- izes the planning director, If he deems it in the public interest, In effect to secure a second opinion on a complex or unique pro- posal at the applicant°s expense. He termed this a "blank check". Howard illustrated a quite recent example where this authority proved useful in resolving a serious conflict. ,,a-BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. Civil Engineers ® Land Surveyors 302 Tigard Plaza ® Hall Blvd. & Pacific Hwy. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-639-6116 December 17, 1980 Re: Kneeland I and II Conditional Use WRITTEN NARRATIVE We are applying for a permit to construct duplex and triplex dwellings on the above named project that is zoned R-7. This complies with comprehensive �itio-.al, 3w o_T `-n;'..w �w •..v •.�^i ww. Fic.a. i...d �k e��Ziw. it plan for �Ut1u'{.,IJIt� u�+c ■.� .�-. v...ny a for a minimum of 5,000 sg. ft. lot area. This would�be�zero lot line housing with each unit being sold separately. An additional application for minor land partitioning is being filed together with this application to accomplish the zero lot line concept. There is a need for quality housing at affordable oriees in this community which can only be accomplished by these or similar Cc3rseeoLs at toda'S high costs. There is a slight increase in density resulting- in better-utilization of utilities and public services. Very little additional impact will be felt on adjacent sites• or neighborhood activities. This site is nearly developed subdivision designed with the capa- bility of handling these additional dwelling units in both traffic and utility areas. Police, fire protection, schools, parks and transportation can handle the small additional density.{original 82 lots, proposed new 26 additional lots, for a total of 108-dwelling units. , t STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.6 TIGARD PLANNING COCMISSION JANUARY 6, 1981 - 7:30pm FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard NO SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BY APPLICANT SHALL BE MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED TO DO SO. SHOULD THIS OCCUR, UNREQUESTED, THE ITEM DILL BE TABLED 'UNTIL THE FOLLOWING HEARING. DOCKET: CONDITIONAL USE, _CU 23-80 (KNEELAND I AND II) NPO #6 APPLICANT: Larry Grayson OWNER: SAME 8946 SW Barbur Blvd_ Portland, Oregon 97219 REQUEST: For a Conditional Use for attached single family residences*on 10,000 square feet in an R-7 "Single Family Residential" Zone, under Code Section 18.20.020 (1) for Kneeland Estates I and _TI. LOCATION: SW 92nd and :SAT Durham (:wash. Co. 2S1 14A, Tax Lots 400, 500 & 700) PREVIOUS ACTION on June 24, by Ordinance 77-53, Tax Lot 700 (2S1 14A) 18.86 acres was rezoned from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7_ (Reference ZC 12-77 attached) A subdivision application for Kneeland Estates was approved in Mune 1977 for seventy-five (75) single family lots_ (Reference S 13-77 attached) A Zone Change was approved by Ordinance 78-78 on November 27, 1978 for Lot 500, (I-Sl 14A) 1.29 acres from Washington County S-1 to City of Tigard P.-7 "Single Family Residential" Zone. (Reference ZC 21-78 attached) The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use in February 1979 ,to allow the construction of four (4) duplexes on Tax Lot 500 (2S1 14A) . (Reference CU 36-78 attached) This project became known as Kneeland Estates II_ Tax Lot 400 (2S1 14A) has now been included in Kneeland Estates as has Tax Lot 900 to the south above Cook Park. Attached single family units are proposed on Tax Lot 400 - 5 units. ORIGINAL DENSITY - KNEEL.AND I. Seventy-five (75) single family lots, Tax Lot 700. - KNEELAND II. Four (4) duplexes REVISED DENSITY - KNEELAND I. 2 Triplex - 6 Units 21 Attached Single Family (Duplex) - 42 Units 36 15 Attached Single Family (Duplex) - 30 Units - 72 Units 18 Single Family Lots - 18 Units 96 Units i STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.6/CU 23-80 TIGARD PLANNING CO.IMISSION JANUARY 6, 1981 Page 2 REVISED DE14SITY - KNEELAND II. 4 Duplexes - 8 Units Addition - 1 Duplex - 2 Units 1 Triplex - 3 Units 13 Units PROPOSED 109 TOTAL UNITS FOR KNEELAND I AND II_ INCREASE OF 26 UNITS PROPOSED. 20.68 acres minus approximately 25% for public improvements = 15.5 acres for 109 units or 7 units per acre average. I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1_ Current zoning designation is R-7 "Single Family Residential". Section 18.20.020 (1) allows attached single family dwellings or 10,000 square feet in an R-7 Zone as a Conditional Use. 2. The applicable policy from the Tigard Housing Text is the following: Policy 15: Provide greater diversity of housing density (e.g_ , duplexes, four-plex, attached single family units, etc.) _ 3_ Kneeland I has been platted and most of the public improve men tshave been made- 4. ade_4. This application is to increase the density of development in an effort to provide "affordable" housing and strengthen the housing mix in the community_ LCDC Goal #10- 5- Durham Road will be improved as soon as a local improvement district has been formed_ The Public Warks Director indicates that Durham Road will, be phased. - The first phase to be 98th Avenue east to Hall Blvd_ II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. Public facilities are adequate to serve this increased density. 2_ Traffic circulation has been addressed through Copper Creek and Pick's Landing. Durham Road is scheduled for improvement soon. 3. There is an identified public need to provide a diversity of housing types within the community, according to policies set out in the Housing Plan. STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.6/CU 23-80 TIGARD PLANNING COMIM-ESSIOt7 JANUARY 6, 1581 Page 3 4. This request conforms to the conditional use requirements of the R-7 Zone "Single Family Residential" and Urban Low Density Residential designation of the NPO #6 plan_ III- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use with the following conditions: l_ All previous conditions placed upon this development shall be mem_ 2- A City Of Tigard nonremOnstrance agreement for the improvement of Durham Road must be recorded by Washington County and returned to the City of Tigard Planning Department before issuance of Building Permits or change Of property ownership. Nonremonstrance to be recorded as portion of plat- 3. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department. 4_ No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is :Wade to the appropriate City department, and changes are approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings_ 5- Grading and construction plans for all work in public rights-of-way and all other public improvements shall be prepared by a registered Professional engineer in accordance with City standards, and shall be sub;nitte d to the public Works Department for review. All Public improvements will require a Compliance Agreement an d must 9n) approved by the Public Works Department, and must be either (1) fully and satisfactorily constructed prior to the recording Of any minor land partition, public dedication, final plat, or -issuance of Building Permits; or (2) bonded to the cost thereof prior. City for,lOQ$ of the estimated Public dedication, to the recording of any minor land partition, final plat, or issuance of Building Permits. 6. All proposed utilities shall be placed underground. Street lighting installations shall be approved by the public Works Department. 7. All streets and parking areas shall be concrete or asphalt_ All sidewalks shall be concrete_ erd, Pl in g Director r RE GRT1-- . � 5 4 / T:EcAPM FrI'.e_'_?IMM CGrmMI SSIGN S.37 3# 1977 — 7:30 P.I•i. o�•:ler J�i.or 'nigh School - I,ec ttu-e Room x.0863 74alntgt• - Ti-ard3 Ore-on C31 DOCKET: C 12--77` Rr,rJtJSST: To amend theTI-ard zoning ordi ranc a to apply City of Tigard t9R-7, Single Family Residential" zoni-ng to a 18.65 acre recently araiexed parcel currently zoned t ashin-ton County "RS-1, . SubLLrban Residential" ?.flC1�TIGN: '•Test side of S.I3. 92nd -Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Trap 2SI 14A, Tax Lot 700) AFPI,ICAT,TT: r kd E. Po'?ock '.rnves-bments/Ridhar d B raimzrd I. FIi.-MINGS OF FACT: 1 The appycart i s .'eques L?ng the apps= catj of the C16 of ��-- • zoni- - nvdi nano'a to a rec en I1 y an-n ex e (_JanuaSy 18, 1 977) 18.65 acre parcel designated i1yx- ban T.:;tti iZ31S? Rem?c�eil ti-al" Co--.-, P1 �x, 171. on the Tigard Co 2. City of Tigaa-d Ordinance 77_20- (FebruaT-y 23, 197714 directs the o t i-, coed,=_•. 5--*C± -Tr4c-_C4��O as may be nec- PimnnI voo Cosi_-Si ess�; to cto nform the au whorl-'ad zoning and iv�lca uSa o= t}ie --oa-cel to the requirements o_' the Ci V ,s yoninb. map and code. s 3. The applicable policy from the Tigard Corn-mu --ity Plan, 1971, is as •folloW s: a, "Tin over??1' density Of dev cpmen t .gill be four dwelling L2ni-ts or 12 -persons- per gross acre. 1'I-.lS a�et�t t0 a standard of 7300 square feet of land per d,-Yelling unit alloj-Yin=- for streats and other open space. Some areas I-:ill nave a i osier density o- ing -iso topography, exls ti_ng develop- ment patterns, or the .desire of individuals uo a--m- a larger 4. S.Y. 92nd Avenue is designated-.a local street on -the U.-ard Community Plans 1971. 5. R-7 zoning wou?d-permit the folio-Fin- uses: �. Ou1&. •J Sb:IL, permitted: (1) Slagle Family d::ell:Lngs, each on a separately des- _ cribed lot, as. recorded in the County records: (2) Fai-ming, truck gardener g, ore ards, and nurserles, provided no retail or sholesale business sales office is maintained on the pirem?ses and pro- vided that no poultry or livestock, other than nox-mal household pets, are housed or a-yr fenced ' .AT-F REPORT - A G=-Tak 1 5/3/77 ?" pa2 '. _ te.. �. run located ;thi~n one hundred feet of any residence ..� other than the d:;e?ling on -the same 'lot; (3) home occupations, Op ly as strictly defined in Section. 18.08.250. b. Conditional uses: (1) DLTnle. residential, with a MinL1-,wM 10' Si Ze Of 10,000 sop ft. : one duple: per lot (2) bort moorage (3) Cemetaries - (4) Churches and accessoz f uses - (5) Colleges (E) Comsu•izil ty buildings (public) (7) Govern-a+ental structure or lan use. including public park, play. -ounnd, recrea.ion buis.di nJ, l?re Station, 1 i brat-y or mu$e-L=- (a) Greenhouse - - C9) Conditional home use: FoIlo:•ring the procedure set forth- in Chapter 1B.72, a conditional_ home use may be authorized for certain home occupa t-ior_al uses -vzhich do not strictly conform to the criteria set -o::—Lh for "home occupa-tion" as defined in Section 1.8.00.250. It is the �:n tent of this provision to p,..o,�ide the means for reaves t for the City's consideration_ of _ "home occupation" type uses T-rnen special circumstances are present -t?hich the applicant feels deserve thiis consideration. It is the ir_tend: of 'this title -,ha-L-. a 1y ce-m-mercial or indl?s Vr1al operations whIc=,'1 wrould dArdinarsly be conducted ;n. a co=.ercia3 or Indust- raal district, continue to be conducted 1n such d?strict a_lid not at home . ("t r.31 Hnspi ta1, ze ita_ri um+, rest ho*,e, home for the `. - aced, nursin; home or convalescent home (11) Rall-road righ t-of-wray - (12) School: nursery, primary, eler-eil tart', -junior hlgls or senior high, college or u1nlve -psi r, priva te, parochial or publi c ,ORDINANCE No. 77-53 fs TIG—RD, ?G Cl- 5/3/77 _5/3/77 - page 3 (Z S �Li lj ty substation or pLL_'m T1s station jJ'th no equipment s forage and lines :,hich are essen tial L.- t6 zhe fvnc•tioni ng and servi ciP_g of ricsiden tia."± neighborhoods (2.4) Any business, service, .processi*-g, storage or dispyany essential or iricidental to any pe=fitted use in this zone and not conducted entirely wrlth- in an enclosed building (15) Golf course, contry club, private c_uiu (l6) ChI dr•en?s day care _ _ ,-...�. m rr,TT_ �.L• vim'a.`'a.�r 0B S=4m V A-L-L%J_. Die •oarce? is presently occupied by a large =aT-m house aaad out b -112 Ings ...hich are used as a horse r,.c,rg �c de-�y and boarding ;a:ili fro ^he TDajQT'1ty Ci tile' site i s pas i.t�- t:; `;=u�-'3117 �2i y yy, `� e 1 n `}- L7.t�,,dal XI fj:.).i•L1!J=1 1�.11�4 Tip L. �'J_ L.S1 rS orlZe Cs1�`7"t��. �jT O ad.. �eJ the magnitude to . cause�constraints ZOO- t. A sop'I pont e;;-Bts i-n the southern perti_n1'1: tyle Site 1s su.r'rmm- ed 1btr aiv+v�2 �t'li ltT + :•r2��ytlhs on Y-L "e-1 sized 1 o LS on the East, a-in northeast and vacant �.,00ded ±o-s rr, _y_ T?.•" �__.�-- „ and sau nor _ Se'•JC-r is available to handle tthe proposed t'.•.ens3 ty o3? '`this site via a ti-ank lire in S..,!. Durham Rcad. . Access to th- s l;,ae wi11 be provided across ail. ease men's to be fli -n_ished by aimisrter- den_ 31- O L1 V jJVi :•ta ter serVide is avai!'able to ?mac-- T,-tc- t..he -proposed-used- dens_i,y' an this site aria main lines ?n both-S.':'f. Twz-h P.oad and S.W. 92nc�' Avenue. i S.:':. 92nd Avenue is in subste-ndard condition_ and the ir_tro- duction of zox+iag, -which qualified the proper j for 72 hour oo i e units.necesitates. that a Tali' scree c. improvc�c--nt pi-ov_d_as r_ d. YII. CO,:CT.JUS20i?aRy* FiN-DDINGS: e _ 3. There evi sts a. public need to apply Ci t, e-F T_ga_r°d zon ±g to all parcels'Of land in the ci y in order to ease the ac ini s tration of land use regulations? and provide car•- sistency thou:shout -the City. 20 he prc-ocsad R-7 zon:Lna district is co-pati-Ale ?•:3 th the 5,j_ro.tr►rditc zon3..1T' g and con ox_Ms t0 '"Pie ll 3[';ban Law DensIty ( ReEldenti al s policies cf the Tigard Com-mimii� Plan, x•97? i� t`.2at .it l_nits the ma_�.i_*aum overall density to four (45 .La.::*t''ll n- units per acre and �:r=trL 'che attachment, fli 3.pro- .2 _ro- ate condi tions, the adequate provision o f public services to serve the proposed development can be assured. ORDINANCE No. 77-53 TGA.;D p',tjj�+�v-V-TG G01?:ISIEObi ` 5/5/77 - soe 4 IV. sTLF F REMI EM, -M t3OIT: _ Based on the fir -ngs of fact and conclusiona-r-y y'indi-n s, 4-ie 5i ff recon=--lends approval of 'he' req-Lest sub�ec� t0 4j3e find-- i-n-s t-'''-e staff rec;lmends a proval of the request subject to - },e fol to., ms condi t?on: street improvement be provided for S.Y. -92nd Avenue along 'fliis pro-pert-f (2) mine vei er and -water easements be revie::*ed and 2v7Droved by the star= -with any - -subd-ivision activity on t1�s . pr.0-o erty ORDINANCE No. 77-53 ► - STAFF REPORT - FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT .Tune 23, 1977 Tigard City Hall 12420 S.W. Main Street - Tigard, Oregon DOCKET: yrs �-77- REQUEST: To create a. 75 lot subdivision o a R-7 zone, "Single Family Residential,- acre parcel in LOCATION: S.W. 92nd near. Durham Road APPLICANT: Donald E. Pollock Investments I. FINDINGS OF FACT: ? The applicant is re , e T Q.z stinb preliminary plat approval in accordance with SP('.$1 AYf y 7 n tf,o T{.....„� Code to subdivide a 18.65 acre parcel into-r5 Municipal minimum lot size of 7, 5 jO square feet in a u_ fats with 2 west side of S.W. 92nd Avenue, south of Durham Bone on the 2. The site is designated "Urban L the Tigard Community Plan , 1971 and zoned RQsident3aZ" on conditions to the applicati7. Attached as vr� of City zoo zug were the following: (Way 3, 1977) (1} A half street improvement be provided for S .W Avenue along this property 92nd (2) The server and water easements be reviewed and approved by the staff with anY subdivision activity on this Property 3• The applicable policy is as (allows; from the Tigard- Community plan, 1971 a• The maximum overall density of development four dwelling units oxill be r 12 persons per gross acre. This amounts to a standard of 7,500 square feet of . land per dwelling unit allowing for Streets and other open space. Some areas will have a lower density owing to topography, existing Patterns or the desire of individuals development larger lot. to own a 4. Section 17.16.1OO .states that : •rNra tentative plan for a _ tentative plan for a major Partition subdivision and no unless: par'titiOII shall be approved ' i - STAFF REPORT o FINAL ACTION . TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT S 12-77 June 23, 1977 Page 2 a.. Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivision or maps of major par- titions already. approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction, and in all other respects, unless the City determines it to be in the public interest to modify the street or read Pattern. b. Streets and roads held for private use are clearly ' indicated on the tentative plan and all reserva- tions .or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are se-t forth tbereon. The tentative plan co:.pl-Les With Le comprehensive Plan and applicable znr:ing of the City then in effect_ d. No tentative plan of a subd'i v-1 sign or- map of major ra T}3t3or� 5,tall be aPProved unless there will. exist adequate quan.t�:Lty and-. qualsty of water and 2-- ade uatc sewage di sposa..A_ %ystem to support, the proposed use of the land- described in the ,proposed plat . '•,` II _ STAFF OBSERVATIONS 1. The parcel is presently occupied by a large faun house and out buildings which are use.0 as a- horse r ding academy and boarding facility. The majority or the site is pasture, generally flat, with some change of grade in the southern portion but not of the magnitude to cause constraints for development. A small pond exists in the southeastern por- tion of the site. The site is surrounded by single family dwellings on rural size lots oil the east and northeast and vacant, wooded lots on the northwest and south_ A recently approved preliminary plat for a four' lot subdivision (Cos- ton Place) is located to the north. 2. Fater service Is available to facilitate the proposed den- sity on this site via an eight inch line in S_W- 132nd .and a 12_:inch line in Durham. Road. . Access to this line will be provided across an easement to be furnished by an inter- vening property. 3. Sewer is available to handle a portion of the site under a gravity flow system via a ten inch line in Durham Load. STAFF, REPORT - FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPAIi,TMENT S .13-?? . .Tune 23, 1977 Page 3 4 . S.W. 92nd Avenue is in substandard condition, and the in- troduction of zoning which qualified the property for 75 housing units necessitates that a half street improvement be provided. 5. The preliminary plat as submitted proposes to provide sanitary sewer to the site by extending a line 1,300 feet from the Upper Tualatin Sewer Interceptor of the Unified Sewerage Agency. As of this date the Upper Tualatin line has not been built, but bids on construction are tenta- tively scheduled for fall , 1977, with construction sche- duled to commence possibly in the fall or early nexty ear (1978) , depending on weather conditions . As to who would be responsible for extending the lice 1, 300 feet from the interceptor is undetermined, based on information given on the plat. 6. . Storm water outfall along the west and south property lines is shown leaving the site by way of 12 inch storm lines. The State Plumbing Laws and Administrative 1�u1_es states: "Rain, storm, and other surface runoff water drained from roofs, paved areas, courts or court yards shall not be conveyed and discharged to the storm servers or street gutters in a manner which may cause flooding' -,,- adjacent property, streets, alleys or walkways. .• ` ?. An s:inti==b s-ngle f=TM:ily home on Lot 10, at the intersec- tion of 94th and L3artha Place, will remain and be included within the subdivision. $• A 20 foot easement -between Lots 3 and 4 is shown on the . preliminary plat. This easement is intended to provide both access from the Coston Place subdivision immediately to the north, as well as for utility purposes for the pro- posed subdivision. However, an additional five feet of easement between Lots 3 and 4 will be necessary in order to provide- for the continuation of a 24 foot wide driveway from the Coston Place subdivision . - 9. The proposed lotting pattern envisions a continuation of 94th Street, both north and south, and Millen Drive- (west) beyond the plat_ Continuation of these streets through adjacent properties would appear to facilitate the devel- opment of these properties and offer the possibility of eventually developing a connective street system in this area. a Y Cot . .STAFF REPORT - FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT S 13-77 June 23, 1977 Page 4 10. Three landscape islands are shown in the cul-de-sacs of Martha Place, Julia Place, and Millen Place on the site Plan. A maintenance question arises as to who (City or property owners) is to be responsible for maintaining these areas. 11. • Staff .is concerned as to how lots, located in the south- easterly portion of the site, would gain access, to the rear of those lots, as there is presently a 60 by 280 foot pond which bisects these parcels. 12. The adopted 11174 Tigard s�iest.-:'— �_� � i� uattver`es lltwn and the Environmental Design and�upea Space Plan (yet to be adapted) recommends the construction of a bike path facility along S.W. 92nd from Dux-ham< RoaA ta- Cook- Park. 13. IsxIsting facilities along S.W. 92nd (e.g. . Tigard'High School and Cook- Park) and proposed development along this street necessitates improving S.W. 92nd, to collector street standards. The County's "wiuux-collector- stan- dard appears most approprz.ate, necessitating a 36 foot pavement section" on• a 60 foot right-of-way. An additional five feet of right--of-way would thereby be required, .i;or S.W. 92nd. x LIZ. CONCLIISIONARY FINDINGS: 1_ The proposed preliminary plat conforms to the Tigard Com- munity Plan, 1971 in that the proposed lotting pattern is for residential purposes, conforms to the dimensional re- quirements of Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code fzon- ing) , and furthers the collector streets polic=ez of the Tigard-Community Plan, - 1971. 2. With the attachment of appropriate conditions, •access will be available to all lots, and each lot as proposed will. abut a public street. 3. Sanitary sewer is not available to a major portion of the the plat axed would require both the construction of the Upper Tualatin line and extending a local line 1,300 feet to thesite. IV. FINAL, AC'T'ION: STAFF REPORT - FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING, DEPARTMENT S 13-77 June 23, 1977 Page 5 4 The preliminary plat for "Kneeland Estates" is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Five feet of right-of-way along S.W. 92nd be dedicated for street purposes. 2. A half street improvement for S.W. 92nd from the north plat boundary to the southern terminus of the plat be con- structed to County "minor-collector" (36 foot pavement and 60 feet of sight-of-way) street standards, with an eight foot sidewalk for pedestrian bicycle path purposes, delet- Ing the sidewalk requirement for Tax Lot 802, if additional right-of-way cannot be obtained from the property owner. 3. Street plugs be provided for the north and south terminus of 94th Street and western terminus of Millen Drive. 4. A street barricade be constructed at the northern terminus of 94th Street. 5. Deed covenants be attached to Lots 3-8, 14-20, and 26-30 for purposes of prescribing responsibility for maintenance of the ladnscape islands to be located in the cul-de-sacs. 6. A landscape plan for the cul-de-sac islands will be sub- mitted for design review approval . 7.' To assure that the Oregon State Plumbing Speciality code and Administrative Regulations as they pertain to storm water discharge are met , either a storm water retention plan shall be submitted subject to Public Works Department approval or agreements will be made with adjacent property owners to accept any additional storm water outfall that would occur as the result of development on the site. S. No final plat will be recorded for any lots within the pre- liminary plat boundary until such time as public sewer ser- vice is available to the lots in question . The intent is to permit construction of the subdivision concommitant with the construction of the Upper Tualatin Interceptor Sewer but to assure that no lots will be sold until sewer service is physically available. 9. A 25 foot easement through Lots 3 and 4 be recorded for access and utility purposes. << 10; Fire hydrants be placed as per Tigard Water District and City of Tigard regulations . STAFF REPORT - FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLIANNING DEPARTMENT S 13-77 June 23, 1977 Page 6 11. Permits be obtained from Washington County for street im- provement purposes on S .W. 92nd. 12. The sewer and water easements necessary to bring these fa- cilities to the site be reviewed and approved by staff. 13. To assure access is provided to the pond and rear portions of bots g7-52, cross easements be recorded for these areas_ The easement would be for a triangular shape area with the following dimensions: Commencing at the southeast property- line- of Lot 49 and proceeding in a westerly direction ??n fAPt along the south property lines of Lots 47, 43, and 49, then in a northeast direction 400 feet to the nor-thec one25 of Lot 52, then back along the east property line et to the southeast corner of Lot 49. (These measurements are an approximation taken off the preliminary plat. ) 14. Five foot easements be provided adjacent the property lines ll uVJii 11 .s -1-7 PurPoscs ' L Richard Bolen Planning Director STAFF REPORT C .2� AGEL'14DA 5 . 4 .TIGARD PLANNING COYii?ISSION October 17, 1978 7: 30 P.M. Fowler Junior High - Lecture Roar.: 10365 S.W. Walnut St. - Turd, Oregon Docket: Zone Chance-21- r� Request. For a. zone riap amendment from Wash. Co. s-1 "Single Family Dwelling" to City R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone for a 1.29 acre parcel. Location: 9330 S.W. Durham Road, 200 feet west -of 92nd (Trash. Co-. Tax Map 2S1 14A, Tax Lot 500) . Applicant: DONALD POLLOCK i. Findings of Fact: i. The site has recently been annexed into the City_ 2. There exists a need to assign City zoning to annexed parcels. 3. The proposed . zoning is in conformance with the NPO #6 Plan designation as "Urban Low Density" (one single family unit per 7,500 sq_ ft.) . 4. The site is relatively flat with a single family unit on the subject property. S. The surrounding land uses are single fam l�, residences to the north across Durha.:m� Rd_ , and to the east. Agricultural land to the West and south. 6. The site development will link up with an 8-inch Pressure line off the trunk line of the existing U.S.A. sewer line serving the residences north a the subject property. ~� 7. dater will be supplied by an 9-inch Tigard Water District line from the existing 12--inch trunk line on S.W, Durham Road. 8. Southwest Durham Road is designated a residen tial arterial road in the NPO v6 plan, With a necessary- right-of-way 90 feet. The purpose of an arterial street in NPO #6 Plan is as follows: "To- carry high volume traffic flow and to connect major traffic generating areas such as residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, industrial areas i and nearby communities" . STAFF REPORT �- AGENDA 5 .4 TIGARD PLEA 4LNING COMMISSION October 17. 1978 Page 2 9. Public access from the site will be onto S.W. Durham Road. S-W. Durham .road is presently under County jurisdiction. x�. Conclusioiiary Findings: 1. The right-of-way along S.W. Durham Road is inadequate. Twenty-five additional feet- Is necessary to bring the:.right-of-way up to the standard required by the Comprehensive Paan and Washington County_ rncasr+ti �_:v_' cs�hctanr3agr�E condition with no curbs ax- sldewalk. - Ill. Staff Recommendations. Staff recommends approval subject to the Following conditions: 1. That 25 feet of right-af—ay along S.W. Durham Road he dedicatF-d to t}ie City aril-fir half street improvements installed prior to County recording of the final plat. •, "• 2. -That the developer subs uit coicsi:ruction and site drainage plans to be' .approved by the City Engineer and Building Departments prior to issuance of permits. 3. That all. utilities be .subsurface installations. � u 36 -`�� - ----- STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.6 TZGpum PLANK' ING COMMISSION { February 6, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Roam 10865 S.1'. Walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon Docket: Conditional Us CU 36-78 (Ref.: 2C 21-78-Y-Applicant. Donald E. Pollock Owner: Donald E. Pollock Location: 4330 S.W. Durham Road (wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 14A, Tax Lot 500) . Request: Conditional use permit to build duplexes in an R-7 "Single Family residential" sone an a 1.29 acre parcel.. of Facts 2. The site is designated "Urban Low Density Residential" on the NPO #6 vlan and is presently zoned R-7 "Single Family P.esidential". 2. The applicant proposes to create three duplex lots (min. 10,000 sq.f't.) One lot will have a minimum 7,500 square feet for a single family residence and maintain an existing single f---!ly residence with the re;uired 7,500 square foot lot. There will be a to'' al of five units. 3. The Npo #6 Plan requires no more than four units per acre_. Therefore, 1.29 acres times four equals 5.16. The applicant is _16 of a unit below the maxi=um use in this zone. 4. Section 18.20.020(1) of the Tigard Municipal Code permits "Duplex residential with a minimum lot of 10,000 square fee`_ one duplex per lot or two single family attached units with a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet per unit." in the event it appears that it is not practical to divide a legal lot into two lots of 5,000 square feet each, the Planning Director may approve the division notwi.thstand inci the fact that one lot is less than 5,000 square feet, provided, however, that no such lot shall be smaller than 4,250 square feet_ S. The applicable policy from the Tigard Rousing text is the following.- policy ollowingsPolicy 1S: Provide greater diversity of housing density (e.g_, duplexes, four-plea, attached single family units, etc.) . 6. The site is relatively flat with a single family unit on the subject property. The surrounding land uses are townhouse residences to the north across Durham Road, and single family residences to the east and south, and agricultural land to the west. STS REPORT AGENDA 5.6 - TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - Febzmary 6, 1979 - 7--30 P.M. Page 2 7. Public access from the site will be onto S.W. Durham Road. i Southwest Durham Road is designated a residential arterial road in the HPO #6 Plan, with a necessary right-of-way of g0 feet_ The purpose of an arterial street in NPO #!6 Plan is as follows: `Th carry high volum traffio flow and to connect major traffic generating areas such as residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, Industrial areFs and nearby communities% �. FoUcy 7 of the NPCP #6 Plan states: tlthin the urban low-density residential area, allow. duplexes on Sots less appropriate for single family homes to include locations at street intersections, adjacent major tin as- hafgre-rs between Imul tl-ixznmd l y =1 9. 'The site development will link up with an S-inch pressure Zine off the trunk line Of the ev_s¢+ U_ S_ x.- se.. ..-'a --�-.�. tbos raweaces north of the subject property. 10. Water will be supplied by an 8-inch Tigard Water District line frac the existing 12-inch trunk line on S.w. Durbam Road. TT_ Conclusionary Findings.- 1. indings:1. The proposed duplex units will provide the bufferi.rul effect between the arterial thoroughfare (S.W_ Durham Road) and the single family residences adjacent south of the pr--perty_ 2. . The duplexes will be continuing the housing type characteristic similar to those townhouses located north across S.W. Durham Road. 3. Public se vice facilities'are adequate to permit the higher density development. . 4. There is an identified public need to provide a diaersi.ty 'of housing tyi=s within thecommunity, according to policies set out ir► the Housing Plan. S. This request conforms to the conditiaral .use requi euntenzts of the R--7 zone (Single Family Residential) and Urban Low Density Residential designation of the NPO #6 Plan. ITT. Staff Recommendations: Staff rec==ends approval subject to the following conditons: 1. That 25 feet of right-of-way along S.W. Durham Road be dedicated to the City with half street improvements installed prior to County record:ng of the final plat. r - MEN S . ,:TP-FF REEPORT AGENDA 5.6 - TIGA.D P"", ING COZ-MISSION February 6, 1979 - 7:30 P.M_ Page 3 2_ That the developer Submit construction and site drainage plans to be approved by the City Engineer and Building Departments prior to issuance of permits- .3. That all utilities be subsurface installations_ Q. That no access be permitted onto S.W. Durham Road_ Report prepared by: Ken. Selby reviewed by-- Aldie Sawa.rd Associate City Planner Planting Director Febuary 2, 1979 February 2, 1979 f t/4 sec ca* e V3 ®EGIN CFL 2075 S W 1a3 21e.1 SD .92 �n Ta-09!!2 1 r 6OO i� saOw�e. �ras.o 312,2,*83 30� i 1 ' ><:� s p 0'4 -305 m.,gam e 100 ®(t•S.No.12TS4)) o A. n ® m Y10. u _ g 40 $ aids€ ..th o P V /L / V 23 to �B3A p J - dl3S_ ti S7 ! i a ' 9 o A � E m fill 9 S( C . 13,834 i m 0 2t �i �v —t v Y TA Z ;• m 9 C ham' COR 3"AV$W ast t�ss � 902 v iQ 'E'9.9T ••J 22 3 I��1Sl.O sC':�' _ COO � 904 Ob _._ _ 23 as a/ - �--�� Spm• ���-u✓��Z A,� -j Avoid Verbal Messages " CITY OF TIGARD To:_ OF POT.T f F. From:r_ DOR T S HART _G Subject:_ OLCC Liquor Application Date:! February 6 1981 _ Please investigate and have recommendation ready for February 23, 1981 Council meeting. Peabody' s Pies & Sandwiches of Tigard 13620 S .W. Pacific Hwy Tigard, Oregon 97223 Type of application: Retail Malt Beverage - New Outlet / 1 �Q GO/its( K...P c.E�/ " !.�'/�✓�/L/Cz Avoid Verbal :Messages CITY OF TIGARD To: —CHIEF OF POLICE From :- DORIS HARTIG Sub j ec-i- ULCC RENE14AL APPLICATION Date : January 30, 1981 PLEASE INVESTIGATE AND HAVE RECOMMENDATION READY FOR FEBRUARY 23, 1981 COUNCIL MEETING. TOWN TAVERN 12370 S.W. Main Tigard, Oregon Type of application: New Licensee - Retail Malt Beverage X em 0 Avoid Verbal Messages t='' CITY OF TIGARD ca-_ CuTFF F _Q POLICE From: DORIS HARTIG m _�._. Subject:_ OLCC RENEWAL APPLICATION Date:_ FEBRUARY 10 , 1981 Please investigate and have recommendation ready for February 23 , 1981 Council meeting. SHAKEYS 11475 SW Pacific Hwy Tigard, Oregon 97223 Type of application: Restaurant r- Avoid Verbal Messages CITY OF TIGARD To: CHIEF OF POLICE. From:_ BORT, HARTIG Subject: OLCC RENEWAL APPLICATION Date:_ February 4, 1981_ Please investigate and have recommendation ready for February 23, 1981 Council meeting. GAFFER'S PUB 206-207 Tigard Plaza Tigard, Oregon Type of application: Dispenser Class A - Greater Privilege / �n -27 MEMORANDUM February 11, 1981 TO: City Administrator FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Caffer's Pub Liquor License Amendment Recommendation RE: Classification Change: RMB (Beer and Wire Dispenser) License to Class A (Distilled Spirits, Beer and Wine) Dispenser, a greater privilege license Sir: T1 L" iiC.ciaSc iS to .^. , be ^ Februaryidered by City Council On February ?Z 19$1; and whereas this is a greater privilege license, I will recommend approval if the app .-Lcant agrees to one condition. The applicant in the case is planning to remodel the existing facility dependant upon approval of the Class A License by the City and O.L.C.C. The remodeling plan proposes to retain the pool room, if the City does not object; and further, if there is an objection to the pool room facility, they would convert it to a banquet dining use. Therefore, it is my recommendation that this Class A License be approved on the condition that the .pool room be deleted and converted to a banquet dining facility. R spectfully, `--- R.B. Adams Chief of Police RBA:ac cc: (1) to O.L.C.C. with application (2) to James K. Neill, Jr., Attorney 1600 ORBANCO Building 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 N P O P_ P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAME -ZT0_u.a �. Swni--5 ADDRESS 6e3o S a3ny.rp 2D TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus. ) 1020- leo rt6o8 (Res.) (o3r._q.tg4 PRESENT OCCUPATION yVlP2 FIRM NAME Swtt_-rco \u� a HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRK? f--1 IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? 4t_ 5 HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? YES IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: 1461_-e.4 �Oaa w°S N QD (l�_Ad 11 a N A. {4fi��4 f TALC fe W_tA C_%40• -3 Sw "12.N� A4� y gal t►»%tcaAJG,E CO i(!,allGauW WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? 010yagz--Y ow w14t 41a S'tDrL•cGt %ICk _o 1 aJ epM —I" 17.1 f,,j L•:Aofut.SN•O w� coo P:eddn��>'- A'l-,\�/ t)2 C-.o 13'T Ci=itSPai G-nv C_ �aiy,L.T`t Tv Pala 0& ya-Oa,i. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: llVwvu) as P vt'" Fa. L cIDaawwau ., a:v A.ao a'u pn-0 e t3a A OA+L: oc IT- t L,a & T%4r, VLovu: awt AL . ICAs of 1uy n�t�twl�er d\tutS C_aTt E.RGaca QLS. \ a...e ov- i taxa a+3O �� lA<`�La,w6 .T S Ga'f�in�L Ac NaG•i� of Cm aan.w_oy Cw QL4_ DAYTIME. TELEPHONE NUMBER (_10- 16o'7 �08 N P O A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ— mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhor_d opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAME John W. HAVERY ADDRESS 15970 SW 76th Ave., Tigard, OR 97223 TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) Salem: 373-8421 (Res. ) 639-2042 PRESENT OCCUPATION Specialist, Vocational Education FIRM NAIME Oregon Department of Education HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? Seven years_ IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? No HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? Yes IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: Member and former chairperson of NPO #5 WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? Experience- I have served on this NPO since it's inception. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER 1-800-452-7813 Ext. 88421 N P O A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAME WALTE)c_- J /Z ADDRESS Z2- C-V'1J>0L--1t::-R �>2 LA✓,G oSu_/E�0 c� 7034- / TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) .Z2¢ — 17$ '7 (Res.) 63S 6 - 2 G 7 PRESENT OCCUPATION E&0NyA115T a, CD­'TI F1Ct:; F(tJ%rJQA(_ T-L-ADJaJ0Q FIRM NAME SELF- t^�P��Yf t� iN�E �t��r; co►�vzAcTo f` HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? Ic16 7 IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? T I'SA,eD a� HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? LAKC IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: )q-�s - 7 6 LHA,re,'ANi CI_Y OF LAKE o5: l GO'S P2GGECT pot—c'( T2l=AJUkE+c� P�EbEVEL���Et>1T vF yal� pSwcv7C, WC, �" (l'CLi) IniC." ALFI<eD F. S"A,J rN3>ti, OrADUA-tE. Fer-LeW In% ��Vt�n1�.nETrr MAN.>GE.NIF]�rT' �!q3y-40 ) WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? BALANCED V IETIS G(J 0A2N1Gnl i7,NG GFCWTtt W TH EA].1112otJ(1AeTVT- ;A4A KAS pwNED HEAL ESiA-F_ IrJ OVI'H/w1 nrA+cD A2E4 51NE-C L-AI,�E O5Wc�C �g2EA SINGE �8�{-�. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER 2241- - (-7P'� (24 - H2 sC(�u1cE> S i t -5 A vt•, LAVE 0swE6o 97034- MCEIVE® .JAN 22 i98i N P O A P P L I C A T I O N C 1Y OF TIGARD QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining CiLy prio~:ties for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE CO'.1P1PLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAME ��/�,c ��'ICL'i� ADDRESS �7 --- J"" L�"crK G � � !G� " G 3�" TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) (Res.) S7" S" PRESENT OCCUPATION FIRM NAME HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM?_ IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? { HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BiFORE? "('e IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? '7L f ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER G ?� - ! Za MEMORANDUM TO: METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND INTERESTED PARTIES FROM: JACK R. NELSON, CHAIRMAN DATE: FEBRUARY 4 , 1981 RE: SCHEDULE OF EVENTS The following is basically a reprint of the schedule from the RFP of dates of significance. It is the approximate timetable for soliciting and evaluating proposals for the cable system franchising process. It is important for Commission members to realize that each jurisdiction needs to coordinate meetings of their respective councils or commissions er eep on schedule. For example, between February 4 nd March 4 , 1981, ach member government will need to meet to: 1) stucy e oint RFP; 2) determine whether to stay with the Commission ; and 3) assuming the decision is to stay, to take whatever steps deemed necessary to formalize that decision (such as a motion or resolution) . In addition, there will obviously be a need for additional meetings of the Commission. For example, on March 4 , 1981, it appears the Commission (the remaining members) should meet and formally adopt the RFP and commence getting it out to interested parties. There certainly will be other meetings of either the Commission or the governing bodies of each jurisdiction when the time comes for award of franchise. Each jurisdiction will need to schedule meetings in conjunction with the selection of a franchisee. Each jurisdiction, assuming it desires to continue to be part of the "big picture" , will adopt as its own a franchise agreement with the successful applicant. ' Therefore , with the understanding that this is by no means a complete schedule for all future Commission or member governing t body meetings, the timetable for significant events is as follows : 1. February 4 , 1981 Commission held public hearing on RFP - document as amended will thereafter be printed. 2. March 4 , 1981 Official RFP is advertised. 3. June 1, 1981 Deadline for submission of Proposals at 12: 00 noon to office of Jack Nelson, Commission Chairman. 4. June 2-5 , 1981. Distribution of Proposals to Board, consultants and public. 5. June 2- July 14 , 1981 Individual Board member study of Pro- posals and preparation of recommenda- tions based on evaluation procedures. Consultants will aid Board members and governments during this period. Con- sultant will perform independent review and evaluation. 6 . July 14 , 1981 Consultant (s) evaluation is published. 7 . July 29-Aug. 14 ,1981 Commission meetings with consultants present and interested parties invi- ted. Opportunity for brief presenta- tions from cable companies and to respond to questions, if any, from Board and consultants. 8 . Aug. 15-31, 1981. Initial Commission hearing to select prospective franchisee. MEMORANDUM - page 2 6-. 9 . Final version of franchise agreement is prepared. 10 . Formal franchise agreement adoption process begins for member governments. As can be seen from the schedule, it is necessary for Commission members to see that their respective jurisdictions take the neces- sary steps to keep the process orderly. In order for the Commis- sion to meet the above timetable, individual members will need to keep things rolling at their end. Be sure to schedule as many work sessions or agenda items as necessary to keep your elected officials and staff fully informed, so they will be comfortable with making future decisions when necessary. i MEMORANDUM - page 3 A_a� CITYOFTIOrAM WASHINGTON COU14W,OREGON February 19, 1981 Mrs. Lilian Ashley 9585 sw O'Mara Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 REFERENCE: Home For The Aged A70/80PD L!---_ Dear P]r^. is5aticy. please allow me to comment on your letter in the February lie 1981 issue of the Tigard Times. ?'he first proposal for a home for the aged came to us in October, 1980- :7PO #1 had several meetings with Staff and the applicant, and eventually the Planning ConuuLssion approved the Conditional Use in the R-7 Single Family Residential Zone. The structure was reduced to two stories and included 76 units. One y.,.. F li,1-^^ W--iit. At the public hearing0-9 1 the maj �%'.�.��+`-:iS W3S size of +• i the applicant clearly pointed out to the Commission that 250 square feet or living space per unit was adequate to meet the needs Of the prospective inhabitants. All support faci3ities such as dining room, lounge areas, craft areas, laundry and kitchen were included +*nth separute facilities for a caretaker. The Tualatin Rural Fire ProtectiC-21 DePaf�.,.. ice= •tel met: with Staff and the applicant- The building will be sprinkled and t-ao elevators will be provided. The need for parking was addressed and a Sensitive Lands Permit was approved for a small amount of parking in the floodplain. I have included a copy of. the final conditions placed upon this development for your review. (Conditional Use, CU 13-80 dated December 2, 1980) The major question of density still remained in my mind even after the Planning Commission's approval_ Under the Code, although it does allow homes for the aged as a ConcUtional Use Ln a Single Family Zone, density was never addressed. Access, parking, building height, support facilities, fire-life-safety issues, etc. were not addressed either. Obviously, I had learned a great deal about facilities of this nature from this experience. Then Mr. Sturgis proposed a major development just to the north of this parcel upon which he proposed to construct a larger complex. I felt that we should address the issues in ordinance form to guide this development and other similar facilities in the future. There were two options - either T draft the Comprehensive Plan Revision, or Ear_ Starg. do i.t. I felt that S could establish the general perimeters of this =lopment more in tune with NPO #1 cOncer_as, housing requicements, fire-life-safety issues, etc. 12420 S.W. AIN P.O. SOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Pte: 634-4171 M Mrs. Lilian Ashley - page 2 So I did the Staff Report and signed my name as applicant for the City of Tigard. No fee was charged to Mr. Sturgis, although as you know he agreed to pay it at the City Council level and it became a part of Ordinance 81-04. He was also conditioned to make park improvements along Fanno Creek_ Lander the Systems Development for Parks Ordinance, Mr. Sturgis will pay to the City $60.00 per living unit_ 303 + 74 = 377 X $60.00 = $22,620.00 just for park development. This is above the amount of work that the Council demands at the final hearing. Obviously this money is added to the monthly rent that- you hatyou and I will pay for a unit when we reach 70 years old. Note that the height restriction an enclosed Ordinance 81-04 is 85 feet. This is in error. The 85 feet just refers to Tax Lot 702, the f--xst project. The enclosed "draft" ordinance for A70/80 states. that the height (for the second structure oa Tax Lot 4001# shall be 8 stories or 3-20 feet whichever is less. While you have this draft in your hand, look at Section 18.25.060 for NPO involvement. Also note that this proposal must be reviewed by the Plannl=g Commission and City Council as a Planned Development. ';hese are import'- considerations and I added them to ensure your (citizen) participation. in about thirty days, Mr. Sturgis will apply for a Preliminary Plan Review for the development of a 303 unit home for the aged an Tax Lot 400_ This proposal .ill be presented to the NPO #1 membership for comments. INPo rl will review the draft of A70/80PD on February 24th_ This ordinance will go to the Planning Commission on March 3, 1981 for public hearing_ It will then be presented to the City Council in ordinance form for final approval_ Just a few more comments and we will end this little episode for the moment. You mention the "quality of development" in your letter_ "Quality of development" Is a very personal thing. We called federal agencies, state and local agencies and others asking about standards, living space areas, parking requirements, fire-life-safety issues, etc. Just to give you an example of what we found: - w1der than average doors - bathrooms with rails by tuts and toilet - fiberglass shower, no step - supports for counters - contrasting paint - 1 parking space per four (4) or six (6) units - recreation areas minimum mgym+ - "There is no minimum square footage requirement or 1 bedroom/efficiency apartment mix." (HUD) - "We prefer no two bedroom units." (HUD) - "We consider the following: sewer, water, transit, medical facility proximity, shopping, senior center location, minority and low income issues, assisted housing opportmity, vacancy rates, soils, slope, noise, £loodplaln,air and water quality." (METRO) See the enclosed entitled "Special Use Residential Criteria" for further "specifics!`. M.-s. Lilian Ashley - page 3 Mgr. Sturgis is seeking Federal assistance for this pm]ec-t• The "red tape' involved is that exercise may scramble him permanently. I am sure that the pr a�il1 be reviewed relative to all of the issues involved with these facilities. Now look back at my Staff :Report of January 6, 1981. Look at -the area. Look at the cr3.teria for development_ P.emember the NPO #1 process built in, and the planning Commission and City Council review. Axe you .really dissatisfied with our efforts to consider all of the issues related to thl-s ProPosalp. I . think that are are performing quite well under the circumstances. we even looked at the Mali. t of gall Boulevard, the possible installation of a. traffic signal at Burnham and a turn-out for Tri-Piet onsite. I have a .feeling that eight stories in my backyard. icsiy ,:iajG� iso ....a. �7 t n•F 4-'h4 L will support the construction of this facility because it is needed, is in an appropriate location, and will serve a seasneat Of. this nonulati.on into which 1•ou and I are being Propelled at a very rapid rate. This better is being sent to each mem�her of NPO #l, each Planning Commissioner, and each member of the City Council. If you have furUier questions, please contact me. Yours truly �gmfplr AHvmc encls. AGING IS WHEN :..the gleam in your eye is from the sun hitting your bifocals ...your little black book only contains -tfames-dAaing in M.D. .Q.you get winded playing chess :..your children start to look middle age .*.You still chase . . women but can't remember why :..a dripping faucet causes an uncontrollable bladder urge ...you look forward to a dull evening at home ...your favorite part of the news paper is "25 Years Ago..Tbday" - ­you turn out the light for ,economic reasons rather than romantic - �._ycu sit in a rocking chair and can't get it started ...your knees buckle but your belt will. not ...dialing long distance wears you out ...the best part of your flay is over when the alarm goes off - ...your back goes out more than you do ...yobu have more room in your house and not enough room in the medicine L eiii-ii �► e zoning standard of living, especially if fpd9 rat To the editor: funding is helping to finance such prot- ects. The City of Tigard. has adopted a l have a lot of questions. new zone, "high-rise multi-unit A/70- What quality of lifestvie does a high 80 PD. Designed to accommodate con- rise offer senior citizens? Is the fire i struction of up to an eight-story build- department _hle to safely an ing, the new zone is called a"home for eight-story building? Who- would nay the aged zone_" for the irnprvvements of ;,--:.--- nno The reason for the new zoning ap- Creek Greenwav% __, ' pears to be to comply with Land Con- These are questions which should be servation and Development Commis- answered! -cion and Metropolitan Service District Lilian Ashley rules. The new zone has been ap- 9535 SW O'Kara St- proved- Tigard A skyscraper nestled on the shores of beautiful Fanno Creek next to the quiet country road of SW Hall Boule- vard.An eight-story,303-unit home for, the aged on a 4.8-acre site, which also includes a medical clinic and mini-mar ket The average size of these apartment units are 250 square feet, which is smaller than most motel units. There are minimal parking spaces because most senior citizens don't drive or have a•company. Why was Neighborhood Plannin • - Organization (NPO) 1 not allowed. to gather or give input on-the entire pro- posal as stipulated under city ordi- nance?Why did Tigard Planning Direc- tor Aldie Howard apply for the zone change and not the owner of the prop- erty Mr. Sturgis?And why wasn't Mr. Sturgis required to pay the zone change application filing fee like every other developer is? Already approved next to this property is a 74-unit home for the aged on 1.6 acres. Everyone is aware of the desparate need of special affordable housing for the aged.We will all someday be senior citizens. My concern is that the com- munity of Tigard, particularly the sen- for citizens, have an opportunity to voice an opinion about what quality of housing is available to them: They should certainly be entitled to artiv.1,