City Council Packet - 08/09/1983 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
{ SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate
AUGUST 9, 1983, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,
DURHAM TREAMENT PLANT ask to be recognized by the Chair. Non-agenda
HALL BLVD. & DURHAM RD. items are asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less
and are heard at the discretion of the Chair.
I
I. SPECIAL MEETING:
1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance t
1.3 Call To Staff, Council & Audience For Non-Agenda Items Under Open r
Agenda f
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS & DEVELOPMENT CODE - PUBLIC HEARINGS
i
(Continued from 8-8-83 meeting)
o Public Hearing Opened
o Summation by Planning Department
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Staff Response
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by Council
a
3. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair
under 1.2 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to
contact the City Administrator prior to the meeting.
4. ADJOURNMENT i
i
a
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST9, 1983
(lw/0316A)
T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 9, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors: Tom Brian (leaving
9:03 PM), Kenneth Scheckla (arriving 8:40 PM) and Ima Scott;
City Staff: Doris Hartig, City Recorder; Bob Jean, City
Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning &
Development; and Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel.
2. CALL TO STAFF, COUNCIL & AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA
o City Administrator requested Resolution 83-75 Sale of City Property
be added to open agenda.
3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT CODE (Continued from 8-8-83
meeting)
o Mayor Bishop Open Public Hearing and asked for public testimony.
o Public Testimony
(a) Jim Miller, 12918 SW 63rd Place referred to Section 18.111.020
and noted the conflict with respect to parking spaces of
9 feet and 9'10". He noted the Planning Commission had voted
for 9'6". He spoke to the range of parking space regulations
in the area and recommended for regular cars the size be 9' x
18' and for compact cars 8'6" X 15' . He also commented on the
landscaping requirements of 20% in 18.120.180 and felt the
standards were too high. He recommended 15% on landscaping
excluding sidewalks/walkways.
(b) J. B. Bishop, Suite 303, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. , Portland spoke
to the following items: Section I, page 3, 18.16 A & B
pre-existing approvals, he questioned interpretation or code.
City Attorney responded permits without physical action on the
ground is not enough. Section A - if granted prior to
adoption of ordinance, permits are allowed under the code.
B - anything other than P.D. and the application reviewed by
the Planning Director will be subject to approval. Attorney
noted this is a policy issue for Council to decide. The issue
is of how many permits does Council want to allow. Planning
Director noted the Planning Commission recommendation on the
errata sheers. Consensus of Council was the initial life of
the permit should control the length of the permit.
o Section III-21 - 18.48-030 requested definition of "public
support facilities". Staff referred to page III-5. Suggested
this item be cross-referenced.
PAGE 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 9, 1983
o Section III-39 - 18.62.060 A thru E. spoke to front and side
yard setbacks. Spoke to the issue of dissimilar zoning
requirements for setbacks.
0 18.62.050 - 20% landscaping requirements - felt requirements
too high.
(c) Kevin Hanway, 15555 SW Bangy Road, Lake Oswego - 18.50 (B-23)
recommended 7000' lots vs 7500' lots, feeling they were more
economical to develop and for purchase.
Discussed III-32. R-40 zones - suggested it will not develop.
IV-4 P.D. - the distinction between developing areas and
established areas and the requirements of P.D. , suggesting
provide for developing without the use of P.D.
V-3 - methods of density transferring provisions.
Requested explanation (18.92.030) what is buildable lands?
Recommend eliminate word "unbuildable".
COUNCILOR BRIAN LEFT 9:03 P.M.
(d) Carl Johnson, 6155 SW Bonita Road, discussed setbacks and
requested Council consider C.P. zone in same light as other
areas.
III-41 regarding setbacks in NPO #4, he addressed the problems
of conversion of lots from residential to commercial.
(e) Dick Sturgis spoke to aesthetics for residential and
commercial property in III-44 and discussed the issue of
setback requirements for CBD zone and feels it is inequitable
to the commercial zone. He suggested some flexibility and let
SDR determine according to plan.
COUNCIL RECESSED 9:20 PM and RECONVENED 9:45 PM
(f) Mr. John Nelson, President of Universal Satellites in
Beaverton addressed VII-38, 18.139.050 and explained the
technicalities of satellite communications and how it relates
to restrictions in the code. He suggested before the code is
adopted they have an opportunity to review. Council, Nelson
and staff discussed various aspects of locating television
discs in yards.
(g) Bob Bledsoe representing NPO 3 commented on their memo to
Council dated August 6, 1983 discussing each recommendation.
i
(h) Bill Cox, 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. , Portland, representing Robert
Randall Co. discussed the CBD zone transition problems. City
Administrator suggested the Mayor be authorized to form a
committee consisting of a mix of viewpoints to look at the
problems and return with recommendation to Council. Consensus
of Council was to go ahead with Committee. Cox also commented
on the 7000'/7500' lots suggesting there was no benefit to
7500' and applied the concept of compact growth.
(i) Herman Porter, 11875 SW Gaarde Street addressed Bob Bledsoe's
comments regarding NPO 3's recommendation. He also addressed
the home occupation restrictions and exceptions for standards
for street widths.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO AUGUST 29, 1983, 7:30 PM — FOWLER JR. HIGH SCHOOL
o Director of Planning and Development commented staff would prepare an
errata/summary sheet of the public testimony for Council
consideration at the August 29, 1983 Council meeting.
4. o Council did not act on Resolution No. 83-75 Sale of City Property.
5. MEETING ADJOURNED 11:10 PM
G u �
C �- 1 a �• E
City Recorder — City of, �i� i
k
ATTEST:
. - City of Tigard
r
t
f
t
(DH:pl/0398A)
i
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice 7-6173
BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising 4UG CE�V�O
r
• • ElTearsheet Notice C I J 19,93City of Tigard OF j/GA
® P.O. Box 23397 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit R�
Tigard, Oregon 97223
• e
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
1, Riisnn Pinkl P3
being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193-020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Legal Notice
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
August 4, 1983
AL
St6scribed and s to before me this A5nst 1983
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: 3/16/87
AFFIDAVIT
- itiiDf spa',k,;
r .e i`ailowmg sei +��� ed!or ybsrr twice
irs tincr assd futl las>4uxy tia alrttss.aecF to 4t�tTrE
P Iatrx4te�►n '1 fft"' cin �23_4a
CITCt3E3NQL
Y �Si3EiA 4 T " X7Ft�G a4�
' �xiatve.lE��° 1r4� .
Date Aug_ s, 1983
I wish to testify before the Tigard City
Council on the following item:
(Please print your name)
1.3 CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA
Item Description
,lame, Address & Affiliation
t
r"
4
_ __—
_
R
rn z I
I � j
i
z
z
aS z
� at
OH as
O �
z �
E � I
y z I
H
t
H --
— p
sp,vp7, -1S -3uauidoaQf
Tn.� �
Cp'' pue -tuamdolanaQ puaZt r -
;z �n uoT:jeajsTUTWPV ! i
ate+, 3 pue 7uaiudolanaQft I
ft
lK
x 0 ria?nag luauldolanaQ a:lzsf
,°mss a suoTSTnozd IejuamalddnSf
a �-
sa at �oiaasiQ ,-ellanp
O :t uavtaaTn az 4 suoi zT�oT}T� IIX
`� -�j -ssel`J 1oTaasTQ `3uTu0
�.- ---- -ter---
LIT:iY uol s TD aa!x
t a ao3 saanpaooaj;;
a ( SuoTSTnoaa :Cao�onpoi2uj-
r
I- at I #
in
4 ti
t
.m a
�=
C.� t A 4
i
z
H z
E-
VC/.
.
.n
V7 Y
,1
.y.
t
X x
i
t C
/ 4_
-.6
4
f:
F £ 11
Y '
1
OEM
t August 6, 1983
FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Number Three (NPO 7X3)
TO: Tigard City Council
SUBJECT: Suggestions regarding the Community Develupment Code
Following are suggestions from NPO #3 regarding the Community Development
Code. I am sorry for the lateness in transmitting these to you. Partly this
is due to some personal time conflicts and partly it is due to the complexity
of the process and the large amount of material to review. We have been
involved at all stages of the review including the CCI meetings and the
Planning Commission, and we have given considerable thought to the recommend-
ations which follow.
RespectfulI7 yours,
i
Neighborhood Planning Organization Number Three
Bob Bledsoe, Chairman
P.S. One item that I neglected when typing up our suggestions was provisions
for the waiver of fees for actions by the NPO's and other official City
advisory committies. From time to time the various committies may wish to
make a request for a decision on an item, or appeal a decision, and they
should not be burdened with the usual fees since they are acting in their
appointed advisory capacity. Waivers for official City advisory committees
need to be included in the following subsections:
Page II-2 18.30.050 (B) (3) application fee
II-13 18.32.040 (B) (3) application fee
II-32 18.32.275 B,C,D transcript fee----
11-33 38.32.280 appeals fee
1._.3E
1-2 18.08(B) and 18.10
Kevin. Hanway, representing the Home Builders of Washington County, offered
the following recommendation:
Add language so that the developments stall comply with the comprehensive
plan "as implemented by this code." This addresses ambiguities raised
by the Supreme Court's ruling in Phillip! v. City of Sublimity.
The staff and planning commission have recommended that this phrase be
included. hater regarding page II-9, 18.30.140(A)(4) , Mr. Hanway said,
"The reference to the comprehensive plan is unnessary. The code and
other ordinances implement the plan and should be sufficient."
We perceive an effort by Kevin Hanway and the Home Builders to remove the
Comprehensive Plan from active consideration during the development approval
process, so that it will be relegated to the status of an historical exercise.
Many people in the Tigard community have contributed to the development
of the comprehensive plan, and they expect it to guide development in Tigard.
The language suggested by Mr. Hanway has the latent meaning that if some
( feature of the plan were not incorporated into the code. then the developer
would not be bound by it. Although the staff has made a vallent effort in
preparing the Code, past experience indicates that they do make an occasional
error. We would not want some feature of the plan to be omitted by such an
error. Probably it would be best to reject Kevin Hanway's suggestion altogether,
but if such language is desired by Council, we recommend that it be:
"especially as implemented by this Code" ---
This will give emphasis and priority to the implementation measures of the
Code and yet preserve an active role for the Comprehensive Plan.
PAGE
11-32 18.32.270 (B) (3)
NPO #3 has for some time been suggesting that verbal argument be allowed
for appeals to council. Our reasons are that some people can present their
case much easier verbally than in writing. Sometimes illiteracy will matte
a person embarassed to write out his concerns. Others just express themselves
better in speech. We believe that a proper concern for these people demands
some means of accomodation.
1
P'IE We understand the objections of staff and the planning commission about
i
11-32 the abuses of verbal argument in appeal--that once a person is allowed to
contd. speak, he might then use new arguments or introduce facts that he did not
mention earlier. Our first suggestion was that a person be allowed to
petition council for the opportunity to speak his case, as a special exemption
from the general rule. This suggestion did not really deal with the
objections of staff and the commission. Our final suggestion is to allow
prerecorded verbal argument, presented at the same time as the written
arguments. We believe this suggestion fulfills the need and also prevents
abuse. The verbal argument may be rejected if it does not qualify, just as
the written argument would be. We certainly have the technology in this day
to make this feasible.
Our suggestion should have satisfied the objections, but unfortunately,
it has not. Some said the tape might might accidently be erased while a
councilor was listening--two or three copies of the casette could be required;
it can be done. Some said `here was no way to sign a tape recording--there
I
Is sufficient room on the label of a casette for both a tonic and a signature.
Others said it is just too complicated--yes it is more complicated, but it
would be worth it.
If the Council judges our concern to be just and fair, we urge you to
allow prerecorded verbal testimony for appeals to council.
I
III-3 Policy 6.3.2 of the Comprehensive Plan stipulates that the Code shall
require a 100-foot density transition next to established residential areas.
Since this provision was omitted by staff, we suggest the following.
18.40.040 Residential Density Transition
A. Regardless of the allowed housing densities stated in Sections 18.52
through 18.66, or in 18 30, 18.92 or 18.94, any property within one
hundred (100) feet of an established area shall not be developed at
a residential housing density greater than 125% of the allowed density
in the adjacent established area(s). For purposes of this limitation
only, the allowed density is as specified in the comprehensive plan
land use designation, not as in the zining district. For example,
the property within 100 feet of an established low density residential
area (1-5 dwellings per acre) shall not be developed at residential
densities greater than 6.25 dwellings per acre. (6.25 = 5 x 1.25) i
B. Subsection 18.04.040 (A), above, shall not apply with regard to
established areas that are separated from the proposed housing I
development by a major collector road or by an arterial road.
i
i
2
.,GE
1II-3 18.40.040 continued
C. Where the proposed residential development abuts as existing housing
development in an established area, the housing types shall be compatible,
as determined in the following matrix.
S.F.Detached S.F.Detached Mobil Hm Park Duplex S.F.Attached Multifamily
Zero Lot Lin, yes-2 units
conditional yes no-over 2 no
S.F.Detached yes yes
S.F„Detachedno-
(Zero Lot Line) yes yes conditional yes yes
Mobil Home Park conditional conditional yes yes yes yes es
ces yes Yes yes
Duplex yes yes Y
S.F.Attached yes-2 units yes yes yes yes
Yes
no-over 2
ies
Multi-family � no no yes yes yes y
PAGES
IV-5,40 Also, in Subsections 18.80.070 and/or 18.80.080, and in 18.88.030
should be added the following sentence: "The residential development
limitations of Section 18.40.040 shall apply within 100 feet of an
established area."
PAGE
ZII-21 18.48.040 (H) delete : "Parks and"
NPO #3 suggestion is to allow only Mobile Home Subdivisions in the R-3.5
zone, as a conditional use, and to disallow Mobile Home Parks here.
Mobile Home Parks are basically a special type of planned unit development
for less expensive housing in which the individual dwellings may be removed
and replaced at the renters' (or park manager`s) convenience. Chapter 18.94,
as drafted by staff, does not explicitly mention the density allowed in a
Mobile Home Park, but the stated requirement of a minimum of ten (10) feet
separation between mobile homes leads to the implication of densities much
greater than usually found in R-3.5 zones.
It seems to us that the features of a mobile horse park are not compatible
with the purpose of the R-3.5 zone, i.e. to establish large urban residential
home sites." We believe the manufactured/mobile homes included in the R-3.5
districts should be placed in subdivisions and not in mobile home parks.
i
3
III-23,24 18.50, 18.50.050 (A) keeping 7500 square feet minimum lot in R-4.5 zone
John Gibbon, representing the Somebuilders' Association, requested that the
lot size for the R-4.5 zone be changed from 7500 square feet to 7000 square
feet, like most other jurisdictions nearby. NPO #3 has concluded that because
of all the time spent by everyone involved, we support the compromises that
have been made, and we oppose this suggested change. It would change the
overall density calculations. The Planning Commission also opposed lowering
the minimum to 7000 square feet.
III-23 18.50.040 (D) really VII-14 18.130.150 (C)(15)(a)
The Planning Commission raised the question of allowing a 7500 square
foot minimum lot size for duplex, _instead of the existing 10,000 square feet
minimum which is shown on page VII-14. The Planning Commission did not take
any position on this issue beyond raising the question. NPO t#3 opposes the
smaller lot size for duplex in both the R-4.5 and R-3.5 zones. We suggest
leaving this item as is, or else explicitly stating the limit on page III-23,
which would be redundant but easier to find.
III-25,26 18.52, 18.52.050 (A) (2) new 3050 square-foot minimum lot size
The change from a minimum 5000 square feet to 3050 square feet for single
family attached was a real surprise, since all discussion prior to the
printing of the most recent version of the Community Development Code had
mentioned only. a 5000 square foot lot size in R-7 zones. The first person
to note this was Planning Commissioner Chris Vanderwood, former chairperson
of NPO #5. NPO #3 also unanimously opposes this reduction in the minimum
lot size. Basically it turns R-7 into R-12 for these sites.
3.5
III-23 18.50.030 (C) should be moved to 18.50.040 (L)
NPO 743 suggests that Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions should not be
outright permitted uses in R-4.5 zones, but should 'be conditional uses.
Mobile homes are significantly different from traditional homes, and
we feel that neighbors have a right to be informed and to be able to testify
about their concerns in regard to locating mobile homes in their neighborhoods.
The conditional use procedure has provisions that could be used to meet the
concerns of the neighbors. The Planning Commission has supported our
suggestion by a 3-2 vote. We request your approval also.
We support Mobile Home Park as a conditional use only if language is
included here or in 18.94 stating that designation as a mobile home park
will not allow an increase in housing density beyond what is allowed in 18.92.
111-21 18.48.040 and 18.50.040
and 23 In R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones, Single Family Attached should be allowed as a -
conditional use on minimum 5000 square feet lots, since duplex on 10,000
square feet lots is already included. (The 10,000 minimum is on page VII-14)
The Single Family Attached designation allows for easier individual home
ownership than does duplex. However, allow only two (2) units together.
III-35,39,42 18.60.050 (C) 3&4, 18.62.050 (C) 3&4, 18.64.050 (C) 3&4
Commercial setbacks next to residential uses should be at least 20 feet, as
Is suggested by staff and also endorsed by the Planning Commission. This
is desirable for the peace, quietness, and privacy of the residences. These
setbacks should be at least as great as required between the residence and
the street (residential front setback, which is 20 feet or more)0/Owners
of commercial property have suggested keeping the setback at the present
10 feet. We also oppose the lower limit.
IV-37 18.86.020 (A) (2) Add the following as a continuation of the first sentence:
11 . . . , or if not so developed, the parcel is not contiguous with a
Developing Area."
This provides for the inclusion of the occasluual undeveloped lot as
part of an established area. It is very similar to criteria that staff
suggested for inclusion in a developing area (18.88.020(A)(2),page IV-40).
4
1-r
IV-37 18.86.030 Standards of Development (in Established Areas)
Add the following sentences taken from Policies 6.3.1 and 6.3.3 of the Plan:
Within an Established Area new development shall be of the same type and
density in order to protect the character of existing neighborhoods. A
primary consideration in all phases of the development approval process
shall be to preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established
areas.
In addition to stating applicable sections of the Code, the standards of
development should also state the definite concerns in the comprehensive plan
regarding the established areas. This states the viewpoint from which
applications for development in an established area will be considered. Also
it declares that considerat-i_on must be given to the existing development
surrounding the proposed project. We feel that the most reliable implementation
of the comprehensive plan is to basically quote it in the section referring
to the standards of development. Please do not accept staff's recommendation
to simply discard this suggestion; if staff has difficulties with the wording,
let them offer modifications.
V-5 18.94.030 (D) (1) The minimum suze for a manufactured/mobile home park should
be four (4) acres, instead of one (1) acre.
The larger minimum size will help prevent mobile home parks from being
scattered throughout the neighborhoods of traditional homes, thus keeping
to a minimum the possible adverse compatibility problems.
V-8 18.94.030 add a new subsection R:
R The maximum number of manufactured/mobile homes in the park shall not
exceed the amount calculated in Section 18.92.
We feel that this item should be made explicit. The stated requirement that
the closest spacing is ten (10) feet (in Subsection H) suggests densities
possibly greater than otherwise. We oppose increasing densities without
making a zone change or a comprehensive plan amendment. By stating the limit
explicitly, a developer would not be misled as to the number of -units he could
place in a mobile home park.
I
5
v-*+2 18.112.080 (A) Allow 24-foot wide paved private access for 3-6 dwellings,
instead of 3-5; then 7 dwellings and above would require the equivalent of
a standard local street, instead of 6 and above as suggested by staff. Also
remove the newly added 100-foot maximum length restriction for access for 3-6
dwellings, or make it 300 feet.
This would allow three houses on each side to use the private access,
instead of the add nember of five. One case where this would help is in the
development of deep lots into a few home sites. This likely application
also requires removal of the 100-foot maximum length limit. Staff has
mentioned concerns about future extensions of such private accesses, but
that concern applies equallyr to access for two or four dwellings, or for
3-49 apartments. Proper limits should be applied at the time of approval
of the individual projects.
VII-34 18.138.040 Approval Standards for Home Occupations
Delete Subsection 6 (Prohibition of retail sales and services) and Subsection 9
(Prohibition of having employees). In Subsection 7, after the word "sales"
add the words: "or services".
Basically the only valid prupose in regulating home occupations should
be to ensure that they are not disruptive of the neighborhoods. Subsections
4, 5. 7, 8, and 10 deal adequately and completely with disturbances that
could arise from the business use of a home. Subsections 2 and 3 are
questionable, and Subsections 6 and 9 are an unnecessary deprivation of the
citizen's right to the free use of his home and property. Regulations should
be only implemented to prevent harm or disturbance of the peace, not to limit
competatton and protect the business community from small competitors.
A person could sell retail without having customers come to his home;
likewise with services. What harm do employees do, if their activities are
unnoticeable to the neighbors?
6
PAGE
vIII-22 18.1561030 (E) Minimum Right-of-way and Street Widths
In the comprehensive plan the Council directed that the Community
Development Code would contain an exceptions provision so that streets
through established residential neighborhoods would not be unnecessarily
widened, resulting in the unnecessary destruction of those neighborh oAs.--.-- ---.-
Staff has failed to provide this exceptions provision, and therefore NPO #3
proposes the following: Matte the present Section E into a Subsection E-(1) _
preceded by the phrase, "In a developing area, "; then add a Subsection E (2)
as follows:
2. In established areas streets and right-of-ways shall remain at the
prevailing widths unless a need for widening has been demonstrated.
Please do not lightly dismiss this suggestion. There is no need to place
the existing neighborhoods in jeapordy of destruction simply to have a
binding uniform standard of wider streets. Our suggestion provides for
corrective action suitable to the individual problem.
V{ :-26 18.156.030 (Z) (4) final lift of asphalt pavement
The present practice is to not allow the final lift of asphalt pavement
to be placed on the road until 90% of the structures are built. This is a
good idea for saving on the CYtyls repair money, and for ensuring a good
quality finished project. However, due to the slowness of construction
and/'or enforcement, there are several roads around town with the final layer
still not finished after several years. This presents an unpleasant and
hazardous situation with manhole rings lyz inches above the roadway and catch
basins too high to collect water. We suggested and the planning commission
approved the following; sentence to be added..
However, the final lift shall be placed on the roadway in each phase
of the development project within three (3) years after the completion
of construction and development of the first property in that phase
of the project.
Maybe council will choose another time limit than 3 years or another
reference point than the first property, but there must be some limit-
VIII-29 18.156.060 (A) (4) The staff proposal calls for a 5-foot planter strip
for collector and arterial streets. However the 60-foot right-of-waY for
collectors only provides enough room for 3 feet (5-foot sidewalk + 3-foot strip
+ 44-foot pavement + 3 + 5 = 60). We suggested 3 feet for collectors, and
the planning commission endorsed oir recommendation.
7