Loading...
City Council Packet - 01/22/1990 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item should sign on the appropriate JANUARY 22, 1990 5:30 PM sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, TIGARD CIVIC CENTER ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's TIGARD, OREGON 972223 Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. o STUDY SESSION (5:30 P.M.) -Discussion Topics: Consolidated Dispatch; Agenda Review o Utility & Franchise Workshop Meeting o Tualatin Economic Development Corporation Workshop Meeting 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council and focal Contract Review Board 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: November 16, and 20, 1989 3.2 Resolution of Public Necessity for S.W. 121st Street Improvements; Resolution No. 90- T-11 4. PUBLIC HEARING - L9GALIZATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GREETTBURG ROAD This hearing is to consider reestablishment of the right-of-way of Greenburg Road between Pacific Highway and Tiedeman Avenue through the legalization process provided by State law. A written report from the City Engineer contains the specific survey alignment proposed for the reestablished right-of-way. The existing right-of-way cannot be accurately retraced due to numerous alterations of the road and due to loss or destruction of the original survey of the road. o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations or Challenges o Summation by City Engineer o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recom¢mndation by Community Development Staff o Council Questions or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 90--LL COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 22, 1990 - Page 1 1 5. FINAL ASSF T HEARING - LOCAL IMPR~ENT DISTRICT (LID) #42 (S.W. 68th Parkway Sanitary Sewer) The purpose of the hearing is to consider written objections to the individual proposed assessments on properties within LID #42. All objections must have been filed with the City Recorder by 5:00 p.m., January 22, 1990, at the Tigard City Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. All objections must state specifically the grounds for the objections. o Final Assessment Hearing Opened o Declarations or Challenges o Summation by Caum pity Development Staff o Review of Written Objections Received o Council Questions or Canmvents o Final Assessment Hearing Closed 0 Consideration by Council - Ordinance No. 90--L)- 6. PUBLIC FEARING - MISCELLANEOUS M 89-20 MANUFACTURED HOME AT SW COOK LANE NPO #3 A request for a review of a Director's interpretation of Chapters 18.26 and 18.94 of the Community Development Code pertaining to manufactured and mobile homes. o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations or Challenges o Summation by Community Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation by Community Development Staff 0 Council Questions or comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council 7. PUBLIC BEARING - NOISE ORDINANCE Amerxhnent to the Tigard Municipal Code Chapters 7.40 and 18.90. (Amer1ments to the Noise ordinance provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code) o Public Hearing Continued from December 11, 1989 o Declarations or Challenges o Summation by Community Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, opponents, Cross Examination o Recozmaldation by Community Development Staff o Council Questions or comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 9.',ECt7TIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOUPdOUN'T cca108 COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 22, 1990 - Page 2 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEEZrIIJG MD UM - JANUARY 22, 1990 o Meet' was called to order at 5:30 r ~ p.m. by Mayor Edwards. r 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randall Wooley, City Engineer. 2. AGENDA I&NIEW- a. Council and staff reviewed the business agenda. City Engineer outlined the major issues for the Greenberg Right-of -°Way Public Hearing. b. There was Council discussion concerning the public hearing for the manufactured home on Cook Lane. Community Development Director outlined staff's position; that is, the Development Code allows for manufactured homes on individual lots of record. Building Inspector and City Attorney reviewed definitions and correlations as contained in the uniform Building code (UBC), Housing & Urban Development Standards (HUD), and the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC). i City Attorney advised that the state and city use different definitions for terms such as "manufactured housing" which made the issue somewhat confusing. Building Inspector advised the foundation for the home on Cook lane meets Development Code requirements; there was no requirement the home be "anchored." State legislation approved last session will be effective in 1991, advised the Community Development Director. New state law would continue to allow cities to determine design standards of homes so that compatibility issues can be addressed. Council discussed elements of the requirements contained in the Development Code with City Attorney and Building Inspector advising. City Attorney summarized history of HUD requirements, noting the Development Code did not refer to HUD standards which were the regulations governing manufactured housing. HUD regulations were functionally equivalent to UBC standards. HUD requirements were federally administered; UBC rules were, essentially, adopted state-by-state. City Attorney advised Tigard's code, with regard to manufactured housing, appeared to be more liberal than otherwise required by state law. Records indicated that current Code requirements were CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 1 written in advance of potential mandates from the 1985 State Legislative Session. Subsequent statutes were less liberal than anticipated. Community Development Director advised the home on Cook Lane met HUD Code and was a "manufactured home." C. Councilor Schwartz commented on turn-around time for Council meeting minutes. He advised it would be helpful to have the record available for review of issues. d. City Administrator noted provisions of the proposed noise ordinance reflected DEQ standards. If necessary, more restrictive language could be considered later. 3. UITLITY & FRANCHISE WORKSHOP a. Chairman Gerry McReynolds reviewed issues the Utility & Franchise Committee had worked on over the last year. He reported the following: o The Committee held a public discussion on styrofoam products where both pros and cons of the issue were deliberated. The problem with styrofoam was that it was not biodegradable. The City of Portland and Multnomah County considered banning the use of the product in certain instances. Another option would call for be recycling of styrofoam. Mr. McReynolds suggested the Committee continue to monitor this issue over the next six months. o The Tualatin River cleanup project was now in court. Mr. McReynolds noted the importance of keeping informed on the subject. o Third-party recycling has become an issue. Oregon law states that the solid-waste industry must offer recycling with cost offset by profits made on the recyclables. To allow private companies, other than the franchised haulers, to operate a recycling operation ultimately increases fees paid by rate payers. Mr. McReynolds advised the ordinance should be clarified and modified to address modern-day issues. b. General discussion followed. Councilor Johnson noted that April 22, 1990 would be the 20th Anniversary of Earth Day. Virginia Hartman was chairing the effort for Tigard. In response to Councilor Johnson's inquiry, Mr. McReynolds said he thought the Utilities & Franchise Committee would be willing to assist with associated community events. There was brief discussion on better ways to promote recycling programs throughout the City. CITY COUNCIL MEE=G MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 2 C. The Committee would work on the third-party recycling issue; specifically, towards clarification of the ordinance. 4. UPDATE ON TUALATIN VALLEY EOONOMIC DEVELOPM= CORPORATION (TVEDC) ACTIVITIES ' i a. Mary Tobias, President of TVEDC, reviewed the following issues: I o Western Beltway o Tualatin River Water Quality o Urban Growth Boundary o Light Rail 0 Suburban Mass Transit o Major Street & Transportation Improvement Program - 2 (MSTIP/2) o School Finance Reform o Small Business Development o Washington County Economic Development Plan Material distributed to Council on the above issues has been filed with the Council meeting packet information. Business Meeting: Called to order by Mayor Edwards at 7:33 p.m. 5. PROCLAMATION FOR IKBgMS WEEK: C a. Mayor proclaimed week of January 21-27 as Kiwanis Week in the City of Tigard. Kiwanis International, a community service organization with 320,000 members and 8,500 clubs, raised $65 million during the past year and donated more than 22 million volunteer hours in 73 nations and geographic areas. 'There were 95 Kiwanians in 3 clubs in the City of Tigard. 6. VISITOR'S AGENDA: a. David Blake of Trammell Crow Company requested review of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment out of the regular sequence. The purpose would be to have this issue before Council at the same time the Trammell Crow urban renewal proposal would be considered. Motion lsy Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to approve the request. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. 7. Consent Agenda: .1 Approve Council Minutes: November 16, and 20, 1989 .2 Resolution of Public Necessity for S.W. 121st Street Improvements; Resolution No. 90-04 Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUI'F5 - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 3 8. PUBLIC HEARING - LEGALIZATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GREENBURG ROAD This hearing is to consider reestablishment of the right-of-way of Greenburg Road between Pacific Highway and Tiedeman Avenue through the legalization process provided by State law. A written report from the City Engineer contains the specific survey alignment proposed for the reestablished right-of-way. The existing right-of-way cannot be accurately retraced due to numerous alterations of the road and due to loss or destruction of the original survey of the road. a. Public Hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. c. The City Engineer reviewed the staff report with Council, after which Bob Taylor, Surveyor, outlined the process by which the right- of-way alignment was reconstructed. Greenburg Road was originally dedicated in 1871; the original wooden survey posts could not be found. City Engineer advised that once the legalization of right-of-way was in place, design issues would be reviewed to address concerns like those received in letters from property owners. (See public testimony.) d. Public Testimony: There was no oral public testimony. The following letters were received prior to the Council meeting and submitted to Council for their review: - Letter dated January 15, 1990 from Harry Sneidman. - Letter dated January 17, 1990 from Michael W. Wilhelm, DMD - Letter dated January 18, 1990, from Radu and Elena Ghionea The above are letters on file with the Council meeting material. e. Council discussion followed with clarification on issues by the City Attorney and staff. f. The public hearing was closed. g. ORDINANCE NO. 90-01 AN ORDINANCE LEGALIZING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GREENBURG ROAD BETWEEN PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND TIEDEMAN AVENUE, DIRECTING THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BE SURVEYED AND MONUNEITED, AND DIRECTING THAT A SURVEY MAP AND NARRATIVE BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY SURVEYOR. h. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to adopt Ordinance No. 90-01. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 1990 PAGE 4 V 9. FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING - FOCAL IMPROVEM 11T DISTRICT (LID) #42 (S.W. 68TH PARKWAY SANITARY SEWER) The purpose of the hearing was to consider written objections to the individual proposed assessments on properties within LID #42. All objections must have been filed with the City Recorder by 5:00 p.m., January 22, 1990. a. Final assessment hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. c. City Engineer reviewed this issue. On January 8, 1990, Council received the final engineer's report for LID #42 and set January 22 as the date for a hearing on the final assessment roll. d. One written objection was received by Council. (See letter dated January 22, 1990, from Irving L. Larson, which has been filed with Council meeting material) e. Council comments and questions: Councilor Johnson noted concern over the issue presented in Mr. Larson's January 22 letter. City Engineer advised he talked to Mr. Larson prior to the meeting. Mr. Larson was attempting to acquire property from the State Highway Department (right-of-way). He thinks the property will eventually be vacated and sold; Mr. Larson was concerned that because the property was not assessed in the improvement district, it may not have future sewer access. City Engineer advised sewer access would be possible, but connection charges would be higher because the State did not participate in the construction costs. Mr. Larson had indicated to the City Engineer he was not optimistic the issue would be resolved soon. h. The assessment hearing was closed. i. ORDINANCE NO. 90-02 AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE FINAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SW 68TH PARKWAY SANITARY LOCAL IMPROVa= DISTRICT NO. 42, APPORTIONING THE COST AMONG THE BENEFITFD PROPERTIES, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT DECLARING A DEFICIT ASSESSMENT OR CREDIT FOR EACH PROPERTY, AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET. j. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 90-02. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 10. PUBLIC NEARING - MISCELLANEOUS M 89-20 MANUFACTURED HOME AT S.W. COOK LANE - NPO #3 A request for a review of a Director's interpretation of Chapters 18.26 and 18.94 of the Community Development Code pertaining to manufactured and mobile homes. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 5 a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges c. Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. Sometime ago there was a permit issued for a manufactured home on Cook Lane. Some of the neighbors objected and questioned whether or not the permit was issued correctly. A director's interpretation on the subject was issued October 10, 1989; the interpretation found that the manufactured home at 10676 S.W. Cook Lane was appropriately sited on the property in conformity with the Community Development Code. This issue was appealed to the Planning Commission by NPO #3, and the Director's interpretation was upheld. At the request of the NPO, Council decided to review the Cormnission's decision. The packet material, suh fitted to Council for their review, also included a considerable amount of background information. The staff and Commission have concluded that the residence is 1) a manufactured home as defined in Section 18.26.030; 2) a permitted use in the R-3.5 zone, and 3) in conformity with design standards contained in Section 18.94.040 for manufactured homes on individual lots. City Attorney advised that the Community Development Director identified the three essential issues to be considered. Two items C should be kept in mind during deliberations: 1. This was a case to be resolved on criteria set forth in the City zoning code; it was not an issue to be determined by reference to the state statutes. The controlling law was bound in Tigard's code, not in the statute. Definitions and criteria which appear in the City's code (written in 1985) in many instances pre-date the state-law definitions and, for that reason, were different than those which appear in the state code. 2. The second comment concerns the policy issue involved; that is, how liberal or conservative to be in allowing the placement of manufactured homes. The policy of the City Code appears to different than that which appears in state law either the current state law or the law that will go into effect after periodic review. In the event the Council was not happy with the policy, as expressed in the zoning code, the remedy would be to change the policy. The Council has the authority to do that. This process would have to take place after consideration of this application. This particular applicant was entitled, under the law, to the benefit of the law as it appeared at the time the application was filed. Any change which might be made in the policy would affect future applications. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MM MS - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 6 i d. Public Testimony: Proponents o W.R. "Bud" Norte, 868 S.W. Liberty Bell Drive, Beaverton, Oregon, advised he represented the Mobile Homeowners' Association, which was a non-profit Oregon corporation. He complimented the City of Tigard for allowing the home to be placed on this lot. The home, as far as he could determine, met all of the requirements. Mr. Norte reviewed: - history of regulations for manufactured homes; in 1976, HUD wrote strict specifications for manufactured homes, - construction process of manufactured homes, - cost savings offered as alternative by manufactured housing, especially for first-time buyers, - at last state legislative session, House Bill 2863 (aka "infill bill) was adopted, inspection procedures for manufactured homes were very thorough. Mr. Norte said he hoped the council would confirm the permits on the home in question. o Clyde Johnson, 10676 S.W. Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon, noted he and his wife lived in the manufactured home which was the subject of the public hearing. Mr. Johnson reviewed the construction of his home noting insulation and construction was equal to or better than the construction of the homes in the neighborhood. He advised of his efforts to accommodate his neighbor's concern with placement of the home on the property. He commented that his home's appearance was better than that of neighboring residential property. He reviewed costs for his home which included: $33,000 for the home, $21,500 for lot purchase, $3,000 for sewer and water, $5,000 for a garage and $1,500 for the driveway. o Mr. John Lee, 11565 S.W. 90th, Tigard, Oregon, testified that he visited Mr. Johnson's home. He said he supports Mr. Johnson's right to remain on the site and asked that Council give him the opportunity to landscape which would give an even better appearance to the property. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 7 Mr. Lee advised the home looked better than some of the existing homes in the area which were in need of maintenance work, such as painting. He also suggested that opponents look at the construction of mobile homes before expressing objections. t o Don Miner, Oregon Manufactured Housing Association, 2255 State Street, Salem, Oregon, urged Council to ratify the action taken by City staff. Mr. Miner reviewed history of construction standards for manufactured homes at federal and i state levels. He advised that manufactured homes are entirely engineered and energy efficient. HUD requirements, according to Mr. Miner, were superior to UBC requirements. Mr. Miner reviewed that Mr. Johnson had secured all permits necessary and spent a substantial sum on land and improvements. o Ron Rau, Marlette Homes, 340-A N.W. 12th Street, Hermiston, Oregon, advised that Mr. Johnson's home was constructed by his t, company. Mr. Johnson was assisted by them in locating his home on this site. Mr. Rau said he was available for any questions concerning the home. "Neutral" Testimony ` o Martha Bishop, 10590 S.W. Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon read material written by Mr. Dennis moonier, concerning his challenges to the Director's decision. This material has been filed with the Council packet information. In addition, Mrs. Bishop read a statement, which she prepared, into the record. This statement has been filed with the Council packet information. Mrs. Bishop expressed the need for both sides of the issue to be heard and that impacts to existing neighborhoods should be considered. o Judy Fessler, 11180 S.W. Fonner Street, Tigard, Oregon, testified from a prepared statement which has been filed with Council packet information. MS. Fessler urged the council to call a moratorium on any further "MH" permits for residential areas until the Planning Department and staff develops` specific verbiage and guidelines to the City Council for public hearing and testimony. Opponents: r. o Bibianne Scheckla, 108905 S.W. Fairhaven Way, Tigard, Oregon, testified she was not opposed to manufactured homes and noted their qualities as far as she understood. She noted that, f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 8 where there was already an established neighborhood, placement of manufactured homes should be required to go through a hearing process. She added she would like to see the City of Tigard identify areas where manufactured homes were permitted. o Dave Klingele, 12900 S.W. 132nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, declined to testify. o Herman Porter, Chairman of NPO #3, 11875 S.W. Gaarde Street, Tigard, Oregon, advised that the NPO initiated the review of the Director's Interpretation. He clarified that the question of the quality of Mr. Johnson's home was not their concern. He said realized an occupancy permit had been issued and the City would be liable if the City should require that the home be moved. Mr. Porter said he assumed the home would be allowed to remain and he had no personal objection to that. The issue, said Mr. Porter, was the way the Planning Department had interpreted the law. Mr. Porter asserted that the law was very clear, although the planning staff testified at the Planning Commission hearing that it was confusing. Mr. Porter advised he participated in NPO discussion in 1984/5 and argued in favor of manufactured homes on lots if they met the same standards as site-built homes. NPO has no objection to this interpretation. This home, according to the Planning Department, met HUD requirements. Whether or not this was sufficient with regard to meeting UBC standards should have been an issue determined through a public hearing process according to Mr. Porter. o Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon, advised his concerns were with regard to buildable lots in established neighborhoods where Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) were in place. Would these CC&R's be observed by the city when issuing permits? Mr. Woolery advised he was concerned that the UBC was not met in this situation. He said he thought Council should issue a variance to Mr. Johnson, with foundation and tie-down requirements issued as a condition of the variance. Mr. Woolery said he supported a moratorium on future permits until language of the Code was clarified. Rebuttal: o Mr. Clyde Johnson, commented with regard to foundation. He advised his home was set on six continuous concrete stringers (full length, 12-inches wide, 6-inches thick). He advised the foundation requirements had been met; the home was "lagged down." CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINLTPFS - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 9 He referred to other issues, such as plumbing. He said plumbing pipes were plastic because of weight considerations when the home was moved to its site. He reported that he was hooked up to the sewer while many of the surrounding homes were on septic tanks. He requested that the neighbors make an attempt to get along with one another. o Mr. John Lee noted his disagreement with the call for a moratorium on "MH" permits. e. Recommendation by staff: Community Development Director advised staff recommended Council uphold the Director's interpretation and the Planning Commission's recommendation and pass the proposed resolution which would allow the manufactured home to stay where it was. f. Council Questions/Comments: Councilor Eadon asked for clarification on differences of terminology used throughout the hearing. City Attorney responded that the City Code and the State Statute use different sets of terminology. The City Code defines manufactured homes and defines mobile homes. The state code defines manufactured structures and prefabricated structures. Prefabricated structures, under the state code, was a factory- built structure which meets the UBC. A manufactured structure, under the state code, included a number of things. One the categories it included was a dwelling built to the HUD standard. HUD standards were national standards designed for the construction of what we once knew to be "mobile homes" and which we now call "manufactured homes." This is distinguished from the UBC which is the code applied to site-built homes. Tigard's zoning code is not required to use the state terminology; in fact, a different terminology is used. This is why council has been encouraged to analyze the case using Tigard's terminology rather than trying to mix and match terms from the state code. • City Attorney asked that the record include, in this proceeding, the minutes from the work session in order to make clear the degree to which the Council has delved into this particular question and the efforts expended to explain the different terms. - Community Development Director reviewed, for audience clarification, the material Council received for review. Information included: the minutes from 1985 of both the Planning Commission and Council workshop and hearings; the CITY COUNCIL MEETING KENNUTES - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 10 proposed 1985 law; the Code which was in effect in 1985, as well as the Code which was changed in 1985. The subject home was a test case as it was the first manufactured home to be sited on a lot of record since 1985. The distinctions made in 1985 appear to be relatively clear. City Code prevails in this situation, not the state law. Tigard's Code notes a distinction between manufactured homes and mobile homes; a manufactured is like a mobile home but must meet certain design restrictions found in the Development Code. The Code says a manufactured home must meet requirements of the UBC; staff was of the opinion this home met those requirements. City Attorney advised that the Building Official determined that the structure meets HUD standards; the home has a HUD sticker so certifying. The Building official has reviewed the specifications and drawings for the unit provided by the manufacturer; it meets the structural aspects of the UBC. Councilor Johnson asked the Building Inspector concerning testimony that the structure was not tied to the foundation per the manufacturer's standards. Building inspector responded that the structure was not required to be tied to the foundation. The home was set up per manufacturer's specifications which was similar to state regulations for setting up a manufactured home. Tie-downs were not required in this geographical area, based on wind- load requirements (these are state standards). - Councilor Schwartz noted the home was lagged down, according to Mr. Johnson's testimony. Councilor Schwartz referred to packet material which included a July 5 letter from Mr. Moonier outlining questions of violations with regard to the mobile home. Councilor Schwartz commented that as he understood it, foundation requirements for manufactured homes and stick-built homes were different because of construction differences. He asked the Building Inspector if the skirting was installed in accordance with Code Requirements. Building Inspector responded the skirting consisted of treated plywood designed for direct contact with the ground; there was no code violation. Councilor Schwartz referred to Mr. Moonier's concern with the garage as a stand-alone structure. Building Inspector advised there was no building code requirement that the garage be attached to the home; there was no code violation. FL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIWIEES - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 11 Setbacks were another issue cited in Mr. Moonier's letter. Building Inspector advised setbacks were checked; there were no code violations. Councilor Schwartz noted Mr. Moonier said the owner had two front-yard driveways planned. Were two driveways allowed on a single lot? Building Inspector advised plans for this home did not show two driveways. s Mayor Edwards asked for clarification on the testimony with regard to changes to the Code (as recent as February 1989). Community Development Director noted the February changes related to when portions of the code were streamlined and clarified. Nothing of substance was changed; however, he indicated he would review the record. Councilor Eadon commented she had compared the 1985 language with current language and did not find where changes had been made, but concurred that this should be checked again. Councilor Eadon noted that during the study session prior to the hearing, Council discussed terminology. She noted Council had been advised that HUD requirements were functionally equivalent to UBC. City Attorney affirmed and clarified that F' in terms of wind load, insulation, etc., the HUD code was a equal to UBC., - In response to comments from Councilor Schwartz, Building Inspector confirmed that the UBC had guidelines for plastic ' plumbing pipe. Many new homes in Tigard were constructed with this type of pipe. Councilor Johnson noted Mr. Moonier's letter, as presented by Mrs. Bishop, questioned the Oregon Department of Commerce regulations. Community Development Director advised regulations were no longer called Oregon Department of Commerce Regulations. Building Inspector advised regulations were administered by State Building Codes Agency. Community Development Director clarified that information had been given out, by a member of staff, that state law provided for placement of manufactured homes on individual lots of record. This had nothing to do with this issue or was a consideration in the Director's Interpretation or the Planning commission decision. g. Public hearing was closed. h. Council discussion followed. - Councilor Schwartz reviewed the amount of time devoted to this issue. He said he understood the concerns of the neighborhood. Standards for homes can be addressed through the design review and permit process. The Code definitely CITY COUNCIL M MTING MDXTI'ES - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 12 required work and review. In reviewing the current Code, with the assistance of legal counsel, Councilor Schwartz said he thought this home met the specifics required in the Code. He advised he would vote to uphold the Planning Director's Interpretation on this issue because of the language contained in the Code. Councilor Eadon said she felt it was quite clear that the current Code allows for placement of manufactured homes on single lots of record (TKC 18.94.040). By definition of manufactured homes, she advised she felt the home on Cook Lane was, indeed, a manufactured home. With regard to the question of whether the home met the design standards of the Code, Councilor Eadon found advised the home meets HUD standards and Council has been advised this was functionally equivalent to UBC. With regard to the anchoring of the home, she noted the Code, as it refers to state standards, provided that the manufactured home was not required to be anchored in this geographic area. Councilor Eadon advised she would support the Director's Interpretation. - Councilor Johnson concurred with Councilor Eadon's comments. She referred to Mrs. Fessler's comment about contradictory regulations wherein the higher standard would govern. Councilor Johnson said all of the evidence from the professionals indicate that the UBC and HUD standards are equal. Councilor Johnson stated this issue must be reviewed with criteria outlined under current law. However, there was evidence of concern of ambiguity in 1985 which was also of concern at this time. Councilor Kasten noted he agreed with many comments made by his fellow Councilors and acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue in the community. Specific technical concerns have been raised; those questions have been answered so that the issue of equivalency has been satisfied. Councilor Kasten advised he would support the Director's Interpretation and the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mayor Edwards thanked all those who testified and researched the issue. He noted this was not an easy issue and acknowledged concerns of impact throughout the community. He advised it was his understanding that there were items contained in the new state regulation which would allow CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUI'F5 - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 13 cities to have some flexibility to facilitate planning. Mayor advised, that according to the Code, Mr. Johnson's home was located properly. He reiterated the need for review of the Code for clarification of intent. Mayor advised he would vote in favor of upholding the Director's Interpretation and the Planning Commission recommendation. i. RESOLUTION NO. 90-05 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING A CITY COUNCIL DECISION WHICH UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELDPMQIT CODE PERTAINING TO A MANUFACTURED HOME (FILE NO. M 89-20). j. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve Resolution No. 90-05. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. k. Council discussion: Councilor Johnson recommended that Council direct staff to perform a thorough research on the wording and intent of the Code for manufactured housing and report their findings to Council. The issues she identified included: o Was the TMC more liberal in siting allowances than the ORS? If so, was this the City's intent? o Were design restrictions, for a manufactured home, as strict as state law allows them to be? She said design and siting restrictions should be exactly the same for exterior appearance. She said she hoped the Code could be written to come as close to this objective as possible. She said she would interested in staff reporting on additional criteria such as "pit-set" which would mean the manufactured home would be set lower to the ground. o She referred to testimony from Mrs. Fessler wherein she raised questions concerning remodeling standards. o The question of CC&R's was also raised. If CC&R's prohibit the siting of manufactured homes, could this be addressed in the Code? She would like to know, as a policy issue, how the City would deal with this. Councilor Eadon thanked all of the people who put a lot of s' work into this issue. She advised she does not favor a moratorium; however, in light of new state regulations it was necessary to look at the entire issue of manufactured housing. The City should research the issue with presentation to the s CITY COUNCIL MEETING NNRNNLfl'FFS - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 14 NPO's so citizens would have an opportunity to provide input. This should be made a priority item. The Code needs to be clarified as quickly as possible. Close attention should be given to terminology with consistency, footnotes, and definitions throughout. s Councilor Kasten concurred with comments from Councilors Johnson and Eadon. Councilor Schwartz noted the difficulty in making a decision on this issue, indicating code language was of concern to him. Mayor Edwards referred to written comments received from Ms. Fessler, Ms. Bishop and Mr. Moonier. He asked that staff review the points contained in these letters in addition to Council comments. In response to a question from Councilor Johnson, Community Development Director estimated that the NPO's could begin review in March. He would submit preliminary information to Council before going to the NPO's. 11. PUBLIC HEARING - NOISE ORDINANCE Amendment to the Tigard Municipal Code Chapters 7.40 and 18.90. (Amendments to the Noise Ordinance provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code) a. Public hearing was continued from December 11, 1989. b. There were no declarations or challenges. c. Community Development Director reviewed the staff report, noting the draft ordinance before Council adopted DEQ standards by reference. d. Public Testimony: o Donna Nesbitt, 8900 S.W. Birch Street, Tigard, Oregon advised of ongoing noise problems late at night with street sweepers at Washington Square. She summarized her history of t attempting to resolve the problem by contacting the owners of the sweeping equipment as well as the Washington Square proprietors. There was lengthy discussion on Mrs. Nesbitt's testimony. Councilor Johnson noted her concern that this issue would not be specifically addressed in the proposed ordinance. s e. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIIVUTFS - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 15 f. Council discussed the merits of the proposed ordinance. It was noted the ordinance was broad in scope and may not deal with every issue or complaint. However, the ordinance was more restrictive than what was presently in place. g. Public hearing was closed. h. ORDINANCE NO. 90-03 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS, PROHIBITIONS, AND REMMIES RDGARDING ALLOWABLE NOISE LFnMS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND DECLARING AN F&1kBC IVE DATE. i. Motion by Council Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to adopt ordinance No. 90-03. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. j. Mayor Edwards urged Mrs. Nesbitt to contact Windmar Company, which is the owner of the Washington Square Development, and advise of her continuing problem with noise from street sweepers. k. City Administrator reported it may be possible to propose language limiting hours of street sweeping activity. This would make it easier to enforce, since violations of the noise ordinance require monitoring with special equipment. Council consensus was for staff to research this possibility. 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled 14. ADJOIJRI~IMENI'• 10:32 p.m. r Catherine Wheatley, City Record lGrera R. EDate ccm122 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 1990 - PAGE 16 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY legal 7.6458 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising ❑ Tearsheet Notice City of Tigard IREC VEt) • P.O. Box 23397 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit A% 231990 Tigard, OR 97223 J • • CIT, Of li&ARD PLEASE REFERENCE ACCOUNT NO. C CASE NO. ON PAYMENT REMITTANCE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION rrI(J__6~_ Gl GI~ STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1 Alice Muirden being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard 11mes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at T i gard in the aforesaid county and state; that the C' a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and consecutive in the following issues: January 18, 1990 Subscribed and sworn before me this 19th of January, 1990 i Notary Public for Oregon ,mmissio~xpires: 6-9-93 'SIT The following selected agenda items are published far your information. Further information and full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by call- ing 639=4171. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 22, 1990 5:30 PM STUDY SESSION; 7:30 PM BUSINESS MEETING TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON • Workshop Meeting with Utility & Franchise Committee • Discussion with Mary Tobias of Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation • Public Hearings: - Greenburg Right-of-Way Reestablishment (Tigard Major Streets ; Transportation Improvement Bond Project) - Review Written Objections for Assessments of the S.W. 68th ftkway Sewer Local Improvement District No. 42 - Review of Director's Interpretation - Maunfactured Home at S.W. Cook Lane a - Noise Ordinance Amendment • Local Contract Review Board • Executive Session - under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)'(d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current & pending litigation issuc§; ` TT6458 - Publish January:; l& ,1990 t TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal 7-6453 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075^, y PIR J Legal Notice Advertising • ❑ Tearsheet Notice /9Cr) City of Tigard P. O. Box 2 3 3 9 7 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit AT , x Co t~a i • Tigard OR 97223 Thefoil beconsideredb tll"e`'lI A KY, 2'L,f1990 at O C. t ° k Ml Bo' Bard, Fu fh nnfora oa from the g Division or GttytRecurdar~amr `same~i don or bI► calking fi oa are minted to submit wntfen testimony, of the pu g. wn, a and oral oiu iotty*Hllw po 1st healing.earu►gg will be conducted ui'accoMnce~y►h"ap-' x AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION tphcab 30 of the TigardlVfurucipalCodeaitdan f{ urea the Counei3 STATE OF OREGON, available at Gtiy ~ . COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, lss. The City, ll;hold a pgbhc healing Oo consi nght Wtiy bttr Road. Re-cspngslitaent of n ' I _ Crreenb ui order to construct the pre ' uirden being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising ~pr4viaed iVlaStteCtSTrCSfafetylmprovem ' Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard m; mP c The nght here-established su~cc the original m a newspaper of general circulat 4 as d fined in ORS 193.010fGmettbi$ bltshed ,181,cannot,lan~accttrately and is3.o2o; published at ~igarc~ in the $TheporhonofGt~eriburgRo ulderconstd ation,~sfirq Pec cHrgh uce ~orre'h!he' aforesaid county and state; that the Tway to Tiedeman''~ver►°e. The" ploroced c.Way is descnlied m H itse Billatid is siriilr doe: b~ $ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the Est k entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and ' pub Jent~aty?i2 .,fti;`-,4v; ` R, consecutive in the following issues: January 11,1990 12th of January, 1990 Subscribed and savor to before me this 7 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expire . 6-9-g 3 AFFIDAVIT STOP C LINES DAILY SUNDAY P AD. START 0 CLASS LINES P NO DATE TRANS D DESCRIPTION PER E I DATE E AD ADJUST RATE CHARGE RATE CHARGE R AMOUNT I I I ~ ~ I ~ 1 i I 1 1 I I 1 I ~ , I j 1 I I I 1 I ; i 1 I I , , I I ; I 1 ~ I , 1 I I I ; I ~ 1 I I ~ ; I I I I i i ~ I ~ I I 1 1 I i i I I 1 , 1 1 ~ I I I I i 1 137294 1;13.11.3 6IUSLIC HEARING 08 33 1 2*70 P9.10 33 89F10 1113 BOX CHARGE I :ne 0113 C0 LOR , . ' p 00 w, I 1 I I I I I I 'zMH1ti I 1 ! I ~ I 1 - 111 1 I I 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ I I ~ ; P 4 I I i 1 1 I I I ; I 1 I A 1 ~ 1 I 1 ~ 1 1 I I I I I 1 ~j~) r I I P ; 1 I I jb. I I 1 ~ 1 I ~X' i 1 1 , CODES 8 9 : 1 0 A. TRANSFER CASH OR CREDIT F - REFUND B - TRANSFER CHARGE OR DEBIT G - RATE ADJUSTMENT CT 7AL LINES PAPER E - YEAR END ADJUSTMENT T - MISC. ADJUSTMENT S STATEMENT O = OREGONIAN SUBJECT TO EARNED RATES AND DISCOUNTS OREGONIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY CONTRACT INFORMATION P.O. BOX 4221 • PORTLAND, OREGON 97208 PAPER EXPIRES SIZE CONTRACT V T.D. LINES TIGARiD, CITY OF 01/13/90 BILLING DATE 2186405 ACCOUNT NO. TERMS: ALL ADVERTISING DUE AND PAYABLE - ~ UPON RECEIPT OF THIS STATEMENT. AFFIDAVIT OF PlIBLICATIO1 I J.M. McINTEER BEING FIRST DULY SWORN DEPOSE AND SAY T I AN THE PRIt'dC7:PAL CGE:RK pF THE PUtiGISHFR O CHE t1KF-(~0iNIAN, .,EWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, AS DEFIlEo%` BY ORS 193,U.i0 AND 193.020, PUBLISHED IN THE CITY nF PORTLAND, IN MUL`iNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON: THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT, THE PRINTED TEXT OF WHTCH IS SHOWN BELOW, WAS PUBLISHED TN THE ENTIRE: AND REGULAR ISSUES OF THE OREGONIAN FOR 1 DAYS STARTING 01/13/90, ENDING 01/13/90 C~ PR1fJCIPAL, CLERK OF THE PUBLISHER SUSCR16E:D AND SWORN TO BEFORE MF THIS DAY OF , . ;AN. • . • • ~ g90• • HY CnivlNISSI:DN EXPIRES: i_ TEXT: 137294 PUBLIC HEARIVG ;gnTICE: CITY OF TIGARD THE FOLLOWING t•IILL BE CONSIDEREL BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 22, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M. AT TIGARD CIVIC: CENTER, TOWN HALL ROOM, 13125 SW HALL, BOULE: YARD, TIGARD, OREGON, FURTHER INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE COMMUNITY PEVE:LOP_ MENT DIRECTOR OR CITY RECORDER AT THE SAME f,t)CATION OR BY CALLIElG 639-4171. YOU ARE INVITED TO SUB MIT WRITTEN, TESTIMONY IN ADVANCE, OF THE PUBLIC HE;ARliMG; WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONlY 'AIL[, BE CONSIDERF:Ei AT THE HEARING. THE PURL1C HEAR ING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCUR DANCE WITH THE APPLICABr)E: CHAP- TER 18.32 OF THE TIGARD MUNICTPAI., CODE AND ANY RULES OF' PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE: CnUNC i f, AND AVM LABLE AT CT PY f,fAf,f,• M i ELLANEOIJS M 89-20 h►AiV U CTURED HOmE AT SW COOK LA.E NPO ;3 A REDUEST FOR A REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S INTER PRETATION OF CHAPP,-RS 16,26 AND 18„94 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELuP_ ME:NT CODE PERTAINING TO MANU FACTURED AND MOBILE HOPES, LO CATION: 1.0676 SW COOK LANE ( CTM 2S1 3DA, TAX LUT 5603) 1GEAfDA LTEM ,;,2` VISITOR'S `AGENDA OATS 1/22j90' (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED Ira s~ . r 1L - CZ0 U DATE 1/22/90 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS. Item Description:-,; PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 LEGALIZATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GREENBURG ROAD Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation DATE 1/22/90 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS. Item Description. AGENDA -TmFtK,N ..::6=-..PUBbIG HEARING :.MISCELLANEOUS..M 89-20 MANUFACTURED HOME AT SWCOOK LANE; NPO #3 Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation '?(eas-e r-i n4- ~m~ie~ I ~p G 2 IT3,4Ait 117 ~~t b~~5arj b 'e,~ ~ui1E ur (r~ 0A, I.e ~SbS sw .010 ' ~L)N-, -z4::~ - iZ9 wi7z~c~ i er 27-ss A+ s 0 _ mgr l." C.ia4 P•ro llY1 Gw`'- e v" P e r N C a 3 R7SS Oadty.e St s - 14'0 DATE 1/22/90 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS. Item Description: AGENDA ITEM N0. 7 - PUBLIC HEARING NOISE=ORDINANCE AMNDMENT' Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation d d 9-7 a2 } CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed Ord I na n f 2 ltl vs CrC~- off ~7 L.1 q0-- a.3 STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I~ being first duly sworn, on oath, dep a and say: That I posted in the following public a d conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) ~'ID-ol ' D-OoZ' ~O-0 3 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated ~CtpjLt r :O D copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and y re erence made a part hereof, on the ~ day of v-- - 1440 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. 2. U.S. National Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Al.bertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and S.W. Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,2 day of _ %N c~_. 1y71/ ~ - No Public for regon _ ~ 0 y - My ommission Expires: ~-,5-~3 - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 90-01 AN ORDINANCE LEGALIZING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GREENBURG ROAD BETWEEN PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND TIEDEMAN AVENUE, DIRECTING THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BE SURVEYED AND MONUMENTED, AND DIRECTING THAT A SURVEY MAP AND NARRATIVE BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY SURVEYOR. The Council finds: 1. Between Pacific Highway and Tiedeman Avenue, the location of the right- of-way of Greenburg Road cannot be accurately located due to numerous alterations of the road and due to loss or destruction of the original survey of the road. 2. House Bill 3467, passed by the Oregon Legislative Assembly in the 1989 Regular Session, provides the procedures for legalization of roads within a city. 3. The road has been surveyed to determine the location of the road. 4. The City Engineer has filed a written report with the City Council including the survey and other information. 5. A public hearing was ordered by Resolution No. 90-03. Notice of the _ public hearing was mailed to the owner of each adjoining property on January 11, 1990. The public hearing was held on January 22, 1990. 6. Three persons filed with the City Council information regarding this proceeding. The Council considered the information filed. 7. The Council has determined that legalization of the right-of-way of Greenburg Road is in the public interest to facilitate the design and construction of improvements to said road. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The right-of-way of Greenburg Road between Pacific Highway and Tiedeman Avenue is hereby legalized in accordance with the report filed by the City Engineer and„titled "Report Regarding the Legalization of the Right of Way of Greenburg Road." SECTION 2: The City Engineer is directed to cause the road to be surveyed and the centerline and right-of-way to be monumented by a registered professional land surveyor. The City Engineer is further directed to cause the survey map and narrative for said survey to be prepared and filed with the County Surveyor in accordance with ORS 209.250. ORDINANCE No. 90- 01 Page 1 Page # SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By Un a n', r), ou s vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this o~ ►1d day of x► au , 1990. CL~~Q.'Lciu ~E1P4 ~ J Catherine Wheatley, Depu Recorder APPROVED: This cZ)Q n CJ day of ~•4'LA-kcL- , %1990. Gerald R. E ards, or Approved as to form: y L'AA A C y Attorney c , a a / r~r0 DA br.Grnbrg.Ord CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 90- ®Z AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE FINAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SW 68TH PARKWAY SANITARY SEWER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 42, APPORTIONING THE COST AMONG THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT, DECLARING A DEFICIT ASSESSMENT OR CREDIT FOR EACH PROPERTY, AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET. r The Council Finds: 1. The SW 68th Parkway Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement District No. 42 was formed and the improvements directed to be made by Ordinance No. 83-42. t 2. The improvements have been made in accordance with the final engineering report adopted by Resolution No. 90-01. The report contains a proposed assessment roll. i r 3. By Ordinance No. 84-43, each property within the District was pre- assessed based on estimated project costs. E 4. The total estimated pre-assessment cost was the sum of $172,960. The i total final cost is the sum of $170,960 and the assessments against the individual properties are as set forth in the assessment roll and the 7 Council finds that each property is specifically benefited in the stated amount. The difference between the estimated cost and the final cost has resulted in a credit for each property. 5. Notice of the proposed final assessments was directed to be given by Resolution No. 90-01. 6. Individual mailed notice of the proposed assessment for each property was mailed to each property o•Anner on. January 10, 1990. The notice advised the property owner of the opportunity to object in writing to the proposed assessment and that written objections would be considered at a public hearing. The public hearing was held on January 22, 1990. 7. One property owner filed written objections. The Council considered these objections. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The final total cost of $170,960 shall be assessed against the individually benefited properties as apportioned in the attached assessment roll entitled Final Assessment Roll for SW 6eth Parkway Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement District No. 42 and dated January 8, 1990. i ORDINANCE NO. 90-Oa 's i i SECTION 2: A rebate shall be given to all property owners in the amount of the credit shown on the Final Assessment Roll less any outstanding balance on the pre-assessment. i SECTION 3: The Finance Director is directed to enter each benefited property and the amount of the assessment against the property as shown on the Final Assessment Roll for SW 68th Parkway Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement District No. 42 dated January 8, 1990, in the lien docket of the City separate from other prior or subsequent assessments and the same shall constitute a lien against each respective property. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By VIVAncimoL1,5 vote of the Council members present after being read by number and title only, this aR nd day of of ,'gyp ytiiau2 , 1990 Catherine Wheatley, City R corder APPROVED: This aa•>d day of 1 e ld R. wards, Mayor Approved as to form: Attorney 1~14U . q"=t!.c a~ ?Q, D e DJ/o-#42.rw ORDINANCE NO. 90- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 90 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS, PROHIBITIONS, AND REMEDIES REGARDING ALLOWABLE NOISE LEVELS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City's noise ordinance to better allow effective enforcement and control of offensive noise. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.220 and Section 18.90.030 of the Tigard Municipal Code are repealed and replaced as follows: ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE 7.40.130 Noise - Definitions. For purposes of this Section and Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210, the following shall mean: (a) Ambient noise - means the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, usually being a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a minimum period of fifteen (15) minutes at a specific location without inclusion of noise from isolated identifiable sources. (b) Noise sensitive land use - means any portion of a church, children day care, hospital, residential group care, school, single or multi-family dwelling unit, and mobile home that is intended for living, sleeping, or eating. This definition excludes accessory areas or structures such as yard areas, patios, and garages as well as commercial and industrial land uses. (c) Commercial land use - means any use which is a permitted or conditional use in the C-P, C-G, CBD, and C-N zoning districts, as identified in Title 18. (d) industrial land use - means any use which is a permitted or conditional use in the I-P, I-L, and I-H zoning districts, as identified in Title 18. 7.40.140 Motor vehicle noises. (a) Motor vehicles shall operate in a manner which complies with applicable state motor vehicle noise regulations. (b) The idling of engines and auxiliary equipment on motor vehicles on private property, which exceed the noise standards specified in Sections 7.40.170 and 7.40.180, shall not be permitted for a period greater than five (5) minutes. ORDINANCE NO. 90--L/-.,P PAGE 1 7.40.150 Jake brakes prohibited. No person'shall operate within the city limits of the city of Tigard a motor vehicle exhaust-braking system commonly known as a "jake brake". For the purposes of this section, the exceptions set forth in Section 7.40.190 shall not apply and this section shall be read as an absolute prohibition of the operation of such motor vehicle breaking systems within the city of Tigard. 7.40.160 Noise emanating from certain property. Except as may be expressly allowed pursuant to the provisions of Sections 7.40.140, 7.40.190, and 7.40.200, no person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from the property under his or her control so as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise sensitive land use to exceed the levels specified in Sections 7.40.170 and 7.40.180. 7.40.170 Allowable noise limits. For the purposes of this section, the regulations and maximum noise level standards contained in "Chapter 340, Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 35, Noise Control Regulations for Industry and Commerce" shall apply. 7.40.180 Standard for measurement. (a) Measurements shall be made with a calibrated sound level meter meeting the requirements of a Type I or Type II meter, as specified by the American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters (ANSI Standards 1.4-1971). For purposes of this ordinance, a sound level meter shall contain at least a recording calibration curve for an "A" weighing network, and both fast and slow meter response capability. (b) Persons conducting sound level measurements shall have received training in the techniques of sound measurement and the operation of sound measuring instruments from the Department of Environmental Quality, a registered acoustical engineer, or other competent body prior to engaging in any enforcement activity. (c) Noise measurements shall be taken in accordance with "Chapter 340, Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 35, Noise Control Regulations for Industry and Commerce". 7.40.190 Noise - Exemptions to restrictions. The restrictions imposed by Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.180 shall not apply to the following: (a) Emergency equipment not operating on a regular or scheduled basis; (b) Noise emanating from all public streets; (c) Sounds originating on construction sites and reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of work in progress; provided, however, that no construction work may be carried out between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM Monday through Friday, 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturday, and 9:00 PM and 9:00 AM on Sunday except for bona fide emergencies where the public health or safety is threatened or for which a-special permit, granted by N ORDINANCE NO. 90- 03 PAGE 2 • 4 the City Administrator, has been first obtained in accordance with the procedures contained in Section 7.40.200; and (d) Lawn, garden or household equipment associated with the normal repair, upkeep, or maintenance of property. 7 40 200 Permits required for exceeding allowable noise levels. (a) The use of amplified voice and music or creation of noise at levels which would otherwise exceed those permissible under Section 7.40.130 through 7.40.190 may be allowed upon application to the City Administrator. Application for an amplified sound permit shall be made to the City Administrator on forms prepared by the City. The applicant shall identify the date, location and time of the event for which the permit is sought, and shall provide an estimate of the duration of the event. (b) In the case of a series of similar events to be conducted at the same location, the City Administrator may, at his discretion, issue the permit in a form extending to cover the entire series. (c) The City Administrator shall grant a permit in any instance in which the event and its accompanying noise will not, in his judgment, interfere unreasonably with the peace of those likely to be affected by the noise. In making this judgment, he shall take into account the nature of the surrounding properties and the benefit to the community of the event for which the application is made. The permit shall be subject to immediate revocation by the Administrator if any conditions of the permit are violated. (d) The City Administrator may submit any question arising with respect to this Section to the City Council, and if any member of the City Council requests its submission to the Council, any such question shall be heard by the Council. In either event, the decision of the City Council shall be final. 7.40 210 Penalty for chapter violations. (a) A violation of this Chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction, which shall be processed according to the procedures established in the civil infractions ordinance, set out in Chapter 1.16 of this Code. Notice to abate the nuisance shall be a prior contract. (b) Each violation of a separate provision of this Chapter shall constitute a separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this Chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate infraction. (c) A finding of a violation of this Chapter shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the violation. The penalties imposed by this section are in addition to and not in lieu of any remedies available to the City. (d) if a provision of this Chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the ORDINANCE NO. 90- 03 PAGE 3 officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this Chapter. 18.90.030 Noise A. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 30th day after its enactment. PASSED: By t,) /V/9NimoU5 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this a~ na/day of January, 1990. Cathy Wheatley, Vii= y City Recorder APPROVED: This a n day of JanMayor App oved as to form: Attorney ~GlsLLl0rt~ o~o~~ Icl~1U Date NOISE-OR2/kl t ORDINANCE NO. 90-D PAGE 4 i i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Utility and Franchise Committee Members Respond By FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director XX For Your Information DATE: January 12, 1990 -Sign and Return SUBJECT: City Council Workshop There will be no Utility and Franchise committee meeting in January. However, the Committee has a workshop with the City Council scheduled for Monday, January 22, 1990, at 6:15 p.m. in the Town Hall Conference Room. At our December meeting we discussed the following topics to review with the City Council: o Styrofoam Containers o Tualatin River 0 3rd Party Recycling o Compactors See you at the workshop! do/U&F CCWKSP i 1 toe a Q wa C~ LA f= J ( ~U,~„\C5 N~~6« s ~ vPrr-fc~o G~~iry We ~oy~oc~1 err S in/.rf - ~D/vf S GL / vs--~J ~ f~/GL-~' 1 i i i i i • Coot 1-1< < < C.UVr k5 hop S Glssi vv~- r TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ) AQ January - October 1989 Projects Summary ISSUES MANAGEMENT - WESTERN BELTWAY WHAT: Promote an integrated transportation system for the region WHY: Meet the region's growing transportation needs Avoid the possibility of gridlock TVEDC ACTIONS: * Western Beltway Coalition - organization and leadership * Friends of the Court - 1000 Friends v. Washington County * Intervenors - STOP v. METRO * Cable TV debate with STOP * Fact sheets * Tualatin Valley Dialogue - Regional forums * Member, ODOT Citizen Advisory committee * Issue updates ISSUE MANAGEMENT - TUALATIN RIVER WATER QUALITY WHAT: Monitor the development and implementation of programs to meet new EPA water quality standards for the Tualatin River Basin WHY: Ensure new standards do not cripple business Avoid the threat of a building moratorium TVEDC ACTIONS: * Member, Citizens Advisory Committee for Surface Water Management * Member, Regional Ad Hoc Committee on Interim New Development Standards * Testimony - Environmental Quality Commission * Tualatin Valley Dialogue - Regional Forums * Issue updates * Advisory Committee for WAMCO * Mayors' Business Roundtable * USA's Durham Treatment Plant tour ISSUES MANAGEMENT - URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY WHAT: Monitor METRO's development of an urban growth management plan WHY: Ensure the plan is a dynamic mechanism that is responsive to future urban needs for available land TVEDC ACTIONS: * Represent region's economic development groups on Technical Advisory Committee * Tualatin Valley Dialogue - Regional Forum * Industry Coalition Meeting * Issue update * Research ISSUES MANAGEMENT - LIGHT RAIL WHAT: Promote an integrated transportation system within the region WHY: Support mass transit options to meet the needs of changing workforce TVEDC ACTIONS: * Resolution of support for the Portland to Hillsboro line * Testimony - Senate Transportation Committee at request of the League of Oregon Cities * Research * Convened local leaders to review alignment at the request of Tri-Met ISSUES MANAGEMENT - SUBURBAN MASS TRANSIT WHAT: Promote an integrated transportation system within the region WHY: Support mass transit options to meet the needs of a changing workforce TVEDC ACTIONS: * Advisors to Tri-Met for study of regional needs * Testimony - Senate Transportation Committee at request of League of Oregon Cities * Research ISSUES MANAGEMENT - MAJOR STREET & TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - 2 WHAT: Continue funding for local transportation improvements WHY: Protect our investment in infra-structure TVEDC ACTIONS: * Advocacy * Speaking engagements * Issues Forum * Newspaper article ISSUES MANAGEMENT - SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM WHAT: Improve the mechanism to finance schools for a more stable, equitable funding base WHY: Ensure a stable funding source as a part of infrastructure investment TVEDC ACTIONS: * Research * Tualatin Valley Dialogue - Regional Forum * TVEDC Issues Committee briefings * Convened local leaders at the request of Senator Hamby REGIONAL PLANNING - SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT WHAT: Promote small business needs in responding to government regulations WHY: Future growth in jobs will come from small business TVEDC ACTIONS: * Small Business Forum * Testimony before the Joint Committee on Trade & Economic Development * Resolution of support for the Small Business Advocate Program REGIONAL PLANNING - WASHINGTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHAT: Washington County is developing a comprehensive plan to guide policy decisions relating to future growth and business expansion WHY: Ensure business's interests are represented in the process TVEDC ACTIONS: * Member, Steering Committee * Member, Economy Committee * Member, Resourct. Ocaimittee * Provide technical support REGIONAL PLANNING - REGIONAL MARKETING COORDINATING COUNCIL WHAT: Promote a strong image of the metropolitan region as a good place to do business WHY: Represent the Tualatin Valley as a region in the metropolitan area marketing program •TVEDC ACTIONS: * Member, Portland Development Commission Council * Affiliate, Portland Development Commission Public Relations Network Ambassador Program MEMBER/PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS WHAT: Inform the membership and general public on issues and activities affecting business in the Tualatin Valley WHY: Create awareness of the issues and facilitate pro-active responses Maintain communication between membership and the board of directors TVEDC ACTIONS: * Issues Forums & Updates * Quarterly Newsletter * Tualatin Valley Dialogue - Issues briefings * Committee briefings - Transportation, Issues Research and Membership Programs * Newspaper Articles INFORMATION SERVICES WHAT: Information about the local economy WHY: Ensure up-to-date information is provided about the local business environment TVEDC ACTIONS: * Targeted research Provided info. packets - over 125 locallregional/national firms * Maintain/update and publish area information * Provide information to region's quarterly development report i DATE: September 16, 1989 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mary L. Tobias i RE: President's Report August 16 - September 15, 1989 E Things remainded relatively calm in the office until the last week of August. Staff had really hoped for calm until after the labor Day weekend, but the Issues Forum breakfast put us back into the fast lane. Mary Weber has now been on staff as a full time employee for six months and I have spent some conference time with her doing a reality check. Colleen will have been on the payroll six months the first of October and we will schedule a review with her the first week in October. Mary Weber is continuing to work with John MacDonald to design a more effective financial report for the board. The new budget document gives us a good starting point for reviewing the fiscal condition of the corporation, but staff and the board continue to feel the need for a better monthly reporting mechanism. Three pieces of equipment are still desperately needed by the corporation to improve efficiency within the office: a FAX macaine, an IBM compatible CxTputer, and another filing cabinet. We are talking to Bob French at Intel about working out some kind of deal on a cantputer. If anyone has a filing cabinet available, a donation would be most welcome. PROGRAMS Regional Planning: Work is proceeding on the county's Economic Development Plan. The Economy ConTni.ttee is finishing work on the final draft of their report to the steering committee and the Resources CbrmmU..ttee has begun a revision of their report. The committee expects to conplete this work by November. I believe that most of the other subcommmni_ttees have finished and the steering committee will be evaluating the information by the end of the year. I intend to monitor the steering committee's efforts closely to ensure TVEDC's involvanent in the process stays high. Pat Ritz is vice-chair of that committee and will be a strong voice for private sector leadership in economic development in Washington County. Mary Weber is continuing to work with the Technical Advisory Committee on the UGB (Metro's study). That process is approaching the public input process and Mary is organizing a series of informational meetings to elicit comment from our meabers and interested others about the proposed study findings. This is being done in conjunction with Metro to assist them with the public counent part of their work plan. PDC is continuing to work on the developmemit of a strategic plan for marketing the greater Portland metropolitan region. I continue to participate as a member of the Coordinating Council in that effort. Pam Ragsdale has been hired aS a consultant to write the plan using strategy elements suggested by the council and members of the Portland region's business corm mitt'. ; 'E • 'LLV "'trCJ:L\.iCill.. .7 1~C~./1l:`.. August -16 - September 15 f 1383 Page 2 _ y Issues Management: .bne of the issues to which TVEDC time and attention was devoted last mon•~h reached resolution- during this period. Fred Pearce recommended four sites- for the siting of the new state penitentiary to the governor's task force and the selected sites DID NOT include either of the Washington County locations. Another issue that we have been actively involved in the last two months looks as though it will be resolved favorably the Major Streets Transportation Improvements Program vote. If the signals from the voters are on target, this issue should pass September 19. Western Beltway: There is still no decision from LUBA on the STOP vs. METRO appeal. In the meantim, I have been meeting with Northwest Strategies to continue to fine-tune the fundraising program. STOP has been quietly working on strengthening their arguments in opposition to the freeway. I debated Meeky Blizzard on the cable television program "The Forum Presents" this month and her argumnts, although still inherently weak, seem to be getting stronger. I expect to see quite a bit of activity from STOP once the LUBA decision is rendered. Michael Wirt, ODGT project manager for the beltway presented a program at an I-5 Corridor Association meeting this month and I used that opportunity to remind the membership of I-5 about the importance of following the issue through the Coalition. Tualatin River Water Quality: The Ad Hoc Committee on Interim Developnent Standards for New Construction is continuing to review the draft standards being written by DEQ. It is anticipated that these will go to the EQC for adoption in October or November. Information Services : Mary Weber has c=leted the draft feasibility study for the Ag. Study and has forwarded it to the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce for review. AOF Following any revisions that fray be needed, we anticipate the Chamber accepting the proposal and beginning the fundraising for the actual study itself. MISCELLANEOUS During the month. I represented TVEDC at various local chanber of commerce forums, the Beavertc-n School District's business/education lunch, a Tigard City Center Task Force planning meeting, and at several local service organizations' meetings on the MSTIP-2 vote. A highlight of the month was the opportunity to participate on a panel of local public and private leaders to discuss the importance of education - specifically vocational education - to the future of Oregon. This event was part of a national Televideo Conference on Vocational Education and Economic Development. Other local panelists included Dr. Dan bbriarity (Portland Commrdty College President) , Dr. Jim Taccini 7. (Superintendent of Hillsboro High School District), and Bob Baugh (Oregon Economic Development Departmnt). • R '~'VEDC APresdent's Report 'August 15 - Septenber 15, 1989 Page 3 F i OUTSIDE MEETINGS E_ In the report period, I represented TVEDC at the following outside me°tings Y or events: Washington County Economic Developmrent Task Force - Brit Ferguson '':Washington County Economic Development Task Force - Economy Committee` Washington County Economic Development Task Force - Resources Committee! US West COnmrLications/De1na Jones - TVEDC Update h_ Marketing Portland Coordinating Council - Quarterly Meeting E' DEQ - Interim New Development Standards - Ad Hoc Canmttee Meeting Hillsboro Chanber of Conrerce - Senator Packwood's Speech F Washington County Board of Ca missioners - TVEDC Update Beaverton Dou Mown Association - MSTIP-2 Speech Beaverton School District - Business/education commni.ty lunch Tigard City Center Planning Meeting - Briefing Phone Bank - MSTIP-2 Aloha Rotary - MSTIP-2 Speech Veaverton Woman's Club - MSTIP-2 Speech Pacific University Form on Japan Formn Presents - Beltway debate Northwest Strategies - Yeetings on Beltway strategy DEQ 25th Birthday & Canmerative Plaque Dedication Tualatin City Council - TVEDC Presentation American Electronics Association seminTn*' ar on marketing_ National Teleconference on Vocational Education and Economic Development Pacific Univerity Forum on China Sunset Corridor Association Quarterly Moeting ' I-5 Corridor Association - Monthly Forum American Electronics Association - Monthly Meirbership Meeting F ZVEDC PROGRAMS Tissues Breakfast - Major Streets Transportation Inprovement Program - 2 Titres article - MSTIP-2 TVEDC COMMITTEE STAFFING ' e The following TVEDC committees net during the report period and were attended by staff : Board of Directors Executive Board Issues/Research Comni.ttee Membership/Programs Com-nittee A.XT I October 16, 19 89 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mary L. Tobias RE: President's Report September 16 - October 16, 1989 During the last month, we have spent a great deal of time on regional strategic planning efforts and the Western Beltway. In addition, Mary Weber has been working with John MacDonald to refine the financial statement for the board. The most recent iteration of that document should come to the board at the October meeting. Colleen Elligsen has now been with TVEDC for six months and both Mary Weber and I have really enjoyed having her in the office. Colleen is beginning to assume more responsibility for event planning which has taken some of the pressure off of our schedules. Since my September report, we have had to purchase a used filing cabinet. That still leaves us in need of the IBM compatible computer and a FAX machine. However, at the moment, we do not have available funds for these items. PROGRAMS Regional Planning: We spent quite a bit of time reviewing documents and attending meetings on the county's regional strategic plan this month. The Economy Committee completed its review of the committee's report and have sent it to final draft. The Resources Committee continued with its review of the first draft document and has sent it to the county's consultant for final draft. In addition, this month the county began its public involvement process for periodic review of the Compre- hensive Plan. I attended two of their workshops (one, urban; one, rural) primarily to get a sense of the questions asked by the general public. The Beltway was raised as an issue for consideration at both of the sessions I attended. Mary Weber is continuing to work with the Metro UGS Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee. Because of the way Metro has decided to organize the public information portion of the program, we have decided not to set up the series of meetings we had originally considered. Instead, Mary will be leading a briefing for economic development and chanber representatives next month at the Portland Chamber of Commerce. The Marketing Portland Coordinating Council is continuing to work on a 5-year strategic plan for marketing the region. Pam Ragsdale will facilitate a meeting of the council and business leaders to discuss the progress we have made to date and solicit comment. The Council for Economic Development in Oregon (CEDO) held its annual conference this month. I attended this event and found it to be very interesting and informational. I have been elected to the board of CEDO and expect this to be a very good way to move TVEDC further into the state economic development arena. I also attended the Beaverton Area Chamber of Commerce planning retreat this month. This was a very positive experience. BACC prioritized the projects they will concentrate on during 1990 and the Western Beltway as the number one priority. I took part in two of the in-depth planning sessions - Transportation and Economic Development and Education. The BACC was very supportive of TVEDC TVED'i President's Report September 16 - October 16, 1989 Page 2 and indicated appreciation for the partnerships we have built between the two associations. Finally, I gave a quarterly briefing to the Sherwood City Council this month. It happened that Meeky Blizzard of STOP was at that meeting to present STOP's position on the Beltway to the council. As it turned out, it was fortunate that I was there because Meeky was having trouble with some of the statistics on light rail and I was able to help her clarify the ridership nunbers.' Issues Management: Once again, the Wester~z Beltway was the most time consuming issue during the month. However, the issue of water quality/interim development standards also took a lot of staff time. Western Beltway: We are still waiting for a LUBA decision in the STOP vs. METRO appeal. Meanwhile, ODOT is going ahead with their study of the need for a north-south highway west of Highway 217. Essentially, this study goes back to the drawing board and makes no assumptions about needed transportation i.mproverrents. The ODOT study includes several options to address traffic needs including mass transit only option. While this is going on, DLCD is in the process of investigating the need for an administrative rule to clarify how the state land use goals apply to the siting of a major transportation facility outside urban UGBs. It is unclear at this point if there will be an opportunity to participate in this process. It may be that the only point at which we can have input will be during the public hearing portion of the work program. I have met with Susan Brody, the new director of DLCD, and indicated the Beltway Coalition's willingness to participate in the process and work toward a solution. The Beltway Coalition Steering Committee met this month to begin to outline the implerrentation process for the strategies presented in the Northwest Strategies proposal. As a result, a meeting of the Coalition has been scheduled for October 31 at Valley Conference Center. Ms. Michael Wert, ODOT's Beltway Project Manager, will provide an update of the process at that meeting and then the Coalition will role up its collective sleeves to discuss what tasks we want to undertake in the im-ediate future and who will do what. Tualatin River Water Quality: The ad hoc group working with USA net to discuss strategies for testimony for the DEQ hearings. As a result of that meeting, staff developed testimony and I presented it at the DEQ hearings October 16th. It will also be necessary for us to appear at the EQC monthly meeting in November to underscore any points that the Northwest Environment Council decides to take issue with. Miscellaneous: I attended a day-long seminar on the future of telecorumnications hosted by US West Conu mications, a Yarrhill County planning meeting on transportation improvements, and a meeting of business leaders to discuss education needs for the 21st century. Memrber/Public Education: In late September we held a Tualatin Valley Dialogue on School Finance Reform. Panelists included The Honorable Jeannette Hamby, state senator; Rich Munn, director of the state Department of Finance; George Choban, petitioner for property tax limitation, and Stan Baumgartner, Oregon Tax Research. The meeting was very informative and the discussion was lively. The next Dialogue is scheduled for November 21st and the topic will be the UGB. We cohositred the Mayors' Business Roundtable with the City of Beaverton. The topic TVED 'President!s Report Septe er 16 n October 16., 1384 Page 3 for this year's roundtable was the issue of surface water managemzt in the Tualatin River Basin, particularly during new construction. The turnout for this lunch meeting was good with 50 people in attendance. Special thanks for help with this event go to Ann Mulroney, City of Beaverton, and Barbara Kanz, Oregon Title Insurance Company. In addition, John Adkins of the City of Beaverton helped with the initial planning for the program. In September, we held our fall Quarterly Meeting. The turnout for this meeting was disappointing. The Membership/Progra r. Committee worked very hard and planned a fun and informative meeting. Casey Powell, CEO of.Sequent Computers, was a fascinating speaker. Given the feedback I have received from many of those in attendance, it was a quality event. However, I don't believe that we can continue to expend that much energy on so few people. Information Services: Mary Weber has met with advisory committee for the ag study and they have asked for some minor revisions in the report. When those are completed, the committee will accept the report and pay the balance due on the contract. All of the advisory committee members indicated that the feasibilty study was exactly what they were looking for. Again, we are getting very positive feedback on the quality of the product we provide. MISCELLANEOUS During the month I represented TVEDC a the Business/Education Compact's annual recognition dinner, the Tualatin and Tigard Chambers of Commerce and the Beaverton Chamber's fall trade show. I also did a one-year on the job interview with the Valley Times. OUTSIDE IM=GS In the report period, I represented TVEDC at the following outside meetings or events: Washington County Economic Development Task Force - Economy Committee Washington County Economic Development Task Force - Resources Committee Business/Education Compact - Monthly Meeting Business/Education Compact Annual Recognition Dinner Council for Economic Development in Oregon - Annual Conference Beaverton Area Chairber of Commerce - Planning Retreat Washington County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - Rural Land - Urban Land Tigard Chamber of Commerce - Monthly Forum Tualatin Chamber of Commerce - Monthly Forum OCATE Dedication US West Ccmrnmications Telecommunications Conference MSTIP 2 Wrap-up Northcom Luncheon on Education USA - Interim New Development Standards - Ad Hoc Committee Women in Transportation - Susan Brody, DLCD, speaking on the beltway Yamhill Parkway Committee - Transportation planning in Yanhill County DEQ - Testimony on Interim Standards 'TVED President's Report September 16 - October 16, 1939 Page 3 } TVEDC PROGRAMS s Tualatin Valley Dialogue - School Finance Reform Quarterly Membership meeting - Casey Powell, Sequent Computer. Mayors' Business Roundtable - Water Quality Times article - Urban Growth Boundary TVEDC COMMITTEE STAFFING The following TVEDC conmittees net during the report period and were attended by staff : Board of Directors Membership/Programs Committee s 4 f I U~A7r:; November 16, 1989 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mary L. Tobias RE: President's Report October 17 - November 15, 1989 These last few weeks have been particularly busy for staff with the Beltway issues heading up our activities. Activities have been as diverse as a Western Beltway Coalition meeting at Valley Conference Center to a cable TV taping for "Community Concerns" a locally produced show on current issues. In addition, Metro's review of the urban growth boundary and their development of a regional growth management plan has taken a lot of staff's time. Thrown in with all of the regular business of the corporation, we have learned that Koll has leased our office space and we will have to move by December 18. Koll Co. has been very helpful and has located space for us in the same project (Tigard Business Center). However, the new spice will take a little more creative arrangement to be as comfortable as we are now. PROGRAMS Rec[ional Planning: Work has continued on the final document for the Resources Committee of the county's Economic Development Task Force. The Finances sub-committee held a special session during this month to revisit the data originally reported out to the full committee. Some committee members expressed a concern that there is really not enough capital available to start up businesses. After a thorough review, the sub-committee report was finetuned and has now been incorporated into the final draft report of the Resources Committee. Mary Weber is continuing to serve on Metro's Technical Advisory Committee for the Urban Growth Management Plan. TVEDC convened a meeting of the chamber of commerce executives and corridor association execs this month to review the Metro process and discuss strategies for presenting the economic development community's concerns during the public input process. Attendees included representatives from Portland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Portland Development Commission, Columbia Corridor, Beaverton Area Chamber of Commerce, Sunset Corridor Association, Forest Grove/Cornelius Economic Development Council, and others. The immediate result of the meeting was to set up a task force to crystalize the issues raised during the planning process. The task force will report back to the full committee and the results of their work will be presented to Metro at a December 8 meeting. The Council For Economic Development in Oregon held a board goal setting session in Portland this month. They have developed some very ambitious, but achievable goals for the organization this year. I suggested that CEDO would be a very good vehicle for taking issues like the beltway out of regional status to a statewide forum. The board agreed that this is a logical function for CEDO and suggested that issues be presented to the executive committee for consideration. I plan ' to ask CEDO to lend their name to a statewide or regional meeting on transportation planning (and the beltway) early next year. The Marketing Portland Coordinating Council is continuing to put together an action plan for the implementation of the 5-year strategic plan developed under the guidance of Pam Ragsdale. It looks like TVEDC may be called on to assist with the business education portion of the effort. I'll know more about how everything will mesh in the next few weeks. TVEDC President's Report October 17 November 15, 1989 Page 2 This month I presented my first quarterly briefing to the Beaverton City Council. Our contract for services was before the council and they had several questions about how we have decided to pursue our mission in the coming months. At the conclusion of my presentation, the council unanimously approved the contract. I think we all feel good about TVEDC's programs and objectives this year. Issues Management: The Western Beltway, water quality in the Tualatin River and education have been the issues of concern this month. In addition, we have been spending quite a bit of time on the urban growth management issues referenced earlier. Western Beltway: LUBA remanded the STOP v Metro case back to Metro with instructions to provide additional findings with regard to Goals 11 dnd 14. Another unexpected part of the ruling appears to have expanded Metro's regional planning authority and make it a "super" planning agency. Metro is not equipped to handle this responsibility and feels that this part of the LUBA decision is beyond the authority of the agency as defined by the statutes. The Western Beltway Coalition met at the call of TVEDC on October 31 to discuss the LUBA decision and to arrive at concensus about future strategies. Members of the Coalition are parties to the STOP v Metro suit and the concensus among the members is that it is important to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals to get further definition of the perameters for transportation planning within the state's land use laws. We have notified Jack Orchard that we want to take the case on to Court of Appeals and a notice of appeal has-been filed. I have met with Charlie Hales (HBA) about the Coalition's fundraising campaign. Charlie and I will be meeting with Jack Kalinowski from Associated General Contractors to ask for their help with the beltway project. In addition, I met with Bill Moshovskey from Oregonians in Action to discuss their role in the project. Bill requested the meeting to review what the coalition is doing and how OIA might be of assistance. We agreed that it is really best to keep the two organizations separate on this project. It provides a broader base of support for the highway than if we were all part of the same program. Tualatin River Water Quality: We have continued to work with the ad hoc committee on interim development standards. We will be taking testimony in support of the DEQ staff recommendations to the Environmental Quality Commission hearings on December 1. After a lot of very hard work and good cooperation between DEQ, USA, Washington County and the cities, we have developed a set of standards that appear to be workable and have some built in safeguards for re-evaluation as time goes on. This last month Oregon Graduate Institute and Congressman AuCoin's office convened a group of public/private leaders to discuss a proposal for research project to assist with determining what we are dealing with in terms of phosphorous and ammonium nitrate loadings in the river. aGI- is_ Lterested in learning what _aaditional:effo'rtY_ are currently ongoing and to coordinate efforts as much as possible to conserve dollar resources. This group is going to continue to meet in the near term to consider what possibilities exist for the funding of the OGI study. The TVEDC Issues Research Committee met at USA's Durham Treatment Plant last month for a briefing and tour. The turnout was disappointing after a good reservation response, but all of the committee members who attended considered the tour very informative and well worth the time. i t TVEDC President's Report October 17 - November 15, 1989 Page 3 Urban Growth Management: TVEDC has been actively following the study currently underway by Metro and as I discussed earlier, convened a meeting of economic development executives. from throughout the region this month to discuss strategies for conveying our concerns to Metro staff. In addition, we wrote a Times Publications article on urban densities which is included in the board packet. There are several concerns that we feel should be brought to the table during the planning process. One of the most important is the question of whether or not Metro staff is coming to the process with a predetermined conclusion in advance of the study process. This issue will be with us throughout the next several months and we will be briefing the board on new developments. The November Tualatin Valley Dialogue dealt with the urban growth boundary and was a huge success. Over 40 people attended the event to hear panelists Rich Carson (Metro planner), Paul Ketcham (1000 Friends of Oregon planner) and Bonnie Hays discuss the issues from their agencies' perspectives. This was by far the most successful of the dialogues to date. However, we have yet to find a good location/room for these meetings. Homebuilders facilities are well located, but the room we had was not adequate. The January Dialogue will be on transportation and land use planning and is tentatively set for January 30, 1990. Member/Public Education: We have had three major publiei education opportunities this month which have been discussed abotre: Times article, cable TV program on the beltway and the Dialogue. In addition, we wrote an article on the beltway for the I-5 Corridor Association and we are planning the December Membership Recognition Breakfast. Finally, the December issue of the newsletter should be going to press soon which will complete our newsletters for this calendar year. Administration: We have begun our membership renewal drive for 1990. At this time, renewals have 'not started coming into the office, but they should be starting soon. We did'hold a Washington County Briefing Breakfast at OCC Science Park and that has turned out to be very successful. Representatives from Bipolar Integrated Technologies, First Interstate Bank, Emerick Construction, and ESI joined Mayor Shirley Huffman, Bonnie Hays, Bert Gredvig, David Bennett and I for a two hour briefing on what is happening in Washington County and how TVEDC works with the public sector agencies on economic development. ESI has since joined TVEDC and Emerick Construction is considering a membership. The Corporate Contributions Task Force/TVEDC Board has met and is implementing a major contributors program. David Bennett, Bert Gredvig and Greg Van Pelt will be meeting with Gary Conkling to request major support later this month. OUTSIDE MEETINGS In the report period, I represented TVEDC at the following outside meetings or events : I-5 Corridor Association - Monthly Forum Marketing Portland Coordinating Council Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce - Monthly Forum Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce - Speech on the Beltway Washington County Economic Development Task Force - Resources committee (2 meetings) Washington County Economic Development Task Force - Resources Committee/Finance Sub-committee Beaverton Area Chamber of Commerce - Monthly Forum Washington County Business Association Executives Network - Quarterly Meeting TVEDC President's Report October 17 - November 15, 1989 Page 4 milk. 4L OUTSIDE MEETINGS, cont. Beaverton City Council - Quarterly Briefing Urban Growth'Management Briefing for EDC Executives Oregon Society for Association Executives - Monthly Meeting Business/Education Compact of Washington County - Workforce 2000 Committee Business/Education Compact of Washington County - Higher Education Committee Washington County Managers - Monthly Meeting Council for Economic Development in Oregon - Board of Directors Workforce 2000 Workshop - Presenter METRO - Parks and Natural Areas Briefing Sherwood Schools - Youth at Risk briefing METRO - Council Meetings (.2) - Beltway issues Western Beltway Coalition Meeting . Tualatin River Research Project Times article - Urban Densities Tualatin Valley Dialogue - Urban Growth. Boundary "Community Concerns" - Cable -TV show on the Beltway TVEDC COMMITTEE STAFFING . The following TVEDC committees met during the reprot period and were attended by staff: Board of Directors Executive Committee Membership/Programs Committee Corporate Contributions Task Force Issues Committee (_TV Diaglogu) TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WESTSIDE BELTWAY CHRONOLOGY l 1968 Major North/South Highway in Washington County Community Plan - Aloha 1970 Major North/South Highway in CRAG Interim Regional Land Use Plan E 1971 Major North/South Highway in Washington County, NE Community Plan 1 1970's Removed from regional planning documents 1983 Washington County Transportation Plan addresses North/South transportation needs METRO begins Southwest Corridor Study 1987 METRO Southwest Corridor Study - adopted ODOT 6-year plan includes Western Bypass 1988 Washington County Transportation Plan Update includes Western Bypass study corridor 1989 UNDER ATTACK 1/89 1000 Friends vs Washington County - challenge to county's transportation plan update f 2/89 TVEDC forms broad based public/private coalition i to support the highway € Sensible Transportation Options for People (STOP) ' activist group organizes to oppose bypass i 3/89 LUBA Hearing - 1000 Friends vs Washington County 4/89 LUBA ruling - 1000 Friends vs Washington County 5/89 STOP vs METRO - challenge to Western Bypass inclusion in METRO's regional transportation plan ' i ODOT & DLCD agree to initiate process for interagency cooperation to establish procedures for addressing land use/transportation planning 10200 S.W Nimbus Avenue • Suite G-3 • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • (503) 620-1142 I 4. F R 6/89 TVEDC expands coalition to support METRO in LUBA appeal i DLCD begins to develop work plan for the drafting of an administrative rule for land use/ ! i transportation planning i 7/89 STOP vs METRO hearing of LUBA appeal I 8/89 ODOT begins process of third bypass study since 1968 t 9/89 STOP releases study purporting to rebut METRO's Southwest Corridor Study STOP pickets ODOT public information meeting at PGE 10/89 STOP objects to Metro's recommendation to ODOT to fund draft environmental impact study and preliminary engineering study in 6-year plan and ODOT reserving right-of-way acquisition funds if study decision is to build LUBA Decision - STOP vs METRO 12/89 STOP, Citizens for Better Transit oppose METRO/ JPACT resolution recommending bypass Beltway Coalition, Metro and STOP appeal October LUBA decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals 1/90 Court of Appeals hears oral arguments on STOP vs I METRO STOP, 1000 Friends, Beltway Coalition present testimony to Legislative Interim Committee on Land Use E f n F Page 2 t x TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TESTIMONY JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE January 5, 1990 Oregon's land use planning process has been called into question. When should the state land use goals be applied to the planning process for transportation facilities? Despite many ancillary issues that have been raised, the central question to be debated and resolved is not what are the mechanics of the land use process, but rather what policy should be in place to direct the way in which transportation improvements are made in the state of Oregon. Currently the state, the cities and the counties are using what I will call an "assumed" process. Statewide land use goals have been adopted. These goals then are applied and implemented by the cities and counties through the development of local comprehensive plans. This is statewide policy translated into action through local land use decision making. This is as it should be. Local jurisdictions also have transportation plans which identify future needed road improvements. The transportation plan is built upon a study process to analyze the area's future transportation needs and like the comprehensive plan goes through a series of public hearings to identify regional and local priorities. If after a study 10200 S.W. Nimbus Avenue • Suite G 3 • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • (503) 620-1142 Page - 1 y 3 c process has been completed, it is determined that a new transportation facility is needed then a preliminary engineering study and draft environmental impact statement F F are undertaken. State land use goals and objectives are i considered hand-in-hand as part of that preliminary process. ! Indeed, it would be impossible to consider siting roads or i streets or improving existing highways without considering k the impact the improvements would have on the land and its i surrounding environs. Even though the goals are considered t: throughout the early phases of the project (DEIS and PE) the t formal application of the goals and objectives occurs at the time a preliminary alignment is determined. This "assumed" process which is being used on transportation improvements F statewide is both cost effective and efficient. Opponents to the construction of the Western Bypass say the State's current process is flawed and by implication - r indicate a lack of faith in Oregon land use planning P i a process. R Through the challenges to the proposed development of e the Western Bypass the issue of conflicting goals has surfaced. A portion of the area being studied for the facility's alignment falls outside of the region's urban growth boundary. This has made the project controversial and has brought to the fore the unspoken question . . . do certain land use goals carry more with weight than others? Is Goal 11 (Public Facilities) equal to Goal 12 (Transportation)? Does Goal 14 (Urbanization) outweigh all the other goals? Are the goals subjective depending on PROP - r l t f 1 whether you advocate or oppose a project, whether you have 4 the resources or the connections to litigate your position? It may be necessary to spell out the "assumed" process z 4 in order to continue the state's program of transportation improvements. But a clarification of,policy is required to address the issue of conflicting goals. The legislature must be a partner with LCDC and ODOT in the development of i x policy to address this issue. The policy that is set will affect construction of new roads and road improvements v anywhere in Oregon where the improvements are planned F outside of an urban growth boundary. This issue won't go away and will become even more pressing as Oregon continues is to change. The Western Bypass has wide-spread support from regional business and industry. This project was part of a Q lengthy study which began in 1983 and culminated in 1987 with a recommendation to develop a bypass in Western' x Washington County. The project is part of the regional z- transportation plan and ODOT's six year highway improvement program. Many times during the study process from 1983 - W 1987 citizen involvement was encouraged. Indeed, it was through this citizen involvement that support for this facility grew. A~ TVEDC offers our assistance to ODOT and LCDC in t M developing policy to address the issue of competing goals.' In our opinion, the implications of that policy will affect g: the future of transportation planning through the state of Paco Oregon. We want to join with you in developing the solution. . .to be a partner in Oregon's transportation future. t t ' i Page - 4 MCIOZ, TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION December 1, 1989 Environmental Quality Commission Public Hearing Portland, Oregon Mr. Hutchison and Members of the Commission: The Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation (TVEDC) represents diverse business interests from throughout the western portion of the Portland Metropolitan area. TVEDC recognizes the importance of addressing the many environmental issues that impact Oregon's ability to compete for quality business expansion and development while protecting the quality of life appreciated by our citizens. For this reason, we have been active participants in the working group that helped draft the interim development standards. The commission's adoption of the interim development standards for erosion control was timely. The standards before you today pertain to permanent retention facilities for surface water run-off. I will take this opportunity to reiterate the role the r- interim rules play in the mitigation of the amount of phosphorus in the Tualatin River. First, non-point sources 10170 S.W. Nimbus A%vnue • Suite H-2 • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • (503) 620-1142 have been estimated to contribute only 15% of the phosphorus level, the remaining 85% is from point sources. Surface water runoff in the urban area, which is the problem these proposed interim rules address, is just one of several identified non-point sources. Agriculture and forestry,run- off in the rural area are also non-point sources. The development of interim standards was intended as a short term response between the time of EQC's order and the adoption of USA's Watershed Management Plan which will be ready for review in March of 1990. During consideration of the interim standards all parties agreed that soil erosion standards during construction would provide both a short IL term and a long term solution to water quality controls. The erosion control guidelines adopted earlier are an appropriate mechanism to mitigate additional loadings of phosphorus to the Tualatin River during new construction. In its Watershed Management Plan USA intends to develop a set of regulations for permanent storm water run-off facilities that can be assessed and fine-tuned over several months during the adoption process in anticipation of compliance in 1993. Even now USA and the cities are working on public education programs to raise community awareness; and USA is improving maintenance of the existing storm drain system. The goal of the interim rules is to mitigate phosphorus loadings.in the Tualatin River until the management plan is in place; through community efforts we have begun to work I f I toward meeting that goal without the addition of these proposed rules. As we continue to move toward July 1990 the parties involved in this process need the flexibility of time and of scientific discovery to weigh the pros and cons of a region-wide system versus individual on-site retention facilities. Adding an additional layer of regulation at s this time muddies the water. The interim regulations before you now represent at best a temporary "fix" for a very small part of the problem. , s However, the repercussion of these regulations could saddle j i the parties with a set of 'interim' rules that act like a f management plan but precede the required, careful crafting of the plan to be placed before you in March 1990. Without t the ability to continue to fine-tune the rules through the ; application of scientific data gathered during the next several months there could potentially be a delay in i compliance. TVEDC urges the commission to hold adoption of the interim standards in abeyance while USA completes its c Watershed Management Plan. We also encourage you to continue this process of cooperation as we all work to resolve the issues that lie ahead. i If the commission believes that interim rules are necessary, we urge you to proceed with caution and care so as not to constrain the process by which the systems performance can be integrated into a workable long term solution. W4 dab, PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY Sept 1988 EQC order USA & DEQ begin planning process Jan 1989 Ad Hoc committee on interim standards begins working with DEQ June 1989 Ad Hoc committee reports out to EQC support for soil erosion standards EQC adopts soil erosion control standards Work on interim standards continues Oct 1989 Ad Hoc committee reports concern about timeline for interim standards Dec 1989 EQC considers adopting interim standards Mar 1990 USA Watershed Management Plan to EQC for review June 1990 If adopted interim standards take effect July 1990 EQC adoption of USA's basinwide Watershed Management Plan Lkp4 DRAFT TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC, DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING ISSUES OF CONCERN P * Need for certainty - Certainty that land outside of the UGB will be available for urban development at some future date for the purpose of more efficient infrastructure planning. ti P For example: ability to plan utility lines so F they can be sized to meet future development design transportation improvements to accommodate future demand Possible solution: a 2-tiered boundary Syr - 50yr Need to better conserve farm and forest land and better manage land just outside of the UGB for future urban uses. f Problem areas: exception areas ¢ residential development on large lots outside of UGB I -r Need for subregional analysis - Analysis of need takes place at regional level but the impacts of these decisions f occur at a subregional level. Improve analytical tools - Need RLIS (land inventory system) running as soon as possible and to better monitor population changes. * Need a better defined criteria for amendments to the UGB. C 10170 SAM Nimbus Avenue • Suite H-2 • Tigard Orrgon 97223 . (503) 620-1142 • stem transPortabo" Y ulti°~~ occur. to the time in ~ g~ s stem has We have come lan- nee 11 by an efficient street PeO le who on s history that llannin P and transP°rtauon planning need coun v crcaed a critical massy em ea i1Y and Oregon it Iran, oordinated and blended- to be rnrtatio efficiently. can utilize a transit Sy choiros Deip n sys rite streets ere laid outdo 1 transportation and land use of our A multi-m A Will or streets running What's mull!-modal? Which a grid with 1113j or reflect a realistic vision 1C11t nner jargon for your it 'stature. ortation to methods t } r S"''• cast ova and hoc north to south. Neigh - -that's P ta i located within thosocar- cot fiust kip our transpd wciS11 mulups and services 1 i nos S both examine ogle, g ridors. communities options and in the best Possible dcscribcs tnovingour conlmunitics. In trip 2thh In contrast, suburban and open within t major all altcmatives. automobignat 11Sht Mary Willi few world we would have multiple modem falls mcaS Tobias are tiic home Of ►11c ctrl-do sac hways• C? century railltrains streets al transit ad- sit rail and hi8 s, Tail (heavy bicycles. S traf- is not ioc file es and 1ou County_ artCrials. Ilousin8 In Dully- is »t ht eo le work Mary r preside bus lot corwmic pevelop- )f rail'(,B1hA-ole 4). has been a of talk of late cant solve Washing m lig cent to where P p We also face i s vabiY available transports- oblems by just How investing will we ) of the w county to market Tualatin Your It s about the many ow the choices we . Cic ill d bus service. In our 2 areas farm C wiwee lt be written by and how fall an t!or he problem of nano oat- men, Corp* Namt a lion options cods and servieesj 12 small serve both faun ptcrinesS1. column w v¢rtan Area the future ilt at[cct ° move 8 ode up o commu1ef itaffic:' the ilea make for which is m Willi roads which Cover r¢p and the surrounding on, county, d of central city , jujiber of of s ri- Coni»rerce. Coimnunities clues (histea a s , can tic and increase cul ci8h borhood) lvlenlbcrs of one of Wasl» ngton 8 C!►wnber of vitonmen►• of ligllt rail and well identified n 11 schools, t 's important industries dit- . advocates to slit, , »nB, Y Tare finding it increasingly _ , romote tile* we take the b Without s!pending titre - and mtlvc Vocal W J improved bus service P Washington doctors attd banks accessing arkct or veer u, Ctficicncy punts of time Ctcull to access th Yo g1c~o the ally inordinate am cstcd p mixles as Violate, their harv 's traffic nig act arc cited as County transportation Processors. a1u1 covironnxntsl hit ublic these scs nSlc? type of north-south high- for investing P Ce ion's diverse onents of a exPress lite •17i°se advo- Nit nice, ton County solutions. nod a 8 multi modal OP n Washing would open nwnics in dicsc growth needs. We dcvclnP- catcs also oppose urban construction of new facility will stem We and nod streets way that a now road 8 land to urban traf- outside the osition trams,ottatlon sy the rottxtctl Carrt► ,ortation sys- , l,ighways maintain the P highways for auto truck th ponce trans ation ment. Ihislorically, , b°uildary• They rail for commuting to pro ribute to the too reinforce our love and ght and buses for travel from do cont that new highways to torus of development. However, t' sdtrlflonl a central city laces of emp Y dcc,sio ns land us6 laws that affair with the auCldabout'tile in ilar-I hborhoods to p nn we have uncut, as well they at c concern on en- nelg the in (}leg en highway would have IV uew and dirt d~cltlis not a g courag g In much of downtown Portland an tcnt would be in developinGit on [a a1 land. 19111 tpileiihe t. cast side the develoP• asaide protect land us transit advocates allowed to Of tti city neighborhoods that devolt,1m Mass ht rail should be eX" mcnt of well !dcnti (icd ncigconnected when they say hig ton Count and bus tended to Washing rnvpd. But we with Itom and busincssc service must be imP slow i j 29+ 1989 xpvember GregoDian - The ' ~ ~ .id Oahe 1 tor to plug into the d Iand tries.I~a Savery suc-tboth In ~ ~ and greenhouse solid to prof ~ountrY had rota from develop'; 0 orkers in nu a ens. of the ding farmian sow s r sfortha its r to i 1P ~ t: three f wereregi tere adon 'Parts in p ° ral issue s: men • .:ir` , t t.:: Q facing MOre H' ep °p It sad newwater qu~tty rev, growth in a tnp he study foculo. t .r r a' % • . • P le con- basin could slow a o How much income generate in wishing: mat Tualatin River water, i ries. n8 ` t=: both Inducees ar and other business farmers heaserY crops and b r restry g re prof". rt contends~uc crops that rely es in field-bieldburn• agriculture andfo ~ a most p vegetable crops- n Chang a of crops affect the here. 8 CON1, I POT tRR bibu ed to art 5ofOO the costrepo rae Oregonian one of th d ropos affect the typ ion Countri' re t'tre are and . W ngtoWt P n County areas in the it also sai p at culture and forestry agrtcultu g regulations could Acreage in seed crops in o agri CorrasDonGenG Y c Fears that forewrashing• the mature of forestry t to percent ability enera °ted~ other pRO d diversified farm ng mown in the county. onded io o How income g a o ltu 1e era fed the ty declined a~p0u HILLSB threatened in iilsboro five an it said, threatened by labor shore on Coun a~ being omP H dy world. But, when farmers resp d fieldburn~ashingt of farm and forest ton county have p scion aes agt cc wUlture ate isualiryreguiafions an the 19BOs said the report d an forestry helps to 'u9p Commerce to comma dustri restrictions, sal study was acti~~tY• ation f a m of life in quality Chamber of ce of both in is Develop- ages water 4 whether TO doh tuber the county's overall o $0w preserv to the the impo valley which is ing ers are wonderin y~ashino on f1eld'hurn1°~ o{facials sal d the contributes showing Econom restrictions a how of its land The Tualatin the study, ber is "Some farm dollars in world or expected to outlin the stren0► washingien County sectors- will prep ~eo fihe chain investing the more is health was tied to th 00 went Corp. The corpora- continue or to find another area oked ono{ the econotri d forestry " eitpe ed to cost about 'for tt. that County where agl1c~ture a member ag r e an the god was to have something soliciting donations top y a e cosine` said Jim Ham' ttee. rivate sector benc es t encour g {avorablY, culture comma ocean tw o tion is a povernn1ent ag chamber's agri works adth g meet. se indicated that m business develop lust finished the firs The report The cOrP°raii°n 3 at some of the problems of the project, look uig ,I ~ I w~ ~~~p"~~~• lifi ,al wt A n u~S i r~ %P~r..~ ~ i ~ .s x..?~,«.4w. 'i kmr': y mil..!iti~~~pi IP• r• ~i•{ s : ~ ,R~,,3>= : s1 : ~,Yy ? p f~ F^~ 41 ifr ~y(s ~~y NI• i?t ~ S ~~u ~ -r~ . w,.. x. o ~i',7 x ~ ~M?`Cry l j s P R O C L A M A T I O N 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF KIWANIS 2 WHEREAS: Kiwanis International, a community service bbl, organization with 320,000 members and 8,500 clubs, ??4~ raised $65 million during the past year and donated i more than 22 million volunteer hours in 73 nations and 1 ~~...L geographic areas; and IIiF= WHEREAS: The concept and principle Kiwanis represents is " symbolized by the slogan, "We build"; and ? WHEREAS: On January 21, 1990, Kiwanians in this City of Tigard and elsewhere around the world will celebrate Kiwanis' 75th Anniversary; and WHEREAS: There are 95 Kiwanians in 3 clubs in the City of I~~, f Tigard; and WHEREAS: It is fitting that the members of this worthwhile t~ organization be recognized for the outstanding service. they provide in this community. NOW THERFORE: I, Jerry Edwards, Mayor of the City of Tigard, do hereby proclaim the week of January 21-27, 1990, as t "Kiwanis Week" in the City of Tigard. ll..~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Tigard to be affixed. " .i Dated this 22nd d~°`+t4 ay of January, 1990• iif}! Mayor, Ci y of igard ~i ATTEST: i tf"'L='s` i City Recorder, City of TigarcW I f'Shi '$Yi rim" f~rti:1'lY n.._- . ~ ::~..~.a...~.._. ~ n _ ' ~t lin ' I~niIpI IIpII rpm nu~iiil unpui n I iRipm mgnn irilpm npin~uu~q rnt m rtnpm mip~ ingliu~111~Im~nnpln~nnpul~nupln~nlgnl~nNplll~i,nNnl~nupio~iiigoN~u,q,;,,~N,l~,ul~iiupu{~N~~ : _ _ _ _ . I~ I~ I I I ~ I I ~ 3 II 5 I I 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • 29 30 § ..*~I 2 3 4 5 --.8__. 7 B _9 _ 10 __I~.... I? I .4,....~... _Ifi__.j7__..18 .I-....---.... - '~NlNtlaa ~ 'ItlNI9Iim 311 ~0 AlI1Vf10 3U. Ol •3N0 Si lI ~ 3~t10N SI HL ~~~I NtlHL tltl31~ S531 SI ffiJINtlNU I~ ! 03W1Id0!lOIW SIN1 dI ~310N zi I r o1i s e z s,_ s ti e z ~ - r I III~III~III~IIII~II~IIIIIII~IIfI111~111I111~1.11ILII~III~II1~IrlII~I~I~IIJ~I~111IL~IVII~III~IILIrII~II1L1~1~1~1~1~1~111~1l.I~IJ.I~111.~LIlIIrIIIII~~II~ili~i~fl~ITili111~1h~ihIIII~UI~III~iIJll1{~ Sa 1S1~1 Qb Z~ ID ~ F _ - I -u.~ ~ v I r W, ~ „x , I 'J 11;a. i~~.~u_$.,,~'u` I "'"rr,-rlrrr I u7~1-71r `rr :r"~/ I - ,i, tn~r~ d , ~ ~ - - ~I ,~~1, ~ II H ~ ~ ~ ~ : I~ {,I ~ ~ _ I_~ I~h I, 7 11 1`'~J I ~/,a I, ,.'r ~ LEGEND V , I - ,r- lIT1FJ, ,.II rntt:rl-I! I F'~r U i v; ~7~it1 L~ _ tl ~ ,d ~jj--{~ ^~'~I 'Tb„~, - I rJ , . a.l dr.. 1 .-„z/~r ~c c/ i I -1-, E ......An 1A f, ~ ,~l ~ f ..4j~ ~I~ I~ ~ ,..tom ~i~~„~J~~r _ I .[.,,-,rl.- ,.~:.n,x J,-I M1 Ix3r?~ Nntnrt:•., .rtlp r ~ I..IIi 7:.:_LJLL] _,,F.~~I--!{I~i~ ,~~1 ~I..._~. ~kF'tJal" „ , r~.~~ I-I~rI i'rt~1l~ --I~ 9 V~ T .l I-~~~-/y/j~'T ~JC~xJ i1fL t` ,J },•y~ I uF ~ N,.-.,~=,+,,c~I` i~^ '~1 ~I,~u MITS- ro 11_. ...:x / '+'v;/. 1 ~ti,17 ~ ~ ....L_-I:II'" II :-J { `I .p r-f- TIGARD CITY Ll . - _ .r ~ 1. - , c_n~FtiJ+ : , .•,~crlL~~::1 __I .aw.TN I 1 wo, I_T a v. h .._:f,-~_ f~.Mc7an ,Jpanry-C .,.;:ir.. f~" ~ .w _ 1 I""`'! T" tl m a IAT 1=IL URBAN PLPNNitC AflEA~ { I _ 1 • z, F :>;7 - . ~ . J ~ ~rl r ~'~ZCD - .-~P~ill ACTION AREA ILgorA s Cemrn: Business Uishmd THE CITY OF TIGARD 1~1p{ ~a 71r>I7 i , . I T ~ Tr .~a 1, ~~r~~'~' , . JJ-_ U~..` ~~,~~7~rf}~_ tt'UF rt~t 1 {T•. •'.~i~ ON 0 NOT WITHIN 7IGAR7 CITY LIMITS r~ -I~ i- I Ib,l.?.l'_s(~ I ~:`i If-, . .J. Z E , _ I I - y ~ / 1 ~ ~~,.JJ ~~~y ~ I~ ~j~T ~ [IL ~,W_,: Y dV- ~ ,R - , •I~✓ fit: • UJ-- 13'.~S I]11'..l_ . ~ _ ...~I,+ ` ~ ~C. t w, AND VICINITY , -C~,:~~ I I•~.. I ~ II,, I ITTir, 7 III , ~ ~ t { , l . LAST CITY I.IMIi REVI610N•OCTORER 71, 1969 ~;~i~'[.~'~~TI~~,, 1`~ 4 ~1 '1 7~ I, ~I]jITI-~r~f,~{.~I ~I''~~.- f'~'~' I~I;X ?r••1{ ! F + I-~!•Id L_ I t l ; `(}~l I J.1.~, 1t-i a I I, r~ - '}%,V,~~?rl,~~i H0~ ~1i. V I Y ,.~@+OC7 ..1'~•1,~ _ I I; ~ ~ ~P.V _ I : I i r. ~r~ ~~,i!i t.n-v. if ~ ~ i; y 1 Z Ct7MPREHENSI t/E PLAN MAP n . ~ . I~ _ , ;j ' ~ ~ . 2 oPa. ea-2a 1G! _ - '`Y • ' . 3 r ,:;I ~E: ~ ~ I I _ lY(` r `l ; . l W I I ~ , - ;r'.,a -I ; ~ ~ h4: ~ I• I ~ I ~ , ~ ~ ~ 1 : ~1>~4i1,~ il?~~ ~ i I k,~f. >rY,, 0 ; h 11 IDI i, 6DD :y ; ~ d ~ T T _ . ~ (CATIONS I IF _ . _ ZONING L, _ ~ ~ ~I ~ I_ 1 I„ T., ' R1~UAND'- ZONING CLASS RICTS ~'v I ~~o: ~ _ _ ~i~•~,~T~.-I lI ..L1. _ smamnl' -L ~ , r C,lS1„T-i ,ziL: q _ u c ~ L.._.,.~ ~~r . _ I '!i I ~ . f ' 1~ ~~I~~i'I'~ I 7 .p I, _ ??rf f , ~"Y~ ~m ~ I ~ ~ I 4: ,`"I~ L. Jl I r: "3m - 13I~~ ~E~j I ~ III' ' RESIDENTIAL r F r ~ ~•,I ,:F.W .l~"• - - ~ / I;',: 1 a• - ~ ~II¶~' - + t ~ I ' 30090 SOUANE F00T Mlf.@tUN LO, SIZ,: PREPARED 6, 'HE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ ~ ' L ~ 1r-{t " " " ' - ,ty ll . 1~ 'a I ,-,:I 'Yl/7, ~ I Fly. L J:- ~ ~ R-2 . ..2OAOO O:UARE FOOT M111N1'U'f LOT SIZE -a ~ ~ ~ -n, I { I ( I I I 1y ii• ~ w ~r,~ 1 GT"" '~y~`~ ~ ^ 1~ t TY - ]1.,..~, T~,~.j ~ ~ 'r1 ' I ~ ,10,000 SOUAHE~ F00T MINIMUtL LOT SRE I' - Ut?- I I T - T. ~ t1 `ti^-~ G7~T11 7,~ ~ ~R ~.L ~ R•3.5... . - I~ ! T I I ; ~I ~"aa[~~ ~ - ".v~ ~,1 - • ~ r ~ ,S ~`~-~4 I ~.1. L~i , ,-L3tr~,,; L Lpr slzE ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~T ~ 7~ . ,-tom: ~ 1~ -ICI a~1^-7 ~ ~ - z Q , ~ 3 - 7500 SQUARE f00T MINIMUM i I I , I ~ ~ I I' ~ ~I ui `~,.~r - I 61 .,.,p. _ @ ~ - F ~'hi] I '1 ~r _r Ras . L~/ ,l I ,I, i ,I L. I J I:J C~1 ~ y ~ 3 ~ 1. - I-.~ 1 ~Zp' r ~ ~ • ' N 'f',V~~ I^,xll - t "1 _ ~ ~ '~6l'•-.~ ~ ,I ~ R-7 ................5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM .LOT 512E '~H ~r-rl_.L ~II , ...1___L .-.I. _L.._~-__ tgq{y7 ~ I~~~"~TIIF~F - ` IL. - 12 UNITS/ACR_ . I • U7 n•r ~ (i' , P , Fr~~I' ,~~{I e L?:+•i•J~ Lll ~ ~ ~~~~j ~ I ' R 12 , 1i' '1 ~ ~ I ' ~ IJu.:ILI 1 _N TON i;.~T~_J "~RF"~ r- i~ l: i I ~ I 1 _I ' , I I- 1 ~ , { I . ~'I ' : AVER [F`„EFFw q coy ~P'rtSIAND~ Ti ~T and ~ ~ " I'~~ 25 UNITS/ACRE i % I ~ ll1:--_...J Il.-} lfT ..YTA1~r R-a0.. n0 U0.1TS/ACRE I I: ~ ~ [F Ia- - hE~ Tx Fx ( ~ I I_ i • •'"`(T+~.111i i :'s`\ \ t~ - , ~ ;I' I ~ : _ I'="aFi ~ ~ COMMERCIAL , y\ I ~~:F>, ~C; / ~ it '.r y~ILIJ3 HI i ~ I - rII_ ' T ~ 1 ~ /✓~z i ^m ^'1 D SnBORH00p COMMERCIAL I 3`" ;I ~i ~ ~a11~.~IT~ !R-I _ I -~~e;r~~n k LL c-N ~'I T.l. t- ~ . t~(,,--JJ ~ - p~p~~~ gyp'-T~-Ty7 _ r- a n ' 3~' ^ i. 7q l'- ~ AL . I l•11L~ [~.1]'~ d - ~ ~Lll11ll1G'~+1.1 ~ I ~^a~~~,~~ C-G o_:;ERAL COMMERCI ry.77 1 `i ~ ( ~ IIIt.--'~ppp' {III-{~-7~!rr~~~T,!~,, rµ~~{,~,~~~ ' AL BU .f - ICI I .r r 1~ CAP E ~L~IIUJ LIJI[Li~ni n a~~~~~ f m ~ f~ ~ C SINE55 DSTRICT ~,7-~ t, I-~ c / , 1 - . 1- 1 1' / ~ i f -A'G'O-'I I ; •S •'I rw.r• ~ i d 4 C-P.. `ESSIONAL COMMERCIAL _11,1 I. I J~,_.~_. .r-- 1 . j :I~'N .m' ..u._. b ti•--~ G R ~ .-4 ~ a v I. I ~ ,nil C- _ Y,~:. , t 16~f~1!iJ.I~NII'IuW llLfLl,• _ ~ I ,o =1 ~ n ~i L I I C~ ~ INDUSTRIAL I` \ \ k ~ ff~~ IPOJ - f`_t.. - ..IJDOoTRIA_ F ;I'%• - / ' l - ~'I II IIRLLiL'L~u''-" 6 IP. PARH c~ / ' I ~ ~ ~ _ ` % z _ I-L LidH7 INDUSTRIAL , I ~ y Ord-~2~ 0 ~ R-2 :u I~ I n I ^ ' D : ~ r.,J ~ 0 J - I-H ...HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ~ ` `"may' ~ ~ Ip V0 ~0 sl u y~; _ - li _ _ \ ~ a ~ f :w ~ - R3. i 'R l2 ~ .5_ -i I / ^ ~ s - ~ OTHER F , D ~ - , I / R ~g~~r 1-'. ~ I „ RLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAI' - _-,'_l 1 : I -25 f, ,I e~ " 4' r. _ f ' _ ~ ~ FG `i z.~~ r - • _ a~qt 'fit,,,. T~ L~ 'I~17~,'f~[,7!_ - - -6 I_ ~/II ! ,OFF-~.il lPD1...... J~ ~ ! - - 01111. W..ll:ll ~ _ ~ I f - 7 I ,.IJ _7 - I v u••• ''~a ,,i - - ~ , , , ::nail ,1,' ~ I - ~ll~; I,, ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ , % t~ LL HD H:s-DRlc DlsrRlcT i~ - E - -,~-"W~1Lk_LL• L:...J I~~~ r ; ~ _~;-~li, CD . ................CG7NTY ~ ti ~ _ _ ~ ~F~11-.. :TI _ _ :III 1 . ri .5 L > ~ r'~ A I-L' P ~ ' T' t?'~. 1 5 1 ~~7 - - I ~ 3 t - 4~. i~ - , 5 r I - ~ 'IIT , V ~._-r ids-_ A. 1 nil . ~ LL ~I - ~ -r~-= ~ _ ~ o s rNDJ 1 • rnn ~ 'r`~~~----G . ~ - n r'~ - - 'I r - ~ 1 I 11 ~t-_1-~~ 1 I - s _ ~i ~ . R-25 I - - - i [ I/ ~ , 1L 1~ , „^,~m„ I F , ~I - _ 1-- , - l~ I I t I I --I I F ~ , hffa - I I' I _ ' ~ ~F;r Tr ~ LAK . :r i R-7 R-4.5~ ~r~''~C~ I ~':v:.`'E I S l-P r OS~ - I I "I"";i ! r 1P01 --1NASHINGT ~ • •i - / I T ISLA ~ D 8 ~ ~ -a ~ r ~ ~r , I _ _ ~ - ~ I - . E. - - -L--- I _ - , T I WAS UNTY ~ ~ I ~ .P ~i . ; _ T - . ' a~' ~ 'r I - ~ •c _ R-7 - _ l ' i s - A t ~-1r".J/I I _rr I r. ° R-2 ~r}6NIR"4 R RI']c~~`<.1 I, j I ~ L /f~"I nl,. I ~ '~1-I " ! _ y__~ 6 ~c-- - /I > ! I ^ s yusmn6Tnn ' ~ R-2 a ( ~ / ~ j ~ _ f':~~!ja. t+l k - ' I z I L' l 1-----i-{ - /r' ~ I /r I r T, .cauxT ~ E rl - i 1 d:Plrl~ I d `I ~ ~ ~ - ,.L. I ~ . " t log .Ai 11. A Ij _ Y ~ I .I. - n l~ ~ I ~~L F r I 1 f - ~ - M,' d ~1 1 it ~.y tr I W - i E' ~%Y L ~ - ~ L•' - I • _ MI, . _ . ~y ~ / ~ C- - R `C • I , ~ -,I_ 71 v ~1,~ . ~ ,~.-._~--I.~- - I . r~~L I -l ~ 11 ~ . E ~ I _ r t J L.. _ r ~.w ~ II R 2 I _/T tee, I `,y ' ~ ! I -~I~ r / R-l1, '9 ~ I > T ` ~~f_ - r, z ~ I :y ri • T'_"iT wY ,1 -~I.. tluuu'suiw~uuwuuuvuluuuwuuwuuunuFUrFUUV~uwuuyE`I r"_ : i ~ ~ R _ i I I' f- ~ , o L` tr ~ - 7 2 n ±-rrm Gr„ i _ , d ~ r~ - r ~ P 1 Rao ''f]L _ ~ ;'~j7~ fir- r - - .3 I\ I I Y-, L p ~ I I - _ t_ L . I w,\ ~r,. qn~ I ~ V~~:1/- 1rPD1 Dla-~_I,_ c - - - ~ - J _ I I ,H' I'i ,-r I I I~ I D. _ (1 fl D:~ _ r~~i (TI , ~ i ~ ~ : R'A. ~ ~ - L - ~ l~j. ' ~ ' - " ~ ~ ~ Ili d J - :I ~ - { ~ I,. ' I . ~ ~ - i i 0 M 'G (~'Q'jD li LM s Zoning Revisions'. 11-03, 6.84,1-85, 6-85,12-85, 3-86, 8-86, s i M G' I ~ I-- I I \ .j'I .~/y,~ 6 - ,r.y.a;:, ~ pya>r ~ 'y r' ~~h t 1-87,3-87, 5-87, 7-87, 9-87, 10-87, II-87, I ~ - i li _ .''s: d ~:v,''x,`"' I FZ-~ ` ~t'7?Tl :3. ~ - ' .I v?. 3-88, 5-88, 10-88, 11-88, 3-89,8-89,11-89 I / ~ J 1 ~:.,m II EI G 1C ~ : ~ c ~ • ' I _ 1 1. r A~~ I D ~y"~~j,•~ r ~ ~ i r~l - ,;~ar. r, l 1 I• ~~nnum«~ ~7 .J-G~7lllll~rrzt~dll~d~~r ~ ~i.. ~ r • - L~T~-T,'i : ~ it „ 11 :n-ero I , - ,~J ~ L1_ p E G~ ~bbf 11 ~I r ' . ~~I FI -»~~KI I _r-1 , ~ .,i ~ ' R fp ~ ~ ~~r' `!~s - ~ - ~ '~.I - i I ',J I II;,- . yYWS: " ".n- i~-_ C_ ~ . ~1 - i - ~ _ ~ N J u//"`,/• _ I - , - ~;t; , _k 5 ~1P - - eei~ ~ .I (I Redrawn. 7-86, 9 86, 5-87, 12-87, 4-88, 5-88, 10-88, Fit _ MylyvvW,}~ ~ " - ; ~ - ~I-, - ~ -4.5 - - - I i I , ! I r, - y ~ ' " I ~ / L ~ 1188, 3-89, 6-89, B 89, I I B9, I P 89,1-90 - - ~j" ~ i ,,3~~ I p" q r ~ I --r - } . r ~ I ~ I II ~ 1~ -7 Iu1 rrpr!r, F~ ~ _ I-P j ~ J~ iil~~~I _ • I _ I 'I i I nlar. - I r ~ ~'it I y- 1__ { {E'Ell~~r { l ~~h lil _ - r J ~ le _ ~ I I'I ~ L- - _ { I I;,+~.~~, , -I. 5. R-~2 ~ DU AMC _~i E d LAME i r f 1 / t,-, iii H-~ .r• -,vrt,,.-~la ~ ~%~-7 ~ ~ - ~r~~ '~1/ ~I 1 i i - I ; i ~~I~ `'4WL - , , I , a ,r3' _r ~ _ iSVyE~7G i i ~ ~ ~ ey/~~~~ ~ f.. , 1 . f`.Y ~5. - ~-S i ~ 1 ..nx II ' V{+4s• / „ I J-- r . _ _ _ « - I ~ ~ ( eT ~ ~ _ r u J t-- / i ~ _ , ' ~ i I Pw,xv I --I - _ _ ..1 I I' 1 l ' I I . _ I---~ I 1 I ~,L,. E-I_- • ~ ~ ~ I - G ' I TU ATIN - - P_ar el Base RevlsedGll/ H 0 P E p C B A J I h1:~iI1~IliIIIIIVRIVI,L.IIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIn111111n1111111nIIDIIIIIRIIillllliDn IIIIIIIInJIIII1111n101IIIIJIIIIIIq:Ppl,ll Olgnll!Illllplllll Plpllpgla ( I ~ ' I 2 0 9 6 8 7 6 _ B 0 I I 12 ' wRt 1e 1111E xIWIMA N 11LLN CFlAA MU, i M p'mpa,nuwm 'Nwlw• I ~ez :z zz Harz a zz 'la aY el cl "-u ur al rl zl al a AI "e e ( z s r z z 1^~• od ez 3A T I G A R D CITY C O U N C I L l MEErING M NUEESS - NOVEMBER 16, 1989 1. ROIL CAKE: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Irene Ertell, Librarian; Ron Goodpaster, Chief of Police; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. 2. WASOINGIM COUNTY COOPERATIVE LMWIM SERVICE (WOC[S) LEVY PROPOSAL DIStUSSTC M a. Peggy Forcier, staff member of the Washington County Cooperative Library Service, and Herb Drew, Chain of the Cooperative Library Advisory Board (CLAB), were present. b. Councilor Eadon opened the discussion by advising Ms. Forcier and Mr. Drew that Council had received the Executive Stinmary Draft of the Report to the Washington County Board of Commissioners on the WCCLS Proposed Three-Year Serial Levy. The CLAB proposal recc mnends adoption of a new formula based strictly on circulation. The Tigard City Council has fiscal and philosophical concerns with the proposal. The fiscal concerns relate primarily to the fact that Tigard taxpayers would pay in a significant amount more than would be received back from the Cooperative library operations. Zbe philosophical concerns rest with wing circulation as the only criteria measuring a library's level of service. Tigard recognizes this formula would be an easy one to use, but not necessarily an accurate or fair representation of service provided by any given library. C. Ms. Forcier explained the County's position on library funding in general. She noted the County 2000 report considers library services to be "urban" services which would be better provided by cities. Tire County does not contribute any general fund revenues to support libraries. d. Mr. Drew advised he understood the issues raised by Tigard, but wished these had been expressed earlier in the process. Librarian Ertell responded that concerns had been noted early-on at..the professional level of WCC-S. In addition, CIAB only recently selected the final formula. (Councilor Johnson arrived at 6:42 p.m.) e. Lengthy discussion followed. Council consensus was that the mayor forward a letter to CZAB outlining Tigard's concerns (see Exhibit 1 attached). CITY COUNCIL NAG M=rES - NOVEMBER 16, 1989 - PAGE 1 o cost; o levels of service; o type of governance; o internal acceptance; o impact to Tigard's dispatch employees; o Tigard's record-keeping function (70-80% of which is performed by dispatchers); o hours of operation for the Tigard Police Department (because of current dispatch center, Tigard Police Dept. offices were open 24-hours). Chief advised there was a major push to request the $6.3 million on the March ballot. He noted concern that even if Tigard was willing to switch to the consolidated dispatch center immediately, the center would not be able to provide services for approximately 18 months. He said it would been extremely difficult to operate his organization, over this 18 month period, with this impending change which would affect his employees. Councilor Schwartz said, according to his understanding, the dispatching function could be accomplished within 60-90 days; however, the total system. (i.e., computerization and facilities) would not be ccnpleted for 18 months. Chief advised he will seek clarification on the issue. C. Iengthy Council and staff discussion followed on areas to be worked through. It was noted Washington County would be placing the issue on the ballot because the Washington County Consolidated Ccammications Agency (WCCC'A) was not a public agency; therefore, they could not place a bond or serial levy on a ballot. Also discussed was equipment compatibility and the need for all jurisdictions to have the same radio equipment. d. Chief also noted concern over potential impact to those neighboring jurisdictions for which Tigard now provides contract dispatching services. e. There was discussion on the history of the consolidated dispatching issue and Tigard's record of participation. There was a period of time when there was no Tigard representation at meetings where this issue was being discussed. Since the arrival of the current city Administrator and subsequent employment of Chief Goodpaster, Tigard has became more active in the consolidated dispatch deliberation. f. Mayor advised his stance all along on this issue was that he would be an advocate of centralized dispatching so long as it would mean cost savings; there was an agreement on governance; and service levels could be maintained adequately. CITY C10UNCM MMMr. NIIN[= - NOVEMBER 16, 1989 - PAGE 3 Exhibit 1 to 11/16 Council inu es CITYOF T117A D OREGON November 20, 1989 Cooperative Library Advisory Board P. O. Box 5129 Aloha, OR 97006 Dear Board Members: I am Writing to you on behalf of the City of Tigard to express our concerns- both philosophical and financial - about the recommended selection formula for distribution of non-fee access funds; namely, model 1. We respectfully request reconsideration of the recommended distribution formula decision and reocumerd the selection of either the current formula in place, which we favor, or Model 2, which we can accept as a compromise. We support= the cement formula. We do so because it clearly Plim?mtes double taxation concerns and avoids any inconsistencies and potential adverse consequences associated with the circulation- list ribution model. Our response -to concerns about shortages due to the diminishing unincorporated pool is that Washington County can contribute general fund dollars to eliminate any shortage. Aerate information about residence of patrons can be addressed through periodic audits and checks. We recognize that the current formula is ecmPlicated, but advocate that it is a formula which is successfully in place. Our opposition to Model 1 is based on several pres. First, we believe that circulation is a flawed basis for.distribution. For example,.we believe that circulation represents only one facet of a quiali_ty library, and that a true- service based formula would take into aeoocmht the full range of library services. We are concerned that there is no differentiation between a three- day ciraAAtion or a three--%~ circulation. We are also worried about the adverse, - unintended consequences of a formula depender& upon circulation JAR... rs. In order to iuvrave one's fiscal standing, for ew=ple, a library could employ collection-building practices which are circulation while neglecting other elements of library service. We recognize that cinxul anon is a silple measure, but do not accept it as the appropriate measure of library services. Second, we are concerned that there are jurisdictional issues which confuse the situation. Banks Library is within a city, as-is Tanasbourne-gown Center, but neither is supported by the city in wtuich they are located. .Zlhe role of Washington Canty in the provision of Library services is also unclear to us. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 1 T I G A R D CITY C O U N C I L MMMJG MMUM - HMSO 2 20, 1989 o Meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. RCM CAIN.: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Irene Ertell, Librarian; Ron Goodpaster, Chief of Police; Keith Liden, senior Planner (arrived at 7:25 p.m.); Ed Murphy, Community Developwnt Director; Liz Newton, Comm nity Involvement Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. C W CENTER DEVL[L~i+f~P Community Development Director reviewed the election results for the City Center Development Plan and outlined some ideas on what might happen next. The Plan lost by 569 votes, with 41% of the registered voters casting their mail-in ballots. An initial review indicated that the measure did not do particularly well in any precinct,. although it did pass in a few. The Director enumerated several reasons why the voters might have turned down the ballot measure, including: Projects were controversial (i.e., Ash Avenue connections between Walnut and Hunziker. Urban renewal district issue was difficult to understand. Voters recently approved other taxing measures (schools, parks, roads) and may have seat this as one more tax measure. City of Tualatin has had difficulty with their redevelopment project. opposition from some downtown owners and adjacent property owners. Support from city center property owners and merchants was not strong enough. The city failed to explain the measure well enough to the voters. Council discussed, at length, their next step. It was suggested that the City may want to initiate a telephone survey to determine if there was any support for a revised urban renewal plan. Council consensus was to not perform the survey at this time; rather, Council will take time to reassess and prioritize a variety of City issues (i.e., "Diamond Area," "Tigard Triangle," and the City Center). Council consensus further directed staff '-o place on hold any work underway for the Main Street Bridge and the Wah.;i*-(Hunziker alignment study. CITY COUNCIL MEE MIG MINUTES - NOVMER 20, 1989 - PAGE 1 Council Meeting recessed: 7:02 p.m. Council Meeting reconvened: 7:07 p.m. 3. DISCDS.SICN WITH SEI ATM PAUL rFETrr :PS Senator Phillips visited with council on how cities can effectively express their concerns to the State Legislature. He advised that he felt city elected officials had a great advantage in that they were close to their constituency and could garner voter support on issues of interest to the community. He urged the City to become involved on a more personal level with the state legislature and to not depend on paid representatives or professional organizations to represent their interests. Senator Phillips requested Council to identify and prioritize issues of concern to Tigard. He said that now would be the time to begin drafting legislation in order to be prepared for the next Legislative Session. (Senior Planner Liden arrived: 7:25 p.m.) Zhere was discussion on the need for intergoverrmiental cooperation. Cities, counties, and districts often appear to be mistrustful of one another. He advised it would be very effective if all cities could work together within their own counties and then present a united front to the Legislature. He advised that the competition for dollars to cities from the State would be heightened in the canning years. He emphasized the importance of cities maintaining credibility through education on issues. 4. AGENDA RE'VnN: Council and staff reviewed the business meeting agenda. Senior Planner laden noted a possible Visitor's Agenda item with regard to the appeal of a Planning Compassion decision on Final Order CU 89- 04/V 89-27 (Pollock). 5. VISTTORIS AGENDA a. Council heard a request froan Russel Head, (11689 S.W. Wilton, Tigard, Oregon) resident and member of NPO 17 to waive a fee for the appeal of Final Order CU 89-04/V 89-27 (Pollock). After listening to Mr. Head's request and consultation with legal counsel, there was a motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, noting that the NPO did not have standing on this issue; therefore, the appeal for the fee waiver was inappropriate and the request denied. Zhe motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. b. Jon Blomgren (9460 S.W. Oak Street Tigard, Oregon) expressed concern with property located near S.W. 95th and Oak Street. He advised that fill material was being placed on this property which he felt was in excess of the permit specifications. He outlined history of this area noting the problems with drainage and flooding which has occurred in the past. CITY OOUNC3L MEETING MIN[TPES - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 2 After discussion with Mr. Blomgren and staff, Council directed staff to initiate a site visit and respond to Mr. BlcmgrenIs concerns. Staff will report to Council at their 12/4/89 meeting; a copy of the staff report is to be forwarded to Mr. Blomgren. C. Joe Walsh of Tri-et distributed information outlining the site selection Study for a Tigard Park and Ride. Of the sites reviewed, the two which appear to be most viable are: 72nd & Pacific Hwy 99 (Tigard Cinema) Commercial & Hall Street (Tigard Transit Center) Council noted several concerns with site selection including traffic impacts and the need to locate transit facilities in areas which have experienced the most growth.. Mr. Walsh advised it was still early enough to consider other alternatives. Council consensus was to review this issue more thoroughly in the near future. 6. CCNSENr AGENIDA: 6.1 Approve Council Minutes: October 16 & 23, 1989. 6.2 Request League of Oregon Cities' Support on Position with EDrplcyee Relations Board Ruling Concerning Mandatory Bargaining Issues- Resolution No. 89-88 6.3 Approve Amendment to Resolution No. 89-82 Correcting Term Expiration Date of Two Library Board Appointees - Resolution No. 89-89 7. PUEFIC Higgs dG - EHENS1W PLAN AMENEMETT CPA 89-07 ZCM CHANGE 89- 07 fROC~dE[L NPO #5 A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential and a Zone Change from C-P (Commercial Professional) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) for approximately 5 acres. LOCATION: West side of SW 72nd Avenue, between SW Varns Street and SW Fir Street (WC TM 2S1 1DB, Tax Lots 800 & 801, 251, 1DC, Tax lot 3600). a. Public Hearing continued from November 6, 1989 b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Summation by Senior Planner Liden: In staff's opinion the application was consistent with State goals; Plan policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; locational criteria; and the Community Development Code. The Planning Com dzsion voted 5 to 1 to re00mend denial. The COmdssioners noted that the proposal would likely result in a CITY COUNCIL MEETING NII RMM - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 3 quality development for the site, but the commission was not convinced that a change in circumistances affecting the parcel or a mistake in Plan designations had been demonstrated. Commissioners noted that this was a difficult reommnendation to make because they found that the site satisfied the applicable locational criteria and the site is well located with respect to proximity to employment/ commercial centers and transportation corridors. However, the general sentiment of the Commission was that there was an obligation for the City to assure the neighbors' expectations for the fixture development of property. Since the Planning CUUMscion hearing, the applicant had met with neighborhood representatives to discuss the proposal to determine if some kind of agreement could be worked out. Senior Planner Liden noted a letter dated November 20, 1989, had been received from James R. Sitzman, Field Representative, State of Oregon Department of Land _Conservation and Development. Mr. Sitzman advised the application was in ccnpliance with State Goals as well as the Comprehensive Plan. (Said letter is on file with the Council meeting packet material.) d. Public Testimony o John DeCosta, professionals 100 Real Estate, 2851 S.W. Tolkien, Lake Oswego, Oregon, advised he was in favor of the proposal.. He said the zone change represented an appropriate use of the subject property. In response to a question fram councilor Schwartz, Mr. DeCosta advised he had no personal financial interest in the property at this time. o Raymond Ems, 13400 S.W. Tigard Street, Tigard, Oregon, testified he was a resident in the area in question. He said he was in favor of the proposal as it would appear to be advantageous and would enhar:=:.)e property values. o Mark Rockwell (applicant), 164 S.W. Kingsgate, Lake Oswego, Oregon, enumerated his reasons for urging the Council to approve the proposal: - The current zoning of the parcel (Commercial Professional) does not meet the City's Comprehensive Plan locational criteria. - The property was not conducive to being developed as currently zoned. The size, shape, and location of the parcel makes it ideally suited for R-25 development. CTI'Y cmNcM M9ffM4G MMUrES - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 4 There was confusion during the Planning cc maission meeting with regard to acceptability of R-25 abutting single-family residential property. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the zoning map was reviewed i - virtually all R-25 zoned property abuts single-family residential neighborhoods. The code's density transition provisions provide that no f more than 4.37 units/acre can be built within 100 feet of a residential property line. The proposed zone would be more compatible to existing neighborhoods than existing zone. The R-25 would serve as an effective transition zone which would preserve the Rolling Hills area and prevent further pressure to convert the neighborhood into a commercial zone. The proposed R-25 zone would allow the preservation of the majority of the exist- trees on the east end of the propertY- 7here was an abundance of Ccumerical Professional. land in the Tigard Triangle and immediate area. However, in this same area, there was no multi-family land to support and complement the commercial development. The need for multi-family was apparent when compared to similar area; i.e., Kruse Way development. The applicant has worked closely with the neighbors to create high standarr3.s of development. Issues of concern have been discussed and resolved including: density, site layout, building quality and design, parking, landscaping, berms for greater privacy, traffic circulation, recreational facilities, site lighting, maintenance, and specified his for garbage pick up. The proposal responds to the definite community need for affordable multi-family housing on Tigard's east side. o David Metzger, Rt. 4, Box 267C, Sherwood, Oregon, advised the property was owned by his family. He said this was a high quality development and said he was in favor of the requested amendment. o Ralph Tahran, architect on the project from MK, 17355 S.W. Boones Ferry Road, lake Oswego, advised the proposal as submitted previously to the Ply Commission meets all requirements of an R-25 zone. He reviewed the building design with Council. Even though the proposal was under the R-25 density, the C17Y OOMCIL MEETING MnWIES - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 5 Planning commission cited issues of compatibility and access. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the developer held a series of meetings with the neighbors to determine if there was a way some of the issues could be worked out. He then outlined the changes worked through with the neighborhood which resulted in several changes to the site planning. o Gordon King, Cushman & Wakefield, 4214 S.W. 51st Place, Portland, Oregon, noted changes that have occurred in the market place. He advised that the land was not suitable for certain commercial uses because of its configuration. This site has been on the market for several years. He said the proposed amendment would be the best use for the properly and add aesthetic quality to the area. o Craig Hopkins, Chairman NPO 15, 7430 S.W. Varns, Tigard, Oregon, testified on behalf of the NPO and as an affected property owner. Initially, the NPO took the position that this proposal should be denied. Since the Planning Commission hearing, however, there had been much discussion with the developer and property owners. Zhe property owners' concerns were over Proposed housing density, traffic flow into and out of the site, and the buffering aspects of the whole project. As a result of those discussions, the applicant and developer have agreed to establish certain binding controls on the development. With this change in circumstance, the NPO now supports the applicant's request for zone change. r o Tom Brian, 7630 S.W. Fir, Tigard, Oregon, confirmed the comments of the NPO Chair. He noted initially the neighbors felt R-25 would have a negative affect on the area. He advised tt:3 neighborhood continued to keep an open mind and talked to the applicant throughout a number of meetings. A design was negotiated which appears to work for the applicant and meet most of the concerns of the neighborhood. Deed restrictions have been drawn up which will be recorded should the zone change be approved. Based on these representations, he noted that he has been moved from strong opposition to support of the project. He said while he does not represent the neighborhood, two neighborhood meetings were held with attendance of over 40 at one and about 20 at the other. Of those attending most were neutral or positive with one or two still being very reluctant to the zone change. councilor Kasten asked the City Attorney if the deed restrictions would be binding. The City Attorney responded that he had not reviewed the documentation; however, there should be a reasonable expectation that the restrictions would be enforceable. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIIQ YM - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 6 o Gras Greco, 13425 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, noted changes in the zoning and road improvements to 72nd Avenue for which he was assessed. His property was rezoned Commercial Professional which increased the taxes on his property (he was able to defer the increase until he sells the property). He advised he was in favor of applicant's request. e. Community Development Director advised staff rends that City Council adopt an ordinance changing the property at 13265 S.W. 72nd fram a Comprehensive Plan Designation of commercial Professional to Medium High Density. Also staff recommended that Council change the zone from CP to R-25 for multiple-family residential. Comity Development Director noted the Planning Commission rec~m~ended denial. They have not seen the latest proposal and perhaps would change their recommendation based on the changes. He advised the only issue before Council was the land use definition. Any agreements made between the parties is strictly a private agreement; the City has no authority to enforce those private agreements. In addition, the City has not reviewed the site plan and there may be some changes. He cmmended the neighbors and developers for negotiating their issues. f. Council Questions/Ccecmients: o Councilor Schwartz advised he was surprised at the public testimony; he expected there to be opposition to the proposal. He, too, said he thought it was cca¢nendable that the neighborhood and developer were able to work through their issues. He said that he thought there was enough support demonstrated by elements of the Comprehensive Plan to make this change and that he would vote favorably on the applicant's request. o Councilor Eadon reiterated the agreements reached were between the applicant and the neighbors; the City is not a party to that agreement. The City Attorney, based on the comments he heard during testimony, had noted there was a reasonable expectation the neighborhood's interests were protected as they hoped. She cautioned this may not be the case. Also, Council Is action tonight would not have any bearing on the deed restrictions. The site development process has not yet begun for staff review and there may be some further changes to assure compliance with the Code. She advised in reading the minutes from the Planning Ccrmu.ssion, their deliberation appeared to based on continents made by the neighborhood at that time. As stated by the Coammiriity Development Director, the Planning Commission has CITY COUNCIL MMr1NG MINUTES - NOVE BER 20, 1989 - PAGE 7 not had the opportunity to look at the new proposal reached by the developer and neighborhood. She asked that this information be forwarded to the Planning Co mussion by the. staff. o Joe Kasten agreed with ooatments made by Councilor Eadon and councilor Schwartz. He noted he would support the proposal. o Mayor Edwards noted agreement with the positions of the Councilors. He also wanted it made clear that this was a zone change only before council; the basis of their decision was frown information received from the staff, developer, and members of the ccmnj pity. He advised that he, too, would support the issue. g. Public Hearing was closed. h. consideration by Council: Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten, directing staff to draft an ordinance to be considered by Council at their next regular meeting to rezone the property from CP to R-25. The motion was approved by a unaninicus vote of council present. 8. 1114-AGENDA I1EMS• None. 9. E!®CUr VE SESMCK: Cancelled 10. ADJOaRNMERF: 9:05 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City rder ATTEST: Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor cc m1120 CITy COUNCIL MbRUM MEWJTES - NOVE@BER 20, 1989 - PAGE 8 3.a v CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: January 22, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of PREVIOUS ACTION: Public Necessit for 121st Avenud improvement Ap, PREPARED BY: Cit En ineer Ael'i DEPT HEAD R CITY ADMIN OREQUESTED BY: LICY ISSUE Should the Council authorize the City Attorney and staff to acquire the right- of-way necessary for improvements to S.W. 121st Avenue? INFORMATION SUMMARY Improvements to S.W. 121st Avenue are authorized under the Major Streets Traffic Safety Improvement Bond. Negotiations are in progress for the right- of-way and easements needed for the project. In the event that legal action may be required to acquire this right-of-way, a formal resolution is necessary. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution declaring a public necessity to acquire certain property for right of way purposes. 2. Delay adoption of the resolution. 3. Do not adopt the resolution. FISCAL IMPACT i All costs of right-of-way acquisition are funded under the Streets Bond. A t SUGGESTED ACTION i i Staff recommends Council pass the attached resolution authorizing the staff and City Attorney to acquire necessary right-of-way. dj/ss-121st.RW EXI41BIT "A" LANDS OF THE FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE Legal Description for Additional Right-of-Way Dedication A parcel of land located in that tract of land conveyed to the First American Title Insurance Company, as trustee, by deed recorded under Document No. 83- 42967, Washington County, Oregon, Deed Records, November 21, 1983, said tract being Lot 12 of Panorama, a subdivision recorded under Book 24, Page 48, Washington County, Oregon, Plat Records, October 19, 1966, located in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, and located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, said parcel being specifically described as follows: Beginning at a 2-inch iron pipe referred to in that deed conveying a tract of land to David E. Farr, recorded under Book 616, Page 96, said Deed Records, September 22, 1966, said point of beginning being on the North line of said Farr tract which is also the Northwest corner of said Lot 12, said point of beginning also being on the East right=of-way line of County Road No. 2005, 25.00 feet from the centerline of said County Road; Thence, from said point of beginning, South 1038143" West, along the East right- of-way line of said County Road, 126.00 feet to the North right-of-way line of Manzanita Court, 25.00 feet from the centerline of said Manzanita Court, as shown on the plat of said Panorama; Thence, South 88028136" East, along the North right-of-way line of said Manzanita Court, 25.04 feet; Thence, along the are of a 20.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, the central angle of which is 90007119", the long chord of which bears North 43024157" West, 28.31 feet, a distance of 31.46 feet; 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 1 of 15 Thence, North 1038143" East, parallel with and 5.00 feet measured perpendicular from the East right-of-way line of said County Road, 105.96 feet to the North line of said Farr tract, which is also the North line of said Lot 12; Thence, North 88028136" West, along the North line of said Farr tract, which is also the North line of said Lot 12, 5.00 feet to the point of beginning. The above described additional right-of-way dedication contains 716 square feet or 0.016 acres. 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 2 of 15 X500' /V 468 ° 28'.36"W / 2 S" • /V- LINE 0,- FAR,- j. ;7- 09'. 616, PU 96 2"IP ~ I • I R/6//T:op- WAr Q Soo' ACQU/s/"T/OAI t / FIRST AMER/CAN T/TLE I W IN5ug. C o. As TR us rEE mac, uo. 83-42 9~7 . ~ ° ~o . TAX . /t~tAP_, ./5/.34cA PT T,4X L-477- v/3 ` • ao . Z Y 1 ' 0 Z S 88 °ZB'36"E , tA, N ` ~ cv N AIA/vZAN/TA CT. N 3 i • 25~ I CURVE DA TA CeNrR.AL ANa[6 RAonts ARC LoNG CvoRo Q/ 90.07'/9" 20.00' 31.46' N43024'. 7"W -28.3/' Robert E EK9 er Consultants Inc 5. W 12 / A v f/V u f Y flir- m- -oF-WAY Acau,st-nox - EnyM~~rs.W~w•Su.wYOn . -4003 SK G R(Rn O.i•. a'.....• a." , LANOs of F/RsrAMER/CAN 71TL6 CO. tsw~w•rs~+. " As T usrE'E Scale 30' Date ::.5--4-89 Drawn By*KLW Job No. 3"48-02 3 of 15 EXHIBIT "A" LANDS OF JANET M. TRUSSELL LeKal Description forAdditiona! Right-of-Way Dedication A parcel of land located in that tract of land conveyed to Janette M. Trussell by deed recorded under Document No. 87039766, Washington County, Oregon, Deed Records, August 3, 1987, said tract being Lot 5 of Panorama, a subdivision recorded under Book 24, Page 48, Washington County, Oregon, Plat Records, October 19, 1966, located in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, and located in the City of -Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, said parcel being specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 5, which is also on the East right- of-way line of County Road No. 2005, 25.00 feet from the centerline of said County Road; Thence, North 1038'43" East, along the East right-of-way line of said County Road, 126.00 feet to the South right-of-way line of Manzanita Court, 25.00 feet from the centerline of said Manzanita Court, as shown on the plat of said Panorama; Thence, South 88028136" East, along the South right-of-way line of said Manzanita Court, 24.96 feet; Thence,. along the are of a 20.00 foot radius, concave Southeasterly, the central angle of which is 89052'4111, the long chord of which bears South 46035104" West, 28.25 feet, a distance of 31.37 feet; Thence, South 1038143" West, parallel with and 5.00 feet measured perpendicular from the East right-of-way line -of said County Road, 106.04'feet to the South line of said Lot 5; 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 4 of 15 ~1~~~ Thence, North 88028'36" West, along the South line of said Lot 5, 5.00 feet to the point of beginning. The above described additional right-of-way dedication contains 715 square feet or 0.016 acres. 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 5 of 15 ZS M AA/Z.4/1// TA C 7 R/49/-/T- OF-1-✓A N N A"al6r17-10N S 88° 28" 34;' E O %4NE7-TEM TRUSSM- (v 5" ~ l.~OC. NO. 870397G/o I O TAX MAP 15 134-eA TAX LOT 606 Q I ~ - I c1, _^r i 0 m ' / % 1 /V 88~ 28, 36' W CURVE .DA7A- CENTRAL AA161-E RAD1415 ARC LONG CIAORD 0 89052'¢1" 20.Gb" 3/.37' S ¢6°3504!-h/, 28-25' I Robert i✓Al\eyer Consultants, Inc sW 12O r EnyGoaara•Plannem-Sur"ror. R/GHT of MAY AGOU/5/TiaN bas &vc c vmh c i- eaa.e.wn, argon ,7003 (5033643-1531 L "DS OF ✓/f/VErre M TR4e155E1-L scale' ::1"=30' Deis Drawn By ps. Job No./s4$-OZ. Ravis~d 9/W of 15 GPG r EXHIBIT "A" LANDS OF CHARLES ALFRED BODFORD AND GRACE G. BODFORD Legal Description for Additional Itight-of-Way Dedication A parcel of land located in that tract of land conveyed to Charles Alfred Bodford and Grace G. Bodford by deed recorded under Book 708, Page 437, Washington County, Oregon, Deed Records, August 1, 1968, said tract being Lot 4 of Panorama, a subdivision recorded under Book 24, Page 48, Washington County, Oregon, Plat Records, October 19, 1966, located in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, and located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, said parcel being specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 4, which is also on the East right- of-way line of County Road No. 2005, 25.00 feet from the centerline of said County Road; Thence, South 1038143" West, along the East right-of-way line of County Road No. 2005, 100.94 feet to a point of curvature on the Northeasterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 1992; Thence, along the Northeasterly right-of-way line of County Road 1992, along the are of a 25.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, the central angle of which is 9000711911, the long chord of which bears South 43024'57" East, 35.39 feet, a distance of 39.32 feet to a point of tangency on the North right-of-way line of County Road No. 1992, 25.00 feet from the centerline of County Road No. 1992; Thence, South 88028136" East, along the North right-of-way line of County Road No. 1992, 5.01 feet; Thence, North 1031124" East, perpendicular to the last described course, 5.00 feet to a point of nontangent curvature; 2?:: 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 7 of 15 Thence, along the arc of a 25.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, the central angle of which is 90007119", the long chord of which bears North 43024157" West, 35.39 feet, a distance of 39.32 feet to a point of tangency; Thence, North 1038'43" East, parallel with and 5.00 feet from the East right-of- way line of County Road No. 2005, 95.94 feet to the North line of said Lot 4; Thence, North 88028136" West, along the North line of said Lot 4; 5.00 feet to the point of beginning. The above described additional right-of-way dedication contains 755 square feet or 0.017 acres. 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 8 of 15 SOD' Al 88 ° 28'36" W 25" r ~ t I RIGHT'" OF- WAY AcoulstYloN Q v. w Q , CHARLES ANDGRACE,80P.-OIC0 BK. 708, PG. 437 i N 7-Ax HAP 15134CA °I 3 TAx Lor 605 ` a al ~ Y~. 1 ~ P I l' t o~ 2 ~2 28' 36"e \ a S. W. NORTH DAKOTA S-r N N C. R.N°1992) - x 3 V)N t~ of C U R V E D A rA 25' CENTRAL ANG46 RADIUS Aotc LONG CM°RP Qi 90°07'/9" 25.00' 39.32' S43°29'57°E -3539 Q 90°0.7"/9" 25.00' 39.32' N43.29'57"W -35.39' Robert E. Mv-yer Consultants, In S !t/ / 2 I AVENUE Ael news Pl4n Rmur -OF MAY 4cculs17-/ON • Engi-lt~s•Su~wYoltt . 4003 S.Vt (.•il"tn W- 8--on, Orooon 07003 LANDS OF CHARGES GRACE BOO FORD tswt eaa•ts~t s.caIe.: 30' Data ::.5-S•-89 Drawn By'K.L.W. Job No.V5,15-02 9 of i C; . r EXHIBIT `W$ LANDS OIL' ROBERT FLEMING LARSELL AND LARONA MARIE LARSELL Legal Description for Additional Right-of-Way Dedication A parcel of land located in that tract of land conveyed to Robert Fleming Larsell and Larona Marie Larsell by deed recorded under Book 971, Page 668, Washington County, Oregon, Deed Records, April 22, 1974, said tract being Lot 1 of Block 4 of Burlwood No. 2, a subdivision recorded in Book 24, Page 39, Washington County, Oregon, Plat Records, June 8, 1966, located in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, and located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, said parcel being specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 1, which is also on the East right- of-way line of County Road No. 1992, 25.00 feet from the centerline of said County Road; Thence, North 1033'50" East, along the East right-of-way line of said County Road, 75.02 feet; Thence, along the Southeasterly right-of-way line of said County Road, along the arc of a 25.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly,' the central angle of which is 7304310211, the long chord of which bears North 38025121" East, 29.99 feet, a distance of 32.17 feet; Thence, South 20056109" East, 6.38 feet; Thence, along the are of 25.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, the central angle of which is 6703010111, the long chord of which is South 35018150" West, 27.78 feet, a distance of 29.45 feet; 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 10 of 15 Thence, South 1033150" West, parallel with and 5.00 feet from the East right-of- way line of said County Road, 70.02 feet to the South line of said Lot 1; Thence, North 88028136" West, along the South line of said Lot 1, 5.00 feet to the point of beginning. The above described additional right-of-way dedication contains 564 square feet or 0.013 acres. 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 11 of 15 S. NORTH DAKOTA ST. C. R. N8 1992 RIGHT- OF- WAY N N AcouisiTioN 1 2 ROD&KT AND LAxavd LARS£LL 3 GOOK 971, P46-E 668 o ao TXM¢P 15134CA,Lor2800 ~v, V N. 88 286 "W CuRv,- DArA N CEArrRAL ,4At64£ RA was ARC LOA/6 CHORD tD 730 45` O2',`• ,25,00 32, /7 At 38°25' 1"E ?9 q9 2 lo7° 'O!'` .25.00• 2~ 5 '.53$'O~B,SD"W .-27.•78` ' Robert EN~eyer Consultants, Inc `S' l''~ !2 AvE,vuE Rlamr-o.-- WAY Acou/5Irtom LQ.~lOS . Enytn**n •Ptannws-Surnfon . 4m s Mc C.Mith ai" • OF. Oeg~ wow lso~t w'~s°' • Raseltr AAtD LARom LARSE'LL Scale- 30 Date 5- 3-89 Otawn By/( L.~ Job No0 12 of 15 EXHIBIT "A" LANDS OIL RICHARD L. ROSS AND ADA I. ROSS Legal Description for Additional Hight-of-Way Dedication A parcel of land located in that tract of land conveyed to Richard L. Ross and Ada 1. Ross by deed recorded under Book 925, Page 761, Washington County, Oregon, Deed Records, May 21, 1973, said tract being Lot 33 of Block 4 of Burlwood No. 2, a subdivision recorded under Book 24, Page 39, Washington County, Oregon, Plat Records, June 8, 1966, located in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, and located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, said parcel being specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 33, which is on the East right-of- way line of County Road No. 1992, 25.00 feet from the centerline of said County Road; Thence, South 1033150" West, along the East right-of-way line of said County Road, 100.00 feet to the North right-of-way line of S.W. Burlheights Street, 25.00 feet from the centerline of said S.W. Burlheights Street, as shown on the plat of said Burlwood No. 2; Thence, South 88028136" East, along the North right-of-way line of said S.W. Burlheights Street, 25.01 feet; Thence, along the arc of a 20.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, the central angle of which is 9000211611, the long chord of which bears North 43024,23" West, 28.29 feet, a distance of 31.43 feet; Thence, North 1033150" East, parallel with and 5.00 feet measured perpendicular from the East right-of-way line of said County Road, 79.99 feet to the North line of said Lot 33; 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 13 of 15 Thence, North 88028136" West, along the North line of said Lot 33, 5.00 feet to the point of beginning. The above described additional right-of-way dedication contains 586 square feet or 0.014 acres. Legal Description for Utility Easement A parcel of land located in said Ross tract, located in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 34, and located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, said parcel specifically described as follows: Beginning at a point South 88028136" East, along the North line of said Lot 33, 5.00 feet and South 1033150" West, parallel with and 5.00 feet measured perpendicular from the East right-of-way line of said County Road, 70.77 feet from the Northwest corner of said Lot 33, said Northwest corner being on the East right-of-way line of said County Road; Thence, from said point of beginning, South 1033'50" West, parallel with and 5.00 feet measured perpendicular from the East right-of-way line of said County Road, 9.22 feet; Thence, along the arc of a 20.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, the central angle of which is 43931!52", the long chord of which bears South 20012106" East, 14.83 feet, a distance of 15.20 feet; Thence, North 1033'50" East, parallel with and 10.50 feet measured perpendicular from the East right-of-way line of said County Road, 23.00 feet; Thence, North 88026'10" West, perpendicular with the East right-of-way line of said County Road, 5.50 feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel for utility easement contains 103 square feet or 0.002 acres. 1548-02-24 August 25, 1989 14 of •15 8 °28,36"W 25, N s8 00. 4L • f" 5.00" _RIG V r - OF - WAY rl W Acou,s, -riom C1 Q h ~ i I `J .1 L I o "%A R/CNAI?D ~ ADA ROSS of .o I A.,:.. gK 925, Pr, 761 I 7AxNAP /S/.3-1 CA ~ I O TAX LOT 6 O D D Wli% lTY': ( 0, U FA5E.4tENT ~n 0 `25.01 ' 5 68°28`36"E to a N S. W BUR L Nk-/ GHTS . S 7- _ .y I . Q i CURVE DA-TA ti \ CENTRAL ANGLE /QAD/U5 ARC LONG CHORD CO 90°02'26" 20.00'3143'N43°27'23"k/-28.29' © 40-:5,11 552" 20.00' !5.20' S 20 °./2 ~G,Yo E /4.83' 3 Robert EN~cyer Consultants, In 5 W. / 2 / SWAY TA vE~vu En9lnoon -Plam~,s-Sur"rom - R r G f r T- o F- A CQ a 151 TlDIV AND 4003 S.W 'k Im. amm, O d" UT/L/T Y E/}SEME~tI T e. awa+ oroas (MI 643-7531 . LANDS OF /CHARD Ago A DA ROSS Scale Oaie 4-89 Drowa By' f.. L. A/ Job No.: /548-02 15 of 15 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: January 22, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Legalization PREVIOUS ACTION: of right-of-way of Greenbur RoaA, A / PREPARED BY: City Engineer DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK~ I; REQUESTED BY: O 1CICY ISSUE Shall the City Council legalize the right-of-way of Greenburg Road? INFORMATION SUMMARY Greenburg Road has an existing right-of-way of 60 feet established long ago when Greenburg was a county road. However, due to loss of old survey monuments, it is not possible to establish precisely the location of the right- of-way. Through a process called legalization of the road, state law provides a process for re-establishment of the right-of-way. It is necessary to re-establish the right-of-way of Greenburg Road between Center Street and Tiedeman Avenue. Re-establishment of the right-of-way is needed in order to complete the design of the Greenburg Road improvements scheduled for construction this year. The legalization process requires that the Council hold a public hearing to hear any information that controverts the material presented in the attached report and survey. By previous action, the Council scheduled the hearing for January 22nd. The legalization process is only for the purpose of documenting and monumenting the precise location of the existing right-of-way. Following the legalization process, any new right-of-way or easements necessary for the road improvement project will be obtained through the usual process for property acquisition. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached ordinance legalizing -the road in accordance with the report submitted by the City Engineer. 2. Direct that the ordinance be modified. 3. Abandon the legalization proceedings. FISCAL IMPACT The work of surveying and monumenting the right-of-way is already included in the design contract for Greenburg Road and funded under the Streets Bond. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. { REPORT REGARDING LBGALIZATION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF GREENBURG ROAD Attached is the Surveyor's Report for Greenburg Road. The report provides a legal description of the road centerline and a map of the right of way to be re-established by the legalization process. By Resolution No. 90-03, the City Council initiated legalization proceedings for Greenburg Road between Pacific Highway and Tiedeman Avenue and directed that a survey be performed. The surveyor was able to locate existing monumentation at Center Street. Therefore, the Surveyor's Report addresses only the portion of Greenburg Road between Center Street and Tiedeman Avenue. Submitted January 12, 1990 By Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/r-lrowgr.RW WIISEY&FLAM I PACIFIC 1099 S.W. Columbia Street Portland, Oregon 97201 January 12, 1990 Surveyor's Report for Greenburg Road City of Tigard, Oregon 4-296-0101 To the City Engineer of Tigard, Oregon, Gentlemen, I have viewed the location of Greenburg Road, County Road No. "A-130", as laid out in April 1871 and further I have searched for and not found evidence of the original road monuments or reference monuments to said road. Therefore, I have caused the surveying of the existing roadway as used and described by adjacent plats of subdivisions, deeds and monuments. I have determined the roadway centerline to be located between S.W. Center Street near Pacific Highway (99W) westerly to County Road No. 2043 near S.W. Tiedeman Avenue. The public having a right of access to 30.00 feet each way from said centerline which is further described in the notes which follow: As part of this report the following narrative of the location of the centerline of S.W. Greenburg is described and is shown on the maps submitted. The map enclosed herein are as follows: • Overall exhibit map with centerline data which is broken out into 7 parts. • Area one includes Plat of "Kingston" (1910), Plat of County Road No. 1766 (S.W. 90th Avenue). • Area two includes Plat of "Tigardville" (1908) and Plat of "Charben" (1947). • Area three includes Plat of "Barbee Court" (1979). • Area four includes the Plat of "Miller" (1953). • Area five includes the Plat of "Boetchers Addition" (1908). • Area six includes the Plat of "Greenburg Heights" (1908). • Area seven includes the Plat of "Greenburg" (1908) County Road Map for Tiedeman Road at Greenburg Road and County Road No. 2043 (S.W. Greenburg Road). (503) 227-0455 Fax (503) 274-4607 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Architecture ~ I Surveyors Report for Greenburg Road January 12, 1990 Page 2 NARRATIVE OF EACH AREA Area 1 t. By using monuments along the Plat of "Kingston" and the notes from County Road No. 1766 which shows the centerline of Greenburg Road at S.W. 90th Avenue, I set the centerline of ' Greenburg Road at North 45°45'52" West a distance of 490.21 feet. Area 2 Area two was platted as "Tigardville Park" and had a second Plat of "Charben" on the west boundary. Based on these two plats, I set the centerline of Greenburg Road as North 51022122" West 607.27 feet. Area 3 Area 3 is part of the original survey which is in the J.L. Hicklin D.L.C. No. 54 and was divided by C.B. Bunnell and W.T. Bunnell in June of 1896. This survey divided much of this area of Tigard into 20.00 acre tracts. This 20.00 acre tract was later subdivided along Greenburg Road by the Plat of "Barbee Court". Holding the west line of "Tigardville Park" and the west line of "Barbee Court", I set the centerline of Greenburg Road as North 56°18'34 West 525.30 feet. Area 4 Area 4, like Area 3, is a division of 20.00 acres out of the Hicklin D.L.C. The Plat of "Miller" was divided out in 1953. By Holding the westerly line of "Barbee Court" and the westerly line of "Miller", I set the centerline of Greenburg Road as North 68048'45" West 444.90 feet. Area 5 This parcel was divided into the Plat of "Boetchers Addition" in 1908 and shows the location of Greenburg Road through this plat. I set the centerline of S.W. Greenburg Road as North 78°54'04" West 474.36 feet. Area 6 Area 6 is much like Area 5 in that the subdivision of "Greenburg Heights", shows the location of County Road all the way across. I set the centerline of S.W. Greenburg Road as North 71012159" West 463.21 feet. Ift e Surveyor's Report for Greenburg Road 4` . January 12, 1990 ` Page 3 Area 7 The portion of the D.L.C. was subdivided by the Plat of "Greenburg" in 1908 and showed only angle points along the centerline. More recent deed shows the right-of-way to be along curves each way from centerline. The northerly portion of this area was set by Washington County Engineer in 1967. I therefore set this portion of S.W. Greenburg Road as follows: North 62°52'32" West 198.11 feet to a point of curvature; thence 172.98 feet along the arc of a 220.00 foot radius curve to the right through a central angle of 45°03'04" to a point of tangency; thence North 17°49'28" West 529.99 feet more or less to the terminus point of County Road No. 2043. Respectfully submitted, WILSEY & HALM PACIFIC 0. Robert Taylor, P.L.S. GRT/sh r~= me: yia~.~aiio ,4 1orE The p4G7s re-rerred 7b coo hod -4' M 6+ 1AVY /m?c!/we. fey 4re gvQi/•o6le 4'r rev/ew n+ 't6l/ Ate/ a~ ,tie Li d nary. January 12, 1990 i i t Description of the Centerline of S.W. Greenburg Road E That portion of Greenburg Road located in the southeast 1/4 and the southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, said centerline being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point that bears North 43°551 East 30.00 feet from a 3/4-inch iron pipe located on the centerline of S.W. Center Street and called for as the beginning of County Road No. 1365; thence along the surveyed centerline for the legalization of said Greenburg Road as follows: North 45°45152" West 490.21 feet to an angle point near the intersection of S.E. 90th Avenue; thence North 51022122" West 607.27 feet to an angle point near the intersection of S.E. 91st Avenue; thence North 56018134" West 525.30 feet to an angle point near the westerly line of the recorded plat of Barbee Court if extended northerly; thence North 68048145" West 444.90 feet to a point near the intersection of S.W. 95th Avenue; thence North 78054104" West 474.36 feet to an angle point near the easterly line of the plat of Greenburg Heights; thence North 71012159" West 463.21 feet to an angle point near S.W. 98th Avenue; thence North 62052132" West 198.11 feet to a point of curvature; thence 172.98 feet along the arc of a 220.00 foot radius curve to the right through a central angle of 45003104" (the long chord of which bears North 40021100" West 168.56 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 17049128" West 529.99 feet more or less to a point of curvature of County Road No. 2043 near S.W. Tiedeman Avenue, being the point of termination of this described centerline. PROFEssiOH ►L LAI1D *3URVEYOR f E OREG l~N s file: %legal%graenbur.111 G. RtjgEg 3T~ TAYLOR 4L E ~s CENTERLINE DATA 1 N45 45'52"W 490.21' 9 0 N51 22'22"W 607,27' C.R. 2043 N56 18'34#W 525.30' to N68° 46'45"W 444.90' v N78* 54'04"W 414.36' /~,re I (T; u ~ S1 „ b , -`Q~ D,C. GRAHAM U.L.C. 52 a ti y 5 6, N717 12'59"W 463.21' 1H OApOIA Nb2° 52'32"1~1 198.11' w _ j -NORP~'_ CZ) R=220-00 J. L. klCiff IN D.L.C. 54 x + o e 7 s 'li i ~ A , z Y 03'04" CURVE L=172.981 i 10 ,b 7 2 N17°49'28ffW 529.99' _ 'Lp • • 1 ~ i r 9 ,p 15 O II' J W -~y ~ e o, 1 t P `l N ' i , ER. B u y s 2 n 'V d ®c 2s<~ 1: THD AS a i s (2 f, Q 2 {P 161tf. If K rP d 1. v 3gllJJ 8 1 m f d X u R! ,a ..6r (4'1,90 = 12 n is 111 ryry ~i, " P /o ! S' 2 m ro cr- 6 5 3e t Q I] ly 2 4 ; \ =p, . 71 ® Eftr9 w - a > 141 -3 1 s m I "040 " J J a t2/ o t A a ° I 26 is 9 „~+Ji! ✓e S C sx p , r f2J m 3 L+ a s ~ ` 4 b ; 5~ 2 / $J,J4s Tc Y T s s fT; y o° 0 s r. ® 0 21 df a r CT l lklsozeslr/!I-LEwIS-LN- i 12 i 777 y ss y ls.) T I 34 COX I p 6 5 1; .1- r yr 4 a f6 ' LP :4 6 19 Q~ V p'~ T 27 s 4+1t m ~V 5~ yh u 26 f6 Ip 1~ r 10 201 Lj r -M 0 E- R 41 > `•r✓i $ i 12 to 9 10 '1, ✓ 1L) I' ~ TANGELA CTS 9'r + z 5p~ •Y 19 r (w ' 2 „ 10 ~(.+,~,r~ 11 )pt,r.6`~'f® y,3 R4! JO`s V ~O iI+J'l r~t s r su m r~~A fo~ipovlcA~,l6~r~ „ wcti,,etrl22i,', 2 r~ A- lot x I ' r'+~6~ , m'• S4pSE i 61 3 63 95 35 3E CCEENTf 2 q ~ e ~s x 1 j V 1 L L E A M E q. p E D P L A T 1~ 1 fd G 5 70 N 71GARD NSVY. t SECTION 3.5 TlS,R1W W. M. TRACTS ~ 2o I 110Q, 1at a - Ct~e vu~ January 18, 1990 To City of Tigard City Engineer Att. Gary Alfson My name is Radu Ghi.onea resident and owner of the property located at 11695 S. W Greenberg Rd. and in this paper- I will show that actual sticks with amber sign Put in my -front yard in order to established the right-of-way of the Greenburg Rd. are not legal as far I am concern. As you remember, when you come to my property located at 11695 S.W. Greenburg Rd. (91-st / Greenburg) the sticks are about 25 feet from the actual side of the Greenburg Rd. and of about 15 feet from my front fence. If this line of the side of the Greenburg Rd will be the last, my property will have a cut from 110 -feet which is actual size to the East side of the property to 99 feet (according to the actual position of the sticker) and to the West side (91-th street) the size will be decreased from 185 feet to about 190 feet. My front yard from the house to the sticks line will has only 16 -feet which is not legal and no longer can use my drive way. This of course will affect to the EAST wide, my neighbor, Mrs. Elisabeth k:. residing at 11725 S. W. Greenburg Rd which will has a cut either. Notice : Loot-AA ng across the street at my neighbor situation is easy to notice that they have the same stick at about 2 feet from the actual pavement of the Greenburg Rd. and a total approximate 40 feet to their house. I will consider this is not legal and normal, and I ask the City Engineer to order a Survey of the properties in the area and make the right decision without affecting my property and any one if is posi bi 1. Attached is a copy of the description of the land from Western Title Company and a sketch of the actual survey. Sincerely, RadLA and Elena GHIONEA 11695 S.W. Greenburg Rd. Tigard, OR, 97223 Tel 620 - 2722 (day) 620 - 7276 (evening) The sketch below is made solely for the purpose of assisting in locating said premises and the Company ossumes no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions and location ascertained by actual survey. 6900 92 to • 5 0 61 27Ac 7001~~ > z 0 9 OP -.S.. 9~os !o 7300 a 7900 Q b~ 63006j+* N N 92 ° 6 _ c. 7 N 0 e 11 'Je, 4k 8 N H I o N a ti m N w a e+ C 598 Ibb 30 9 89637' 4• •o O W 10164 123 0000 2700 7800 10 0 .35 Ac. CO 7400 M N~ g3' o rJ`4 y*.t s 7500 a as ~01 Na 26006° 7 " N 6100 )?o ~p .26Ac. i 125 9 Cr N 79.99 8y ^ ''p9~ J'e is o S 7700 0 • e ft f = 6000 Ll ti 1 ~ A ~ ~J~6• O ~!L io 0 9 99637' _t~ 7995 r ~d 73.04 m 0(5!P~d~ » 1:3 r 5900 2602 15 .19Ac. 2601 .34Ac J $ 76070 e .ten L.14AC. o oe+~, sJ~, . .!a we L 7 tTD 74.91 1 t9.es AOL j e 'use X94 ~~A 1, ~y 7 i 2 1.63 79.86 -1 o P S69055 E 197.8 _ ~tna, Lt~ 2500 N ; 1400 ^ CU/ / .4841c. L* 16 N 89641,E e8 .24 A C. N6 v LLB ~ ~ ~ 1600 r+ a 50 ?o •r ~-L-• 197. a Sz67 5700 28 S 89635,E too 600 83.33 / « ./4Ac.1 r JO 5600 52BA0c. „ 240100 1701 13900 1.53 = ,tie J0, ./BAC. 6 ~ 0 .l3Ac• ; o 19Ac. z °'r 500 m _ a 8 a CO 92 W .24A c. S 87654' 31" W o :'k, 101.35 38.22. too 1702 91.63 Q o C.S. 8069 /.3 400 2 1 .4 /7A C. • O a ~p ~o N8P 56'W 2 1800 R o e- 1200 e e .24At. ` CS. 7863 0 0 .17Ac. 10 Y5 92 8 o J~'~/ 0 0 Ac. 9 %a- 20 (C.S.N0.10909) 1700 91.72 sJ Te A o .2! AC. o 1100 0 L e b . C.S. 7764 w .17Ac. c : !3-74 g: 24Ac. s e N 896 MC E 91.80 J~ s• N 92 Itl 80 ►a- z N 62136 *E a 1601 1800 1499 16Ac. 800 J` $ ,17AC. C.S. 8069 a € C.S. 13,768 (,9 00 a N 1199 36' E 163.68 N 92.00 91 98 242 OB N 896231` 1900 1000 3 0 J N 8936 E n 79.03 N 899zsE 11400 i4s.sT JBAc, a c .19Ac. tin 900 'DO m Lib o ~m n= 46Ac. 2100 45 4 I y `ISo ~To ~,~4ac all. WESTERN TITLE COMPANY RADU & ELENA GHIONEA 11695 SW GREENBURG RD. TIGARD, OR 97223 Date: MAY 9,1988 Our Order No.: 247458 Your Order No. GUTENDORF/GHIONEA WE ARE PLEASED TO COMPLY WITH YOUR REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING: POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL US IF WE CAN BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE. j WESTERN TITLE COMPANY i BY: L-4 ~4 DAVID BO N, TITLE OFFICER i Order No. 247458 Policy No. 38 0005 78 004550 Page No. 3 EXHIBIT A The land referred to in this Policy is described as follows: ; A portion of Lot 9, TICARDVILLE PARK, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly line of Greenberg Road with the Easterly line of the 20 foot road along the West line of said Lot 9; running thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said 20 foot road, a distance of 255 feet; thence East at right angles tc- the Easterly line of said 20 foot road, a distance of 100 feet; thence Northerly parallel with the East line of said 20 foot road, a distance of 180 feet, more or less, to the Southerly line of Greenberg Road; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Greenberg Road to the place of beginning. EXCEPT the Southerly 70 feet thereof, which was conveyed to Fred B. Hammond, et ux, by deed recorded in Book 277, Page 777, Washington County Deed Records. r,* SCHEDULE A DATE OF POLICY: MAY 6, 1988 AT 10:58 A.M. AMOUNT OF INSURANCE: $43,000.00 4 POLICY NO.: 38 0005 78 004550 ORDER NO. 247458 PREMIUM: '$272.00 1. Name of Insured: RADU GHIONEA AND ELENA GHIONEA 2. The Estate or Interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: RADU GHIONEA AND ELENA GHIONEA, husband and wife 3. The Estate or Interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this Policy is an estate in fee simple. i 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: i SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A .PART HEREOF 1 i t t ~urblrc hl~atr r~lc, Ilaa (mot v - Ct ~O" '~}-.~,vr, 1/15/90 AW, To Randall R. Wooley, Gary Alison Transportation & City Engineer JAN 1 r Commurt 06-Iftmom From Harry Sneideman 11570 S.W. Greenburg Rd. Tigard Ore. 97223 Dear Sirs; I am writing this in regards to the legalization of the right of way of Greenburg Road. The property line to my lot ( 1S1 35DB 5100 ) is bordered by a 100 ft. of 8 ft. pine trees. These trees were put in with the origional construction of my dwelling 39 years ago. At that time the landscape that includes this line of trees was put in with clear relationship to monumented staked property lines. Due to numerous alterations to Greenburg road in the last 40 years the center line is inaccurate to the relationship of my tree line. I have noted some City work crew cut back into my hedge between my lot and ( 1S1 35 DB5000 ) 11580 without finding the origional stakes due to numerous alterations to the road. I could therefore wish to have the existing road put back in relationship to my property line that will exclude the destuction of these beautiful tees. The other option is to abandoning this project which my family and surrounding neighbors feel tabuld destroy the residental quality of this established neighborhood. With respect, Harry Sneideman Cirf OF T117A RD January 11, 1990 OREGON NOTICE OF HEARING ON LEGALIZATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GREENSURG ROAD The Tigard City Council will hold a hearing o w teen urg oad between ac Highway and Tiedeman Avenue. After considering matters presented at the hearing, the council will determine whether legalization of the road is in the public interest and will enter an order abandoning or completing the legalization procedures on the road. The road has been surveyed to determine the location of the road right-of-way. The City Engine as file d other inform t At the hearing, any person may file with the City Council information that controverts any matter presented at the heari any new matter relevant to the proceeding. C cords at e- centerline`•"'ai"' monumented by a registered professional land surveyor. A survey map and narrative will be filed with the County surveyor. Upon completion of the legalization procedures, the re-established right-of-way shall supercede any previous surveys. The City Engineer has recommended to the City Council that the right-of-way of Greenburg Road be re-established because the location of the existing right-of- way cannot be accurately determined due to loss or destruction of the original survey of the road and due to numerous alterations of the road. For additional information about the legalization process, please contact Gary Alfson at Tigard City Hall, 639-4171. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer br/GrnHrg.rrw 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 l 13125 S.W. HALL BLVD. P.O. BOX 23397 CI OF TIF TIGARD, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 OREGON TO: 4J FROM: s MESSAGE 0A f v t. _ t S t f.. i 21 rY ? vy. ~~;...i:~ ~,d, 0. ti M,' ~ r M ' t fry ~ y ri ..r~5.>(• " ro SIGNED REPLY ri 't) 0J 0 Svc ~ ~ ~ 115 \ ry \ ~ i -777.1 L- ar ass a~®~~ ~ P P lKE F ARi - ER - W NVV- VIP, 15 2 ' j26S1 ~GSW (,I~EENBU~G ~D. MINNOW m1chcael w. Wilhelm, dmd January 17, 1990 11717 sw 88th tlgord, of 97223 (503) 620-5313 Mr. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Wooley: This letter is in response to your letter dated January 11, 1990, concerning the matter of legalization of the right-of-way of Greenburg Road. I have a triplex on the corner of 90th and Greenburg Road, addresses, 11780, 11782, and 11784. I purchased this property in 1981 in hopes of converting it to a dental office. The Planning Commission has denied my request for a zone change and consequently, it has caused me a documented out of pocket loss in excess of $40,000 because rents cannot keep up with expenses. I have been continually hounded by the city about shrubbery, hedges, trees, etc. That would never have occurred had I been allowed a zone change so I could have a dental office on this property, because the offending foliage would have had to be removed for access. Now you have a proposal that will virtually destroy what little value this property has. The existing rental structure will be far too close to Greenburg Road as to be legal for residential habitation. I would also be morally bound to evict the tenants in the middle apartment because they have a very small child. If I were to ask to construct a building today with this same distance from the street, my request would be denied. I have two proposals: (1) Condemn the entire property and buy it from me, or (2) a proposal that I feel would be equitable for all concerned, especially for the city since you are not in the real estate business. Allow me the appropriate zoning for a dental office, since commercial structures are allowed to be closer to the street. Access could be from 90th, thereby freeing up traffic congestion on Greenburg Road. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ) j Michael 1- Wilhelm, DMD RECEIVED MWW : dkw ` 19 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: January 22, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final hearing PREVIOUS ACTION: for LID 42 PREPARED BY% City Engineer DEPT HEAD CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: PO ICY ISSUE Final hearing for SW 68th Parkway Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement District No. 42. INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 8, 1990, the Council received the final engineer's report for LID # 42 and set January 22 as the date for a hearing on the final assessment roll. The final assessments are identical to the preliminary assessments except for Parcel 21 which is to receive a credit of $2,000. Parcel 21 did not receive a service lateral to the property line. Per the LID ordinance, objections to the final assessment roll are to be considered only if the objections are filed in writing prior to the hearing. .OR ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Following the hearing: 1. Approve the attached ordinance adopting the final assessment roll as presented. 2. Direct that the assessment roll be amended. FISCAL IMPACT $5,734.52 of the project costs will be charge to the Sanitary Sewer CIP account. All other projects costs have already been paid by the LID through the pre-assessment process. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. dj/ss.#422 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE FINAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SW 68TH PARKWAY SANITARY SEWER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 42, APPORTIONING THE COST AMONG THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT, DECLARING A DEFICIT ASSESSMENT OR CREDIT FOR EACH PROPERTY, AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET. The Council Finds: 1. The SW 68th Parkway Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement District No. 42 was formed and the improvements directed to be made by Ordinance No. 83-42. 2. The improvements have been made in accordance with the final engineering report adopted by Resolution No. 90-01. The report contains a proposed assessment roll. 3. By Ordinance No. 84-43, each property within the District was pre- assessed based on estimated project costs. 4. The total estimated pre-assessment cost was the sum of $172,960. The total final cost is the sum of $170,960 and the assessments against the individual properties are as set forth in the assessment roll and the Council finds that each property is specifically benefited in the stated 4L amount. The difference between the estimated cost and the final cost has resulted in a credit for each property. 5. Notice of the proposed final assessments was directed to be given by Resolution No. 90-01. 6. Individual mailed notice of the proposed assessment for each property was mailed to each property owner on January 10, 1990. The notice advised the property owner of the opportunity to object in writing to the proposed assessment and that written objections would be considered at a public hearing. The public hearing was held on January 22, 1990. 7. _ property owners filed written objections. The Council considered these objections. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDANS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The final total cost of $170,960 shall be assessed against the individually benefited properties as appo"loned in the attached assessment roll entitled Final Assessment Roll for SW 68th Parkway Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement District No. 42 and dated January 8, 1990. ORDINANCE NO. 90- Page # SECTION 2: A rebate shall be given to all property owners in the amount of the credit shown on the Final Assessment Roll less any outstanding balance on the pre-assessment. SECTION 3: The Finance Director is directed to enter each benefited property and the amount of the assessment against the property as shown on the Final Assessment Roll for SW 68th Parkway Sanitary Sewer Local improvement District No. 42 dated January 8, 1990, in the lien docket of the City separate from other prior or subsequent assessments and the same shall constitute a lien against each respective property. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of the Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of of , 1990 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of , 1990. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date DJ/o-#42.rw " ORDINANCE NO. 90- Page # • fRV1NG (ifZV) f.ARS®N 11720 SW 613th Ave. Tigard, Ore., 97223 Phone: Area (503) 639-1497 '/Real Estate Broker and Investments Consultant for the Minimization of JA MOCANSOOETYCF Pro ert Manage ment and Appraisals Red Tape in Government CONSUL NTS p y i iGA19D C/Tr CcGNU-f- t7/1 AAV4I6r 2 Z~ l ~~Z3' S..,v, r!A y~ fjGUCC t~ARD ~t~QL,- ~ TIG,41?4 017E042N 9 7Z 7, S FbvA - 14 SS5SS,4-ie vT 17,EAR/NG - Ldcgt-- /MA!?avE~i~~vT 0I5TRICI ID) #Z/- Z.. _ .S. W, .6 g rh ~r¢R.~ cd,4 y~ SAN! r,+R Y DER vIV /'}~~t/9~ J~NV/°kRY ZL /Q'~O S. 3e P.~i; Re fPrt°NCr is rH /c j`'e s u 6J'~~T /r eari:~~ re cast si~cr O 6 j ~c7`i4ras To j'hc lhaliviGr~/~Ir ~!'o~ a,SC't~ ~7'SScs~m~n~.S U~ y~rolo er-l`i rf wi Tti i L We- 67!-e r"ryi by . ~a bay ` o!- Surf~/vs yet-offer I`~ i~, B/o cis 7 GYe°Q ~e S'upBl~ . IjLOC/c _ ca', locks ,tio, f S 13 ;2~ / y T%6!ltfl D.._ V 7 ~ P Gt t' se ,a ~oN4° •~dv~ Ot'L°!~ fdFC~ss u/~~, _ C. j I cr^r :f 1! 4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 1/22/90 DATE SUBMITTED: 1/10/90 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Director's PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission interpretation (M 89-20) approval of Director's interpretation 114- 11,d111 PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD O ITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: UP- f=v- POLICY ISSUE Does the Community Development Code allow manufactured homes on individual lots of record? If so, is the residence at 10676 S.W. Cook Lane a manufactured home? INFORMATION SUMMARY t The Director issued a Code interpretation related to manufactured homes. The interpretation finds that a manufactured home at 10676 S.W. Cook Lane was i appropriately sited on the property in conformity with the Community ! Development Code. This issue was appealed to the Planning Commission by NPO 3 and the Director's interpretation was upheld. At the request of the neighbors, the Council decided to review the Commission's decision on January 22nd. This packet includes a considerable amount of background information which is summarized in the following memo and attachments. The Council only needs to determine whether the Director's interpretation and subsequent concurrence by ; the Planning commission was appropriate, given the existing Community Development Code provisions. The staff and the Commission have concluded that the residence is 1) a manufactured home as defined in Section 18.26.030, 2) a permitted use in the R-3.5 zone, and 3) in conformity with design standards contained in Section 18.94.040 for manufactured homes on individual lots. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution 2. Modify and approve the attached resolution 3. Reverse the Director/Commission interpretation and direct the staff to s prepare a revised resolution FISCAL IMPACT No direct financial impact is expected from this decision. r' i SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the resolution (Exhibit "A") t s MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Murphy, Community Development Dept. Director FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner t►'Gv_ RE: Director's interpretation (File No. M 89-20) DATE: January 10, 1990 This memo will provide the necessary information to assist the City Council in its review of the Planning commission's decision to uphold a Director's interpretation regarding manufactured homes. The sequence of events which relate to this case, the supplemental information requested by the council, and staff comments are reviewed below. Sequence of Events Events 1. On April 15, 1985, the Council approved ordinance 85-15 to amend the Community Development Code to allow manufactured homes on individual lots. The Council packet and minutes for the April 8th and 15th hearings and Ordinance 85-15 (including the design criteria in Section 18.94.040 for manufactured homes on individual lots) are attached as Exhibit "F". 2. Following the amendment of the Code, no applications for manufactured homes on individual lots were received until Mr. Johnson applied on April 13, 1989 to place such a building at 10676 S.W. Cook Lane. The application was reviewed by the Building and Planning Divisions, found to be consistent with relevant City standards, and a building permit was issued. 3. Objections were raised regarding the residence and the Director was requested to make a Code interpretation regarding the appropriateness of the residence at this location. The staff reviewed the relevant Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Community Development Code sections, including an interpretation from the City Attorney's Office (August 4, 1989 memo from Phil Grillo to Ed Murphy, Exhibit "B"). 4. The Director's interpretation was issued on October 10, 1989 (included in the NPO 3 appeal packet to Planning Commission, Exhibit "D"). 5. The interpretation was appealed by NPO 3 and a packet was submitted for the Commission to consider (Exhibit "D"). 6. On December 5, 1989, the Commission reviewed the interpretation and voted to uphold the Director's decision. The Commission minutes, transcript of the Commission deliberation, and Final Order 89-26 PC are attached (Exhibit "E"). iInformation Requested by Council In its decision to review the Commission action, the Council requested that in addition to the background information above, information be included in the packet relating to the rationale for adopting the 1985 Code revisions, the staff and City Attorney interpretation of State law, the staff opinion regarding the difference between manufactured and mobile homes, and the differences in construction between the two housing types. 1. Reasons for the 1985 Code Amendment Requests had been received by the Community Development Department staff to locate manufactured homes on individual lots and these requests had been denied because the Code did not permit it. State legislation was being considered in 1985 which, if passed, would require local jurisdictions to permit manufactured homes on individual lots (Senate Bill 53, included as part of Exhibit "F"). The Council voted to allow manufactured homes on individual lots subject to meeting the new design criteria in Section 18.94.040 of the Code (Ordinance 85-15, Exhibit "F"). 2. State Law Senate Bill 53 was eventually defeated, but during this past Legislative Session, House Bill 2863 was passed. The Legislature expanded the definition of "needed housing" types to include mobile home parks and manufactured housing units on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family dwellings. HB 2863 also requires cities to permit manufactured housing in one or more zones or in an "overlay" zone if the city's housing analysis indicates the need for this type of housing. This legislation is to be implemented in conjunction with periodic review or January 1, 1991, whichever comes first. The bill also describes the placement standards which a city may apply in permitting manufactured housing on individual lots. These standards are similar to those presently contained in Section 18.94.040 of the Code. . The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the present State law regarding manufactured homes, and no legal conflicts appear to exist with the City's Community Development Code (January 11, 1990 memo from Phil Grillo to Ed Murphy, Exhibit "B"). 3. Distinction between Manufactured and Mobile Homes The Code definitions for the two housing types are quite similar and the only clear distinction between the two is the reference to the UBC in the manufactured home definition. Since the UBC is not directly applicable to either housing type, the staff is of the opinion that the design criteria in Section 18.94.040 should be the determining factor. If the criteria are satisfied, it is a manufactured home and if they are not, it is a mobile home. :._VW. , 4. Differences in Construction Please refer to a memo dated 1/5/90 from Brad Roast which explains the difference between Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standards which apply to manufactured homes and the UBC that applies to conventional site-built homes (Exhibit "C"). Staff Comments and Recommendation There several points that are worth emphasizing regarding the Director's interpretation. 1. Because the Code inappropriately refers to the UBC when it does not apply to manufactured homes, the staff had to interpret the Code based upon the intent of this provision. If the UBC must be applied, it would mean that manufactured homes are not permitted anywhere in the City because such buildings are approved using HUD standards rather than the UBC. The 1985 record clearly shows that the Planning Commission and City Council intended to allow manufactured homes on individual lots when the design criteria in Section 18.94.040 are satisfied. 2. The UBC allows the use of "alternative methods" of construction if it can be shown that the design will perform as well as or better than the UBC standard. This verification is usually provided with and engineer's 4L certification, or in this case, a HUD approval. Through the use of "alternative methods", the same house could be built on the site and inspected in accordance with the UBC. 3. The staff does not consider the HUD standards to be inferior to the UBC. As shown in the memo from Brad Roast (Exhibit "C"), the standards are very similar and the application of either code will result a structurally sound and safe residence. 4. The residence clearly complies with Code Section 18.94.040 which contains the design criteria for manufactured homes on individual lots. The staff and the City Attorney conclude that this section is consistent with recent revisions to the ORS which pertain to manufactured homes. M 89-2000/kl c EXh~b~-I i .zY O'DONNELL. RAMIS. ELLIOTT & CREW ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET VAL, PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 j 15031 222.4402 DATE August 4, 3.989 TO E Murphy, Community Development Director, City of Tigard FROM P ill ip E. Grillo, City Attorney's Offic e RE bil_/ Mo Manu~actured Homes. Code Inter ..prn ~.~tation c o This memorandum is in response to your request for advice f om the city attorney's office regarding the Code's treatment of mobile versus manufactured homes in conventional single-family districts. In addition to our discussions, I have reviewed the current version of the Tigard Municipal code, the legislative history (attached), HB 2800 (1989), Brad Roast's memo to Ed Murphy dated idly 18, 1989, Mr. Moonier's letter to Ed Murphy dated July 9, 1989, and Mr. and Mrs. Clive Johnson's letter received by the City on July 11, 1989. is sung The legal issues presented here are: A. Whether the Tigard Municipal Code contains adequate criteria for distinguishing between mobile homes and manufactured ho es. S. If the Code has adequate criteria, does the Johnson ha a satisfy the. criteria for a manufactured home so as to be pe itted in conventional single-family districts? !:;Q IONS A. The Tigard Municipal Code adequately distinguishes between mobile homes and manufactured homes. B. The evidence available to me is insufficient to de ermine whether or not the Johnsons' home meets UBC re irements and whether the home satisfies TMC 5 18.94.040. 4L 40 4-tsy r K 1 i e b'~ uKC3S. l.: ."Y. ~b'L4b G J4 Asm, M mo re Mobile/Manufactured Homes: bode Interpretation August 4, 1989 Page 2 LYS S .i The TYC was amended in April 1985 by Ordinance 85--15 to distingui.:sh between "manufactured homes on individual building lots" and "mobile homes" which are permitted only in mobile home su ivisions and park developments. section 18.94.040 permits "manufactured homes as scattered site residences . . . in the absence of covenants, conditions and restrictions In any zone permitting installation of a dwelling E unit subject to requirements and limitations applying generally to. such residential uses in the district . . . subject to five enumerated requirements summarized below: 1) The manufactured home must meet all requirements I applicable to single-family dwellings in that zone; 2) The manufactured home must have at least 950 square ` feet of occupied space; I 3) The manufactured home must be placed on an elevated permanent foundation and be anchored to the foundation in accordance with Oregon Department of Commerce and manufacturers' standards; 4) The manufactured home must be covered with external material customarily used on site-built residential dwellings; and 5) The manufactured home must have a roof composed of material customarily used on site-built homes with the approved pitch for the material used. t "Manufactured homes" are defined in § 18.25.030 of the TMC as:• . "A factory-fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code to be used by itself or incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site as a dwelling unit. The term is intended to apply to major assemblies and does not include buildings constructed at a site from prefabricated panels, trusses and other prefabricated supplements." i Aff ti j.;: rs y Ft 1 1 Z 1 URES<C 150324 S 29 44 P 64 t•. lode mo re Mobile/Manufactured Homes: Interpretation 1gust.4, 1989 P ge. - 3 Conversely, "mobile homes" are defined in § 18.26.030 as: "A structure transportable in one or more sections, each built on a permanent chassis, which is designed to be used for permanent occupancy as a dwelling and which is constructed on a site other than its place of permanent use." Taken together, these two definitions are not mutually e elusive. As I read the Code, "mobile homes" crag be " amufactured homes" if they meet the UBC standards. " anufactured homes" may be located on individual lots if they M (et the criteria of TMC § 18.94.040. Under the Tigard Municipal Cade, "mobile homes" are a residual category of transportable structures designed for permanent occupancy which do not meet the U 4C standard. The fact that a "manufactured home" may have been m ed to the site on wheels is irrelevant. The code distinguishes "mobile homes" from "manufactured homes" in terms of their structural characteristics (i.e., UBC), size, attachment tc~ the site, and external construction. I our Code provides adequate standards for distinguishing between mobile and manufactured homes. It is clear from a review of- the legislative history attached that the city intended to fi5rmly distinguish between manufactured homes and mobile homes and to allow only the former in single-family districts. Xn 1985, when this provision of the Code was amended, Council clearly intended that "manufactured homes" would be allowed on individual lots so long as these homes were able to satisfy the criteria of § 18.94.040 and the UBC. UBC compliance is the operative means by which manufactured homes are distinguished from mobile homes in Tigard. In addition, in order for ma ufactured homes to be permitted in single-family districts, § 8.94.040 must be satisfied. Brad Roast indicates that the Johnson home "meets the p a licable building regulations for a manufactured home, there is no substandard construction." The issue here is whether the UBC ha been met. From this statement, I presume he refers to the UB However, UBC compliance is the key to distinguishing these us s. In order to resolve this issue, I suggest a more complete as essment of UBC compliance be undertaken. With regard to the foundation, Mr. Roast indicates: "The fo Ling system meets the code for a manufactured home. The code do s not require any anchorage of the building to the foundation 4-89 FR I 1 T l i 0REQC g~j3243~944 P 05 Me 6o re Mobile/Manufactured Homes! lode interpretation August 4, 1989 Pge - 4 system." In reviewing the code, however, Section 18.94.040(3) doles appear to require that manufactured homes be placed on elevated permanent foundations and be anchored to the foundati~ ~ac a ce with Ogg nd a cture ' standards, Based upon this language in the Code, it does appear that th Johnson home needs to be anchored to the foundation in accordance with Department of Commerce and manufacturers' St ndards. Furthermore, the skirting and garage requirements ap lying to such residential uses in this district must be met. Frm the information provided, I am unable to make that de ermination. In summary, the Code permits manufactured homes in single- fa ily districts. If the Johnson home complies with the Uniform Bu lying Code, it is a manufactured home for purposes of the Ti and Municipal Code. Manufactured homes may be located in this si gle-family district so long as compliance with § 18.94.040 can be. demonstrated. Based upon the information available to me at this time, I am unable to draw factual conclusions as to whether orinot the DEC and § 18.94.040 have been met by the Johnson home. Iffthese criteria are not met, the Johnson home should be eo sidered a mobile home under the Tigard Municipal Code. If th se. DEC criteria Are met, the Johnson home is a manufactured hole for purposes of the Tigard Municipal Code. if it meets the cr teria in g 18,94.040 as well, it may be located on an in ivi.dual building lot_ PE sgaj En losure PEG1TIGARM UJRPHY.KEN O'DONNELL, RAMIS. ELLIOTT & CREW ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 (8031 222-4402 DATE January 11, 1990 TO Ede hy, City of Tigard Community Development Director 4 FROM Phillip E. Grillo, City Attorney's Offic RE Manufactured Homes: City and State Definitions Compared BACKGROUND Keith Liden has requested an opinion from the City Attorney's office regarding a comparison of the Tigard Code's definition of "manufactured homes" versus similar definitions in state law. ISSUE The legal issue presented here is: A. Whether the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) definition of "Manufactured Homes" is consistent with state law, and B. If the TMC is not consistent with state law, does the inconsistency create any legal problems for the City? CONCLUSIONS A. The Tigard Municipal Code definition of "manufactured homes" is not consistent with similar state law definitions. B. State law does not require that local definitions in this subject area be consistent with similar state statutes. However, the inconsitencies may create practical problems and confusion when applying state law requirements within the City. ANALYSIS The City defines "manufactured homes" in § 18.26.030 of the TMC as follows: "(A] factory-fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code to be used by itself or incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site as a dwelling unit. The term is intended to apply to major assemblies and does not include buildings constructed at a site from prefabricated panels, trusses, and other prefabricated supplements." s~;:~tvl~ ~tt~ JAN 161990 Memo re Manufactured Homes: City and State Definitions Compared January 11, 1990 Page - 2 The state does not use the phrase "manufactured homes," but instead uses the terms "manufactured dwelling," "manufactured structure," and "prefabricated structures." In essence, under state law a "manufactured dwelling" is a residential trailer or mobile home; it does not include manufactured housing that meets federal manufactured housing construction safety standards. Under state law, "manufactured structures" include mobile homes and recreational vehicles so long as they are not regulated under the state of Oregon's Structural Specialty Code, which is similar to the Uniform Building Code. Finally, under state law, !'prefabricated structures" are buildings or structural units that are manufactured at an off-site location and assembled on-site, but do not include mobile homes, trailers, or recreational vehicles. Prefabricated structures must meet Oregon Structural Specialty Code requirements. Under state law, neither "manufactured dwellings" nor "manufactured structures" are required to meet the state of Oregon's Structural Specialty Code which, as previously mentioned, is similar to the Uniform Building Code. Conversely, under state law, "prefabricated structures" are required to meet the Structural Specialty Code standards. Under the TMC, "manufactured homes" are transportable buildings designed to meet the Uniform Building Code. Clearly, Tigard's definition of a "manufactured home" is inconsistent with all existing state law definitions mentioned above. This inconsistency may very well create practical problems and confusion when the City attempts to apply state law requirements and guidelines at the local level. However, the inconsistency between state and local definitions in this area is legally permissible. State law does not require that local definitions be consistent with state statutes. In fact, HB 2863 (1989), now made part of Oregon's land use laws in ORS 197.307(4), allows local governments to set their own standards for particular housing types permitted outright and conditionally, subject to other statutory and constitutional requirements. In short, local governments are free to redefine their own terms. PEG : gaj / cc: Keith Liden, City of Tigard y PEGV I GAROVANU110ME AE 1 i l" OL 1 i i t' i . MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Keith Liden Respond By J FROM: Brad Roast, Building Offici~_I -For Your Information DATE: 1-5-90 -Sign and Return SUBJECT: Mfg Homes vs UBC Homes, differences in construction. I have reviewed the HUD standards for the construction of manufactured homes, and compared some of those with the regulations for a home built under the State Building Code. As follows: o The HUD standards for minimum window area is 8% of the building floor area, the UBC requires 10% of the floor area. Both require that the windows be one-half openable. o Minimum ceiling heights under HUD are 7 feet, under the UBC 7 foot 6 inches. o Minimum exit facilities under HUD, 2 doors of minimum 28 inches wide, under UBC, 1 door of minimum 36 inches wide. o Both require emergency egress windows in bedrooms. o Minimum bedroom size under HUD 50 square feet, under UBC 70 square feet. o Closets are required under HUD, not required under UBC. o Minimum hallway width under HUD 28 inches, under UBC 36 inches. o Both require safety glass in areas subject to impact. o Both require firestopping of void spaces in wall, floors, and ceilings. o Both require smoke detectors. o The allowable flame spread ratings on construction and finish materials are the same. o Hud requires that the structural components of the building (i.e, floors, walls, roofs) be designed by an engineer. The UBC uses accepted construction practices and some tables that are based on engineering design. o Minimum roof design loads under HUD are 30 pounds per square foot, under UBC 25 pounds per square foot. o Minimum wind design loads under HUD are 15 pounds per square foot, under UBC 17 pounds per square foot. o Minimum floor design loads for both are 40 pounds per square foot. o The standards for electrical installations are the same. o The HUD standards for plumbing installations allow for smaller watcr and drain pipes, however, the State is intending to adopt a code that would allow for virtually the same sizes under a UBC building. There isn't a lot of differences between a manufactured home and a UBC home. one is constructed in a factory, the other is constructed at the site. Both are inspected for conformance to their standards by certified inspectors. t ~ L XhIhL7 NOV 2 7 APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION, OCTOBER 10,1989 The Mobile Home On Cook Lane I k 1 I t Chairman, Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 A Dear Mr Chairman, BACKGROUND In the Spring of 1989, Mr. Clyde Johnson bought the vacant residential lot adjacent to my home on Cook Ln. He immediately began site preparation for what the rest of the neighborhood assumed would be the construction of a new home. I must admit that very early in the site prep process we had warnings of the impending problem we now have. On two occasions, I was informed that Mr. Johnson was putting a manufactured home on this site; once by David Nicoli, previous owner of the site, who told me Mr. Johnson had a custom designed $60,000 modular home, and once by Bob Bledsoe, NPO #3 member. who stopped by one day to express suprise that I was not upset with the development next door. I bring these two occasions to light, because they illustrate my complete suprise, and apparent ignorance of our land use processes, that in the City of Tigard a mobile home can be defined as a manufactured home and then placed on a residential lot. With clear disregard to the plain meaning of every applicable code on residential structures and with complete disdain for the citizens of this communuty, City employees are willing to allow the placement - without notice or consultation - of a non-permitted structure in our neighborhood; and then, upon objections from the existing residents, feel the need to bluff, bully, and obfuscate the issue. THE ISSUE Let's be clear: the issue before us is whether the City Municipal Code allows mobile homes - not meeting the Uniform Building Code(UBC) and not meeting the zoning code - are allowed in residential neighborhoods. The issue is not whether or not the neighbors like the appearance of a home that "substantially meets the intent of the Tigard Municipal Code." I was utterly astonished the day the mobile home was delivered to Mr. Johnson's property. It arrived in two pieces, visquene covering the openings in each side. You have all seen them rolling down HWY 99 - first the right side, then the left - two trucks pulling two trailors, each with its own tongue, chassis, and wheels. The only positive thing I can say about that sight was that, at least, I then understood all the unorthodox site work and the conversations with Mr. Nicoli and Mr. Bledsoe that, heretofor, had been quite a mystery to me. Maybe I am naive, or even stupid, but who among us here tonight would have thought, or now does not believe, that according to the Director's October 10 VAL Interpretation, Attachment #1, a mobile home can be~.Laced in any residential neighborhood in the City. Immediatly upon seeing the mobile home parts sitting next to my house, I called the City Building Department. I talked with Mr. Brad Roast initially and, in susequent conversations the following week, talked with other city employees. The results of these conversations precipitated my initial protest letter dated July 5, 1989, Attachment #2. The importance of these conversations is that the employees with responsibility for the permit issuance and inspection were thoroughly confused on what authority the Johnson permit was issued under. Illustrative statements are: 1. Mr. Roast stated, the only applicable code to this structure was the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. If the mobile home had a HUD sticker affixed, it was approved. 2. A female employee, name unkown, stated, recently passed State legislation concerning manufactured/mobile home" required the City to allow the structure's placement. 3. Both employees stated, the structure did not have to meet the UBC. The facts relating to these statements are: 1. The HUD regulations are clearly intended to concern mobile homes as defined by Tigard's Municipal Code, not manufactured homes. 2. The State legislation referred to, House Bill 2863, was not even signed into law until July 27,1989 - a full two months after the permits were issued - and it does not mandate mobile/manufactured home sitings as the building department stated. 3. Manufactured homes clearly have to meet the UBC to be allowable structures under the Tigard Municipal Code. The point of this discussion is to illustrate the confusion and misunderstandings of the City Staff during the initial permitting of this structure. They did not seem to know what they were permitting or why they were permitting it. However, contrary to the Director's later assertions, they clearly stated to me that the UBC had nothing to do with it. APPLICABLE CODES AND DEFINITIONS The following are specific municipal codes, regulations, and definitions applicable to this appeal ( some are synopsized and some are only recited by reference): A. Tigard Municipal Code 18.08(c) - " Where the Code imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regulations, the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standard shall apply." 4L 3 18.26.030 - " Manufactured Home - A factory fab icated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code sib, " Mobile Home A structure transportable in one or more sections, each built on a permanent chassis 18.30 thru 18.32 - All sections concerning public notice and appeal , 18.94.040(a) (1) - " The home shall meet all requirements applicable to single family dwellings and posess all permits and certifications required by the Code." (2) - " The home shall be attached and anchored to a permanent foundation in conformance with the Oregon Department of Commerce regulations and the manufacturer's specifications." B. HUD Regulations ANSI A225.1 , Attachment #3 - This is the regulation referred to on the HUD sticker affixed to the mobile home. Section 1-2.1, Types of Structures Covered, refers the reader to 24 CFR 3280 for a definition of the manufactured homes covered by the regulation. 24 CFR 3280.2 Definitions, Attachment #4 - (16) " Manufactured Home means a structure transportable in one or more sections which is built on a permanent chasis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation note: please compare this to the definition of a mobile home in the Tigard Municipal Code Manufactured Homes For Title II Mortgage Insurance, Attachment #5 - This states in part, " This Department offers FHA Insurance on manufactured homes(mobile homes)", and under General Eligability Criteria: (6) " A permanent foundation and perimeter footing and wall is required." C. Uniform Building Code(UBC) 'Specifically Section 2517 concerning foundations. Attachment #6 is two illustrations which depict the UBC requirements for foundations. FINDINGS From the previous listed codes and definitions, several statements can be made: 1. The Tigard Municipal Code makes a clear distinction between mobile and manufactured homes. The HUD regulations seem to use the terms interchangably; e.g., manufactured homes(mobile homes). 2. The Tigard code defines mobile homes as structures on a chassis. The HUD regulations define manufactured homes(mobile homes) as structures on a chassis. 3..Both the HL and Tigard codes require perman'hnt footing and wall perimeter foundations with the structure firmly anchored thereto. The HUD codes at least implies that an FHA mortgage cannot be acquired unless the foundation is in. place. In any case, the Tigard code requires the most restrictive code to apply. It should be noted that the UBC does allow alternative foundations if the proper design and structural certifications show they meet or exceed the perimeter foundation. 4. The Tigard code requires that the manufactured home placement meet all other municipal code and UBC requirements. Please note. I have not listed in the previous section the Oregon Department of Commerce regulations referred to in the Director's October 10 Interpretation. That is because there are no such regulations* The Department deleted, and ceased all activities regarding, regulations of manufactured homes over two years ago. DISCUSSION The photograph attached to the front of this letter is a picture of the structure in question. As described earlier, it was delivered in two pieces, i each with its own chassis. The wheels and tongue have been removed from the chassis. Some other pertinent aspects in the picture are: ` 1. The grey strip along the bottom of the structure is painted plywood skirting. At-the highest point, it extends approximately 24" below ground level. t 2. The front porch is a stand alone platform. It is not attached to the home,.nor is it anchored to the ground. 3. The garage, to the right :side of the picture, is attached to the house by a 2x4 (barely visible on the photo). There is a covered porch (similiar construction to the front porch) in the rear of the house. The 2x4 nailed to the garage is the support for the cover. As can be seen, this structure looks like a mobile home. As defined by the HUD and Tigard codes it is a mobile home. And, based on the apparent temporary placement on an unanchored foundation, and with porches and a garage that simply lift off, the owner appears to be treating it as a mobile home. The City, in the issuance of permits and in the subsequent defense of their actions, admit the structure does not meet the Municipal Code or the UBC. They also state the foundation requirements are found, not in the UBC, but in the Department of Commerce regulations and the manufacturer's instructions. I must say that it is incomprehensible that cognizant City Officials will admit they have allowed a sub-code structure within the community and then try to justify it based on the fact that you cannot see the problems. By this statement in the October10 letter, the Director is admitting that they are treating this structure differently than stick-built homes. They are, therefor, willing to have different standards for different lots within the same neighborhood. 4L The issue of the foundation is even more paramount in this appeal. In reading the Tigard Municipal Code, the HUD regulations, and the Uniform Building Code, there can be no interpretation other than the structure is required to be anchored on a permanent, wall and footing, perimeter foundation. As-stated earlier, there are no Department of Commerce regulations so they certainly do not justify the City's position. The only other defense the City has is the manufacturer's instructions. Attachment #7 is the manufacturer's design as submitted for the building permit. What do these instructions show: 1. They show a wall and footing perimeter foundation. 2. They show concrete block mortered together and filled with concrete. 3. They show iron reinforced footing and walls. 4. They show the structure firmly anchored to the foundation. 5. They also show, and I quote from the title block, " The exterior walls must be solidly supported by the foundation wall. This system was not designed to have MOBILE HOME (emphasis added) frame supporting the exterior wall load. Marlette Homes assumes no responsibility except for the method of support shown on this detail." CONCLUSION What more can be said? This mobile home should never have received a building permit; however, City personnel were confused on the issue. The City is now defending the permit and its subsequent approval of sub-municipal code, HUD/FHA requirements, and the manufacturer's design - why? The residents of this neighborhood were entitled to timely notice that a non-conforming.structure was being proposed for placement on Cook Lane. Present and future landowners are entitled to knout they are buying standard housing; not just housing that appears to be standard. Most importantly, citizens of this communuty are entitled to thorough and honest code enforcement. Sincerely, Dennis Moonier 10634 SW Cook Ln Tigard, OR 97223 4L ~,r , ~ ~ ' ~ I CITY OF TIOA RD OREGON October 10, 1989 Mr. Dennis Moonier 10634 SW Cook Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Directors Interpretation Manufactured home at 10676 SW Cook Ln. Dear Mr. Moonier: After reviewing the issues surrounding the placement of a manufactured home at the above referenced address, I have decided to allow the structure to remain as it is. In my opinion, the Community Development Code' as it is now written allows for the placement of a manufactured home on a single family lot, and this building as placed meets the intent of the code. The justification for i this decision is as follows: 1. The municipal code allows placement of a manufactured home on a single family lot. The building is a manufactured home. By the City Development Code; a "manufactured home" is similar to a "mobile home", except that it meets both the National Urban and Housing Development standards, and the Uniform Building Code. 2. The municipal code defines a "manufactured home" as a factory fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code. In -my opinion the home complies with the intent of the municipal code. There are some differences in the construction of the building from the Uniform Building Code (such as the insulation and plumbing), but those differences are not outwardly visible, and are suitable for this type of structure. Changing those items to meet the Uniform Building code would not change the appearance of the building, or provide any real benefit to either the owner or the neighbors. The -structural frame of the building *is the same as a site built home (2x6 wood stud walls, manufactured roof trusses, 2x6 wood floor joists). 3. The municipal code requires a manufactured home conform with all zoning regulations applicable to a site built home, including minimum lot size, building set-backs, building height, utility availability, off- street parking, and other applicable standards. The home complies with these regulations. 13125'8W Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 4. The municipal code requires that the home is larger than 950 square feet. The home complies, it is 1,280 square feet., 5. The municipal code requires that the home is placed on a permanent, elevated foundation and anchored in accordance .with the regulations adopted by the Oregon Department of Commerce and the manufacturer's installation specifications. The home complies. Please. note that the regulations do not require any anchorage of the building to the foundation. 6_ The municipal code requires that the exterior walls and roof of the home be covered with materials customarily used on site built homes. The home complies. The building is covered with hardboard panel siding, which is typical material used in site built homes. The roof covering is fiberglass composition, a typical roof covering used in site built construction. My staff, the City Attorney, and myself have researched this issue thoroughly, including calling the manufacturer of the house in question, and have come to the conclusion that the structure meets the definition of a manufactured home in the Community Development code. This decision is being issued pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code 18.12.010 as a Director's Interpretation. Any party may appeal this interpretation in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A), 18_32.310(A) and 18.32.348 of the Community Development Code. The appeal must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($55.00.) and include the following information: 1) a description of the interpretation being appealed, 2) the appellant's qualifications as a party, 3) the specific grounds for appeal; 4) the scheduled date the interpretation is to be final (see below), 5) the date the interpretation was given, and 6) the signature(s) of those appealing the interpretation. This interpretation will be final on October 24, 1989 unless an appeal is filed. The deadline for filing an appeal is October 24, 1989 Since ely, Ed Murphy community Development Director r d low - J U L 10 1989 Mr. Ed Murphy Community Development Director City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 July 5. 1989 Dear Mr. Murphy I am writing this letter to you as a protest to several recent actions and decisions made by the Tigard Building and Planning Departments. As I am sure you know, a mobile home was recently placed on a lot on Cook Lane. This is property immediately adjacent to my home at 10634 S.W. Cook Lane. To say the least, I was taken by surprise the day the mobile arrived on the property. I was completely unaware that the Tigard Community Development plan had been amended to allow mobile homes in traditional low and medium density zonings. However, the most distressing aspect of my complaint is the seeming lack of enforcement of the city's building code or; possibly.more correctly, the disparity between the code that this particular mobile home is being allowed to conform to and the city's code for traditional houses. There are two basic issues I will address in this letter: 1. Mobile Home/Manufactured Home building code requirements, and 2. Mobile Home/Manufactured Home zoning requirements. I am writing to you on this matter rather than the Planning Director because it is the. building code requirements, or lack thereof, which illustrate so clearly the zoning incompatability of mobile homes-interspersed with traditional stick built homes. I think it is incumbent upon your staff to recognize this situation and bring it to the proper attention. Building Code Requirements Subsequent to the placement of the mobile home on Cook Lane, I have had several telephone conversations with inspectors at the Building Department. I made each of these calls to question compliance with code requirements. Each call resulted in your compliance officers explaining to me the difference between the mobile home/ manufactured Home code and the uniform building code for stick houses. The compliance officer also promised that an inspection would be. made to check for compliance with the applicable code. Based on the fact that nothing has resulted in altering the "construction" of the mobile home, I must assume that:(1) either the mobile meets manufactured home building requirements and these requirements are substantially below the requirements for stick homes, or (2) the City Building Department is allowing substantial non-compliance with the applicable code. I believe these specific violations are existing at the mobile home placement on Cook Lane. 1. Foundation -The alledged foundation under the mobile home is a series of five 6 inch concrete strips running east-west, attached at the east end by another strip of 6 inch concrete. These strips have no footing; i.e. there is no subsurface concrete. Neither do these strips form a perimeter enclosure. -On top of the 6 inch concrete strips are unsecured concrete blocks stacked 3 high. The mobile home is placed on these. In no way, that I am aware of, is the structure secured to the ground. 2. Skirting -To skirt the approximately 24 inch space between the mobile home and the cement strip, the owner has attached plywood. Dirt is pushed directly up to, and is in direct contact with, this skirting. 3. Occupation Permit. -Has an occupation permit been granted? The owners.are occupying the mobile home. However, the structure does not have permanent porches, front or back, no permanent walkways are installed, the driveway is not complete., etc. Work to complete the.installation on this site has slowed to a snail's pace since occupation took place. 4. Garage -The garage is a stand alone structure. In no way is it attached to the mobile home, nor can it be accept in 'a totally artificial manner. In addition to these above violations, I also believe that two other problems may be discovered: 1. The side setbacks measured from the east eve of the house to the west eve of the garage does not visually seem to comply with the code. I have not actually attempted to measure this. 2. The owner obviously has two front yard driveways planned. The presumed use of the second-driveway is the large recreational vehicle now parked in the adjacent lot. Zoning Requirements As recently as February 1989 changes. have occurred in the Community Development code making the placement of mobile homes more permissive in Tigard. The February change simply deleted the word manufactured from the previously used "manufactured/mobile home" phrase previously used in the code (18.94.020). This change, I am told, legitimized the mobile home placement on Cook Lane. I do not believe this was the change that was. intended. I believe the City Council, under the advice of the building department staff, assumed there was a difference between a manufactured home and a mobile home. The structure on Cook Lane is•a mobile home! Drive by and look at it, you will Auk, know it when you see it. Imagine it next to your home. It appears that under our current definitions the only difference between a mobile home and a manu.'actured home is that the mobile has wheels and a tongue attached. Was the intent of the code change to-allow mobile homes in residential neighborhoods? As stated earier, this structure is not attatched to the ground. It can be moved at any time simply by reattatching the wheels and the tongue. One of the goals of our zoning regulations and building codes is to provide assurance to residents and businesses that development will be consistent, compatable, and meet certain standards. The result of this change in the code has hardly accomplished that. Again, drive by and look; this structure sticks out like a sore thumb. There are two vacant lots adjacent to this structure. Will mobile homes be-placed on these? I am afraid of that eventuality and the resultant further degradation of the neighborhood and our property values. In conclusion, I request that you review the zoning code's allowance of mobile home structures like this one in the same neighborhood with traditionally constructed.homes. Mixing manufactured structures in with traditional structures, when they do not comply with the same standards-is effectively interspersing, lot by lot, two disparate zoning and building codes. All homes within the same defined zoning area, whether manufactured or stick built, must be held to the same standard. What sense does it make to have two different building standards? Where two standards exist, the lowest commoh'denominator will always prevail because no one wants to build a stick home, held to a higher standard, next to a mobile home, which is held to a lower standard. This is not an acceptable outcome of the Community Development Code. Sincerely, Dennis Moonier 1()634 S.W. Cook Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 cc: Mr. Keith Lyden Planning Director City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Mr. Herman Porter Chairman, NPO #3 City of Tigard P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 4L 1111111!1!! 1 !!1111111111 MEN Vsa t 111»~I #~tl l~t I~ jr (1•' '►F~j.~ {~f, ly,q y:f r♦ 1/tl; •.J.f _h~,&►!r ? wtv ''Ir "r':" ~ L. ✓ 1 1• wf , ~1yyf.S~,/. l~' r` It•••rli...kl':Y I' J'.( 1. ►ti/,i •1 / y,a' (r?I ~I rlt. ~,1(•,. IL!;1. 1• j PI~Y I.r1 1r`{. ~ ~ ,J••:i;1 J q; 4i LL !~N~•~ 1 I. t ~~r f• /~•t. i~.C .'bt,.rl~" ~T••, i. lam. l• .•f„I'(.I. •(14. 'f: 'a .i ® ' / ~S ►1 ` t •V' 1. v' f•~.,,~A r •Z, iJ•. 'q.Ty + I•.. 3 r 1 YS • s',' T.'• 'rl. ' `i~ . ' J•• r•t r ~•],•~r~~l lir. r,{•'.~ ' • ! 7it~•V~' '•1.. ; I..~~i. , 1St: A . ~1a ,J Eti ~•1 ►.p4r~~• P~~tY;~ ' h•J :F ! tr! ~1y4• yi(! 1\' r •ItY; 1 'll :r'l }r• `L ~•~1-~(( 1 w •w ' .'1' i!✓ A 1~•~ ~ . ~ .1 r ' h L 7C.:'i , ~••t. w ' J f . t:l'v,~r'~,(1' Ir4~.:~ ~ ~7tt •,N'11' ® ; •r^~•*'~'• ~i+i ~~'i 1'-01J9rt•,,~•• 'i;2~i„q ~ r t!"•'r', J, hlii!•:t~, S: . lt.. 7~1'~•11A; ~1j 1~:~•+~'1~ ~1.f♦>~ ?~5. ~~►~~,`r. r~•:r! 1',r • 1 ;t ® •1~' +1. 1 ® 1,~1: ~C'~i r , .+1• i t, . G~,1 /Y.,•:Fv~ .'r'f. :t :•4., (1',• •j 'r,' ,•j T,• t L ,I". ! , , '1 / t 1 J• G•(, . u1 `t, ;.,r\, 4. 1 J"~ '•t' t .i t nl. r fT •h. i ' ` :J •4 : ~;:►l' ► 1 i t«ys(~~r/ • (1►~1(!y/ + •r;; r '~tir/i~,I't ~~1 1 1 ~'4 7,t~ 1~ r ` 1~• 1•!••►'t•• i/,Lt~ f•r•~~•I~i '~I.If~ 'J/~i !"•ti ! I S' I•~. :5 • • 1 ~ ~ 1 't }~(n . r• / 1, ~ ' -r t ~ ►~T!i j['• t ~ ~►•r~' • ' v0•it ? +a11p~.r+ ! .~1',',•r• .r~/•ri '~';ti.' :.~•ls:1 ,}~/i~~, r• g~••.~,l,w q~t,, ~ 4,Ji• ft7 •t~•}C/. •I{~ !;•r) )l;;j. r•'• "*t':.1•r• '/1► •r :Y J I IY 1*,(;' , •(j ..tL\,'1 % I .A~4rt'rtt + ~1.;' 1••. .wli•.r ~ v, ! ' . t' ~1 "J) 'r!•,' , :J1• r~'rl►r ~!W ~ !'-sjlY.'1 ,/r.~'i.~ i 1•,~>t!'~i~1ij 1-~, a ~ •f, l.j.'; ~ ~ 1i 't,1,1:T~ ~t •t .ti 1j'•''"A`:~'~~ ~Ai{~i'+Vi' lzl: fli: •1"x'.1•'1 ..r/:~',+ ~~(TJ.•►JJ•►'J "~.•11,,.;• '11 I' iI~ • `w~ tj'~ •1~ ry' L.' E,Il J 'I~~.'~ • ~I"A:W I: •4f r.f,~/~: '.['~1! 1 ♦:2; : y~• 'Y~ •IA,~~ ,7.17j1 ~~''it Y' trli 'f il' • N r br: t T' ;'~,~'•r~ 1• J'N' .I.,. t r • 'rrr f 1./' • e• 1'' .t !+••'I ..:1~'ry/ar „q` IY~ ri• /•R'•':N`` f e. ~i~111;4;, )r~. 'ik d}'•" ! ti~ .jJ; •~•r. 1~ ,ir 1, r ••r: ''.1 ••1' ' •!+~'r'. i~ ~il iY{!"~ i / •jr/. /1,; `•..1.~ / r ,1 'l• '\!:L 77 •r- ~~rt/ L f • { ++.1~:. y1 ,~1;~'''i~• • C~ •i c .r .l:i / 1. TS.t• .tr •e+ j {~T. ))`~~~•"j{}},,~.,,((1 ~s•' r••S 7} i;~' fY aZ r~i •~i. ' ;Y' ` , ,.1` j; i` .w: • ,..1"• •:1'~1:j'~• ~h.}rr {j.y'~~ 1/•/~\ H 1••'+T•;s ; 1rtT'f .A • •~LI •y~f•'•, I''•yf i1~~~ ''s • • •:1+ 1 • tR~•'•~ .,F ;ljl:.<t j t.Cy jt~s~ rj ,'.~h tfy• J~ /II •v'~, ~•:i~ll/' :J ra : a J t /tr ~ ; A'•s, ,t.! ; (r 3 r♦~•.e.fj ~2• 1 .,V .t/ ,AVE.`;, lf:V1i i, ~J r•.r 1! I/• 1 ! " • „id! •X '►t '/i• r, !i e; i•7L ~;'rvy. r: t 1 }~I 1 . 0 .a'r •i . ~wr i',j. ' 1 (.•t ly%• 1 ;yyL t.s~ t'~N ~t tT i rl -lov ~i•; w~' -4911 J'`yr Jr~j' r 7 Y ,~a+' J ' 44 f , .:'t {`r•.at',:'. ',i•i \•t i~i, ,~1`++cct►:~~ t ir. ~'1'~•=~; A t ""ti_ ~tt frY • ..Y.~ :i fj • . j'T~rrr, . '•'r: .1 ' t ts~ + 1il,:trJ,!' 1,~~,+. f~,~^C:~1. ,•M } J; ' 1•~S; ( 'Tl' •11 r t(i J' tttYa t x,.741 •.lt{fw 1,• Jld•.?r• Of+ Y' t1• 'i I - 'l Y' ='i ,t!~ S ~.t11wf? J r :•,a '1 / . I, rr i w r } +Z R f ;;I 1~ r i+1+•j'i t'i 5~ 1►; Ir~ '•1f, l,!• !t81::r;•, ,'/'`aG:,t~1t,.~::1 L':.+.; :,1:''•r('r'~~ t:y.L 'r.• d•;` ~'i,.~ `'•1;'(, ,~j, f{{~;v,/ ~L'•~f .,,f,~t;A 1 Ft a~~ .q`S~,w~lwr.~.11 t 1'. •j~.l, Tj,~ S •'1 ti. ii, . l~ 1. h:~7~.J;. L~°,^•i~f ~1 (aw1 f1j fir ;±I.r, r' r l(j~• 1• fC~~ r~ 1. ' ♦ 1' y (ft J.' 'I~ . .7 //TT. . ' ~ •~''1 • ~ '•1~T. ~I•.~4r 't' L • rjV r 3 •eq y •1•Y~, (•~•C 1' wi 1..•'i~~' I • . r • f, 1.-' . y•' r%' r rr • Yi Yr i .I 1 a / 4 ♦ • ! l"•S•r • ~r~i. '1,~1 ',t '.1'r r: K•, .,.>j'w;.. ry~j. G•,• ~~1 ~iNo.i•.'1' T,1Y Y'~J r"r~ " 1' . r ~.•L y ,•I. that. . .f I r!'•t:u: • •'•f:~y'k Stt'J, ;~,)af.~ti t.• ~';?F.~ . t1 1'%':'.r.iht' .j l'~~ . p 1r. 1 4 1 ,Jj%Sl. • ~.~~Jy Scj••r'~2~ ,il,,r.~• Lr`{• ~,,f~'~i; j, wa •`r • "••>':1) iwi. ,,,~•"J.. .~'~.4 1~' ~'1 r 4r ~ ~.tt~ ••t^.►~ j.,. ::I.,~3; :t r :1~.•,' t+,~[1~3• \ yv~„~\! •~'.:,i~ '''••r Aj+.1r%' J (rp t i r Le .f i • '•I~• '~'1i1,•!i r'C•4 ` 1; /i .~I l , a. ,l , .1 i r•] ;.~f rt ) N. I r .•1• Jr•, .)iw:'~~ klt'rWo- f . 1,7 fi' k ySr}tij `C.i , ~~t:. 4 + ~ Y i* ~,~i~24.* ~ ~ 7 .,t~,ntut' .'7. i. 'r~~ ,o, .,t'•J +l: r t:t: M f' ;1•~rftl'' ,5..~'fr~'i. :•i'S• yy,,r ~l1', `;1 r'r ' :1 j~ i r'y y~ •r.R! •w L, w• !~;''•ay/. ~i}r. :i. ♦ t.• 1:/7.,: { 7 ~,•1. J'ti,~l ' ,•.1' J- .I,;' `~,e✓ r„ i t 1 ((~q, X41! y I. . j.1, .t ..4I<.•' r ' .Y f ~ .~,J 1(1' 1 P. j', r_ f•;±/ ` :iij•SI.' t ~1, , SI•.~ i•.► y~, 1'~.• ti' r,t( ti. +•1 ~t., . •'>t~'•~ , t . I r r' ( ~1,, It fill ' i~' t,.~s'•typ A a rr,:1 ' L Jit ,•1 1. } P ' tr ti':~13'~:! c1A l.:^-Y r 'J ►:.r• J•• t + ?!'2~'. •►•L :IZ 1, 4 Cn 1 f i i t • •tr rni'~,; T JI'1~,~. r ' , r~t~r i' ~!►•,(Iii 1a 4Yµ •1^:1: 1"'♦ ♦'1+'eJ~ 'J~i ~rqr~:• 'k~~t'i!~' 4. 1 , 'tl.~, y .`~'hjy w-i~ .j r r • • t !M. v •'Q:'r:•i ' 6 A'r•,I7 1 'IIt•';i •I :r •)ir/•w~' !`],''yy~ QV:?~•' [/[~7}^!1 1 I' •.1.• 1•''' ri'`• M•, '1fr'• .1. f •.vi t.. t '.1" .~nl. 1~1•. ~1,V.Iri►' L:f•S,~rl. ~'i•~ _ •1 f.•itt} ~ .r I, i. ,'V f:' '1 •.t• '~••~b: 1(.~, .l .'r. j uwu{: •>:rr•,tn.. ,j 'l.lj. ~ i1 ~jl~ 'r•a\.~ ~2t"'1 `d'~ :a ~.f J!• r~ 1/'.•1'•x•' /y ;r.'•54'~' i.;l~'~ /r... •,.~:rl•l ~..`1, f• • r rtI rf' .d ~krl r~ Lit • r',~ hil}q~i ~ ~ t~ j~.ll~• {.i •„ri•:'J~ `F~,~"~ ~1f\,b;.y ti•'•.t.l :P'at'/.2.1. ~.~~,r 'tI• •1 ~•Il' t•1~..•► i. ' •~•':./I•:,"t, rj;~, • `i.l. r..S"•: •f~' ,/i • •'v 1 11 t r .Y •I•.'• IT.~•i ,'T.~ 'Ol'r ~It' 1 i 't J •.i; • t• ~.1;,f ~ . ~•;1 r~,~`' t ~t r`' ~ Ef.; . ;,1.•, t ! 1', rt;. }:'i~, ! , iv fit. i., ► 1 rr. :1.2• tjti{'r ■ v / ,1`~ VI •!>,il:k. t .11^~ : I a r ° 'T rll /Y 1 ' i . r r tN'Iti 1►; : : c7u. I: c ~ :r+~'t: 'r 1, k,..' r.,•' ► :t:t%'•.r,~~ l~~ J ' a„~, ~I;f^; . r•.. 11~Jf.•., i.,♦ ♦.r 1. { M•i r r1 r ! f~ 1. r.'It. r! • 1,-r •'r t:,. (•+I ~~y i • .r i .t!~f r'~ 2• 1.:'/'(•{t 7 •7,~a.~ ----•{{{{j 1. 1;' '1 i~I~ •S Ifi'~'t[ •t'I.I 6! j~11.a •1 •r Y p•, . • 1 t J 1 1 K' • '1i' 11 i. ) ~ f p. w~;.a.l; cl! • • • w':'t. ~Jli• iiT `I~1. '.t •~1:1~•• ;:t•~IV~;~`..S (~f4,. ~r/• 1. rf ~r•,r.. 11L• ~,.ri1 ~~fj~l.` w. .~,,C• ~•f►/~it1 ,i + • J.• 1. 1/•,fJl'":l J4i.!`,F r lii,+r n• ~:I,'r•:~• •JI rr/'. j!' R •r7~ i •~~t<'' 3. 1~ • l '1~' •r• 11, ',r~ . ,•.,t.tr i ,c~~! •1l.. h ri',1 '.u•' .Jn••;• 1 •y .,y..•.~• J tr' .l'' (•10..~ mot,,. • rr++/~ •.f //**l •'•i!11~ rt •,kr ' yr R.iif i:: l•':'d'4 { •~),T•..•, tl• I'~f,~;t ~•Tf' : ~f~~ r, Ita iI~ f;fi 1 • • I: 1' I r • 1 r : 'a rl •2.• I •l 1. 1'.', • • .,j • 4 l,r M.. ` nv 7r ► •'+.16r' Y i'ir Oat l 1.1p •1~1 „ 1 'i. i• 1` 't'•{' ..li!i•rj: Y,;~ .I'~:,) i~!.~I.lr.♦. >;'t,~:~;•~: r~• ~~J:;jq~': '•il'• `t/~t~.~.' p,,. • J i r. .1.•• .ry.• .t. •i r'' ,.L r.(. ~1 ♦ S !s ~.,~',1!'r'7,r i~J r,"' ,S• 1• v:,•Kl~ii. •v Sr.~ .2. . h 1 iI t(r J. ! 1. A. !r + ♦ •r. ~t~•11' •f•1 .7:',,J'. 1\.\ :i1' . ~.~►r ~"t, l•. y 1 ! 1 1•,•!•~ ..~t: •,''t ~r•' •.f' r. ~~~..rr1• 't!! ~I.l ' \ =••.y 11j t•:►+"'' i+►.L F~, , i 1. • rr,'~ A.a! L '1;~", 1 ~ • ►1 t i" ~'O• -t • j .~1Y. .r1Y~t<y , •i' :~l ~ 1;':A;1 . t1••!}.:•* w' qty/~ ~ ~ • }ll ~ I•,1 lJ. T:'1 1W 1 t • t' t w , ~ , 1 i~• •',j, lr •I: • ~~,y'w / 7 1' k''r rt. • Jf . ~ 1 ~ 1' r ~ r a V7 ( I:. 1 t l 'r d• 1 4• "•1 , ' •►.r7 7 1 rl•. ~1• ' .~i.r't'~ is , : 2t2.•~ , •4: >i1~" 1• +1~ i•1'111.I.t1r;•.'I.~i ~1 ~ir•.•,'.i''~'rj t'1• •~I'/{, Ilj~t 1• ttl~..'f,•\ ~:'/'1111~~1.'r?j,~~.. 17 f'!r i~~: t?};J lrl /1~1'. ry.:t~;' ~,+,M ~!1• •'/;~~j ~,~~M t !ra 1 •1 1: , ,111 •1 1 r 1 1•;j' ~I ' 1•• .t t r 1F "f:;f ;i~i•lµ~ I~~jt~~l~, a ' 1,j1 • , ' ; ti: t 'r • ~ I: r;i 11.1 t•,• r' •ri!) I.•w•'~': r 1 :,~f.,''r~IJT t~.t7'' ~ %tl, (i AIill, ~i t•,~t{'' :•i tt i ~Il :I' r(•71. j~ 'r ,1.•.J •w r.' ,ti. .1• •.a..' , (.,t y .S • j •Ii •r: t i' Z•~,.: Mf+~_ r.l •►r~ I' ..'r:' ~1 t'' •'1 a ' {t1 a a 1 r, ~~1 y:. ~1^1 •Lr'''~ 1 1 !1 J, t;; Ir •I..''i f: r: ~~14•r•JL'►\, 1 1t rlil•c.:)(1 ~i•~" ~~:~r •~•~a ' ~ i'jll : '1, T' • ~ '>r ~•,f• ~ h•.//.h 'S:r. r, `1./,''.. ( 1 ^ S, r.~~'•i/;I •t;,J .I • •~'•~~••J•.•1' r,• •~r.• 1 t: ;(.•t•.,•: ~J•1 :;4 '~~lr'.r' ~a•1,;1•'.•~I{lf..,tt, t',~~.J w•`~r. ~~►~~1•ti::~`S•r r' i A. ih" J .1•• I' ~ •:1 r\.{ a,l:'r.'~~ ~ •i•~•N .fl•;t '.11 r:,1•'•1.~f /{1/ A` • ":I: ~li 7C I' ' ?ti••'1'i' i4 4; '',1 ` (;'.'•i, 'T'+ 1 ,►,I.;i ~•;r .r•'. • tr + f.•.1 f'• ,.r`. i ~ ,r+, S'. t.t ~/t' r,` ~ 6 r.. ` i',• 1. t' 11 Id • 'fib. t I, , , ;1'• 1; ; .1 t 1"}r. ' ~rf►:1'::f ~~(~!I;2;t1,~~~; •..t' ~7rr 1r I~tjt1.F:~fi~,l / ► rl ,1. .'1 ' r J ' r 1,,. T, ~`1 , '.•f: j!:,,, 1",,1,. 1 :.1 r1r.f ~,r~.'` It. 4 • .•I• , 11 1'' ~ 't. ! • , . 1• 1•` ; 111 R , r 1 ~ .•f'.': • t rj E~ ~..li I t Y~` ~ ~'w rl, t,•. 1,... ~ yyri. :.Y•!`r. , t r,' • ' • r'I, 1 1 • ••I.,•, l ' / ~ • ' • l'• !11(• • t!.:!: : t.. A , l i r• ► , • a , At !I•. • •1 •.•r;~~~a'I `!"i~ .MI.t'+ri+-'',~a N.1rf1~~~i'~ t 1~ ~•J /'R'E 4 .r •1 I,i 1.. /•t 1j ; r'• ! Yr,j: Ji.~ ~Y ~.r ltil, '•.i .~..:1 :'1':~`•V~~' ~I I..':•~ ,j.{(: • ~1 , '.'i ~1 ~I1, •~I' ' ( ! • 11. r .•`:r• •I ~ •.I,~ ,,1• •'I• r I.)!yf';~jrlr •i'i • ! r. .f r SCOPE A%D INTENT OF STANDARD. OaCANtiAT1OV Or STANDARD. AND DrrrNITtO%S -501A`7 Crow ltereeenre ormeeo %'CSXCSr\iPA Standard for construction standards for manufactured home cam. 4anutsctured Hoene Installstiona 61anuf3etwed Home Saes, munities. Included are requirements for manufactured Communities. and Set.upsl and the %*FPA Standard FOR Fitmfety home sites (whether a sing(c site or sites located in eom• Criteria (Or 34ohile Home inuallal;ons. Sites. 00d Contmunlt► s munitic%). utility facilities (light. heat. water and sanita. xtsacsa VFP.4 s0iA VCSBCSI VFP4 x014 AfPA `FPA tion). manufactured home set-ups. and manufactured home on-site accessory buildings or Structures. This stan. 1.1 1.1 dard also corers fire»fety requirements for the installa- 1.2.1 la) 1-2(81 02 54 Lion of manufactured homes. sites including accessory . 1 2.1 1.2 1b) 62.1 5.11 buildings and structures. and communities and the main. 1.2.2 1.2.1 1121A 5d 1.1 tenance of and improvements for existing manufactured 1.3 1.3 8 2 1.2 5.2.1.2 homes. J6 1-4 1-4 8.3 5.3 1.4.2 1.4.1 83.1 5.3.1 1 5 1•5 a 3.! 5.3.2 1-2 Intended Usage of Manufactured Homes Covered 1-5 t 1-51 •6.34 5.3.3 Under this Standard. The provisions of this standard 1 5S t-S.2 8.4 5.4 are intended to apply to manufactured homes (single. 1-6.31 1.6 8.4.1 5.41 multiple. or etipandabte types) for use as single-family 9-4.! 5.4.2 dwellings. 6.4.3 5.4.3 6.5 1 5.5.1 Exception 1: This standard does not apply to manufae- 5.1 1 ! 1 s 5.2 S 5.2 ture►1 homes corutructed and approted by the enforcing 5 3 1 1 2.1 authority hating jurisdiction specifically for multifamily S 2 l 1 2 1 1 9.3.2 ! 5.4 4 wage. 5.4 1 22 9 3 4 5.4.4 1 5.4 3 2.3 9.3.5 S-44 2 Exce tion 2: This standard does not appply to manufac- 9 4.4 5.4.5 tureThomes utilized for other than duelbng purpose) 61 3.1 1-2.1 Types of Structures Covered. - 6.1 1 3.1.1 Appendix 0 Appendix A (a) Manufactured Homes. The manufactured homes 6 1.2 3.1 3.1.'3 3 coveted un er this standard are manufactured homes 6.1'3 complying with the Manufactured Home Construction Appendix E Appendix b and Safety Standards as set forth in 24 C.F.R.. Pans 5280. 5282 and 5283 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) as man- : 1 4 1 dated in the United States of America or. for manufac- 7.1.1 4.1 Appendix F Appendix C cured homes built prior to' June 15. 1976. to those complying with the Standard for Mobile Homes. NFPA • t 5.1 Appendix J Appendix D 501B-1974/ANSI AI19.1-1975 in effect at the time of 01.1 b•1.1 a manufacture. 8 1.32 5.1.2 a 1.4 S•1.3 MOTE t: For the Manufactured Home procedural and En- t•I.S S•1.4 fonement Regulations. as applicable in the United States of 6-1.5 1 5.1.4.1 America. 24 C.F.R., Faru 3260. 3282 and 32113 (U.S.C. $401 co a-1.S.2 S-1.4.2 seq.) 8.1 6 5.1.5 NOTE 2: The Standard for Mobile Rentes. NF?A $015 (ANSI). may be referred to for guidance and Inay be used as tht go.erning document in areas outside the United States of Amer- tea and iu possessions here other national or local taws do not apply. Mlanufactured homes used for other than dwelling put. poses are not ca".. d. Standard for NOTES! Foe manufactured homes constructed prior to June 15. 1976. consult with the manufactured home manufacturer for Manufactured Horne Installations his irutalla:ion requirtmenn. (Manufactured Home Sites. Communities (b) accessory Buildings and Structures. See Chapter is for requirements and descriptions of all accessory and Set-ups) buildings. 1-2.2 Applicability. - This Standard is designed to be kFFA SOIA-1982 ANSI A22S.1-1082 adopted by authorities having jurisdiction responsible for the safccy and health of manufactured home users and for estsblishing regulations applicable to manufactured home communities. It is intended to apply to new rather Cha ter 1 Sco and Intent of Standard, than existing manufactured home sites, communities and p Pe set-ups. While this standard may protide useful technical Organization of Standard. and Definitions data for improvements to existing facilities failing within its scope and such use is rncouraged.'it is not intended to be applied retroactively to existing facilities except where' 1-1 Scope. This standard covers the installation of the authority having jurisdiction considers such applica- manufactured homes. wherever located. and minimum tion essential for the safety and health of the occupants or _,,sAWFACTI'RLO NONt:_t\STALLATIO`,q sews of the facilities. This standaid shall not be con- mining the atceptabitit) of instattation. of Prnredurrs. equip. treated as teiirving the irnraUer of a manufactured home awrtt w matraals. &hr authnritt ha.int jun.d.ctinn mat Rne atrrptanre on compliant, ftith %CSECS. %*irA or ether ap er responsibility for compliance with local ordinances. pr,opcate standards In the abwncr of %%wh standard. said au• codes. and regulations established by the authorities tt.nnl. ma. r.quireesidcnee of Ptnprr invanatiun. Prwrdunw haying jurisdiction: for relieving oM•ners or operators of wK• the authority hs.ing jurt.dtct.on mow also erfer so the manufactured home communities from complying with luting or labeling pracriees of an organirstioa conermtA Leith pttdutf ea ataatioM which is iR a pttioti to determine cells. ariy•other legally enforceable regulations of any raponsi- ppttancrt.ifhappropriate standards few tMeunrwtptodwes;onof ble authority having jurisdiction. or for relieving the liueditems. manufactured home owner or tenant from responsibili- ties for the proper use and maintenance of a manufac- Awning. A shade structure supported by posts or eal. tured home. umns and partially supported by a manufactured home installed, erected, or used on a manufactured home site. 1-2.3 Organization of Standard. This standard is divided into nine chapters with appendix material. The Awning, Freestanding., A shade structure supported chapters are divided generally by the kinds of work in- entirely by columns or posts and not attached to or sup- volaed to facilitate ado Lion by local jurisdictions. ported by a manufactured home or other structure. Chapter I provides gencrafinformation: Chapter 2 gives information on site design: Chapter 3 contains material Awning. Window or Door. A shade structure sup- on }erring up and stabilising the manufactured home: ported %holly by the manufactured home or building to Chapter 4 is on plumbing: Chapter 3 on fuels and supply which it is attached, giving shade to a window or door. systems: Chapter 6 on heating and cooling: Chapter contains standards for elrctrical work: Chapter 8 gives in- Baling. A method of "wrappiesa"across section formation on life and freaafetyi and Chapter 9 treats the (roof, walls, and floor) and the main frame (chassis) of a subjects of manufactured home accessory- buildings and manufactured home with straps. structures. Apprndir, material gives additional guidance as shown in the Contents. Building. A roofed structure erected for permanent rue. 1-3 Definitions and Units. Accessory Building or Structure. Manufactured Cabana. A room enclosure erected or constructed adjacent to a manufactured home for residential use by Home. A building or structure which is an addition to the occupant of the manufactured home. or supplements the facilities provided by a manufactured horse. It is not a self-contained, separate. habitable Carport. An awning or shade structure for a vehicle building or structure. Examples are: awnings. cabanas, or vehicles which may be freestanding or attached to a ramadas, storage structures. carports, fences, wind- manufactured home. breaks. or porches. Anchoring Equipment. Straps, cables. turnbuckles. Community Building. Any nonresidential building e:sd chairs, including tensioning devices. which are used used for manufactured home community purposes. with ties to secure a manufactured home to ground any Community Building. Manufactured Home. One e?wra. or more rooms that are designed for industrial, profes- Anchoring System. A combination of ties, anchor- aional or commercial purposes and not intended as a ing equipment, and ground anchors that will, when dwelling unit' a pproperly designed and installed, resist overturning and Community Electrical Wiring System. All of the lateral movement of the manufactured home from wind electrical wiring, fixtures, equipment and appurtenances forces' related to electrical installations within a manufactured Approved. Acceptable to the authority having home community (park, estate, subdivision, etc.), in- jurisdiction. Acceptance shall be measured to the re- eluding the manufactured home service equipment. quirements of the.U.S. Department of Housing and Ur- Community Management. The person or entity who ban Development as regards the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard as set forth in 24 owns al ofactured a mahomenufdeveloacturepd hmentome or has has charge. ry community G.F.R.. Parts 3280 and 5282 (42 U.S.C. $01 et seq.). care, a or Manufactured (park, estate. subdivision, etc.). :Authority Having Jurisdiction. The "authority Community. Manufactured Horse. A parcel (or -dividuAviduai responsible jurisdiction- fo or "atheppprroovving" equ uing- eqipofficement,, or an in in- - contiguous parcels) of land which has been so designated and improved that it contains two or rnore manufactured saallation, or a procedure. home sites available to the general public for the place NOTE: The wationai Conference of States an auRdin` Cadre merit of manufactured homes for occupancy. and standards. Inc. (Ncsacs). the Muonat Rte Protection Association INTPA). and the American \ationat Sundarda In MOTE: The manufactured Rome shrso ar be for tent (a► is a witute (A V51) do nor apptow. irupret or eertif) any inualla• park)- at tires man be said for tes.denlial ascupanei its in a sub, tints. procedutes equipment, or onotrial nor do she% approve d^'M'o^t• tar eenth ant insusbtiom, pprocedwes, equipment, or marrrial scot do ihry approve of evaluate testing bboutories. In deter- Community Street. A ptivate way which affords sec. for f{pusingt ,,Sec.. .Y d'Urban 3' ine the (ry Of Housing ar. OFfke of Asst• tart an official of Lri opt the used to detell aut-norltY feet in a structure anent aced the 'title VLoi! F~ Ch• XX t~.1.69 tdUton3 number of square ,s largest deleB respect to . 1 the structure largest with OWN- d base on at trig tart C Law tzicludes COW bled s,0 f death or or dimebn lo T. Tnectons a lign 93State' t each of tl: d urtreaspAa or roi will include (21) " the Distrtc Puerto ensions States, l of Went an oatal P and alurY~ all ! horl2 a dim on site. ~rlerooms, cabins n•terior tine Comm OVtrBin ]stands' the o~ of nsconstruct g0 Person a,adable Guam, the severe sterns Manufac "1ri`'tad meth plurnbin8, this subpart are t11) all exp ro3ections containing wlriau s ,Attons• is safeti- elude baY res Arnertcaof Sa the other p o not in stru Zone, and e all 032802 1z1 is of th TanBemevrell 23 fire electrical Y It d all „Wtd s ins 1 st cludtn% 25 Deflriitton~o an subpar to the tion. ucirig and omen. bol space. berm includes reclOTen1ew jtb C22) mean ode, in t0-) common addltlondivldual beat-Prod aetuTedINbg1.sYITt ! Ibis the a trements and some" traveling n' whtct • 1 which mee5ise requthe manuf seta su -n th and other P e W ldth s does ec those and are V In In sed in I no "means at of a nation j standard rovided u beled g t ttlonS p in con' (12)'~La till maTatorY• ; eXCep the wllch d rtliteation P~ Wei Interlor lad roof prof 'under wtuc defln ed Rance or other ]den testing labor org~atlon respect 0-h anon iles a compiles2wt recognized or other th ° tae ri t elude stn l dow parts ayes svalu , . a gs or tl) ' Approvsany materlal, app with y s ace- rodu p getion of t ant to % t fQ th in Part be Intsed overh or P ,men with lane co DlY1nBepart ment spection agency, ct 3282 13 D 95. nectlontru d with die lnsp t or aids se should 18. 19 atec cLlon.tn of the tenet concerns t Ins perio ulpmen i stand this subsections „manufactutre is no inter' or cons eats eveloP mein 3.0 l tri 1989 ended e requlrsm urban D ditne bs• that of labeled a labelinga11Y In that tea 50- X52. Dec. gedessGn ing to mean meets the ertY too FR 4, am th and the rnl man' roductlon d by ahos deter- preted ecessarilY it 960, Jan. 6. 191 9• and KousinB means a of a P an yvith Hattori f' ome„ n D,6 jdltnimum 4900.11 11 o r 42 Zos~9• hpr. 19821 of t2, ,.Centerht and lefts td the mat ti comPllaated5 usage or int. test sPecifled tents Standar ds of 8 D gandboo el 9K able (b)• for fl` R Zaa9z. June 29, rhs horse. . meab9 ~ (KomaticallY of t,tan , 12ed Stan S C. 110 Construe- § 3280.E AccePlance cturer of mar tween e label' the eeogn ufact -Crttftcatoj Ittestion suitable uiagrugt 12 j redgom relating to (a) Each m a 1 submit the n (3) form der g 3280.8, mine er. of a.. Man „ en eh that tas under fau ~ d tlvlt~s ~ I sue approved at, u to each trans' Mann „T'enttslatBsstincludtnB cab s n jR) "Manu 9611 ma u acture Of or ture s hlomever e model eta to the Sscr r nufacturer rhuiactursd ,Rome„ mean mode, hl ct h c° i on., meab ma ansnetly caif ofeeach Tn ale in trig velirig s a Wori'set an a 1ncludtnB, but ility, plan hom ;or the Pu Perinsection red fors in the traoth rolscngn does not as 1Y om ura etured ee, tc n1 thanufactured h Telating to d fa Portable anufacru sans nets, and erl+e b roisctions, 'I design ance there 1 those Secinspection etarY conform toms States..atertal' mwlth. interior Space. os, roof p icI m un bus, surfs a baY eaves under s it,nclude lam to. safety orne of shall ited rtble t fibers, tarn wind 0-h q ated and ufae - . 1i ma Safety" stands So cturer and s of or chid s or s0- nor doe liar the C41 plan Ite 4,nd overhang space or hitches 1 1fi) Me psrio~nancs ar►neT t mater ials mad 5ed hatrWlil tbBe consid• Is no interior oupllrtlfled" means iri• means om e er such a Tn anY. unrea- tUat ea g uch building wood, CO Material shall ;10- wbars, Couplings a nation_ ` ri d a8alas of acct a Federal constru tinat time b „m a sting Ration pub c is Pro of the occurr ore construe Standard to f Y d thome Inv°lv burn Sue bus bled eve tit eared, °r dr( de ist publlsbslabararorY. to risk or anufactu msls*ls eyed ofsdm tard%n cL In clods ego gt2ed to roduct rBan stloof i son a to tbanUfaC red nss I°r t rode ed. ertaining al fire -re defe ally e%, . or evb1t on den due 11 m of death r p ularlons p &,ds jtered• Include any c0mpod spsctt°nsd 'Wit" p dic IOPs ma- Lion °f sue nable rtsK tIs public (c) Refit of these stand, mes tart stru cture cern perio ent °T unrealo or to en maaufathe 5 P "peiecr' con anufa con latatas eQUtPtn either anY the user ;orcem (5) f . ance• m any t Ina of Itsted states or. rchi labeling b the per r materlal ° the home T he iris 0-h Itsttnma 1 Meets Injury ~ ode is do oceur'tneer rac cribed y b reference Wen t renders for the ordin production , d oae t or feria or Iles su Registered Bag. ased o P a be as resp Lion Y ts, tile tit JOT Depart feria ulPme xed standards for use not e s4 ° (19) ean ersonarchitecture In orn lion the recogn suitable tect" m sap or and liml- § 3280-4 1°cPeclftca s, standard part Lls'rhteh it was ans the that UY d iteertng laws a d ore me velop' Lion and four all Boar the s wing enti n0- tested an any tice eatgl bjec; the state's codes °f thelbY reference in use fO,TDspartm tag and Urban' been Nf n' net anUiT cturie g In- r state ns tmP°sd b? ,,chttectutn the in orated to 5 U,S.C..~ meat of x° ' Means one or to a spec1-14a ufaetur ~ oust- set nit are de- (15) ,gaged In home tneering is engaged serv- are ursuant meat' „ wevtrig u which famtlY person ee'nufacture ed in import" of Eng and ahO of rendertnB C0- Standar part 51 as th by ref e: (n) T) ble TIns oo by a tag. P b1 arty m on omag sale. a aminessionai practice requiring educa and 1 Crp oratiobeen full, tnct has Federal f standard' morn hablbe occuP1eaiving.neleep essem pens es for T work in engl- I ed to eluding tared h I Tn or pee or creative for anufac got d ex ale aPce sign materials, ,nB aerated lteattoatl these sta ca - of with . facilities Includes m 'Manua oriabin the traveling Lion, trascien anal of bbepr„atbem es t Whhe dire or of stars tl eTever T inconsistent, ahic i m in Welting sciences scienc y eference d e gtnsertng 0-r ter. is is of 0-r Standard P cookiTS EqutPn1ent itxtures, fttttn~tlon stirus~ ore, trap I ore i e constru more sections, feet °r morn n special kn°aledB n tat devices, tI lumbtng, body this standard and add' sty p hY 1 or'. a ehls or eight erect' d O ssquae suchSpT° es Iona creativ evalu F Investigation, supeTVi' g tuie extent °f the iInconsistency. appeand in °e fare sal trles, systems mode, iortY body on Cal, bbess issuing the Teferl dn d glee width arien t or more erma• in consultation or design andurp°se °f The a reat•prod eta ing an ed homes. etured Toms length, °rared ta I built on a p used i B n~ planning for the p ect;ica (b1 he anon 'tort * of g ed to be rnanufa . standard" three a d witch s of store of constru ]lance with Work ° manuFederal and SafeetrY►dard for the feet, ch is and design a Permto t Ithout ected securing cc) ign for any such cor►srructireasonable and reason 'ad res a eliinB with or w lg5 ud des , lions a means a tlori, design' ome which the as t foundation alien co dtdes the constru° u;acturedbile including and Wen Tequtred utilting., arc ed the e• 1 of a man of the Pu durability, p nrnbtnB, . Ilea sYs= ems contain + the needs . Quality. hayard" and electrical need safety sat10) ior~~aTd that Presents an lit ~g Odom means a -Now f f E K4M1FAC7URED. HOMES FOR IIILE_II MORTGAGE INSURANCE lo~ t5 -~V Thls Department offers FHA Insurance on Manufactured Homes (mobile homes) built since June 15, 1976. Except for a few oeviations, rocessi of applications is the same as for site-built housing. Utilizing e c on 203(b) program, a DIREC7 ENDORSEMEN7 LENDER OR 1HE LOCAL HUD office.can determine if a property is eligible for up to a 30 YEAR MORTGAGE at the maximum mortgage limits of $86,450 in the Portland Area or $85,200 elsewhere in Oregon. EXISTING HOMES - OVER ONE YEAR OLD FHA will-insure a high ratio loan to a qualified owner-occupant if the borrower meets normal FHA mortgage credit standards, if the property meets the General Eligibility Criteria ano other requirements outlineo below, ano if the home has been installeo only once since manufacture at the location where financing is being requesteo. EXISTING HOMES LESS THAN ONE YEAR OLD FHA will limit to a 905% loan those new homes which were installeo on the site less than one year prior o the date of application for mortgage insurance, UNLESS the home founoation ano perimeter wall is covereo by a builders warranty ano a 10-year insureo protection plan accepteo by FHA, (Housing \ ,arranty Corporation, Indianapolis: Home Owners warranty Corporation, Washington, D.C.), ano the property meets the General Eligibility Criteria and other requirements outlineo below., in which case FHA will insure a high ratio loan. PROPOSED HOMES FHA will insure a high ratio loan to a qualifieo owner-occupant if the property meets normal FHA mortgage credit stanoards; if the property meets the General Eligibility Criteria and other requirements outlined below; if the home is being installeo for the first time since being manufactured. Incluoeo is a manufacturers warranty along with a signed statement from'the manufacturer stating that: a. The manufactureo home has been properly braced and stiffeneo at the factory to prevent racking ano oamage ouring transportation. b. The manufactureo home sustained no damage ouring transportation. c. The homes insulated "Uo" value will not exceeo 0.099 for climate zone II. (calculateo accoroing to NFPA 5U1) o. If the home was manufactureo in separate sections, that the sections were properly joineo ano sealed. • S-~ 2 Other exhibits required for proposeo homes include: a. Nanufactureo Home motel Description brochure. b. List of standard features. C. Factory oroer conformation form. A. General Eligibility Criteria. (New ano existing homes) 1) The home must have a floor area of no less tnan 400 square feet. 2) Tne home must be constructeo in conformance with the Federal Manufactured Home Construction ano Safety Stancaros, as evioenceo by an affixed certification label, according to 24 CFR 53280.8. Only manufactureo homes proouceo after. June 15,1976, will bear that seal. manufactured homes proouceo prior to that pate are not eligible for insureo financing unoer Title 11. 3) The home must be classifieo ano taxed as real estate (not as personal property). 4) the mortgage must cover the manufactured home, it's fbunoation eno its site, ano have a term of no more than 30 years from the pate amortization begins. 5) Tne finisheo graoe elevation beneath the manufactured home or, if a basement is used, the lowest finisheo exterior graoe aojacent to the perimeter enclosure, must be at or above the 100-year return frequency flooo elevation. This requirement applies wherever manufactureo homes may be installeo, not just in locations ciesignateo by the National Flooo Insurance Program as areas of special flood hazaro. 6) A permanent founoation ano perimeter footing and wall is re vireo. The manufactured homes main steel beams must.be supporteo on poureo in place concrete, footings, min. 8" X 20" X 20" witP, piers, supporteo on unoisturbeo soil. The height of piers is not to exceed 3' - 4" unless supporteo by a registereo professional engineer's calculations. a. Piers may be aIsingle cry stack of 8-inch by 6-inch by 16-inch concrete blocks i he o ockS are not stackeo more than three blocks high. A pier of a single stock of blocks must be installeo at right angles to the main longituoinal steel beam and must be capped with no more than two 2-inch oy 8-inch by 16-inch wooo blocks. 3 b. A pier may be a double dry stack of 8-inch by 8-inch by 16-1nch concrete blocks of he blocks are not stacked more than five blocks high. Each layer of blocks 1n such a pier must bo - stackeo at right angles to the previous layer of blocks. The piers must be capped with no more than two 2-inch by 6-inch by 16-inch wood blocks. The piers shall be installeo so that the top joint between the cap concrete blocks is at right angles to the main longitudinal steel beam. c. A pier of concrete masonry block may be stacked more than five blocks high if the inoividual cells of the blocks are filled with 2,000 PSI concrete or mortar and reinforcing steel as disigneo by a licenseo engineer. o. All blocks must have compressive strength of FM of 1080 psi ano must be set with the cores placeo vertically. e. Two opposing wedge shaped shims that are not more than 2 inches thick by 4 incnes wide by 12 inches long may be used-to fill the gap between the main longitudinal steel beam and the top of . piers. Also, wedge shims to be nailed on each sloe of frame into 2" X 8" X 16" wood block. oil f. In addition, a poureo in place concrete perimeter footing, min. 611 deep by IT, waoe (accoroany to oco soils conaatsons with either a steel reinforceo concrete,' steel reinforceo concrete block or pressure treated wood perimeter wall is required for every manufactureo nome insured. Secure the perimeter wall to the outsioe of the owelling's rim joist and perimeter footing by anchoring devices adequate to resist all loads ioentified in 24 CFR 200.926 (this includes resistance to ground movements, seismic snaking, potential shearing, overturning ano.uplift loads caused by wino etc.). Where a basement is included, founoation oesign by a registereo engineer is requireo and design calculations ano oetailed drawings for construction of the permanent foundation, perimeter wall ano anchorage must be submitted with the application. All pressure treated wood must comply with the following: 1. Treating Process. Only pressure processes described in the 11AwPA block of Standards" C-1, C-2, and C-9 shall be used. 2. Preservatives. All preservatives must meet the requirements of the current AWPA P-5. 7) The towing hitch ano running gear must be removed from the manufactured home (including tongues, axles, brakes, wheels, lights and other parts of the chassis that operate during transportation). fi. 4 8) The home must have permanent utilities, 1nstalleo and protecte0 from freezing. 9) Provide crawl space ventilation of 1/1500, a !1, toil-plastic ground cover with 6" min. lap and a min. 18" high X 24" wide crawl space access with locking devices. 10) Provide permanent steps and porches (minimum 316" X 316") at entrances. All exterior porches.wooo decks, structural members ano railings shall be constructed of.either: pressure treated wooo, reowooo or western red cedar. All porch support concrete piers to be on undisturbeo soil and comform to local and state building codes. 11) Provide an.all weather driveway of concrete, asphalt or gravel to be properly graded and of sufficient depth to maintain a year around stable surface; min. one parking space per home site. Recortmenoeo dimensions of'parking space to be minimum 910" X 2010". Recommenoeo concrete or asphalt maximum oriveway grade - 14 percent. Gravel - 7 percent. 12) Gutters ano downspouts are required west of the Cascades - show method of disposal of water on plot plan. (dry well location etc.) 13) Adequate site drainage must be provioeo as follows: a. 5102e site away from the side of buildin s. The purpose is to rain Too water ano other surface water away from all builoing walls. where possible, drain water away from founoation at min. 5% for 10' and off the remainoer of the site at 2%. Where such protective slopes meet a slope which orains towards the builaing, provide a drainage swale of adequate width, depth ano longitudinal gradient necessary to carry the surface water away without flooding. b. Site grading control: The single most important grace relationship for proper lot gracing ano drainage is top of foundation to street elevation. If the top of foundation elevation is too low in relation to adjoining street grades, aoequate protective slopes and drainage swales may not be possible to arain the site satisfactorily. If the site is too high, unnecessary terracing, and expensive outside stairs may result. 14) Final inspection by. an FHA Fee Inspector is required to verify that the dwelling placement 1s in accordance with required exhibits. Mortgage company is to obtain final inspection from the assigned inspector noted on the conditional commitment, or assigned by the HUG Office. 5 S. The following drawings must be submitted in duplicate with-the information noteo: 1. Plot Plan - to scale of 1" = 201-0" or 1/16" :.11-0" isini=A. a. Lot, Block number and street address, if known. b. Dimensions of plot with north arrow. C. Location of manufactured home garage, carport or other accessory builoings if any. d. Location of walks ano oriveway. e. Location of steps, terraces, porches, fences and retaining walls. U. Location and oimensions of easements ano established setback requirements, if any. g. Inoicate elevation at the following points: Aid 1. Finish grade elevation at lot corners. 2. Finish grace elevation at each corner of manufactured home perimeter wall. h. Show existing contours at.510" intervals on sites with slopes in excess of 2 to 1 slope. i. Show.protective slopes ano approximate location of drainage swales. Use arrows to show direction of water run-off. j. Show location of well, septic tank and orainfielo when inoivicual water system or indivioual sewer disposal system Is used. 2. Founoation Plan to scale of 1/4" = 1' -0" a. Show poureo in place concrete footing locations for main steel beam support and perimeter wall support. b. Show foundation piers ano perimeter wall locations. C. Show footing locations for porches, decks, and garage tf any.. 'd. Provide complete dimensions ano notes. ACO 6 3. Foundation Section/Details at 1" = 1• -0" scale a. Show section/elevation thru main steel beam support pier am footing. . b. Show section thru perimeter footing and wall including connection of perimeter wall to dwelling rim joist ano poured in place conc. footing. c. Provide complete dimensions ano notes. 4. Garage/Carport plan and detail drawing at 1/4" = 11-0" a. Show plan, elevations and details with dimensions. C. The following additional exhibits must be submitted in ouplicate: 1. A signeo Builders Certification for all foundation ano site work. "Certifaeo Builder" (Manufactureo home founoations only) status is obtaineo by submitting the builder's first case to HW A, E ano-C branch for review ano approval. After a builder is certifieo, subsequent cases are submitted directly to a Direct Endorsement Lenoer for processing, along with a signeo "Builder Certification" sheet for each case. 2. Verification of Local Builoing Cooe status signed by-the builder ano j lenoer. 3. A Builder's warranty, Form HUD-92544, for all foundation am site work. 4. FHA 92005 Description of materials for foundation, garage, neck am site work. 5. HUV 92600 Application 6. Location map (preferably a tract plat map similar to Preliminary Title Report) 7. Individual Sewaoe.System (if any) Permit by Local Authority for a new dwelling or existing less than 1 year olo. 8. A current certifieo report-from a licensed well oriller for a new dwelling or existing less than 1 year old, with a well, as follows: a. The pump test shall be conducted-using the pump installed in the system. 7 b. Pump the well at a rate of 5 gallons per minute for 4 flours. c. Recora the flow from the pump every hour while the pump is operating. d. Recoro the water level elevation below Vie ground surface. _e. If the well is impossible to enter, then pump the well at 5 gallons per minute for 6 hours. f. Include with the above report a copy of current bacteriological ano chemical tests of the water. Incluoe an arsenic test in areas of probable occurrence. Testing ano location of water ana/or septic system(s) must be approved by local health authorities having jurisdiction in the area. If the local health authority will not perform the services, private State certiflea laboratories may be useo. 9. If applicable; Special founoation engineering for soils, wind, or- flooo plain problems. %562F 10/06/66 i 110 Contractor's Guide to the Building Code Founds Sill 2" thick width / not less than ! studs `-•~,•I t•.-°. 6" Grade f ~ - Wall thickness 6" 1 story ° 8"2 story o. •a: ° ~ o moo. .o' t 12" 1 story r 6" 1 story 12" 1 story .F I 15'• 2 story 8" 2 story , 15" 2 story Typical Footings and Foundation Walla Distance from grade to bottom of footing will vary with area. Code calls for footings to be placed below frost level. From the Uniform Building Cade. 01983. ICBO. Figure 6-9 Residential Foundations i Underfloor Ventilation Whenever you have an underfloor area created by a crawl space but which is not a basement or a usable space, or a space that is not used for habitation, you must provide ade- Ve quate ventilation. This may be done by cutting vent holes in mesh the foundation walls or by mechanical means such as a dime, fan. Vent holes must have a net area of I % square feet for each 23 linear feet of exterior foundation wall. To reduce mate' Pr( dry rot in the foundation, arrange the vents to give cross ventilation to all areas of the unused space. 6-1 I } ed a FOUNDATIONS SECTION R-304-Foundation Walls. R-304.1-Concrete and Masonry. R-304.2-Backtill Damage. The f loor framing system should be in place and anchored to the foundation wall as shown in Figure No. 304.2 to minimize the chance of damage to the foundation wall resulting from placement of the backtill against the foundation wall. Also shown in the figure is the minimum distance above adjacent grade to which the foundation must be extended. Such extension is necessary to provide termite protection and minimize the chance of deca- resulting from moisture migrating to the wood framing. A reduced foundation extension is permitted when masonry veneer is used. Finish grade 8" min. Foundation wall (masonry or plain concrete) Floors must be anchored and connected to restrain the top of the wall; the bottom must be restrained at the footing by concrete floor slab, keyed foundation or mechanical anchorage (reinforcing steel) a Basement floor slab or inside grade or crawl space Wall footing Below frost depth FIGURE NO. 304.2-BRACING FOUNDATION WALLS AGAINST LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE R-304.3-Foundation Studs. The requirement for foundation studs (knee-wall studs, cripple-wall studs) are contained within this section. The minimum length of 14 inches for foundaticn studs. is intended to provide sufficient clear space by which required nailing of the framing may be accomplished. If the wood-framed foundation wall does of permit the installation of foundation studs of such a length, a solid blocking method of construction may be employed. Further restrictions of the section provide that when foundation studs exceed 4 feet in height, the partial-height wall shall for purpose of stud sizing be sized as if the partial-height wall were an additional story. Such a condition may occur in buildings of a split-level type, buildings with floor levels partially below grade or buildings with under-floor crawl spaces larger than the minimum specified within the code. The purpose for the treatment as an additional story is based upon the load-limiting capability of studs of a particular size as the stud's unsupported length is increased. In addition to the concerns for the vertical load-carrying capability of the studs and short foundation walls, a concern for the transfer of lateral loads through such walls when acting as exterior walls and bearing. partitions necessitates the bracing of such walls in accordance with Figure No. R-402.3.2 of the code. R-304.4-Masonry or Concrete Foundations. Foundation walls using unreinforced masonry or plain concrete are considered acceptable when such walls will not be subjected to more pressure than would be exerted by A*ft backf ill having an equivalent fluid weight of 30 pounds per cubic foot. Where unstable soil is present or the structure is located in Seismic Zone No. 2, 3 or 4, the possibility of additional lateral loading necessitates the use of foundation walls as prescribed in Table No. R-304.4.2. A review of the seismic risk map contained within Appendix A provides one with the necessary information to ascertain the seismic zone. If unstable soil or ;b:.. 4 O r. ' •~'~~r : .,7:i ~jt` r. _ tr .~~:,7••~3, i/w .,11•.j4 5 % ~ t «•,'s• V, • .F! :''`i%1~a' a ,g.;~+SY;~~'4° Y,;• ••t:.. .'~7? ~x~~ '~~~..`f~t:~ ~''q1~1 r•e'~'~L3;'•~~ ••,'~~t':• :~r. 't,~ •l ~N ~'~1.~°,~~t~~~, ,j~~''~~(.ti ,~•t• t •'•t' ~ }~.S ,e7 ,,.4s;M\ri~ r' .~`•~•..t , t Sy"'i ~!i r•'~~3.'. ~'L• f ;Y 'J: '.yt.i{I •y~~ T~~ 73 j Y.l, j! • •,r. ,,`~4' ^.y}h ,Y,,r: i,r'iJG'y~~~S+e •:~~'~'~j~~~,j~, T~,~7+.~~,`~'Y' a~ `f~ ~j ~T~~,7~. ~`1.. . ~ `ir d~, i / ` ~ tyt~,lr~f~b I'~'Ir...Y r•., ; .:trio►'•••• , • .J S' r CJ t~,w,~i. ,Zj c'~iJk3~'~~:.y, .t. ri , ~ , • ~~.,tY .ENO • , , , pi j I EXTERIOR 6'. CONCRETE SIDING BLOCK .019 FLASHING J36' /(ZX4)OR(2X6) SUPPLIED WITH--*4 EXTERIOR 10 WALL UNIT SIDING Ili X l PRESSURE 8t7 DOOR (42"X 8C TREATED PLYWOOD R"o .0 2 X-0 MUD SIAIATED 19 FLASHING 2X2 PRESSURE T-BEAM 111 SEAER III z SUPPLIED WITH (BIYLINSTALLIii NON- III UNIT 2 X 8 MUD SILL SHRINKING PRESSURE TRE4'CONCRETE GROU L I/2 x 16' PRESSURE (SILL SEALER BLOCK ROD IN 7REATEO PLYW000 8Y' INSTALLER) .8` CONCRETE CONCRETE FILLED FILLED BLOCBLOCK e CONCRETE PERI1dETtR' 'tNSUk BLOCK ER ~(WHEN BY-INSTAL' DETAIL OUTSIDE ENTRANCE SECTION E E SECTION F F 1. MINIMUM FOUNDATION VENTILATION RECID. 6 CONCRETE TO' BE 3000 'PSt IN 28 GAYS A. V150 OF CRAWL SPACE AREA OR AS A. CONCRETE POUR WITH SLUMP OF (4) EX1ERCR Ixi OR IXG SIDE Mull RE60. BY LOCAL CODES. 7. ALL WINDOW f VENT OPENINGS MUST BE StaNG 2. 8X16 VENTS WV RODENT SCREEN OPERABLE DAMPER, AT LEAST 2'4' FROM BEAM SUPPORT RODENT SCREEN MESH SHALL BE A CORROSION LOCATION RESISTANT WIRE MESH- Of t 40KR'TieJtle~40e NOTE. THESE DETAILS MAY BE USED FOR 1/4' IN ANY DIRECTION, sre'x II' AkCHOR DOLT! • ~ 5'-0' 0.C. 3. AN 18 x 24" ACCESS MUST BE PROVIOEO TO BASEMENT FOUNDATIONS WITH THE THE CRAWL SPACE AREA. FOLLOWING CHANGES. TYP. ►WO Slll 4. 2500 PSF ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESS A. WALLS TO BE A MIN. OF 13 2 BLOCKS 311/2 u'X G'CC+iTV- MS PRESSURE OR TO BE SIZED BY INSTALLER FOR IN HEIGHT TREATED PLt~i= SURMA SII ACTUAL SOIL BEARING PRES. B. 4' CONCRETE BASEMENT FLOOR ROD. FILCONC 4'CONC BLOCK 5. THE FOUNDATION MUST BE DESIGNED f BUILT C, A FOUNDATION ORAIN SYSTEM PER BLOCK RE DATE OESCRUn TO LOCAL CODES f ORDINANCES f MUST BE LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS DETAIL _ APPROVED f INSPECTED BY THE. LOCAL 0. INTERIOR OR EXTER109 STAIRS REO'0. BUlL01NG oFF1c1Al. S' TYP, MUD SILL THE EXTERIOR WALLS MUST BE SOLIDLY` SUPPORTED BY THE FOUNDATION ANCHORING - WALL. THIS FOUNDATION SYSTEM WAS NOT' DESIGNED' TO HAVE MOBLE HOME 113W wrt FRAME SUPPORTING THE EXTERIOR WALL LOAD. NARCr:rrr: Hours ASSUMES NO RFFSPONPSIIBILIT AF Ri TRINE O SI N WN TH~F F,TIHUNDATI EXCEPT FOR METHOD MOOL"` TYPICAL CORPORAT! o+orncclnraa T'n` FOUNnATInN nr TA II M• L/ ate wV tit u.Otx k.. s►pVIH s ~a r ANN& mom A) OR(' 2 x g MUD SILL SIOEWAL FLOOR SYSTEM SILL SEALER ~1 ' X3 WELD 0Y 1KSiAlIER ' (2X4 OR P") SIDEWALL q HALF BLOCK ; A CONCRETE 2X8 MUD SILL OUTRIGGER BLOCK k OR 2X6 •-I 2xa ENDWALL FLOOR SILL SEALER 2q BY g' CONCRETE SYSTEM INSTALLER 294 MUD SILL 5}IIM i BLOCK FTE FILLEO) PRESSURE iRE41E0 2 X4 TREA7E g' HALF p£RtME PRE TER (CONC 55URE BLOCK INSULATION i/2 RE-ROD S►ll I It SEALER (BY gy INSTALLER GROL ; {2EdLti) t S INSTALLER) (WHEN BARRIER CONCRETE ? 12' 1 Z PARGING VAPOR , 4 HALF I•SEAM LT' A 8 x 16 BLOCK IN ULATiON ~w EN RE40) • » . . RIMETER WHEN AND FILL FROST L NCE L CONCRETE FOC q" CONCRETE 8 INSTALLER g' X 16 BLOCK REClO•) BARRIER g' CONCRETE FOOTING g' CONCRETE VAPOR BLOCK -CONCRETE BLOCK a. i + *r.+srSANQ+ FILL (2)II2 RE-ROD SECT~~N C ~i W LIKE 1~ PARGING ~v 8 X 16 CONCRETE BELOW LOCAL FROST /ASPHALT, WHEN REQ 0• FOOTING SECTION B B (2) Y2 0 RE-R00 BELOW LOCAL F SECTION A A ►1~ Roo E Al a' BLOCK MARRIAGE SIDE, WELDED OLL WALL 318 X 11/2 MUD SILL 6EAM AREA D T 3 ;HELD WELD 4 3~ X1112 3 FT POST AM i WELD :i1•.~i ~ 7.5F~ -t-BEAM BEND DOWN ONTO QE ,,r • 8 1 HEAT ROOS FLANGE PLATE WELD WELD 8005 STEEL TO 6 2 Of NON " 6X6X~6 , 3pd X 3 X 01T5 11~ ROD I S INKING GROUT (TIP.) # FT. POT (A) , 3X2 Q. ~gS CAR ANCHOR 8 SECURMENT t~NNRg.ER IN COS CRRETE PO 9►` t t,.. BEAM 'FILLED BEAM SA ;,f AT (L OvEaSE TRANSVER AM 'a• SA~.~;I' RE RO0 TRANSVERSE 1 OA,,E OESCRIP110 ~ss,Ka,tt . owl BIOGKSAON70 TRANS FILL. (a) H WAY HOUSE F STEPS OTING SIZED EAC 3. ROL LL d BLOCKS A~tt11 ABOVE PER FOUNDATION TYPICQ 4. IF CRANE IS USED. DRAWING AI1oN BLL OC1C E VECTION 00 K~.~ A( TRANSVERSE ni:V"I c TI N _ BEAM EQUNBA p,ol►~tt~ CoRPOIR ~~J) )~~nj CptN t~ IMO Y M+. t E~h~b~~ C TIGARD PLANNING CCIMSSXGK REGULAR METING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 1. Vice President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard civic center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Fyre; Commissioners Barber, Castile, Fessler, Leverett, Rosborough, and Saporta. Absent: Commissioners Moen and Peterson. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden; Building official Brad Roast (left 9:00 p.m.); Planning Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROPAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Rosborough moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Leverets a.nO Zaporta abstained. 4. PLANNING C014MISSION COMMUNICATION o Senior Planner Liden reviewed sites that Tri-Met is considering for locating a park and ride. 5. PUBLIC EaUMNGS 5.1 MISCREJJU OUS M 89-20 MANUFACTURED HOME AT SW COOK LANE NPO $3 A request for review of the Director's interpretation of Chapters 18.26 and 18.94 of the Community Development Code pertaining to manufactured and mobile homes. Senior Planner Liden reviewed information enclosed in the Commission's packet and the sequence of events resulting in the issuance of permits. The main issue is, does the manufactured home comply with the Community Development Code (CDC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). After reviewing the issue the Director determined that permitting the manufactured home was consistent with the CDC and the UBC. f Discussion followe_9 between Senior Planner Liden, Building Official Brad Roast, and the Planning Commission regarding the definition for mobil and manufactured homes, the standards and requirements in the CDC, UBC, & HUD (Housing and Urban Development), the ability to move the manufactured home, tie down requirements for mobil/manufactured homes, and the different types of foundations which could be used. PLANNING MISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 1 6 S f APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Herman Porter, Chairperson for NPO # 3, speaking for Don Moonier, who was unable to attend, stated that the manufactured home does not meet the UBC. Also, he had been a member of NPO 3 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and it was not the understanding of the NPO that manufactured/mobile homes would be permitted on single family lots. The NPO would have opposed if they knew this was the intent of the Code. He felt the Planning Department had msde a mistake and if mobile/manufacturing homes are permitted on single family lots then the code needed to be changed. Ha did not feel that Mr. Johnson's foundation meets the requirement for manufactured homes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Wilbur Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, had staff read his letter supporting Mr. Moonier's position regarding the manufactured home. He added that the concrete foundation for the garage is well done, the driveway has been paved, and Mr. Johnson has done a nice job on the lawn. He disagreed with Senior Planner Liden regarding the intent of the Code. He stated that in 1983/84 it was the intent of the Code to accommodate mobile/manufactured homes in mobile home parks not on single family lots. o Mr. Clyde Johnson, 10675 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, owner of the manufactured home stated that the salesman had not placed the ordered as requested which is why the porch is like it is. He will be installing a porch roof when the weather is nicer. He described the type of foundation used and explained that the manufactured home does not need to be tied down. o David Nicoli, 14180 SW 141st Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that he had sold the property to Mr. Johnson and is here to support him. He added that any house can be moved and the sewer is connected like any other home. The manufactured home is well kept and is as nice as any other home on that street. Some of those homes do not have paved driveways. REBUTTAL o Herman Porter stated he had nothing further to add. The main issue is the interpretation of the meaning of the law. He requested that the Commission find that the Planning Department made an error in its interpretation. o Discussion followed regarding restrictions/covenants in the neighborhood, whether the UBC allowed for alternative designs, and whether there was an oversight in the code. PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED o Commissioners Leverett, Castile, Barber, Rosborough, and Saporta favored upholding the Director's interpretation. They did feel the Code needed to be looked at as it is ambiguous in terms of manufactured and mobile homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 2 i i o Commissioner Fessler felt the definition for manufactured/mobile homes needed to be refined. She supported the appeal. o Vice President Fyre had also been a member of the NPO and stated it was not the intent of the Code to allow manufactured/mobile homes on single family lots. He felt since the home had been placed on the site, Mr. Johnson needed to be made whole or be compensated for removing the home. * Commissioner Laverett moved and Commissioner Rosborough seconded to uphold the Director's interpretation of tine 18.26 and 18.94, file number M 89-20 and for staff to prepare the final order for Vice President Fyre to sign. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Pyre and Fessler voting no. 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the construction of a general retail sales facility, A-boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 conditions. The decision included approval of a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main St. (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) o Senior Planner Liden reviewed the issues regarding the application and the amendments to the proposed conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o John Dolan, 4025 SE Brooklyn St., Portland, OR, stated that they had worked out most of their concerns with staff except for the dedication of the land. He stated he would not dedicate land to the City for nothing. He would prefer to be paid money, however, he would be willing to accept eliminating the requirement for landscaping. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to testify. o Discussion followed regarding area to be dedicated, area to be landscaped, and the percentage of landscaping credit that the City would give A-Boy. REBUTTAL o Mr. Dolan stated that he would earn more money if he sold the land to the City and used the money to landscape his site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 3 Planning Commission Deliberation Item 5.1 - M 89-20 Manufactured Home at Cook Lane December 5, 1989 Vice President Pyre closed public hearing. Commissioner Leaverett: I don't have much discussion about it. I think I understand what everybody is concerned about. It looks like a mobile home. That's the big problem here. You can build a house - stick built to look exactly like this. I'm prepared to vote in favor of upholding the City's position. Commissioner Castile: My interpretation would be, I have a picture in my mind of something other than a mobile home - and I think in lieu of the way that the thing is written here, I would have to vote to allow him to keep it, and we need to deal with what is written at a later date. Commissioner Barber: There were a number of things that were brought up that were probably not relevant at all. For instance, no overhang on the porch. I have seen a number of new, expensive homes that don't have a porch. There is no covenant against this type of home in the neighborhood. The UCB allows for an alternate design. The home met the HUD qualifications, and reading the code, it appears that this home would be allowed. I would vote for it. Commissioner Rosborouah: I think in listening to a lot of the testimony that there are some issues that we would want to look at in the future, but I think as the code stands now, we have a manufactured home and would be in favor of upholding the Director's Decision. Commissioner Fessler: I sympathize with Mr. Johnson. He's really between a rock and a hard spot. I don't think that the neighbors are singling him out personally, and we have heard testimony tonight on both ways. I feel, too, that the definitions need to be defined because manufactured and foundation and things of this sort. I think under the definition on the approval from the Planning staff, I am going to have to rule appeal against it. Commissioner Saporta: I find the definitions for mobile and manufactured homes ambiguous. In their present form, it is difficult to classify the existing home - is it a manufactured home or is it a mobile home? But given the fact that the home pretty much meets the UBC code in that it does permit alternate design, I guess I have to go with the Director's Decision. Commissioner Pyre: I'll make a few brief comments and then we'll entertain some motions. Having served on NPO #3 when the Comp Plan was written, I can assure you this wasn't the intent of the Comprehensive Plan regarding manufactured homes. This wasn't envisioned. The controversy surrounding the location of mobile homes is indicative of the feeling of many of the people in the NPO at the time the Comp Plan was put together. What we have here is essentially looks like a double wide, it's not on a foundation base, etc. Now having said all that, we, the City, and the Code they way it is written, let Mr. Johnson get well downstream and have all of the necessary permits to put his home in place. That causes me an awful lot of distress, and we find ourselves in a very difficult situation here. What the Planning Commission will now do is render a decision based in part of the fact that someone has been allowed to put a home in place and sympathies will probably prevail, as well they should, however, the outcome is, Mr. Johnson should be made whole. He should either be allowed to stay there or he should be compensated for his inconvenience and for his expense. I think we have a serious problem with the code that has to be dealt with. We've got manufactured homes. Definition that you can't distinguish from a mobile home, which in my estimation clearly goes against what the intent of the Comp Plan was. I think I've said enough. I'm entertaining motions. Commissioner Rosborouah: If this home is licensed as a mobile home, specifically, then I'd have to call it a mobile home. Commissioner Fvre: State of Oregon I guess would call it a mobile home, but the Tigard Code probably wouldn't draw that distinction because I don't think the criteria in the Code would distinguish - unless the Code said if it had a licence it was a mobile home and not a manufactured home. There is a problem with the language in the code. Commissioner Barber: It is my understanding that a manufactured home like Mr. Johnson is, once it is set down either in a mobile court or on his lot, that it then becomes assessed property, like a stick home. It has assessed property value. There are taxes that are associated with that. I don't think it's changed - it was that way years ago. Commissioner Pyre: Any other comments Do we hear a motion? Commissioner Leaverett: I move that we uphold the Director's Interpretation of Chapters 18.26 and 18.94 of the Community Development Code pertaining to the Manufactured and Mobile Homes, file number M 89-20. Commissioner Fvre: The motion has been made to essentially support the Director's Decision. Do I hear a second? Commissioner Rosborough: Second. Commissioner Pyre: It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying AYE. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Fyre and Fessler voting no. br/PC12-5.ks1 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 89- 26 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH UPHOLDS A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WAS APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION BY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION NO. 3 (FILE NO. M 89-20). WHEREAS, an application for a building permit was submitted on April 13, 1989 to place a residence at 10676 S.W. Cook Lane and the permit was subsequently approved by the Building Division; and WHEREAS, nearby neighbors and Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) No. 3 filed objections to the approval of the building permit on the grounds that the residence is a mobile home which is not permitted on an individual lot in the R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) zone; and WHEREAS, the Director issued an interpretation that the residence was a manufactured home as defined by the Community Development Code and it was a permitted use on an individual lot in the R- 3.5 zone; and WHEREAS, NPO No. 3 appealed the Director's interpretation of the code to the Planning Commission and the Commission reviewed the case at a public hearing on December 5, 1989. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONCLUDES THAT: Section 1: The residence located at 10676 S.W. Cook Lane is a manufactured home as defined in Section 18.42.020 A. 10. of the Community Development Code. Section 2: The subject property is zoned R-3.5 and manufactured homes are listed in Section 18.48.030 A. S. of the Code as a permitted use. Section 3. The residence satisfies the applicable criteria listed in Section 18.94.040 A. of the Code which pertain to siting manufactured homes on individual lots. Section 4. There are some differences in construction of the residence which are different from standard Uniform Building Code (UBC) construction. However, the UBC allows the use of "alternative methods of construction" provided it can be verified that the modification will perform as well as or better than the corresponding UBC standard. In this case, the verification of equivalent performance has been provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which inspected the residence at the factory. Section 5: The Planning Commission, therefore orders that the above referenced appeal be denied and the Director's interpretation (Case No. M 89- 20) be upheld. It is further ordered that the appellant (NPO 3.) 4L FINAL ORDER NO. 89-- PC - M 89-20 - PAGE 1 i..L Cx......... and the owner of the residence be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This 4(- day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. Mil , ice-president Tiga anning Commission M89-20/kl r FINAL ORDER NO. 89- PC - M 89-20 - PAGE 2 a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 8, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #f: DATE SUBMITTED: _April 3, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ZOA'8-84 Recommendation - March 5, 1985 Community Development Code 5.1 a PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan Manufactured Homes REQUESTED BY: _ DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY The Planning Commission has reviewed the issue of whether manufactured homes should be allowed on individual lots throughout the City. The Commission recommends that manufactured homes be allowed as long as a good definition is created which properly limits the types of units. i The Council should determine if 1) manufactured homes will be allowed on individual lots, and 2) the definition of manufactured homes for application in the code. Staff has posed the question in the materials attached, and solicited input From NPO's, the Commission, and the manufactured homes industry. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Determine that manufactured homes should be allowed on individual lots with restrictions specified within the definition of manufactured homes and code provisions. 2. Keep the code as it presently is written, however, direct staff to develop a better definition of manufactured homes. SUGGESTED ACTION The Planning Commission recommends that manufactured homes be allowed as individual lots. A distinction should be drawn in the code between the definition of manufactured homes and mobile homes. The Council should direct staff to prepare the necessary definitions and code revisions for adoption at 1 a later date. J (1163P) MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the City Council April 3, 1985 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ZOA 8-84, 5.1a Manufactured Homes During the past few months, the staff, Planning Commission, and NPO's have reviewed the adequacy of the present code provisions •which relate to manufactured homes. The review was prompted by a request by a property owner who desires to place a manufactured home on a single lot. Presently, this is prohibited- by our Code which restricts such homes to mobile home parks and manufactured home subdivisions. To locate in a manufactured home subdivision, all homes in the subdivision must be of the manufactured off-site type. Our code does not provide for exceptions. All NPO's were provided with the information submitted to the Planning Commission to allow for review. Comments from NPO's 3, 5 and 6 were l received. The Planning Commission consensus is that manufactured homes should J be allowed on individual lots if the homes meet the building code standards applied -to so called stick built homes. The Commission is concerned that criteria be developed for allowing these homes, and that a definition be developed for both manufactured homes and mobile homes. Senate Bill 53 has been proposed for review by the Oregon Legislative Assembly in •1985. The bill, if adopted as written, would require that local plans allow certain manufactured homes on some lots. This bill has been included in the packet because of the definition which it includes for a manufactured home: "a. It is multi-sectional. b. It encloses a space of not less than 864 square feet. C. It has a pitched composition shingle or wood shake roof. d. It is set upon a foundation approved by the Department of Commerce, and if not placed at ground level, it has skirting which complements the structure. e. It has exterior siding in color, material and appearance similar to the exterior siding material commonly used on residential dwellings." Other suggested language has been provided by the Manufactured Home industry in the form of a model ordinance as follows on Page 2: Page 1 A. PERMITTED PLACEMENT The establishment, location, and use of manufactured homes as scattered-site residences shall be permitted in any zone permitting installation of a dwelling unit subject to requirements and limitations applying generally to such residential use in district and provided such homes shall meet the following requirements and limitations: 1. The home shall meet all requirements applicable to single-family dwellings and possess all necessary improvement location, building and occupancy permits and other certifications required by the code; 2. The home shall be larger than 950 square feet of occupied space 1 or meet the minimum square footage requirements for the appropriate zone; 2 3. The home shall be attached and anchored to a permanent foundation in conformance with the regulations adopted by the oregon Department of Commerce and with manufacturer's installation specifications; 4. The home shall be covered with an exterior material customarily used on site built residential dwellings, and l such material shall extend over the top of the foundation (or meet the community's site built residential dwelling home standards). 3 5. The homes shall have a roof composed of a material customarily used on site built residential dwellings, such as asbestos, fiberglass, shake, asphalt or tile, which shall be installed onto a surface appropriately pitched for the materials used. NOTES: 1 This provision would allow certain single-section manufactured homes, since addition of an expando room could enlarge the size to over 950 square feet. Permitted placement by right, could be limited to double-section or larger manufactured homes by amending the zoning ordinance's definition of a dwelling unit to require that all homes, conventional and manufactured, "must be at least twenty-three (23) feet in width". 2 Communities not wishing to prohibit all single-section manufactured homes could have a minimum square footage requirement applying equally to all single-family homes. 3 The appropriateness of siding and roofing materials can be determined by the Planning Commission or their designated administrator on a case-by-case basis, or an approved siding and roofing materials list can be developed (see example at end of / ordinance). Page 2 The Commission feels that a definition can be developed which will allow } manufactured homes while maintaining the integrity of the surrounding area. The formal Commission action on March 5, 1985, requested that a distinction be- drawn between manufactured homes and mobile homes. I suggest the following definition for consideration: Manufactured Homes A' factory fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code to be used by itself or incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site as a dwelling unit. The term is intended to apply to major assemblies and does not include buildings constructed at a site from prefabricated panels, trusses, and other prefabricated supplements. Such a home must comply with all covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC and.R's) applicable to the site in terms of building materials, building size, roof pitch, and other design details. The definitions shown above from SB 53 or the manufactured home industry suggestion could be modified to serve this purpose. Items a, c, d, and a are proper for use in our definition. Item b is a threshold limit which would apply only where no covenants, conditions and restrictions apply. Where they do apply, the minimum size would be greater in compliance with the C, C and R's. For your information, the staff checked with other jurisdictions to determine how they have handled this issue. Following are the results of our limited survey: l Beaverton: Manufactured homes which comply with the UBC are allowed on individual lots. Mobile Homes are allowed only in parks and subdivisions. Beaverton also has a residential agricultural zone which allows one mobile home per lot. Gresham: FHA approved manufactured homes are allowed on individual lots. Milwaukie: Manufactured homes or mobile homes are allowed by either the Planning Commission or staff. The Planning Director determines which approved authority will decide. Oregon City Allow manufactured homes on individual lots if the home meets the UBC. Mobile Homes are allowed in parks or subdivisions. Lake Oswego Does not allow manufactured homes on individual lots. Tualatin: Does not allow manufactured homes on individual lots. Council Action: The Council should 1. Determine if any residential units built off site should be allowed on individual building lots throughout the City. IF the Council determines that they should be allowed, the Council should direct the staff to prepare the necessary code revisions to l include needed definitions and modify code language throughout the J Development Code. Page 3 If the Council desires to allow manufactured hones on individual lots, it should. 2. Review the proposed definitions to determine if one is adequate or provide guidance concerning the elements which should be in Tigard's definition. ` .J i I (WAM:br/1163P) i i t 4 f F Page 4 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 1985 2. Staff report to Planning Commission, March 5, 1985, including Planning Commission minutes of January 8, 1985. 3. Short Form Model Ordinance Regulating Manufactured Housing. 4. January 11, 1985 memo to NPO's requesting input 5. Staff report to Planning Commission dated January 3, 1985 including applicable sections of the code. W-J (1163P) Page 5 • i TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 5, 1985 1• P1114 dent Moen called-the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was held ow--le-.r Junior High - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: RESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Butler, Fyre, Owens, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Campbell. ABSENT: mmissioners Leverett and Peterson. STAFF: Assoc Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton, ecretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commission B ann seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Owens abstai 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Staff distributed copies of sections of Land Use Proce es and Practices in Oregon. Also, a letter from NPO # 3 was dist uted regarding agenda item 5.1 (ZOA 8-84). l 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) (5.1 a.) Review Section 18.26, 18.94 (Manufactured Homes), (5.1 b.) 18.96 and 18.98 (Flag Lots and Height Limits). 5.1 a. Associate Planner Liden explained that the information on Manufactured Homes had been taken back through the NPO process. He reviewed NPO 3, 5, and 6's comments. The other NPOs had not responded. He requested that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council whether or not manufactured /mobile homes should be allowed on individual lots. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AS ACTION o Consensus of the Commissioners was that Manufactured Homes should be allowed if they met the standards as required by stick built homes and have criteria which they would have to meet to be allowed on individual lots. Also, they felt their was a need for a strong definition between manufactured homes and mobile homes. i PLANNING COMISSION MINUTES Maic` 5, 1985 Page 1 i Commissioner Campbe411 moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to recommend to City Council to allow Manufactured Homes on Single Family Lots, that they meet the same standards as required for stick built houses, that they meet the standards for subdivision and criterions be established to allow manufactured homes on individual lots. Also that a definition be made for manufactured and mobile homes. Motion carried unanimously by Commission present. b. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the memo and information stating that staff preferred alternative number five. Lengthy discussion followed. PUBLIC TIMONY o Ma Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, representing NPO # 6, read the NPO recommendation from their February 25, 1985 minutes. They were conce ed about giving authority to the Director to decide this issue. PUBLIC HEARING CL ED COMMISSION DISCUSSIO ACTION r r f o Commissioner V derwood, Fyre, Bergmann, Butler, Owens and Campbell favored alternat a number five. Commissioner Bergmann was not sure why the code neede changing, he felt it was adequate as is. Lengthy Y discussion regarding the aide yard setbacks. r o President Moen stated concerns for alternative five. He supported alternative number two, ich would require that the Code provisions be applied only to flag to which are not in subdivisions. * Commissioner Fyre moved an Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to recommend alternative number 2, which reiterates their recommendation of May 8, 1984, to have the Cod provisions only apply to flag lots which are not in subdivisions. so to add 10 ft. for side yard setbacks, also remove the word pro ded. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commis oner Butler voting no. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 30-84 FINDINGS POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES DOCUMENT. Review Policies 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.3, 3.4, and 3.4.1. Associate Planner Newton reviewed the status and quested that staff's recommendations be forwarded to City Council. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Geraldine Ball, read her concerns into the record, she favored staff's recommendation. PLANNING C0I211SSZCW MIXUTES . Mzrch 5, 1985 , Yage 2 { i AGENDA ITEM _5.1 a PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 1985 ZOA 8-84 MEMORANDUM 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i TO: Planning Commission March 1, 1985 FROM: Planning Staff ee/W i SUBJECT: Manufactured Homes l i At the January 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Staff presented a memo regarding siting of manufactured/mobile homes. The primary k issue raised was whether or not manufactured/mobile home should be allowed on 1I individual lots in residential zones in he City. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to review the issues with the NPO's. F Since that time, staff has made the information available to all of the NPO's. NPO # 5 and NPO # 6 have both reviewed the information. The consensus i of NPO # 5 was to allow manufactured homes on individual lots subject to certain standards set forth in the Community Development Code and j enforceable through Covenants,-Conditions, and Restrictions. I NP.O # 6 does not support allowing manufactured/mobile homes on individual lots s and recommends retaining the existing Community Development Code language. i F STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review the attached standards proposed by the Manufactured Housing Association and forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding siting manufactured/mobile homes on individual lots. 1063P dmj 1 PUBLIC STIMONY o Ger ine Ball questioned the need for a field survey. Discussion follow PUBLIC HEARING CLOSE o Vice President s moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to set CPA 30-84 over to t February 5, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimo y by Commissioner present. FINAL ORDERS FOR ITEMS 5.2 and 5.3. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the f 1 order for PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, and V 15-84. * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commiss er Bergmann seconded to adopt the final order as proposed by st f and authorize Vice President Owens to sign the final order. Moti carried unanimously by Commissioner present. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the final order for PD 6-84 d S 11-84. * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commission Butler seconded adopt the final order as proposed by staff and authorize Vice Pre ent Ovens to sign the final order. Motion carried unanimously y Commissioners present. 5.6 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 CITY OF TIGARD Review section 18.26, 18.94, 18.96, 18.98, and 18.144 of the -Community Development Code. Director of Community Development Monahan reviewed his memo regarding Manufactured/Mobile Homes. He requested that the Commission give him some direction as to whether manufactured homes should be allowed on single family lots. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Don Halbrook, 1109 Sierra Vista, Newberg, supported staff's recommendation for the definition of manufactured homes. He supported allowing manufactured homes on single family lots. Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, was concerned about the effect Manufactured homes would have on established homes if they were allowed on single family lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 5 J1 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Fyre stated he was on NPO # 3 during the Comprehensive Plan and their intent was not to allow manufactured homes on single family lots. o Commission Vanderwood stated it was her understanding that manufactured homes were not to be allowed on single family lots: o Commissioner Campbell stated she was not present during the 4 Comprehensive Plan process, however, was• concerned with treating manufactured homes as mobile homes. She felt that they should be considered dwelling units. o Commissioner Butler stated he was on NPO # 1 during the process and they determined it was discriminatory not to allow them, however, the intent of the plan was not to allow them on single family lots. o Commissioner Peterson was not around during the Comprehensive Plan process but felt they should be allowed in subdivision with convenants and on single family lots if standards were set. o Vice President Owens recalled that it was NPO # 7 intent to allow manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions. She felt there was a need for a definition and supported staff's recommendation. { o Commissioner Leverett felt manufactured homes should be allowed as a matter of economics. If they meet the building code they should be allowed as a dwelling unit. i ~ o Commission Butler commented that he felt allowing manufactured homes would help meet the LCDC goal which requires providing a diverse type of needed housing. He felt minimum standards could be established. o Lengthy discussion following regarding allowing manufactured homes. o Frank Johnson, 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. commented that he lived in a mobile home and that their is a big difference between manufactured and mobile homes. He added that LaGrand allows manufactured homes in a specific area. o Discussion followed on how to continue. Consensus was to go back through the NPO process. No action was taken. Director of Community Monahan reviewed his memo on flag lots and height limitations. He explained the difficulty of applying the restriction when flag lots are being developed. He then reviewed seven alternatives. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Ct., representing NPO d 6 suggested not 4L) allowing flag lots to abut existing established areas. She felt flag lot should only be allowed on R 3.5 lots or larger. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 6 112-7 /-7/ ....--63rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE-ASSEMBLY-1985 Regular-&Won.-._-. Senate Bill 53 PRINTED PURSUANT TO ORS 171.130 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with precession filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request of Joint Interim Committee on Land Use) SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of,the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Requires city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to allow the siting of certain manufactured homes on at least some lots zoned for single family dwellings. Requires local governments to designate lots on which manufactured homes will be allowed. I A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to manufactured homes. 3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 4 SECTION 1. Section 2 of this Act is added to and made a part of ORS 197.295 to 197.307. 5 SECTION 2. (1) Upon and after the first periodic review, city and county comprehensive plans and land use 6 regulations shall allow manufactured homes meeting the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) of this section to 7 be sited onat least some lots planned and zoned for single family dwellings. The comprehensive plan or land use 8 regulations shall designate the lot or lots planned and zoned for single family dwellings on which those 9 manufactured homes are allowed. ' 10 (2) A manufactured home qualifies under subsection (1) of this section if it mats all of the following criteria: 11 (a) It is multisectional. 12 (b) It encloses a space of not less than 864 square fat. 13 (c) It has a pitched composition shingle or wood shake roof. 14 ((d It is set upon a foundation approved by the Department of Commerce, and if not placed at ground level, 15 it has skirting which complements the structure. 16 (e) It has exterior siding in color, material and appearance similar to the exterior siding material commonly 17 used on residential dwellings. 18 (3) A city or county may subject a manufactured home sited under subsection (1) of this section and the lot 19 upon which it is sited to any development standard to which a conventional single family residential dwelling on 20 the same lot would be subject, except thou development standards which would prevent all manufactured 21 homes from being sited on the lot. Development standards include, but are not limited to, building setbacks and 22 aesthetic and architectural requirements. 23 (4) Nothing in this section pteeludes a city or county from allowing mobile homes, as defined in ORS 24 446.003 (19), and manufactured homes that do not meet the requirements of subsection (2) of this section on lots 25 planned and zoned for single family dwellings. 26 (5) City and county comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall adequately provide for the siting of 27 mobile homes, as defined in ORS 446.003 (19), and manufactured homes not provided for in subsection (1) of 28 this section within areas planned and zoned for residential use. NOTE: Matter in told race in an amended section is new; matter loahc and bracketed) is existing law to be emitted. SB 53 r S£GTION Subsections (S) to 4) of scrtion 2 of this Act apply to a comprehensive plan and land use 2 regulations upon and after the first periodic review of that plan and regulations. c, j [2] SHORT FORM MODEL ORDINANCE REGULATING MANUFACTURED HOUSING ' ODLL ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE tXTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN RESI)ENTIAL ZONES AN ORDINANCE regulating the placement of manufactured housing, amending the zoning ordinance, establishing permits, providing installation standards, and instituting penalties for violation. WHEREAS, the Cityl of recognizes that manufactured homes built to the state or federal construction and safety standards can provide many residents with decent, safe and affordable housing; and WHEREAS, manufactured homes on permanent foundations with conventional siding and roofing materials built using state-of-the-art construction methods are virtually indistinguishable from other forms of housing, vet can have a significant cost savings; and WHEREAS, the City Council of find that the standards contained herein can improve the public health, safety convenience, and welfare and aid in the future development of I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THAT: z i I. INTENT It is the intent of this ordinance to encourage provision of alternative a modest income housing in general residential areas by permitting the use i of certain manufactured homes, as defined herein, in all districts in which similar dwellings constructed on site are permitted. subject to the requirements set forth herein to assure acceptable similarity in exterior appearance between such manufactured homes and dwellings that have been or might be constructed under these and other lawful regulations on adjacent or nearby lots in the same district. II. DEFINITIONS A. EXPANDO ROOM An expandable manufactured housing unit. B. MANUFACTURED HOME A dwelling unit fabricated on or after June 15. 1976. in an off-site manufacturing facility for installation or assembly at the building site, bearing a seal certifying that it is built in compliance with the federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Code. ± i 1. While reference is made to "the City of this ordinance can also be used by cities and counties. t ytFlf.TI~REU-!!fiUS3NG-fOlftllC~=1@l~`-Ank± i ST*NDARWY-GGDE Title IV of the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq), as amended (previously known as the federal 1obile Home Construction and Safety Act), rules and regulations adopted thereunder, which include HUD approved information sipplied by the home manuf•ac- turer, and regulations and interpretations of said code by the Oregon: Department of Commerce. D. MOBILE HOME A transportable structure built prior to June 15, 1976, the effective date for the federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Act of 1974, larger than three hundred and twenty (320) square feet, and designed to be used as a year-round residential dwelling. E. STATE BUILDING CODE The mandatory statewide building code adopted by the Director of the Oregon Department of Commerce. III. STANDARDS A. PERMITTED PLACEMENT The establishment, location, and use of manufactured homes as scattered-site residences shall be permitted in any zone permitting installation of a dwelling unit subject to requirements and limita- tions applying generally to such residential use in district and pro-• vided such homes shall meet the following requirements and limitations: 1. the home shall meet all requirements applicable to single-family dwellings and possess all necessary improvement location, building and occupancy permits and other certifications requir,•d by the code; 2. the home shall be larger than 950 square feet of occupied space` or meet the minimum square footage requirements for the appro- 3 priate zone; 2. This provisior would allow certain single-section manufactured homes, since addition of ar expando room could enlarge the size to over 950 square feet. Per- mitt(d placemcrit by right, could be limited to double-section or larger manufac- tured homes bN amending the zoning ordinance's definition of a dwelling unit to require that all homes, conventional and manufactured, "must be at least twenty- three (23) fc•Et in width". 3. Communities nct wishing to prohibit all single-section manufactured homes could havea ni,iirwim square footage requirement applying equally to all single-family homes oil 3- Lhv hcmw :l br at t.iched and anct: pc-rm:urt!.t Ouud.iLit:. in conformance with the regulations adopted by the Oregon Depart- ment of Commerce and with manufacturer's installation specifica- tions; 4. the home shall be covered with an exterior material"customarilly used on site built residential dwellings, and such material shall extend over the top of the foundation (or meet the community's site built residential dwelling home standards).4 5. the home shall have a roof composed of a mpLerial customarilly used on site built residential dwellings, such as asbestos, fiber- glass, shake, asphalt or tile, which shall be installed onto a surface appropriately pitched for the materials used. B. PLACEMENT WITH PERMIT Manufactured homes not meeting the terms of Section 111, Paragraph i and mobile homes, shall be permitted within the City of only after receiving a special exception permit from the body authorized i to grant special exception permits. C. STRUCTURAL ALTERATION ~ Due to its integral design, an}' structural alteration or modification of a manufactured or mobile home after it is placed on the site must be approved by the authorized building administrator (or other designee) of the City of IV. TEMPORARY USE5 A. CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE Subject to conditions, fees and standards otherwise required in the zoning ordinance, a temporary use permit shall be issued: 1. to an applicant in the process of building a site built dwelling to locate a manufactured or mobile home on a building lot during the course of construction of the dwelling; such permit shall not be issued until after a building permit for the dwelling has been issued; 2. to an applicant to use a manufactured or mobile home as a care- takers quarters or construction office at a job site; 4. The appropriateness of sideing and roofing materials can be determined by the plan commission or their designated acministrator on a case by case basis, or an appr.-%:vd siding and roofing materials list can be developed (see example at end of ordin.n e) 5. Tht•se provisions are suggesti-d. i. tG all :Il)~:•til;~:.; t (+::7. Ilt•,(1Ch 1, l' ti, l• he aIt 71 U1 c.Ii++(' n(•C(•SSI- . that _ ' - cafes care, an if Coher -e i}ie fa-cts show__ _ _an unnecessar -v ha -rd- ship would occur if not permitted to locate a manufactured home adjacel,t Lu Lhe resident-e of ont• who is able to provide such care or in need of such care. B. LENGTH OF PERMIT A temporary use permit may be issued, at the discretion of the plan commission or its designated administrator, for a period not to exceed two (2) years. The temporary permit may be renewed for an.additional one (1) year period upon showing of good cause and with permission to do so. However, at the discretion of the plan commission or its designated administrator, a temporary use permit may be issued to an applicant for a health or age related circumstance for a period coterminous with the health or age related circumstance. C. PERMIT EXPIRATION At the time the temporary permit expires, the manufactured or mobile home and all appurtennances shall be removed from the property within ninety (90) clays. D. UTILITY REQUIREMENTS Manufactured or moile homes usec for temporary uses shall have an approved watt-r supply, sewage disposal system, and utility connections, where appropriate, and at the discretion of the plan commission or its designated acministrator. E. PERMIT FEF A temporary tst• permit shall be issued by the plan commission's designated acministrator. The fee shall be twenty five dollars ($25)~ and is in adc:ition to all other required permits for utilities and sewage disposal systems. V. APPEAL An action to review an\• order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official or board charged with enforcement of the zoning ordinance F.hall be pursuant to the appeal process set forth in this case. Aff 6. khilc- twenty five dollars (525) :s the customary permit fee, it is discretionary. • C ~'1 11 ~ri~.~ Fl•P• 111N. _ A. FAILURE TO COMPLY c AMD, Each day of non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance con- sticutes a separate and distinct ordinance violation. Judgment at up to five hundred dollars ($500.00) pCr day may be entered for a Viola- tion of this ordinance. . 'r B. SUBJECT' TO REMOVAL r A home, sited upon property in violar;_%in of this ordinance, shall be E subject to removal from such property. However, the home owner must be given a reasonable opportunity to bring the property into compliance before action for removal can be taken. If action finaliv is taken by the appropriate authority to bring compliance, the expenses involved may be made a lien against the property. E r C. REMOVAL METHOD The Plan commission or its designated administrator may institute a suit in an appropriate court for injunctive relief to cause such F violation to be prevented, abated or removed. t VII. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE i If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for an%• reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or consti- tutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. It is be'ng expressly declared that th?~- ordinance and each section. subsection. paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase would have been adopted regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs, senten- ces, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional ADOPTED: CITY COUNCIL OF: OREGON lAYOR : The ordinance violation procedure for manufactured homes should be consj!~rent with the procedure used for other violarions in the local ordinance. A; "U. MATERIALS LlS7 J J-- - 1) The following siding materials are approved for usage on manufactured homes: a) residential horizonta: aluminum !ap siding. b) residential horizontal vinyl la) siding, r) cedar or other wood siding. d) wood grain, weather resistant, press board siding, e) stucco siding, t) brick or stone siding, g) h) it j) k) 1) other approved materials which are aesthetically compatible. 2) The following roofing materials are approved for usage on manufactured homes: . a) asbestos shingles on a roof pitches according to the design specifications of the shingles. i bt fiberglass shingles on a roof pitched according to the design specificatio:.= of the shingles. 1 C. shake shingles on a roof pitched according to the design specifications € of the shingle d: asphalt shingles on a roof pitched according to the design specifications of the shingles. e) the materials r: a roof pitched according to the design 5oecifications of the materials. f) €t h') i1 k) 4 . 1) 'v l 5 8. This is an example of an administrative form which can be used to res:ul.ate approved siding and roofing materials, It is not a part of the ordinarlLV- G ko IM • i i i MEMORANDUM - i • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON s k r r f t T0: NPO and CCI Members January 11, 1985 t FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Potential Community Development Code Changes i Enclosed for your review are copies of two discussion topics initiated at the Planning Commission on January 8, 1985. The Commission asked us to distribute i these to the NPO's and CCI for input. Both topics will be on the February 5, agenda of the Planning Commission following discussion at the January 28, CCI meeting. Manufactured Homes - The Planning Commission expressed interest in determining if manufactued homes should be allowed on individual lots. We need to better define manufactured homes and clarify in the Code where such units are allowed. Aim Flag Lots and Height Limits The Planning Commission would appreciate your comments concerning how the City should regulate flag lots. Several options are presented in the memo. Mrs. Mary Clinton of NPO # 6 suggested two other altenatives. 1. That no flag lots be made abutting. existing residential neighborhoods; or 2. That no house on a flag lot be built more than 1/2 story higher than buildings on abutting lots. Please consider these alternatives as well as those spelled out in the memo. Enclosed are copies of the memos for your consideration. Staff will. prepare a recommendation after considering your comments. dmj/0902P a a r• 4L) w 4 C - AGENDA ITEM 5.6 ' January 8, 1985 ZOA 6-84 (18.26 6 18.94 MEMO TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: William A Monahan, Director of Community Development DATE: January 3, 1985 RE: Manufactured Homes Recently a question arose concerning the standards within the Code which relate to Mobile Homes and Manufactured Homes. Section 18.94 presents the Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations and section 18.26.030 includes the definitions of "mobile home", "mobile home park" and "mobile home subdivision". The question which was posed is, what types of structures are included in the definition and thus restricted so that they- may only be located within mobile home parks and subdivisions. Our Code does not allow manufactured/mobile homes on individual lots unless part of a subdivision which is 100% comprised of units of that type. ! It is not clear from the definition of "mobile home" if the intent was to include all dwelling units constructed off site and transported to the site for installation. The -Planning Staff recalls that the intent of the Commission and Council during the Comprehensive Plan preparation process was to group all mobile homes and factory built homes under the general title of manufactured homes and restrict their placement. , Unfortunately, the definition section of the code only contains a definition of "mobile home"... which is not inclusive of all manufactured units. A separate definition of manufactured home is needed. Chapter 18.94 of the Code allows manufactured/mobile home subdivisions and parks. There is a grouping of terms here which adds to the confusion. It could be interpreted to mean that manufactured homes and mobile homes are separate. There are separate standards for subdivisions and parks. A review of the standards indicates that the purpose was to allow either manufactured or mobile homes in a subdivision while the park standards are set out specifically for the type of unit which is commonly referred to as a mobile home. The standards contained in Chapter 18.94 seem to support the argument that the intent of the Code is to restrict any factory built units. The following questions need to be resolved: 1. Is the intent of the Commission and Council to only allow units built off site and transported for-installation on a property to be located l in manufactured/mobile home subdivision and parks? lar 96 J 2• If the Commission and Council feel that manufactured homes should be allowed on any building lot in the City, are there any restrictions which are necessary such as 1) Minimum size of the units 2) building material restrictions 3) design of the structure 4), landscaping? Generally, convenants and restrictions prepared by the developer of a subdivision will specify the standards which could be applied to a manufactured unit if one were allowed on an individual lot. Of course, not all city housing lots are governed by CC and R's, therefore if the Commission does wish to allow individual units, some standards will be necessary. For your review I have enclosed copies of some floor plans for manufactured units now available. They were provided to me by Mr. Pete 7anzen who would like to place a unit for his home at the McDonald Acres Subdivision. I have advised him that my interpretation of the Code is that the units are not now allowed. If the Commission and Council find otherwise, we will need to prepare modifications to the Code and definitions for your review in February. If you agree with my interpretation,' at least a definition of manufactured home is needed in the Code while some language revision may also be needed. A suggested definition of manufactured homes is: " r~ A factory fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code to be used by itself or incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site as a dwelling unit. The term is intended to apply to major assemblies and does of include buildings constructed at a site from prefabricated panels, trusses, and other prefabricated supplement-s. (0890P) l i/c'Z 1 r ~u.i S FR J. + 2 b - "Dwelling unit" means a single unit, excluding mobile IM) h s, providing complete, independent living facilities for a or more persons including permanent provisions for living, leeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. See Mobile Home. "Mobile ho It as used in this code, means a structure transportable in o or more sections, each built on a perma- nent chassis, which i designed to be used for permanent occu- pancy as a dwelling and ich is constructed on a site other than its place of permane n use. "Mobile home park" means a place where four or more mobile homes are located within a hundred feet of one another on a lot, tract or parcel o and under the same ownership, the primary purpose of whit s to rent space or keep space for rent to any person for a rge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental or use of face 'ties or to offer space free in connection with securing the tr or patronage of such person. "Mobile home subdivision" means a subdivision de ' ned and approved for the sale of lots for residential occup y in mobile homes only. Chapter 18.94 MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS Sections: 18.94.010 Purpose. 18.94.020 Manufactured/mobile home subdivision standards. 18.94.030 Manufactured/mobile home park standards. 18.94.040 Nonconforming mobile homes. 18.94.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria for the placement of manufactured/mobile homes in mobile home subdivisions and park developments within the city of Tigard. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part), 1983). 18.94.020 Manufactured/mobile home subdivision standards- In addition to the standards of the zoning district in which the project is located and other standards of this code, a manufactured/mobile home subdivision proposal shall: (1) Comply with all applicable state standards and other city standards for the subdivision (see Chapter 18.160); (2) Satisfy all the standards of the applicable zoning district, and the provisions of Chapter 18.92; and (3) Be limited to manufactured/mobile home housing types. All other types of residential units are not permitted. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part), 1983). 314-11 (Tigard 4/84) 18 -9 4 0 30 18.94.030 Manufactured/mobile home park standards. (a)_ The design of the proposed mobile home park shall be submitted to the planning department for review in accordance with Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review, and Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use, where applicable. (b) The design for the manufactured mobile home park shall conform to all applicable state standards established by the state of Oregon, Department of Commerce mobile home park standards. (c) The manufactured/mobile home park shall: (1) Have a minimum lot gross area of one acre; (2) Have a minimum frontage of one hundred feet; (3) Have a minimum depth of one hundred fifty feet; (4) Have a front and rear yard setback of twenty- five feet; (S) Have a side yard setback of ten feet, except on a corner lot the side yards shall be twenty-five feet; (6) Have a minimum of sixty square feet of outdoor recreation area, suitably improved for recreational use, provided for each unit exclusive of required yards. Each recreation area shall have a minimum size of •two thousand five hundred square feet; (7) Have landscaping equivalent to twenty percent of the manufactured/mobile home park area; (8) Be partially screened from the public right-of- way and adjacent residential areas by a combination of a sight-obscuring fence, vegetation, berm or any combination of the above as approved by the approval authority; except, that within the required front yard, any fence shall not exceed three feet in height. (d) Evidence shall be provided that the park will be eligible for a certificate of sanitation required by state law. (e) Each site shall be adequately serviced by public facilities such as water supply, sewers, sidewalks and improved streets. (f) Each unit shall be provided with a water, sewer and electrical connection. The electrical connection shall pro- vide for 110 and 220 volt ser-,• _ (g) No mobile home, accesa,.,ty building or other struc- ture shall be closer than ten feet from another mobile home, accessory building or other structure. (h) No structure shall exceed twenty-five feet in height. W Each mobile home placed in a mobile home park or subdivision shall meet the following standards and shall be inspected by the building official, and: (1) A state insignia indicating compliance with Oregon state mobile home construction standards in effect at the time of manufacture and including compliance for reconstruction of equipment installation made after manufacture shall be displayed on each mobile home; 314-12 (Tigard 9/84) 12 9 4 . 0 3 0 1 (2) Each mobile home shall be in good repair, not- withstanding deterioration which may have occurred due to misuse, neglect, accident or other cause; (3) Each mobile home shall contain a water closet, lavatory, shower or tub, and a sink in a kitchen or other food preparation space; and (4) Each mobile home shall be installed under the provisions of the administrative rules adopted by the Director of Commerce and administered by the State Building Code Division. (j) Each vehicular way in a mobile home park shall be named and marked with signs which are similar in appearance to those used to identify public streets, and: (1) A map of the named vehicular ways shall be pro- vided to the applicable fire district, the police department and the public works department. (k) If a mobile home space or permanent structure in the park is more than five hundred feet from a public fire hydrant, the park shall provide: (1) Water supply lines designed with fire hydrants which shall be provided within five hundred feat of such space or structure; and (2) Each hydrant within the park shall be located on a vehicular way and shall conform in design and capacity to city and the applicable water district standards. (1) Each manufactured/mobile home in a mobile home park or subdivision shall have a continuous perimeter skirting installed pursuant to state regulations, which shall be of the same material and finish as the exterior of the mobile home. (m) The wheels, tongue and traveling lights of each manufactured/mobile home in a mobile home park or subdivision shall be removed upon installation of unit. (n) There shall be no outdoor storage of furniture, tools, equipment, building materials or supplies belonging to the occupants or management of the park. (o) Accessways or driveways shall be lighted in accord- ance with city standards. (p) Primary access to the manufactured/mobile home park shall be from a public street and shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.108, Access and Egress, and: (1) Where necessary, additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city to maintain adequate traffic circulation; (2) Access driveways connecting units to a public street shall have a width of not less than thirty-sic feet, of which not less than twenty feet shall be paved; (3) Driveways shall be designed to provide for all maneuvering and parking of units without encroaching on a public street. 4 314-13 (Tigard 4/84) (q) The maximum number of manufactured/mobile homes in the park or subdivision shall not exceed the amount calculated in Chapter 18.92. (Ord. 84-29 §1(Exhibit A(part)), 1984; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part), 1983). 18.94.040 Nonconforming mobile homes. (a) Mobile home parks existing at the adoption of the ordinance codified in this title not meeting the standards set forth in this title shall be considered nonconforming and are subject to the standards set forth in Section 18.132.040(b). (b) Nonconforming mobile homes in such parks may be replaced with like mobile homes that meet the standards of Section 18.94.030 when they are moved or destroyed. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part), 1983). Chapter 18.96 ADDITIONAL YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS Sectio 18.9 010 Purpose. 18.96. 20 Additional setback from centerline required. 18.96.0 Distance between multiple-family residential structure and other structures on the site. 18.96.040 o•yard required--Structure not on property ne. 18.96.050 Ex ptions to yard requirements. 18.96.060 Sto ge in front yard. 18.96.070 Proje tions into required yards. j 18.96.080 Lot ar for flag lots. 18.96.090 Front ya d determination. 18.96.010 Purpose. a purpose of this chapter is to permit or afford better ligh air and vision clearance on E more heavily traveled streets d on streets of substandard width, to make the location of ructures compatible with the need for the eventual widenin of streets by providing for additional yard setback distan s, to assure there is adequate distance between buildings the site and to pro- vide standards for projections into y d areas. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part), 1983). 18.96.020 Additional setback from ce terline required. e, and to (a) To assure improved light, air and sigh \structures protect the public health, safety and welfain any zoning district which abut certain and collec- tor streets shall be set back a minimum dism the centerline of the street. i 314-14 (Tigard 9/84) F t T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 8, 1985, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, Phil Edin, Jerry Edwards, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Jerri Widner, Finance Director. 1.1 CALL TO STAFF D COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. Addition to .4 consent agenda, JB Bishop planned development Tom Brian m d to discuss thi, issue on non-agenda. Jerry Edwards seconde Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: Daniel ott, 13230 SW Hill Ct spoke about JB Bishop's proposed development. Glo Johnson passed out a letter requesting a hearing on the matter. Carol Eadon expressed NPO 1's concurrence with the action taken. Dave Atkinso of SW Century Oak Dr. relayed a message from the Tigard Neighborhood W ch Committee _regarding vandalism in Summerfield. JB Bishop requested ouncil to allow the Costco chief executive officer and Costco attorney o speak. 3. STATE REVENUE SHARING ORDINANCE 85-11. m Brian moved to adopt. Ima seconded. Approved by unanimou vote of Council present. 4. BANCROFT ASSUMPTION ORDINANCE 85-12. After di ussion, Phil Edin moved to adopt the ordinance with the amendment. To Brian seconded. Vote 4/1 with Councilor Scott voting no. 5. SALE OF SURPLUS LAND/ALTERNATIVE METHOD. Tom B 'an and general consensus by other members direct the Asst. Finance Dire or to mail the information to brokers on the West side. 6. SOLAR ACCESS STUDY. Mike McKeever of the State Department f Energy discussed the proposed solar access project with the Council. Scott was concerned with the staffing costs and Tom Brian was concern with the property rights issue of solar access. Jerry Edwards felt he n ded more information. Tim Ramis asked if private sector consultants wo d be hired and would the City have any control over the hiring. May Cook asked Bill Monahan to come back on April 15, 1985 with more information for council. 7. ZONE ORDINANCE ZOA 8-84 CITY OF TIGARD. Staff summation was presented by Bill Monahan. Tom Brian moved to have an ordinance written using the definition on page two of the staff report. Ima Scott seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Tom Brian moved to direct staff to notify legislators and the legislative committee handling SB53 that the City is in opposition of the bill and also any other legislation which restricts local control. Jerry Edwards seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Flag lots. Staff summation by Bill Monahan. Phil Edin moved to have an ordinance written that would restrict additional- flag lots in subdivisions that adjoin and also flag lots included in these rules. Tom Brian seconded. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. i' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 15, 1985 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: April 11, 198511, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ZOA 8-84 Rec. 3/5/85, Council approved 4/8/85 Manufactured Homes, Manufactured Flag lots/ PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan Height Limits REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On April 8, 1985, the City Council held public hearings concerning ordinance revisions to the Community Development code relative to 1) Manufactured Homes on individual lots and 2) Flag lots and height limits. The council approved both proposals and directed the staff- to prepare an ordinance for adoption based on the Council's input. The ordinance is attached for adoption. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the ordinance as submitted .2. Modify the ordinance prior to adoption. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the ordinance as submitted. 1199P ORDINANCE NO. 85- Page 5 /04 T I G A R D C I T Y 0 0 0 N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 15, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian (arrived at 7:37 P.M.), Phil Edin, Jerry Edwards, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Frank Currie, City Engineer; Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development 'rector; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel (arrived at 7:37 P.M.); an Doris Hartig, Deputy City Recorder. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND CO CIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS Add the following: a. State Sales Tax Statu eport by City Administrator b. City Administrator Emplo ent Contract - Phil Edin C. Howard Williams letter - I Scott 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA No one appeared to speak 4. KEYS TO CITY a. Mayor Cook presented Key to City to Ro t Bellinger for his service on Parks & Recreation Board. Staff *11 mail certificate to Myrna Pinkerton. 5. WCCLS & COUNTY LEVY DISCUSSION a. City Administrator noted the County has not called for election date. He reported on the status regarding an acceptable vy for Washington County libraries. He will keep Council advised. 7:37 P.M. COUNCILOR BRIAN AND ATTORNEY RAMIS ARRIVED 6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 a. Director of Community Development summarized memo and recommended adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 85-15 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (ZOA 8-84) b. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt. Discussion followed regarding section 18.94.010 and 18.94.040 regarding pre-existing covenants, conditions and restrictions. C. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to amend section 18.94.040 by adding "residences shall be permitted in the absence of covenants conditions and restrictions" in any zone permitting. ....and amend section 18.94.010 by deleting all the underlining except "manufactured homes on individual building". Motion carried. Ordinance as amended approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 15, 1985 ' h E t CITY OF T'IGARD, OREGON I ` ORDINANCE NO. 85-_,~- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (ZOA 8-84). i WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise its Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has reviewed the Community Development Code and has adopted the same; and C WHEREAS, the Community Development Code was submitted to the Land Conservation and Development Commission .For acknowledgement with other elements of the K Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposed changes on March 5, 1985. E WHEREAS, The Tigard City Council held public hearings on the proposed changes on April 8, 1985. E THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Community Development shall be amended as setforth in Exhibit "A" attached. Items to be added are underlined, items to be deleted are shown in [brackets]. ; fi 6 Section 2. In order that the community Development Code may improve the s operation and implementation of the Code and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Ordinance shall become effective upon i its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. + PASSED: By uk7ghvote of all Council members present after { being read by number and title only, this /,sit day of,,,,_; / 1985. f i tc. Deputy City Recorder ity of Tigard i APPROVED: This /5: _ day of / 1985. .ayor - City of Tigard (1199P) ORDINANCE NO. 85- -ir Page 1 EXHIBIT "A" / 18.26.030 Add, in alphabetical order, "Manufactured homes" as used in this code, means a factory fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code to be used by itself or incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site as a dwelling unit. The term is intended to apply to major assemblies and does not include buildings constructed at a site from prefabricated panels trusses and other prefabricated supplements. 18.42.020 (9) Delete ["Manufactured/"] 18.42.020 (10) Add Manufactured Home refers to a factory transportable building which meets the Uniform Building Code which is incorporated with similar structures or units as a building site and used as a dwelling units. 18.44.030 Add (4) Manufactured homes 18.46.030 Add (4) Manufactured homes 18.48.030 Add (4) Manufactured homes 18.50.030 Add (4) Manufactured homes 18.52.030 Add (4) Manufactured homes 18.54.030 Add (7) Manufactured homes 18.56.030 Add (9) Manufactured homes 18.58.030 Add (10) Manufactured homes Chapter 18.94 Sections: Add 18.94.040 Manufactured Homes on individual building lots. Delete 18.94.0[4]0 Nonconforming mobile homes Add 18.94.050 Nonconforming mobile homes 18.94.010 Delete 18.94.010 Add: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria for the placement or manufactured/mobile homes in manufactured home subdivisions, mobile home park developments and manufactured homes on individual building lots within the City of Tigard. 18.94.040 Delete 18.94.040 Add Manufactured homes on individual building lots. The establishment, loction, and use of manufactured homes as scattered-site residences shall be permitted in the absence of covenants,conditions and restrictions in any zone permitting installation of a dwelling unit subject to requirements and limitations applying generally to such residential uses in the district and provided such homes shall meet the following requirements and limitations: Aff ORDINANCE NO. 85- Page 2 The home shall meet all requirements applicable to single-family dwellings and possess all necessary improvement location, building and occupancy permits and other certifications requireu by the code; The home shall be larger than 950 square feet of occupied space or meet the minimum square footage requirements for the appropriate zone; The home shall be attached and anchored to a permanent foundation in conformance with the regulations adopted by the Oregon Department of Commerce and with manufacturer's installation specifications; The home shall be covered with an exterior material customarily used on site built residential dwellings, and such material shall extend over the top of the foundation (or meet the community's site built residential dwelling home standards). The homes shall have a roof composed of a material customarily used on site built residential dwellings, such as asbestos, fiberglass, shake, asphalt or tile, which shall be installed onto a surface appropriately pitched for the materials used. Add: 18.94.050 Nonconforming mobile homes. (a) Mobile home parks existing at the adoption of the ordinance codified in this title not meeting the standards set forth in this title shall be considered nonconforming and are subject to the standards set forth in Section 18.132.040 (b). (b) Nonconforming mobile homes in such parks may be replaced with like mobile homes that meet that standards of Section 18.94.030 when they are moved or destroyed. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part), 1983). 18.98.030.Delete 18.98.030 Add Building Heights and Flag Lots Limitations on the placement of residential structures on flag lots apply when either of the following exist: (1 A flag lot was created prior to April 15, 1985; A flag lot is created after April 15, 1985, by an approved minor land partition; or A flap lot is created by the approval of a subdivision and the flag lot is located on the periphery of the subdivision so that the lot adjoins other residentially zoned land. Add (b) The maximum height for a single-family, duplex attached or multiple-family residential structure on a flag lot or a lot having sole access for an accessway, private drive or easement is one and IL one-half stories or twenty-five feet, whichever is less, except that the maximum height is two stories or thirty feet, whichever is less, provided: ORDINANCE NO. 85-1,.5-- Page 3 I' 1 The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning district; X2,2 A ten foot side yard will be preserved. (3) A residential structure on an abutting lot either is located fifty feet or more from the nearest point of the subject dwelling, or the residential structure exceeds one and one-half stories or twenty-five feet in height on any abutting lot; and ~4Z Windows fifteen feet or more above grade shall not face dwelling unit windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal includes an agreement to plan trees capable of mitigating direct views, or that such trees exist and will be preserved. ()c Where an agreement is made to plant trees capable of mitigating direct views, the agreement shall be deemed a condition of approval under the provisions of Section 18.32.250(f). (d) The tree planting agreement shall be a condition of Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review, for three or more attached units or a multiple-family residential structure, or for single detached units, one duplex or two attached residential units at the issuance of building permits. (Ord. 84-29 Section 1 (Exhibit A(part) 1984; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part), 1983). 1199P .J ORDINANCE NO. 85-.1~- Page 4 4 JAN 3 1~~ f~~ l~r D 2-1 - - 77' - - - "I ji- ti ~~,~e - - - - - - - _ - U ~ r ~y ~ ~ G Y % l re goes the nelghborhoods n•eone ust 'moved iobile hoMe In next door. w_ / K • I 1~ y There goes the neighborhood. someone-Just moved'a mobile home in.next door t- January 22, 1990 ? I now wish to give my own input at this hearing on the mobile/manufactured issue. Martha Bishop, 10590 S.W. Cook Lane, Tigard. Firstly at no time has any neighbor known k to me ever indicated they wish the home removed only that the City comply with the Uniform Building Code as administered to all other residentially built homes in the area. Tigard Times and the Oregonian repeatedly have erroneously published reports that neighbors want the home moved and at this time ask correction by published retraction on this published assumption. 86 neighbors signed a petition asking that the City of Tigard staff address code violations in siting this particular home on a residential lot rather than a mobile paxk being this home still does not meat the State Uniform Building Codes. The home siting in Parch, 1989 on Cook Lane was in advance of Bill 2863 signed July 27 by Gov. Goldschmidt and will be effective January 1, 1991. This Bill locates affordable housing in certain districts and overlays for development and redevolopment. Unlike mobile paxks it asks for placement on an excavated and back-filled foundation and Mr- M inclosed at the perimeter such that the manufactured home is located not more than 12 inches above grade. Tonite we are not bound by the new law to be effective January 1, 19919 9 nor should this issue be directed to the State Land Use Board. It should be taken care s f{ of by the City of Tigard requiring this home to meet the building codes that were in effect i; at the time this home was placed on the lot, the same standards established for single family residential homes in the area. .$70~ r„ 4 ESQRW C ~ C . 633 i, Report by Dennis roomer for City of Tigaxd Council meeting January 22, 1990. Over the course of the many conversations and letters between the City and myself the past few months, the City has shifted the focus of its defense of the mobile home several times. In general, this process has been one of the City stating a reason why the mobile home was allowed to be placed on Cook Lane 1(~W with its present structural standards, my challenge of that reason, and the l1 City's switch to another reason. This creates th3 appearance that the City is only trying to justify what was an initial incorrect decision to allow the structure by avoiding the issue. The following is a synopsis of the 5 reasons City Staff have given for allowing the mobile home 1. Reason: The HUD sticker affixed to the structure is proof that the structure meets all code requirements. Challenge: The HUD sticker applies to mobile homes which the Municiple Code allows in parks only.. The HUD sticker also, obviously, cannot assure any ;foundation standard. 2. Reason: The City is required by recent State legislation to allow mobile/manufactured homes on all lots in the City. y, Challenge: This legislation was not even passed until 6 months after the permit was issued. In any case, it does not require anything of the sort, it only requires the City to make provisions for the placement of manufactured housing within its jurisdiction. 3. Reason: The structure meets all City building codes except in those areas that cannot be seen so what is the big deal. Challenge: Isn't the purpose of building codes to assure buyers, homeowners, taxpayers, public safety officials, etc•that "what you cannot see" is, in fact, up to a certain standard. 4. Reason: The foundation must only meet the requirements of the Oregon Department of Commerce regulations. u 13'~ Challenge: No such regulations exist. 5. Reason: The building plans submitted for the permit were OK'd by the building department. Challenge: The foundation, as built, does not meet the requirements of the manufacturer's plans. To these reasons, I guess we must add a 6th. This was stated at the January 4 presentation before City Council by Mr. Ed Murphy. 6. Reason: The City Municipal Code is'ambiguous and confusing on this issue. Challenge: The Code is quite clear. You must try to ignore the plain meaning of the manufactured home codes to interpret otherwise. In any case, section 18.08(c) states that in case of ambiguity or conflict between codes, the most restrictive applies. Clearly the Uniform Building Code applies unless another code imposes a higher standard. Delivered and filed at City Council hearing January 22, 1990 by Martha Bishop at request of P7x. Dennis Moonier. 1 CL• f~.e d. bL~ ma.r(-nc- (st shOP /aa 140 January 22, 1990 Dear Mayor Jerry Edwards and Members of Tigard City Council: I an presenting to you tonite Mr. Dennis Moonier's six challenges for the six reasons given by Development Code Director Mr. Ed Murphy's reasoning for granting a permit of a mobile home last March, 1989, and now sited on Cook Lane. Dennis, up until his recent promotion to Washington, D.C., has appeared before you and the City of Tigard Planning Commission asking for code clatification. Mr. Moonier is requesting a written response on the six reasons City staff has given for allowing the mobile home siting being he is unable to be here tonite. Please note the well prepared documentation showing code violations. Submitted by Martha Bishop at the request of I-Ir. Dennis Moonier. ICI 633 1 e Ida a 0o January 22, 1990 To: Tigard City Council From:Judy Fessler 11180 SW Fortner Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Review of Director's interpretation on 18.26 & 18.94 TDC 1 am appearing to night to place some items in retrospect The Planning Commission deliberated on this same interpretation for over 2 hours December 5, 1989. Contrary to reports in the printed media,questions and sorting the interpretation was deliberated by all members of the Commission with a vote of 5-2 in favor of the Director's decision that did not tell the whole story as the Council will conclude by listening to audio transcriptions of the hearing. At least a majority of the Commission were in concurrence of the NON-SPECIFIC ambiguous language within the current code and the Chairman directed thatihis be addressed by Council. At the December 5th hearing on this issue, I inquired to staff for data to substantiate the definition of UBC plumbing, insulation and foundations as it related to the existing MH code. Plumbing & insulation which staff indicated was not UBC code. Foundation is not poured footing with raised perimeter walls and sills but a poured cement 2-track runway slab with stacked pier blocks placed at strategic joining "I" Beams of the MH There are no "sills" or tiedowns. THE EXISTING CODE DOES NOT INDICATE EXEMPTIONS TO THE ABOVE POINTS. Over the last 15 YEARS citizens have spent countless hours (UNPAID) developing, inputing via hearings, to develop the most progressive land use laws in the nation. But we must address new situations and include the same thorough standards to new issues. I have heard that Citizens and neighbors making public testimony are receiving threatening phone calls. THE TOOLS AND THE VERBIAGE DOES EXIST IN OUR TDC IN SECTION 18.08.010 0. COMPLIANCE & SCOPE: "Where this title imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regulation, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THAT IMPOSING THE HIGHER STANDARDS SHALL GOVERN" In my opinion this interpretation would mean if UBC Codes are the standards then this is the HIGHER STANDARD and SHALL GOVERN. Why wasn't this compliance chapter used in the Planning Dept decision to grant this permit in the beginning? s i In My opinion this permit should have NOT been issued on current codes the City of TDC has in place. In my opinion, someone is going to have to pay to make it right. I strongly recommend to the Tigard City Council to call a moratorium on any further Manufactured Homes permits for Residential areas until the Planning Staff and Dept develop codes that not confusing and ambiguous and be submitted through the normal channel of public hearings. HB 2863 mandates the Cities to APPLY for their Manufactured Home allowance in residential areas by January 1991. We have TIME to get this done. Let's do it RIGHT! i When HB 2863 goes into effect in January 1 9 9 1 , these MH w i l l be PERMANENT housing in existing neighborhoods. Special considerations should be addressed. 1. Question: Addressing Remodeling of MH. Will an additional MH be allowed to move in as an addition to provide a wing, projection, etc. 2. Question: Age of the MH. Addressing grandfather rights on MH same as a moved house? Current Codes for updating plumbing, wiring, UBC codes? Once again, I urge the Council to call a moratorium on any further MH permits for residential areas until the Planning Dept and Staff develops specific verbiage and guidelines to the City Council for public hearing and testimony. Consistant with both the nature and timing of HB 2863. This issue is PLANNING and not Tigard Citizens having to correct the situation with their OWN money for an appeal to LUBA. T An g u zz&u Jud es ler 11180 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 2. Access driveways connecting units to a public street shall have a width of not less than 36 feet, of which not less than 20 feet shall be paved; and 3. Driveways shall be designed to provide for all maneuvering and parking of units without encroaching on a public street. Q. The maximum number of manufactured/mobile homes in the park or subdivision shall not exceed the amount calculated in Chapter 18.92. R. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/ bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) 18 94 040 Manufactured Homes on individual Building Lots A. The establishment, location, and use of manufactured homes as scattered site residences shall be permitted in the absence of covenants, conditions and restrictions in any zone permitting installation of a dwelling unit subject to requirements and limitations applying generally to such residential uses in the district, and provided such homes shall meet the following requirements and limitations: C1. The home shall meet all. requirements applicable ..-to single-family dxelling"s and possess all necessary improvement, location, building, and occupancy permits and other certifications required by the title; Ths home shall be larger than 950 square feet of occupied space or meet the minimum square footage requirements for the appropriate zone; 3. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved shall be elevated on a permanent :,foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the base flood elevation and shall be securely.; anchored .-.-to ::,an adequately,, anchored foundation system in accordance with the regulations adopted by the Oregon Department of Commerce, and with the manufacturer's installation specifications; 4. The home shall be covered with an exterior material customarily used on site built residential dwellings, and such material shall extend over the top of the foundation (or meet the community's site built residential home standards); and s J Revised 02/27/89 Page 204 5. The homes shall have a roof composed of a material customarily used on site built residential dwellings such as asbestos, fiberglass, shake, asphalt, or tile, which shall be installed onto a surface appropriately pitched for the materials used. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 85-15) 18.94.050 Nonconforming Mobile Homes A. Mobile home parks existing at the adoption of the ordinance codified in this title not meeting the standards set forth in this title shall be considered nonconforming and are subject to the standards set forth in Subsection 18.132.040.B. B. Nonconforming mobile homes in such parks may be replaced with like mobile homes that meet the standards of Section 18.94.030 when they are moved or destroyed. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-15) J Revised 02/27/89 Page 205 AW' CITYOF TIG4R® OREGON October 10, 1989 Mr.'Dennis•Moonier 10634 SW Cook Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Res Directors Interpretation Manufactured home at 10676 SW Cook Ln. Dear Mr. Moonier: After reviewing the issues surrounding the placement of a manufactured home at the above referenced address, I have decided to allow the structure to remain as it is. In my opinion, the community Development Code as it is now written allows for the placement of a manufactured home on a single family lot, and this building as placed meets the intent of the code. The justification for this decision is as follows: 1. The municipal code allows placement of a manufactured home on a single family lot. The building is a manufactured home. By the City Development Code- a "manufactured home" is similar to a "mobile home", except that it meets 'both the National Urban and Housing Development standards, and the Uniform Building Code. 2. The municipal code defines a "manufactured home" as a factory fabricated transportable building designed to meet the Uniform Building Code. In my opinion the home complies with the intent of the municipal code. There are some differences in the construction of the building from the Uniform Building. Code (such as the insulation and plumbing), but those differences are not outwardly visible, and are suitable for this type of structure. Changing those items to meet the Uniform Building code would not change the appearance of-the building, or provide any real benefit to either the owner or the neighbors. The -structural frame of the building -is the same as a site built home (2x6 wood stud walls, manufactured roof trusses, 2x6 wood floor joists). 3. The municipal code requires a manufactured home conform with all zoning regulations applicable to a site built home, including minimum lot size, building set-backs, building height, utility availability, off- street parking, and other applicable standards. The home complies with these regulations. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 r s4. The municipal code requires that the home is larger than 950 square feet. The home complies, it is 1,280 square feet.. 5. The municipal code requires that the home is'placed on a.perman ,elevated~:'foundaticn and anchored in accordance .with the regulations adopted by the Oregon- Dep nt 'of rca and the manufacturer's installation specific ons~>t s The home complies. Please•note that the regulations do not require any anchorage of the building to the foundation. 6. The municipal code requires that the exterior walls and roof of the home be covered with materials customarily used on site built homes. The home complies. The building is covered with hardboard panel siding, which is typical material used in site built homes. The roof covering is fiberglass composition, a typical roof covering used in site built construction. My. staff, the City Attorney, and myself have researched this issue thoroughly, including calling the manufacturer of the house in question, and have come to the conclusion that the structure meets the definition of a manufactured home in the Community Development Code. This decision is being issued pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code 18.12.010 as a Director's Interpretation. Any party may appeal this interpretation in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A), 18.32.310(A) and 18.32.348 of the Community Development Code. The appeal must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($55.00) and include the following information: 1) a description of the interpretation being appealed, 2) the appellant's qualifications as a party, 3) the specific grounds for appeal, 4) the scheduled date the interpretation is to be final (see below), 5) the date the interpretation was given, and 6) the signature(s) of those appealing the interpretation. This interpretation will be final on October 24, 1989 unless an appeal is filed. The deadline for filing an appeal is October 24; 1989 Since ely, Sd c Murgihj~ ~ Community Development Director Chapter 18.08 66igPPLZANdE AND`,,SCOPB= r. Sections: 18.08.010 Compliance and Scope 18.08.010 Compliance and Scope A. Land and structures may be used or developed by construction, reconstruction, alteration, occupancy, use or otherwise, only as this title or any amendment thereto permits. B. The requirements of this title apply to the person undertaking the development or the use of the development and to the person's successor in interest. t G 'Gfi[ei°e > this title impos®s - greater' restrictions thsh thos® iniposad for; required by' other rules or regulations; the most reetrictive>=or>t13at <Hiaaposang .tha higher tandard ; hall=;guvQrn. D. No lot area, yard, other open space or off-street parking or loading area existing on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title shall be reduced below the minimum required for it by this title except as provided by Chapters 18.134 and 18.150. E. No lot area, yard or other open space or off-street parking or loading area which is required by this title for one use shall be a required lot area, yard or other open space of off-street parking or loading area for another use, except as provided specifically by this title to the contrary. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) i i Revised 02/27/89 P~3e i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 1/22/90 DATE SUBMITTED: 1110/90 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Noise Ordinance PREVIOUS ACTION: None revision Title 7 of the TMC PREPARED BY. Keith Liden DEPT HEAD CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BYt P LICY ISSUE Should the City amend the noise ordinance to be consistent with DEQ standards? INFORMATION SUMMARY The consideration of this revision was postponed to allow staff to sample existing noise levels near commercial and industrial properties. This has been done and considering the results and the concerns expressed by the Council, the staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance which adopts the Department of ,Environmental Quality (DEQ) standards by reference. These standards only provide protection for "noise sensitive land uses", such as residences, and do not protect commercial or industrial uses. Attached is a memo which reviews the noise survey results and staff recommendation, the draft ordinance, and the present noise ordinance. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached ordinance adopting DEQ standards 2. Modify and approve the attached ordinance FISCAL IMPACT Enforcement of noise standards can be performed by either the City staff or DEQ. If the City is to enforce the ordinance, time will be necessary to train the Code Enforcement officer and $1,000 to $2,000 shall be required to purchase noise measuring equipment to enforce the proposed ordinance. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the ordinance. NOISE-OR/kl i I i MEMORANDUM yl;~ TO: City Council / FROM: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner fy~- RE: Noise Ordinance Revisions DATE: January 10, 1990 In response to the discussio with the Council on September 11th, Coy Humphrey took several noise readings at several "worst case" locations to determine if the proposed revisions would be too stringent. The survey results were compared with the proposed noise standards and the DEQ standards. Noise Survey The readings below are of the ambient noise levels which include noise coming from the business as well as surrounding activities. The readings were also taken between the businesses listed and nearby noise sensitive (residential) land uses if they were present. It is important to note that the noise generated from Pacific Highway had a significant impact upon the readings. Mr. Humphrey is of the opinion that the 7 a.m. readings in particular reflect traffic noise rather than noise caused by the business activities. A final determination can only be made after additional noise readings are taken to determine whether the noise levels are the result of the land use activity or the ambient noise level caused by traffic, etc.. Ambient Noise Levels (dBA) Location 7:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m. Albertson's 52 - 57 59 - 63 Fought Steel 50 - 55 52 - 58 Wendy's 52 - 55 58 - 62 Dairy Queen 52 - 53 57 - 60 Davidson's Car Wash 49 - 52 58 - 62 Arco Car Wash 54 - 57 59 - 63 Fred Meyer 49 - 55 59 - 64 ACI Glass (formerly Bellnap) 45 - 52 55 - 59 Survey Results Compared With ordinance Standards Section 7.40.170 of the previous draft included more restrictive noise standards for noise-sensitive land uses than DEQ (45 dBA v. 50 dBA at night and 50 dBA v. 55 dBA during the day) and noise regulations to protect commercial and industrial land uses. Based upon the above noise survey, it appears that some existing situations might be in violation of the more restrictive City standard and less likely to be in violation of DEQ standards. Adoption of the DEQ standards will clearly result in fewer noise violations but will offer slightly less protection for noise-sensitive land uses. Recommendation The staff recommends the adoption of DEQ standards as shown in the attached ordinance because of the advantage of having DEQ as the primary enforcement agency rather than the City administering its own standards. The City would have the option of enforcing this ordinance if desired, particularly if noise problems require a quick response. Noise problems for future development can be reviewed during the site Development Review or Conditional Use process in lieu of a more restrictive noise ordinance. Issues related to hours of operation, mechanical equipment, buffering, etc. can be addressed in a manner that reduces noise and visual impacts upon adjoining properties. NOISE-OR/kl agenda Zen JWMXY 23, 1990 Wth S. ziaen Senior plwzw P.Q. Bwc 23397 Tigard, CR 97223 Dear Keith: JWt a few o=mw&s regarding the J'armary 10, 1990 redraft of Tigard's proposed noise cro t=1 ordinanae. The ambient: noise data irclud+ed in your meano to t1w city council is typical of cc wx=i al areas adjacent to major romb aye. Due to the limited information pravi4ed, it is not possible to determine if the ambient noise leval.s lured am relreswTtative during the late evening, nighttime, and early morning periods. if similar data was collected within at residential area rammed from traffic noise and c=me7 vial develapent, t suspect the in ig+em n noise levels would prove to be several d cibeaz lower and mare in aligmmnt with the noise starrlards originally considered by the council. It the City elects alternative 1, adopting State noise regulations by rafer+earoe, it Mhould be noted that this option world be less protective and owpLIebwaive than earlier proposals. Fbr exwVla, state regulatians do not ewer nei1# r-to-reeizjht noise conflicts nor do May necessarily provide a prateetion level actable to the public for irntennittent noises such as public addrew systems and clanging and banging noises often associated with oartain categories of a cia2 and industrial miss sour w adjacent to noise sersitive properties. Also, the Ll metric often falls Abort. of public ac owtability when applied to such sources or amF,lified music. Therefore, You my m~wish to ommider a lyn standard for iuyulaive and mwic noise Miould Tigard opt for modifying your latest proposed ordbwm, alternative 2, you may wish to Cider adapting tighter standards than DEQ, but add ea special allowance for commercial and f n&u* ^i a sources impacting noise sensitive pr perties located within areas e*wierrdrq elevated noise levels dice to traffic and &1wr extran9C'r1w noise sources. Such a provision could allow for daytime and nighttime Standards of 55 and. 50 decibels in lieu of the 50 and 45 decibel standards originally omisiderad. Applying the tighter standards to the quieter areas is sisistent with the focus of previous draft ordinarrm and can be met through the appliraticn of 'asst available nolme 0M*X01 tAchno egro. With respect to regulating omaercial-tea-=w=cial and irdustrial-rt',o- industrial noise sources, ormaideration sliauld be given to i ng t W Maith S. ILiden ara nuary 22, 1990 pap 2 frm ft o noise standards unless t1W are affecting a noise sensitive LO str qly supports yaw pry to require noise analyses, of rub= develcg~t as at part Pf sits plan review and - oroal use permit promeaes. Praventich dwuld be given a very high priority for en benefit of the caommercial interests and to assure the livability of your ccmmunity. If I can be of fLnther assistance ,)pleas* call ne at 229-5989. Sincerely, marzy L. Cbteshka, I5nagar Noiss COI UVI S*&A '1 Air Quality Ddvisien a v da ~ir32 N. P-7 - . ~ JAN 2 2 19P9kLh 9;ao J=.nuary 20, ISSO j t=7L! 1.Y -••w----------- TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Jim Hart 10255 S.W. Hillview St. SUBJECT: Proposed Noise Ordinance Hearing on 1/22/90 I received a copy of the proposed ordinance Thursday night - two working days before the hearing, so will be unable to review in detail or attend the meeting as I leave for a week's business trip Saturday morning. I am very surprised and disappointed that the new proposal is almost a complete turn about from the original concept of establishing more restrictive noise requirements for residential zones than for commercial/industrial. If the previous draft was too restrictive in industrial zones - change that part only. DEQ standards are fine for these areas. The measurements shown to support a higher sound level were taken at a time when Pacific Highway is at peak traffic and essentially useless in evaluating impact from commercial use - particularly night-time and early morning when most people complain. I sincerely request that the council table this version of the ordinance long enough for more citizen input and analysis of its shortcomings: 1. DEQ standards do not regulate: a. residential uses b. impulse noises (bang/clang etc) c. amplified sound (P/A, stereo,etc) d. nuisance noises (parties,etc) 2. The new proposal is obviously recommending increased levels (over other drafts) for all zones when the real problem was the more restrictive levels within industrial/commercial zones. 3. Certain pre-existing situations can be covered by standard grandfather methodology - to raise the noise level of future construction simply because its too noisy now sounds unreasonable. Thanks for considering my comments. I know I speak for many other Tigard residents who want to retain or safeguard liveability. Lets learn from our experience with Tigard Market Place. Site restrictions and conditions obviously do not replace legal ordinances. l! 7.40-110--7.40.140 l V UISP_ Or&yla oCk o any one automobile, truck, bus, trailer oz piece of ve- h ular equipment; (c) Used or dismantled household appliances, furniture, other iscards or junk, for more than five days. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhi t C(5) (4)) , 1986) . 7_40_1 Attractive nuisances- (a) No owner or re- sponsible par shall permit on the property: (1) Un arded machinery, equipment or other devices which are attract e, dangerous, and accessible to children; (2) Lumber logs, building rsaterial or piling placed or stored•in a manner o as to be attractive, dangerous, and accessible to children; (3) An open pit, uarry, cistern, or other excava- tion without safeguards or rriers to prevent such places from being used by children; _ (4) An exposed foundat n or portion of foundation,.. any residue, debris or other buil -ng or structural remains,... for more than thirty days after the estruction, demolition or removal of any building or portion f the building- . (b) This section shall not apply authorized con- struction projects with reasonable safegu ds to prevent injury or death to playing children. (Ord. 6-20 §4(Exhibit C(5) (5)) , 1986)- 7.40-120 Scattering rubbish. No person sh i deposit-. upon public or private property any kind of rabbis trash, debris, refuse, or and substance that would mar-the ear- - ance, create a stench or fire hazard, detract from the lean- liness or safety of the property, or would.be likely to injure a person, animal, or vehicle traveling upon a publi way- (Ord- 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)16)), 1986). ARTICLE IV_ NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE 7_40_130 Noise--Definitions- For purposes of this section and Sections 7.40.130 through 7_40.200, the following mean: ;a) "Ambient noise".means the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a com- posite of sounds from many sources, near and far. (b) "Noise-sensitive property" means real property on which people normally sleep and, in addition, schools, churches, hospitals and public libraries- (Ord- 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (a)) , 1986)- 7-40-140 Motor vehicle noises. No person shall operate a motor vehicle in such a manner or at such a location as to cause the noise created by the vehicle to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to ex- teed the levels specified in Section 7.40.160, as measured 87-1 (Tigard 8/15/86) r 7_40_150--7_40.180 J: % at a point located twenty-five feet from the noise-sensitive structure toward the noise source- (Ord- 86-20-§4(Exhibit C(6) (1) (b)) , 1986) . 7-40-150 [poise emanating from certain property- Except as may be expressly allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.40.220, no person shall cause or permit noise to emanate.from the property under his or her control so as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to exceed the levels set forth in Section 7_40.160, as measured at a point located twenty-five feet from the noise-sensitive structure toward the noise source. (Ord- 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (c)) , 1986). 7_40.1.60 Allowable noise limits- Allowable noise limits are as follows: _ Time Maximum Noise Level, DBA 7:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m. 60 10:00 p_m_ 7:00 a.m. 55 (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (d)) , 1986) _ 7_40.170 Noise--Exemptions.to restrictions. The re-. strictions imposed by Sections 7:40_140 through 7..40.160 of " this chapter shall not apply to the following: (a) Emergency equipment not operating on a regular or scheduled basis; (b) Noise emanating from the Pacific Highway, Highway I-217 and Highway I-5; (c) Sounds originating on construction sites and rea- sonably necessary to the accomplishment of work in progress; provided, however, that no construction work may be carried on between the hours of nine p.m_. and seven a_m_, except for bona fide emergencies where the public health or safety is threatened or which a special permit, granted by the•city council, has been first obtained. Any such special permit k may be granted by the city council only after first having held a hearing and having otherwise followed the administra- tive procedures contained in Chapter 18_32 of this code; (d) Emergency repair equipment not operated on a regu- lar or scheduled basis; (e) Lawn, garden or household equipment associated with the normal repair, upkeep or maintenance of"property. (Ord- 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (e)) , 1986)- 7-40-180 Jake brakes prohibited- No person shall operate within the city limits of the city of Tigard a motor vehicle exhaust-braking system commonly known as a "jake brake-" For the purposes of this section, the exceptions set forth in Section 7.40.170 shall not apply, and this T f. 87-2 O'i"gard 1/15/67) t. Shee ~h~~Z y+?d- 7.40.190--7.40.210 section shall be read as an absolute prohibition of the operation of such motor vehicle braking systems within the city of Tigard- (Oird_ 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (l.) (f)) , 1986) _ 7.40.190 Sound-amplifying equipment restrictions. No person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from sound- amplifying equipment under their control so as-to cause the ambient noise level to exceed sixty DBA at any distance one hundred feet or more from the sources between the hours of seven a_m_ and ten p.m., and fifty-five DBA one hundred feet from the source between the hours of ten p.m_ and seven a_m_ (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(6)(1)(g)), 1986)- 7-40-200 Violation--Penalty- Failure to abate the nuisance within the time allowed for abatement shall consti- tute a Class 1-civil infraction which shall be processed according to the procedures established in Chapter 1.16 of this code, Civil Infractions- (b) Each violation-of a separate provision of Sections . 7_40_130 through 7.40_200 shall constitute a separate in- fraction, and each day that a violation of such sections is committed or permitted.to continue shall constitute a sep- arate violation- (c) A finding of a violation of Sections 7.4.0_130 through 7.40_200 and•imposition of a civil penalty shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate-the vio- lation, except where -thecity has acted'to abate the nuisance. In such a situation,---the responsible party shall be liable for the costs pursuant to Section 1.16.340 of the civil in- fractions ordinance codified in Chapter 1.16 of this code- (d) If a provision of Sections 7_40_130 through 7_40- .200 is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or of:_icers, or, person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this section. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (h)) , 1986) . ARTICLE V_ EVENTS USING AMPLIFIED SOUND 7_40_210 Permits required for certain events. (a) The use of amplified voice and music at levels which would ` otherwise exceed those permissible.under Sections 7.40.130 -through 7.40_200 may be allowed upon application to the city administrator- Application for an amplified sound permit shall be made to the city administrator on forms prepared by the city- The applicant shall identify the date, location and time of the event for which the permit is sought, and shall provide an estimate of the duration of the event. (b) In the case of a series bf similar events (for example, a season's high school football games), to be con- ducted at-the same location, the city administrator may, in his discretion, issue the permit in a form extending to cover 87-3 (Tigard 8/15/86) t" 7.40.220 the entire series. In that-event, the permit shall be.sub- ject to the administrator's withdrawal at any time. (c) The city administrator shall grant a permit in any instance in which the event and its accompanying noise will not, in his judgment, interfere unreasonably with the peace of those likely to be affected by the noise. In making this judgment, he shall take into account the nature of the sur- rounding properties and the benefit to the community of the event for which the application is made- (d) The city administrator may submit any question arising with respect to this section to the city council, and if any-member of the city council requests its submission to the council, any such question shall be heard by the council- In either event, the decision of the city council shall be final- (e) No permit authorized by this section shall give the applicant the right to cause or permit sound to emanate from the property on which the event is held so as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to exceed fifty-five DBA after the hour of eleven p.m. (Ord- 86-20 94 (Exhibit C(4)(7)1986)_ ARTICLE VI. VIOLATION--PENALTY 7.40.220 Penalty.for chapter violations- (a) A vio- lation of this chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction; which shall be processed according tb the proce- ; dures established in-the civil infractions ordinance, set out at Chapter 1_16 of this 'code- Notice to abate'the nui- sance shall be a prior contract- (b) Each violation of a separate provision of this chapter shall constitute a separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate infraction- (c) A finding of a violation of this chapter shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the vio- lation. The penalties imposed by-this section are in addi- tion to and not in lieu of any remedies available to the city. (d) -If a provision of this chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers; or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this chapter- (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(8)) ; 1986). 87-4 (Tigard 8/15/86) :-t- JAN-22-'90 MON :5:55 ID:D.E.Q. TEL NO: 503 229 6124 4700 P02/03 5e nda 4:~ 1 /av JuR any 22, 1990 Senior Planner P.G. Boot 23397 Tigard, CR 97223 Dear Keith: Just a feat C 9 regarding the Jammiy 10, 1990 redraft of Tigard's pzoposed noise contml ordinanos. The ambient noise data included in your memo to the city council is typical of caIIwcial areas adjacent to major roadways. Due to the limited information provided, it is not possible to determine if the ambient noise levels meamured are rgnweYtative during the late evening, nighttime, and early morning perriwA. If similar data was collected within a residential area removed from traffic noise and eo rercial developTent, I suspect the iniigenow noise levels would prove to be several decibels lower and more in aligr=* with the noise standards originally considered by the cou=il. If the City elects alternative 1, ing State noise regulations by referenoe, it Should be noted. that t~ option would be lass pr+ot®ctive and %xvVrAhensive than earlier proposals. For woup le, state regulations do not cover neighbor to-neighbor noise conflicts nor do they necessarily provide a M *ection level aeoeptable to the public for intermittent noises such as public address systems and clanging and banging noises often associated with certain categ=ies of ommarc ial and industrial noise gourds adjacent to noise sensitive yrnpe Jes. Also, the U metric often falls Short of public acceptability when applied to such soamrm or aMlified music. Therefore, you may wish to consider a I=x standard for ingpul.sive and mo mic noise p~rahlen~. ' should Tigard opt for modifying your latest prcposed ordinance, alternative 2, you may wish to consider adopting tighter standards than EM, but add a spacial alZowancs for =miercial and industrial sources i gmcting noise sensitive prapesties located within areas experiencing elevated noise levels due to traffic and othw extraneous noise sources. Such a provision could allow for daytime and nighttime standards of 55 and 50 decibels in lieu of the 50 and 45 decibel standards originally considered. Applying the tighter standards to the quieter areas is =wistent with the fomm of previous draft ordirwxxs and can be met through the application of "best available noise control tectmlogy". With respect to regulating oocm vial-ta~anenarcial and Ira) trial-op- industrial noise sources, consideration should be given to exeapting them e• ; Y JAN-22-'90 MON 15:56 ID: D. E. 0. TEL NO: 503 229 6124 3#700 P03/03 ~ iGeith S. Idden %TWUMT 22, 1"0 Page 2 f= the noise stardarft unless they are affecting a noise sensitive prq= t i"• to strangly suppozts Your prt cposel to require noise analyses of future dave2a~pment as a part Qx site plan review and aacmditica al use permit Preywtich ehonld ka given a very high priority for the benefit of the =mx rcia]. interests and to assure the livability of your c=mVUnity. If Z can be of further ami,stesno>e~plaass call me at 229-5989. Sincerely, Zwxy L. , Iwnacgsr Noieo Control 6 ion Air Quality Division