Loading...
City Council Packet - 12/10/1990 i t • ~ 2 I CITY OF TIGARD OREGON AGENDA PUBLIC NOTICE: Arryone wishing to speak on an agenda item appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet Is <:EiFIi>''`<<<><~»»'><<< n o n th should sign the h I-R available, at th e ask to be recognized by the Mayor beginning items are asked to be of that agenda item. 1/Isltor's Agenda two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future either the Mayor or the C tin Agenda by cork 9 kY Administrator. • STUDY SESSION (6:00 p.m.) Council DISCL s5:On: Response to Metro's Proposed Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) - Workshop with Library Board (6:30 p.m.) 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 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 City Council Minutes: October 15 and 22, 1990 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Bid Award for Durham Road at 92nd Avenue Traffic Signal b. Bid Award for Surnmerlake Playground, Irrigation and Landscaping CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING - STREET VACATION FOR PORTIONS OF SW 74TH AVENUE (JOLLY) • Public Hearing continued from October 8, 1990 Summation by Community Development Staff • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council: Consideration of Ordinance No. 90--%-) 5. PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27 APPEAL FOR SHERWOOD INN - An appeal of a Planning Commission decision for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to allow two freestanding, freeway oriented signs where only one is permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign of approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 65 feet and one sign of approximately 698 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 69.75 fee where the Code specifies a maximum allowable sign area of 160 square feet per sign ,face and maximum allowable height •of35 feet. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Community Development Code chapters 18.114 and 18.134. LOCATION: 15700 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road (1NCTM 2S1 1213D, Tax Lots 900, 100, and 1100) • Public Hearing Opened Declarations or Challenges • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents (For Appeal) - Opponents (Against Appeal) • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council: Consideration of Ordinance No. 90-- 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 90-0002 - Council reviewed the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code on August 27, 1990, and at a subsequent study session. Said amendments pertain to procedures (Chapter 18.32), lot line adjustments and partitions (Chapter 18.162), and care facilities (Chapter 18.42). • Public Hearing Continued • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council: Consideration of Ordinance No. 90- 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 2 8. EXECUTIVE 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. 9. ADJOURNMENT cca1210 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 3 _ , COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. -~•1 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1990 6:00 p.m. i 4 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ron Bunch, Senior Planner; Keith Liden, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Tim Ramis, City Attorney (arrived 6:25 p.m.) and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. 2. STUDY SESSION Discussion on Metro's Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives Community Development Director facilitated Council discussion on Metro's proposed Regional Goals and Objectives. The Goals and Objectives document is a major policy document that may affect decisions on the Urban Growth Boundary; regional public investment strategies; land use patterns and requirements; and intergovernmental relations. ; The Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) document was released in August of 1990, after being developed i by Metro staff in conjunction with a Policy Advisory Committee F and Technical Advisory Committee. It was in response to a directive from the Legislature to develop a set of land use planning goals and objectives for the purpose of providing better planning co-ordination within the region. It was also seen as a necessary tool with which to manage the Urban Growth Boundary. The Council received a copy of the document at its September 10, 1990 workshop with the Planning commission, at which Metro staff reviewed the process and the document. (City Attorney arrived 6:25 p.m.) Community Development Director highlighted some of the issues surrounding process concerns. Issues specific to Tigard included: • Maintenance of local land use planning and regulatory control CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 1 } 1 • Maintenance of a voice in the development of regional plans and policies that affect our citizens • Addition of certainty to urban growth boundary (UGB) decisions • Reduction of level of urban development within UGB, but outside City limits • Designation as an activity center ...get regional acceptance of City plans • Enhancement of family wage jobs availability • Reduction of congestion; increase "connectedness" and mobility Tigard elected officials and staff members will attend a Washington County Public Officials Caucus on December 13. Mr. Rich Carlson, Metro Director for Planning and Development will speak on RUGGO. Caucus discussion will focus on potential outcomes of the study; ultimate authority of Metro; impacts of the identified goals and objectives; and the future of local land use planning in the metropolitan area. Library Board Work Session Library Board Members Present: Amo Debernardis, Chairperson; Susan Grossen, Linda Monahan, and Leslie Wismer. Also present was Yvonne Burgess who is the Tigard representative to the Cooperative Library Advisory Board (Washington County). Library Board Chair Amo Debernardis comments are highlighted below: • Complimented the Mayor and Council for their response and approach since voter approval of Ballot Measure 5. • Library has 70,000 units of items available for circulation. • Library has 145,000 visits per year. • Circulation count for last year: 282,000 • Sunday hours have been very successful. • Commented on future technological changes. • Education network continues to grow. • Possible satellite service needed in the near future; i.e., satellite station located at Washington Square • Business community use will continue to expand • Tigard Board will continue to interact with the Washington County Cooperative Library Service (WCCLS). • Tigard Board has reviewed their own role and framework of their duties/responsibilities. There was discussion on book/material censorship. Librarian Ertell noted a recent promotion of "Banned Book Week." So far, the process for reviewing "questionable" material has :corked very well. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 2 Librarian Ertell gave a brief report on the Educational Services Program which has been well received and is growing. In addition, the Library is looking at a cooperative venture for an indoor park. Council meeting recessed: 6:55 p.m. Council meeting reconvened: 7:00 p.m. Change in Meeting Day Council consensus was to change the regular Council meeting from Monday to Tuesday evening on a six-month trial basis. This will begin in January with the first meeting of the year being January 15, 1990. Agenda Review Council and staff briefly reviewed the business meeting agenda. 3. NON-AGENDA Mayor Edwards, on behalf of the entire Council, congratulated the Tigard High School Football Team on their 1990 State Champion status. Mayor attended an awards ceremony at the High School earlier in the week and presented the team with a Key to the City. 4. VISITOR'S AGENDA Debbie and Steve Mangold presented documentation (material has been filed with the meeting packet information) and informed Council of their problems with a non-conforming use occurring in a residential area. Schmidt Sanitary Service operation is near the Mangold's property. The Mangold's contend that the non-conforming use has been allowed to expand with additional trucks and storage of dumpsters over the years. There was a recent City decision to deny a request to keep underground storage tanks. Staff responded to Council questions and noted that underground storage tanks would be removed in January. The business had existed at this location prior to the residential zoning. After discussion, council consensus was to direct staff to prepare a report addressing the concerns with the growth of the business; whether or not required approvals were received; and what types of activity would be permitted in the future. Staff was further directed to mail a copy of this report to the Mangolds. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 3 s 5. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Council Schwartz, seconded by councilor Kasten, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: .1 Approve City Council Minutes: October 15 and 22, 1990 .2 Receive and File: Council Calendar .3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Bid Award for Durham Road at 92nd Avenue Traffic Signal b. Bid Award for Summerlake Playground, Irrigation and Landscaping 6. PUBLIC FEARING - STREET VACATION FOR PORTIONS OF S.W. 74th AVENUE (JOLLY) a. The public hearing was continued from October 8, 1990. b. Senior Planner Liden presented the staff report. on October 8, the Council decided to postpone the vacation action until questions raised by the public and Council could be addressed. A revised recommendation was submitted for Council review (see November 29, 1990 memorandum from Keith Liden to Ed Murphy which has been filed with packet material). City Administrator reviewed methods of creating and/or preserving a public utility easement for future storm and sanitary sewer service needs in the surrounding area. C. Public testimony: • Raymond Ems, 13400 S.W. 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223 requested that the request for vacation be held in abeyance until the sewer line was built. • Paul Warner, 10300 S.W. Century Oak Drive, Tigard, Oregon advised he owns property near subject area. He requested delay of the vacation until after the sewer line was extended through the property to be vacated. • Anthony Maksym, 13565 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223, also noted he would like to see the sewer extension built before the property was vacated. He advised delay of the vacation because he believed: 1) adjacent development was imminent; and 2) 30-year old septic tanks may need sewer connections very soon. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 4 d. Council discussion followed. Legal Counsel suggested wording adding conditions to the easement (modifying Section 2.2 of the proposed ordinance). As long as the easement was in place, the right to extend the sewer would exist. e. Public hearing was closed. f. Council consensus was that the proposed ordinance would vacate a portion of street right-of-way. The question of the sewer easement was a development issue which should be reviewed separately. Council agreed that the language for Section 2.2 of the proposed ordinance, as presented by the City Attorney should read as follows: Use of the area subject to the 50 foot wide nonexclusive public utility easement shall be limited. No building or structure shall be located in the easement area. No fence, wall, pavement, playground equipment or other immovable object or fixture shall be located in the easement area until after the public utilities have been installed. No trees, shrubs, bushes, plants or other landscaping shall be permitted in the easement area until after the public utilities have been installed. Ground cover such as turf, grass or barkdust is permitted at all times. These restrictions shall be added to the public utility easement. g. ORDINANCE NO. 90-40 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE SW 74TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF SW CHERRY DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. h. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 90-40 with Section 2.2 amended as proposed by the city Attorney. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 7. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING--SHERWOOD INN - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 90-05"AR 90-27 a. The appellant requested this hearing be set over. Council continued the hearing to the January 22, 1990 meeting. 8. PUBLIC HEARING--- ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 90-0002 a. Public hearing was opened. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 5 b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the staff report. The changes to the Community Development Code pertain to procedures (Chapter 18.162), lot line adjustments and partitions (Chapter 18.162), and care facilities (Chapter 18.42). The revisions were outlined in Mr. Liden's memo dated November 15, 1990 (see Council packet material). d. Councilor Johnson noted concerns with definitions in care facilities. She questioned whether the definitions should be so explicit that it may appear that the City would regulate and monitor operations of care facilities. Senior Planner Liden advised that the definitions were the same as the definitions used by the State. It is the x States responsibility to administer regulations over the actual care facility function. The City of Tigard was utilizing the definition only to acknowledge that such use would be acceptable in certain zones. If the use is not specifically mentioned, the implication would be that the use was not permitted. Councilor Johnson advised she would not be in favor of the ordinance language with the definitions for care facilities as presented. She said the definitions imply enforcement issues. e. Council and staff reviewed the provisions of the ordinance in general. f. Public hearing was closed. g. ORDINANCE NO. 90-41 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 90- 0003) INITIATED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. h. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt ordinance No. 90-41. The motion was approved by a majority (4-1) vote of Council present; Councilor Johnson voted "Nay." Mayor Edwards announced the Ordinance would be read a second time on December 17, 1991. Council would vote again on ordinance No. 90-41 at that meeting. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 8:51 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1990 PAGE 6 E f. i Executive Session meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: NETRO REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Council concluded discussion on the Study Session topic (see Pages 1 and 2 of these minutes. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. La~~~ ' - - Catherine Wheatley, ity Reco er ATT ST: G ald R. Edwards, Mayor Date: cw/ccm1210 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1990 - PAGE 7 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal 7774 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice' BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising p ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice City of Tigard P.O Box 23397 Tha following meeting information: is pubIbhed for=yonr. jnformadon' E licate Affidat $ Fuither infflmiation'may be obtamed'from the:C T25 ❑ Dup 'S W Tigard, OR 97223 gand OR 97223 ~gon 97223, orb11 glling39.4f71 - Hall Boulevard, Tigard Ore ® a t C'IT'Y E>OUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING Y TIG CIVIC CENTER TOWN HALE BOULEVARD TIGARD OREGO~§. t Warlstiop Mee%ng vintfi Library Board (ti:30 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Public Heanngs~' Conti-6`a" on of Aibhc Aeanng Review of Community; STATE OF OREGON, ) D6VeIgpment ;Code and Comprehensive~P)aie Jtevisions APeriodic:? COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss- Review) Sections to be discussed m Title 18'ifidude Procedairs.: for Decisioii-Mahn Quasi judicial, :Land piytsion Mayor and:. I, Judith Koehler ~ Land Partitioning Lot Line Adjustment; •:and Care' being first duly sworn, depose ands that LL the Advertising Facilities {Continue to'Solar Access to January 21,199f~ F Director, or his clerk, of thellgarcl`imes principal St Code Exception A~peal~ Feiryman/SherwoodIrm ti a newspaper of general circutilion ar. defined in ORS 193.010 Ja jy s ~ Right-of Wad Vacation (Pbrtiiyn of S:W''14th Avenue) and 193.020; published at g in the • Local Contract;RevtewBOard. " k ~~xiz ti3 of fY r esai count a d state; th th . ContmuePublic- H tings~,,to December l0; i990 J Gpit ~ounci~l ~usiness ~Ieeling Jolly!StreetRight~f:Way~Vacation (Portion of 5;W 74th ASenue • :Local Contract Review Boaetil, o ;4-,?1`. a prints copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the a :Executive Session ` ThgxZSgard:City Ctfuncihwill,go into Executive r entir issue of said newspaper for One successive and TT7 .Sesston;mnc~er the prpvisionsaofzORS~19b60 {1) (d);.,(c)~ ~,(h)Tto:;; nsecutive in the following issues: discuss labor relat►ons, real property iransacttons;.CUrrent and ding: litigation issues'; r t N~ December 6 1990 T74 PubLsh DecemberL6,1990 , Subscribed and swot to before me this 6th of Dec. 1990 - Z-11 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT -AGENDA;-ITEM NO.,. 2 VISITOR"S AGENDA DATE: 12/10/90 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) f Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda itemss. 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. r NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED 7 ~LC-i T ~-1 lr~ ~E~ r~r-s~~..r~C~c~t r-~_~,-~i~r~r~ S.~uC. , ED Nl~t~2pt~~/ F f 1 i i r. Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO.'4 DATE: 12/10/90 PUBLIC HEARING - STREET VACATION FOR PORTIONS OF 74TH AVENUE (JOLLY") (CONTINUED FROM October 8, 1990) PLEA.S& PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS ~ / 36 a .9 uJ a, ~ut E i v j--., Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: 12/10/90 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 90-0002 (PROCEDURES LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS & PARTITIONS, CARE FACILITIES.) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS l CI'T'Y OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING F' In the Matter of the Proposed Q! ~i iiCLvi~e CI 0 - q y STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I, cs- ~A_I~,yV~SLXQ1L begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the f lowing public and conspicuous places, a copy of g Ordinance Nunber(s) q 0 - - - which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated -3 ~ L \ copy(s) of said ordinance(s) be' hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 1 -1 date ofJ XZJLJN~, 1990. 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. US National`Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Al.bertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. ( State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this date o 1L.~~s?art-~2~ , 19 ~U. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: / ke/GWPOST CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 90- 410 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE SW 74TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF SW CHERRY DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this vacation is to vacate an unimproved portion of SW 74th Avenue that is not needed for. vehicular access; and WHEREAS, the abutting property owners, Wayne and Joyce Jolly, support the vacation; and F. WHEREAS, all affected service providers including utility companies and emergency services have reviewed the vacation proposal and have no objections or concerns; and WHEREAS, in accordance with ORS 271.100, the TMC 15.08.110, the Council fixed a time and place for the public hearing and the Recorder published notice and posted notice in the area to be vacated; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners - in the affected area, as described by ORS 271.080; and s E WHEREAS, the Council, having held hearings on August 27, 1990, October 8, 1990, and December 10, 1990 finds the public interest will not be prejudiced by the vacation as provided by ORS 271.120 and x, TMC 15.08.130; and WHEREAS, the Council finds it is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate the unimproved portion of SW 74th Avenue located south of SW Cherry Drive; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the following conditions are necessary to vacate said land. 1. The applicant shall provide a 50 foot wide public utility easement. The easement shall be approved by the Engineering Department and the City Attorney and recorded with Washington County. 2. The vacation shall not be effective until the effective date of this ordinance, and a certified copy of this ordinance has been recorded with the Washington County Clerk, Assessor, and Surveyor. ORDINANCE NO. 90-40 4 THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: G SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of the unimproved portion of SW 74th Avenue located south of SW Cherry Drive, as shown on the attached "Exhibit A" and described on the attached "Exhibit B", and by this reference made part hereof. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the vacation be subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to being recorded, a 50 foot wide nonexclusive public utility easement shall be dedicated for the area occupied by the public street right-of-way to be vacated. 2. Use of the area subject to the 50 foot wide nonexclusive public utility easement shall be limited. No building or structure shall be located in the easement area. No fence, wall, pavement, playground equipment or other immovable object or fixture shall be located in the easement area until after the public utilities have been installed. No trees, shrubs, bushes, plants or other landscaping shall be permitted in the easement area until after the public utilities have been installed. Ground cover such as turf, grass or barkdust is permitted at all times. These restrictions shall be added to the public utility easement. SECTION 3: This ordinance be effective on the 31st day after its enactment by the City Council, approval by the Mayor, and after a certified copy of this ordinance has been recorded C with the Washington County Clerk, Assessor, and Surveyor. PASSED: By Utktn imou5 vote of the Council members present after being read by number and title ecernbJi , 1990. only, this ID`day of Q erine Wheatl City Rec:or r APPROVED: This day of LrC2rn'1,-L 1990. 61" Gerald wards, Mayor 74VAC.ORDAd ORDINANCE NO. 90-4 S.W. Q V/\RNS ST_ f s 1M VARNS Sl to EMBBIT A S.W. FIR S T. td Sr Q 3 s .W. cn ti DR. 3 S. W. vla vi 'I L AREA To BE VACATED S.W. TECH CENTER DRIVE S.W C_ANDMAR C_ EXHIBIT "B" That portion of land in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the initial point of Rolling Hills - Plat 2, recorded in Book 21, on Page 46, in said County's Plat Records; running thence South 88° 48' East a distance of 50.0 feet; thence North 010 06' East a distance of 180.0 feet; thence North 880 48' West a distance of 50.0 feet; thence South 010 06' West a distance of 180.0 feet to the point of beginning of this description, containing 9000 square feet of area. br/ExhB.vg i f COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM - STuDY ~SION CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 10. 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: November 30. 1990 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Response to pro- PREVIOUS ACTION: Council and Planning Posed Regional Goals and Obiectives Commission Meeting with Metro PREPARED BY. Ed Murphy DEPT HEAD OI ITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE s Should the City Council respond to the proposed Regional Goals and Objectives, and if so, what should i its response be? The Goals and Objectives document is a major policy document that may affect decisions on the Urban Growth Boundary; regional public investment strategies; land use patterns and } requirements; and intergovernmental relations. d S s. 's INFORMATION SUMMARY The Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) document was released in August of 1990,; after being developed by Metro staff in conjunction with a Policy Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. It was in response to a directive from the legislature (ORS 268.380) to develop a set of land use planning goals and objectives for the purpose of providing better planning co-ordination within the region. It was also seen as a necessary tool with which to manage the Urban Growth Boundary. The Council received a copy of the document at its September 10, 1990 workshop with the Planning Commission, at which Metro staff reviewed the process and the document. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could: 1). not respond at all; 2). respond to the process by which the Goals are being developed, or to the general nature and extent of the goals and objectives; 3). respond in detail to the goals and objectives. FISCAL IMPACT Unknown at this time. SUGGESTED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council submit a letter to Metro suggesting that the commenting time be extended, and addressing other general concerns; and follow the letter up later with more specific comments on the language of the goals and objections. J . ejm/ruggo.sum r ;z rr,: h1EMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator November 29, 1990 FROM: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Metro proposed Goals and Objectives At a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on September 10, 1990, a copy of the recent Metro document, Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, was distributed, and an overview of that document was given by two Metro staff members, Ethan Selzner and Mark Turpel. On December 13th, the Tigard City Council members have been invited to participate in a "Washington County Public Officials Caucus" to discuss this document further with Metro staff and with other elected local government officials. This memo is intended to assist you and the City Councilors to prepare for that meeting, as well as to outline some potential comments that the City Council may want to submit to Metro as written testimony. This memo is divided into four parts. 1). an overview of the process, review time, and meaning of the Goals and Objectives document (henceforth called RUGGO); 2). a letter that should be sent to Metro as soon as possible; 3). a "thematic analysis" of the RUGGO document and 4). a point-by-point review of the language in the document. ! Part One--Overview FORMULATION OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES These goals and objectives have been formulated over the last eighteen months by a Policy Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of representatives of the counties and cities within the area covered by the regional Urban Growth Boundary. (Members of each committee are listed in the front of the RUGGO document). This RUGGO document is essentially a product of a directive by the legislature that Metro develop a set of land use planning goals and objectives for purposes of planning coordination in the region; and of Metro's identified need for a policy framework for guiding its regional planning program and for managing the regional urban growth boundary. RUGGO was also derived from a series of public workshops held around the region in the fall of 1989, and from a Regional Growth Conference held in January 1990. SCHEDULE PRIOR TO ADOPTION The goals and objective are currently being reviewed by all jurisdictions within the Metro region, as well as State agencies, economic development organizations and other interested parties. Originally, the intent was to present a final draft to the Metro Council in late 1990, and the deadline for comments was December 10th. However, it now appears that the commenting period will be extended, and the final proposal will not be put before the Metro Council until at least January, if not February or later. At any rate, Metro still wishes comments in as soon as possible. Once the comments are in, Metro's Policy Advisory Committee for the Regional Goals and Objectives will make a final determination on what to include in the final document to be submitted to the Metro Council. It is expected that the Metro Council - Page 1 - will adopt a set of goals and objectives. Exactly what the implications are of that adoption, or what the next steps are after adoption, are not clear at this time. STAFF REVIEW PROCEDURES Staff review so far has been limited to just myself. However, I have been meeting with a group of Planning Directors within the Metro area (formed under the wing of the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association), to review the RUGGO document. I have also discussed the document with staff and board members of TVEDC, and with Metro staff. In addition, I have received copies of the comments submitted by several of the state agencies that make up the State Agency Co-ordinating Council, as well as the draft comments to the Portland Planning Commission by city of Portland staff members from several different bureaus. GENERAL CONTENT OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Some of the staff of the City of Portland's Office of Transportation outlined the Goals and Objectives as being based on the following principals, which I believe provides a concise and accurate summary: An Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) containing up to a 20-year supply of land for new urban development within the urban metropolitan areas of Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties. • Identified urban reserve areas outside the current UGB which could accommodate metropolitan development for approximately 50 years. • An identified system of subcenters (economic activity centers) which are concentrations of higher density, higher intensity land uses and other facilities. • An environmental strategy composed of policies to protect the region's natural and recreational resources. • Design policies to help make communities hospitable to pedestrians and transit. • An urban growth management program which includes management of the density and location of development within the UGB. Specifically, the document contains four goals and 15 objectives covering the following topics: Goal 1 covers the built environment of the region and includes objectives for: housing, public services and facilities; transportation; and economic opportunity. Key objectives call for: a new regional housing policy-, concurrent funding for public services and facilities; and transportation system mobility priorities. Goal 2 covers the natural environment of the region and includes objectives for water resources; air resources; natural areas; parks and wildlife habitat; and agricultural and forest lands. Key objectives include: a system of regionally significant interconnected open space and wildlife habitat; an urban growth boundary which in some areas will form a sharp divide between rural and urban lands while in other areas there will be a more gradual transition from urban to rural; and a system of priorities for including additional land within the UGB. - Page 2 - r r i F, Goal 3 covers urban form including: the urban rural boundary; objectives for the urban land within the boundary; and urban design considerations. Key objectives include: an urban growth boundary containing a 20-year supply of vacant developable land; an urban reserve with a 50-year supply of vacant developable land, to be updated every 15 years; development controls in urban reserve areas; designated economic activity centers; pedestrian-friendly and transit-supportive urban design; and a public legislative process for amending the UGB, rather than the present process which is to respond to private requests to amend the boundary. Goal 4, the final goal, covers Metro's planning process, including objectives for: citizen participation, notification; and amendment to the goals and objectives." APPLICATION OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Again, borrowing from other staff reports, the Portland Development Commission's staff writes the following. "The goals and objectives contained in this document will technically belong to Metro; by intent and application they will functionally belong to and require implementation by the individual jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations within the region as a cooperative whole. The extent that Metro can implement these goals is currently limited to the areas over which Metro has responsibility, which is primarily the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and the management of the region's UGB. State legislation, however, gives Metro the responsibility for preparing regional functional plans. The only functional plans which Metro has so far prepared are for transportation and solid waste. It performs some coordination functions in respect to air quality and for the past year or so has undertaken some inventory and coordination work in parks and open space, water resources, and economic development. Except in transportation and solid waste planning, its staff resources in other planning areas are limited. Implicit in the goals and objectives as stated, however, is a much more extensive regional planning role for Metro, especially with regard to: 1. Housing 2. Economic Development 3. Water Resources 4. Air Quality (an expanded role) 5. Natural Areas, Parks and Wildlife Habitat 6. Landscape Analysis 7. Agriculture and Forest Resource Lands Evaluation 8. Assessment of the redevelopment and infill potential of the region 9. Designation of Regional "Activity Centers" 10. Urban Design The adoption of the Goals and Objectives by Metro will be binding on all Metro's planning activities, including possible new activities outlined above. Ultimately, the goals and objectives could also affect the comprehensive plans of local jurisdictions as local and regional plans are inter-related in the future." 4 - Page 3 - ,,;:.Iis,.~::aoiyL,,,.. ....:W... . ;..;ci:+.c6:.......:eu; ~ssL e~ urr..:.xa:.'».uiau~3~,.wa:::emn.:a.:.;,n.,...,....,.....,..,....~..-..v,<+.........s...........,.._.~._,_..a,<,_._.._.,-.s,,.,,...,.,~u.....,-.,.....W.».»...~.....~..._............,..w...-....____. HOW DOES ALL OF THIS AFFECT THE CITY OF TIGARD? ' Although it is not certain as yet how these goals and objectives could be implemented, it is likely that, ultimately, decisions made by State agencies on programs and funding, decisions made about the urban growth boundary, and decisions made by local governments in their comprehensive plans will be shaped or guided by them. Specifically, RUGGO will influence: * the Urban Growth Boundary in this area The City may want the urban growth boundary expanded, or may want it kept just where it is. It may want to keep it where it is for the next 15-20 years, but know that ultimately it will be expanded to the west beyond that time period. * the identity of Tigard, as separate from surrounding--and especially outlying--communities. Concepts such as preserving open space, (including agricultural land, parks and greenways), as a way of preserving community identity are included. In particular, this may lead to methods that will help Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood from growing into each other, and becoming indistinguishable. * the creation of major activities centers such as the Washington Square/Lincoln Center area ..is a concept that could potentially benefit Tigard, Assuming Tigard was one of the centers. This could mean that higher priority would be assigned to those public improvements, such as highways and light rail, that supported the center. It could also mean that other cities in the region, (including Portland), and state agencies would not object to more intense land uses, such as was proposed as part of President's Parkway, or which may be proposed for the Triangle area * the roles and responsibilities for the provision of urban services, or the authority of a local government to make land use decisions within its' jurisdiction, may be affected. The question of roles and responsibilities has not yet been addressed. However, a number of concerns have been raised as to where the document is leading, since there is a clear implication that Metro may assume a much broader role in planning for the region than they currently do. Whether Metro is to manage, co-ordinate or implement any of these goals and objectives will be the subject of detailed discussion and careful deliberation in the future. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council discuss the RUGGO document and the process being used to create the document at their December 10th meeting. The Council should then send a letter (draft attached) to Metro expressing concern about the schedule, the lack of a longer term work program, and the issue of roles and responsibilities. They should also let Metro know that more comments on the actual document will be forthcoming. After the Council has met with other Washington County jurisdictions on December 13, it should discuss in more detail the specific proposed language, and stafl'suggestions for modification of that language, at its December 17th meeting. Those comments can then be forwarded to Metro late in December. EJM:Ruggo.2 C... - Page 4 - Part Two - DRAFT LETTER December 10, 1990 k CITY OF TIG D OREGON METRO Urban Growth Management Plan Policy Advisory Committee c/o Ethan Seltzer Metropolitan Service District 2000 SW First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201-5398 Dear Policy Advisory Members: The City of Tigard would like to commend you for taking the initiative and time to draft the "Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives" document. As this region continues to grow, the need to identify areas of regional concern, and better define a vision for the whole region, is critical. Also critical is the need for continued co-operation and collaboration among all the service providers in the region, and the inclusion of the general public in the planning process. Even though we appreciate the effort you are making, and we recognize the need for planning co- ordination within the region, we do have some concerns which we would like to express: 1. The timetable. The establishment of Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives is a very important undertaking. To be effective, they will require implementation by the individual jurisdictions, agencies and organizations within the region. If Metro is to adopt a set of Goals and Objectives, we would like to be assured that Metro has received and evaluated and responded to comments made by individual cities - and individual citizens who are affected. The time frame that was established, which was to present the RUGGO document to the Metro Council for adoption in December, is simply not adequate accommodate the our desire to fully evaluate and comment on the document. We recommend that the date for comments be extended by at least two more months; and that Cities and interested parties have the opportunity to review and comment on the final draft that will be presented to the Metro Council. A little more time to provide further education and collaborative efforts will reap long-term benefits for everyone. 2. Identify the Problem. Just reading through the proposed Goals and Objectives, it is not clear just what the problems are that the Goals and Objectives are trying to address. It would be helpful if it would made clearer just what we as a region are trying to achieve, or at least avoid, and how the adoption of the RUGGO document will help us to achieve what we want to achieve as a region. 3. Propose an implementation program. Before endorsing the document, either as it is now or as it may be re-written, we wish to know more about what Metro's next steps might be. A work program should be outlined that identifies where functional plans may be considered; how the functional planning process may be carried out; how local governments may participate in the functional planning process; and how the adopted goals and objectives would be reviewed and evaluated over time. 4. Propose the most likely decision making structure. We do not believe that the goals and objectives should be adopted until there is some consensus on roles and responsibilities, or at least an agreed upon process to define roles and responsibilities. Obviously, the issues surrounding roles and responsibilities are complex and will involve hours of deliberation over time. Yet, a general plan of how and when these issues will be discussed, and what some of the more obvious alternatives are, is certainly a legitimate request. 13125 SW Nail Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 METRO Urban Growth Management Plan Policy Advisory Committee Oo Ethan Seltzer Page 2 December 10, 1990 I The City of Tigard considers itself a player on the regional scene, and intends to be involved in the regional planning process now underway. We plan on sending in our initial comments on the RUGGO document by the end of December, but would hope that you will consider extending the comment deadline, and addressing the other issues listed above, before placing the document in front of the Metro Council for adoption. Thank you for the consideration we know you will give this request. Sincerely, Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor City of Tigard i i i v { i e Part Three--Thematic Analysis In response to the proposed Metro Goals and Objectives, several of the City Planning Directors in the region have been meeting as a group to discuss the document and the process. The Planning Directors are organized officially as a subcommittee of the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association, and are called the "Metro Land Use Analysis Committee". The Committee has consistently expressed concern about the approach being taken by Metro, believing that the starting point should have been a more participatory, visioning type of process that would present alternatives and their consequences of these alternatives from a regional viewpoint. The Committee has also expressed concern about the timeframe being followed, and has recommended that the timeframe be extended. Further, the committee was concerned that the issues surrounding roles and responsibilities was intentionally not addressed at this point, and that there did not seem to be a longer range work program for what was to follow next after these Goals and Objectives were adopted. Finally, the Committee felt that cities had not been brought into the discussion to a sufficient enough degree, and recommended (successfully) that Metro take the proposed Goals and Objectives out to every jurisdiction in the three county area In response to these concerns, the Planning Directors have done three things: 1. Communicated their concerns directly to Metro staff, especially about the time frame and the need to involve each jurisdiction's Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Applied for a grant from the Oregon Community Foundation, in co-operation with the Architectual Foundation of Oregon, that would identify some of the growth alternatives and their consequesnces, and graphically represent them. These alternatives would be publically reviewed, and one growth alternative finally selected. 3. conducted a "thematic analysis" of the proposed Goals and Objectives, rather than a point-by- point review of the proposed language. Although that thematic analysis is not completed in final form, it basically selected seven themes, which are presented below. From a regional perspective, the overall land use pattern of the region is a combination of all of the individual plans of the communities and counties within the region. The sum total of all of the individual plans do not necessarily provide solutions to the region-wide problems which affect us all. As those individual plans unfold, it is becomming apparent that some shifts in direction may be necessary to ensure a high quality of life in the future for residents of the metropolitan area - Page 1 - i i t t We propose that we focus on incremental policy and decision-making shifts along the lines of these seven key themes: 1. Maintaining and enhancing the roles of the region's cities in providing a full array of urban level services and a variety of governance systems. This is absolutely necessary to protect the region's diversity of identity, to maintain human scale within the region, and to sustain community pride and interest. 2. Separating the region as an urban area from the surrounding non-urban area by establishing a greenbelt around the urban growth boundary. We need new tools to preserve open space around the region. 3. Committing the region to major efforts to increase public transit options, non-vehicular circulation options, and demand management strategies. i t 4. Reorganizing land uses and working with policies that change neighborhood level settlement. patterns so that residents have opportunities to work, shop and recreate a little closer to home, and to practice a lessened dependency on the private automobile for transportation. 5. Protecting the public infrastructure and private investments thus far expended while designing stronger community anchor areas linked to one another and to the central city. 6. Greatly improving and enhancing the level of urban design for all portions of the region. 7. Recognizing and enhancing Portland central city as the region's major settlement anchor. Theme One: Cities as providers of a full array of urban services. Under Goal 14, cities are the most important entities to accomplish "orderly and efficient" urbanization within the UGB. Only cities can provide a full range of urban services supported by comprehensive urban planning and local land use controls, a mission not shared by Oregon counties or special districts. Past unguided urban growth policy might be represented by the fact that the region's biggest county once had the distinction of being America's largest unsewered urban area, a huge non-city. Incorporation, annexation, and a coordination of urban services by cities are important regional growth management strategies. The Draft needs to establish a direction. This may involve more debate on the roles and responsibilities of counties, special districts and cities in growth management. However, along with this debate, we believe diversity of city size and character, and preservation of various scales of local governance provides through time identity, community spirit and pride and a way for the region's inhabitants to relate to the larger metropolitan land use pattern. In examining RUGGO's Guiding Principles, there seems to be confusion between the concepts of "major urban centers" and "economic activity centers." Dispersed office/industrial corridors, such as Sunset or South Shore, are definitely economic activity centers, but is this what RUGGO means? Also proposed are - Page 2 - a limited number of mixed-use regional growth centers, which in the suburban version, may take on more compact, pedestrian-friendly forms, such as the prototype established by the new town center of Bellevue, Washington. These centers, as conceived in the "urban village" forms, are not exclusively "activity centers" unless they represent ways to enhance and preserve our concept of various scales of local governance. Regarding Goal 1, Objective 1 should recognize the role of city housing authorities, policies and programs. Conservation and rehabilitation of older housing stock in the region's cities is needed to address the housing issues cited in Objective 1. The blanket endorsement of "consolidation of service providers" in Public Services Objective 2 is not helpful without qualifications about how this concept affects coordination of urban services by cities, or other RUGGO objectives, especially urban form. Concerning Goal 2, special city environmental responsibilities need recognition in Objectives 5-8, such as the Portland CBD parking lid, local stormwater management plans, and the role of the city parks in a regional open space network. z Finally, Goal 3 may be the most important city responsibility in this RUGGO Draft. Objective 10 needs to recognize that redevelopment and infill are almost exclusively city opportunities Objective 11 t should recognize and strengthen the cities' role as the most active and influential local governments in. c guiding growth forms through urban design standards. Objectives 9, 10, and 12 should acknowledge a fact of life by recognizing that cities and their neighborhoods are the established focal points of the region's urban diversity-, new policies promoting "neighborhood oriented design" and "neighborhood activity centers" should be considered under Objectives 10 and 12. Theme Two Open space within the region; greenbelt separation from adjacent rural areas. This theme is generally supported throughout RUGGO's proposed objectives. Policy statements which directly or indirectly support the concept of maintaining a "greenbelt" around the urban area have the potential of conflicting with policies relating to expansion of the urban growth boundary. Most UGB expansion policy statements recognize only the need for additional land and do not dir ly take into consideration urban design or open space amenity factors in the criteria for UGB amendment. Policy 9.3 is excellent in expressing this value, but the same cannot be said for Policies 8.2, 11.4 and 11.5, where the emphasis is on need and public facility provision. At a minimum, land defined in Policy 8.1 and features described in 9.3 should be given greater support and weight in the UGB expansion criteria process. While the current criteria is weighted toward preservation of agricultural and forest lands, they do not recognize other natural amenities. Theme Three: Public transit and non-vehicular circulation options and demand management strategies. The RUGGO Draft does not contain policies contrary to this theme; most are either neutral or non-applicable. Support for increase in major effort for these concepts are found in Policies 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, -Page 3- r, yj; 4.39 10.3, and 12.3. What is not apparent in the Draft are non-capital approaches, such as pricing structures, including parking fees, gas prices, time-of-way pricing; traffic management options, such as work scheduling, incentives to businesses who encourage transit use or car-pooling; and traffic flow improvements, including HOrs, signal timing, accident management, et. Too much focus is on transit and economic activity centers with mixed use development, without consideration of the existing land use pattern where non-capital approaches such as behavior adjustment programs aimed at reducing trips per day (or during peak hours), ridesharing, transit subsidies, parking costs, or educational programs can be used more effectively. Finally, new technologies, such as telecommunications substitutes for travel, or videotext for shopping and business, or advanced traveler information services should be recognized as part of a cost- effective, non-capital-intensive program for bringing new options to the region's residents. Theme Four: Integrate work/play/shopping/recreation areas at the neighborhood level; create pockets of land use mexes where the automobile is not needed. The first part of the theme is addressed primarily in the Guiding Principles and in Section 3, Transportation. The second part of the theme is discussed somewhat under activity centers and the urban center, but is generally absent from the transportation section. In reducing the length of travel trips, some policies talk about the location of residential areas close to employment and shopping-, but there are no converse statements locating employment and shopping close to existing residential areas. Except for Policy 3.6, no proposed policies clearly detract from an intent of reducing auto dependence. However, the language may not reflect the seriousness of continued fragmentation of land uses. Furthermore, the concepts are often couched in terms not readily understood by the general public (for example, the concept of "balanced transportation% Statements about activity centers express the value of non-reliance on the automobile, but that concept is not part of the transportation section. Because auto congestion is identified closely with quality of life, and regional transportation efficiency is central to many other policy areas, it is doubtful that reducing auto dependency can be overemphasized. Theme Five: Linkage between existing infrastructure and identified community centers. The region has already invested in major public facilities, such as highways, transit lines, infrastucture and parks; it has also invested in major private facilites, including housing, shopping centers, office buildings and retail stores. That existing structure needs to be recognized and in many cases enhanced. In addition, there needs to be better linkages between those existing facilities and any newly emerging "activity centers". Several linkages, not now very apparent, may become much more important in the future if the region decides to identify a limited number of activity centers. Light rail, greenways, highways all provide linkages. - Page 4 - The RUGGO does not seem to give enough priority to the existing structure, nor does it suggest ways that the linkage concept could be further amplified. For instance, connecting activity centers with light rail and bus lines; or building up the housing density along a light rail route; or using greenways to connect major centers are all ways of emphasizing linkage. Theme Six: Enhanced urban design at all levels. From a regional perspective, the emphasis should be on those systems that are regional in nature, and which make up the urban design of the region. For instance, the design of transportation systems... highways, major arterials and mass transit systems, should be well designed. Signage, landscaping, lighting, sound walls, construction materials are all important. Especially those transportation systems that link major facilities, like the airport, or downtown Portland, or major parks, or economic centers. Perhaps a scenic overlay for major corridors that would deal with signage, building setbacks, landscaping, etc. Or policies that stressed the importance of good design as part of any state or federally funded project. Waterways provide another feature that is regional in nature. Not just the Willamette, but other rivers or streams, or lakes, could be considered for design enhancements. Again, setbacks, access, landscaping,etc. should be considered. Another key element from a regional standpoint would be the provision of open space in key areas. Perhaps the open spaces could also serve as recreational facilities, or storm water collection areas. Perhaps they could be part of the greenbelt, or the 50 year reserve. Altogether, the Goals and Objectives deal with design in the sense that we should create pedestrian friendly, mixed use, transit oriented economic activity centers, which is the same theme that is pervasive throughout the report. However, there may be other opportunities to enhance the quality of the overall urban design which have not yet been explored. Policy 12.2 is unneccessary, as is most of policy 12.3. These policies focus too much on individual buildings, and small neighborhood development, and do not seem to take a broad enough regional perspective. Theme Seven: Recognize and protect Portland central city as the region's major settlement anchor. While there are no conflicting policy statements in the RUGGO Draft concerning this theme, neither are there direct statements which speak to the Portland central city. Presumably, the inventories that several policies address would identify the Portland central city as an important resource in all areas. A weak link in the policies is the relation of economic activity centers to expansion of the urban growth boundary. As minimum reinforcement of the Portland central city concept, a criterion for amending the urban growth boundary should include its potential impact on existing economic activity centers. Downtown Portland, with Mt. Hood as a backdrop, is an important regional identity symbol for all of us in the region. Portland downtown provides attractions that other city centers in the region - Page 5 - cannot, and these attractions help link us all as inhabitants of the Portland metropolitan region. Resource inventories should also, then, consider the powerful symbolic identity that downtown Portland provides, as well as its role as the region's major settlement anchor. br/nWo.dit C r 1 t t i pap 6 - ~q O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW ' JEFF H. BACHRACi BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING C.ACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* 1727 N.W. Hoyt Strut 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 t C STEPHEN F. GCREW REEFF Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 (503) 266-1149 REUSE P. HASTINGS TELEPHONE: (S03) 2224402 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN FAX: (503) 243-2944 NANCY B. MURRAY JAMES M. COLEMAN MARK P. O'DONNEL.L PLEASE REPLY To PoRIL ND OPRM KENNETH M. ELLIOTT ~ DENNIS M. PATERSON III GARY M. GEORGEFF* TIMOTHY V. RAMS ROBERT J. McGAUGHEY* SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* December 4, 1990 SPf.t c«,nwi WILLIAM J. STALNAIER I f •aw Admitud to in ? ngtm smr* of w,.~~ i Mr. Pat Reilly, A ' istrator City of Tigard P. O. Box 97 13125 § "all Tiga , OR 97223 e: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives Dear Pat: Enclosed please find a memorandum reviewing the RUGGO document. The document fails to reflect the interests of suburban governments on two issues: 1. It does not clearly permit UGB amendment based upon a shortage of land in a subregion; and 2. It fails to address the need for flexible densities and large lot development at planned locations. In fact, it appears to tighten the density requirements by authorizing housing density quotas rather than housing opportunities. The document also describes a framework of much broader power for Metro to involve itself in the local planning process: ► Asserts policies controlling local building orientation,' height, setbacks and parking requirements. ► Grants authority to reject local land use plans. ► Requires local rezoning to prove consistency with regional policies. ► Gives authority to require local adoption of a solar access ordinance. r O'DONNSU., RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ' i Mr. Pat Reilly December 4, 1990 Page 2 K ► Gives Metro the right to designate which cities will have economic activity centers and therefore regional transportation funding. ► Empowers Metro to go beyond current Boundary Commission authority and require consolidation of services. ► Authorizes development restrictions controlling local project approvals based upon open space, wildlife habitat and natural areas. ► Makes Metro the decision maker on prioritization of urban expansion areas, based solely upon resource values rather than service. costs, employment needs and other local planning factors. In reviewing the memorandum you will see there are other broad powers granted to Metro. I hope this memo will be helpful to you, staff and the Council in formulating a response. Very truly yours, Timothy V. Ramis TVR/ if Enclosure m~s;p,~av~y.xt cc. Ed Murphy j `Tigard City Council r, t O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW HALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE: (503) 2224402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 DATE: November 30, 1990 TO: Pat Reilly, City Manager City of Tigard FROM: Timothy V. Ramis James C. Coleman RE: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) Introduction This memorandum reviews the August 1990 draft of the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives. The document has been generated by Metro and is in the public participation process at this time. The motivation which moved Metro to create this document comes from ' two independent sources. The first is the periodic review process, `pursuant to ORS Chapter 197, of Metro's urban growth boundary and urban growth boundary policies. This was initiated by DLCD. The second was a desire on the part of Metro to review the land use planning goals and objectives, adopted pursuant to ORS 268.380, which Metro inherited from CRAG when it was created. RUGGO is the product of the work done by the Urban Growth Management Plan Policy Advisory Committee, made up of elected officials and representatives of interested groups, the Urban Growth Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee, which is made up of technical planning people from the public and private sectors, and Metro Planning Staff. We have been informed by Metro staff that there is a second related document at the Policy Advisory Committee at this time which addresses the mechanics of the UGB amendment process. We have not reviewed that document. RUGGO is very significant for two reasons. Metro views RUGGO as one of the key building blocks for the adoption of future planning- related policies in the Metropolitan area. A paragraph from the introduction to RUGGO indicates Metro's view of the significance of this process. "The legislature directed Metro to develop a set of land use planning goals and objectives, themselves consistent r with state-wide planning goals, for purposes of planning coordination in the region (ORS 268.380). A final set O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN Memo re: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives November 30, 1990 Page 2 of regional urban growth goals and objectives will be adopted by the Metro Council and will be binding on all Metro planning activities, including the management of the region's UGB and the development of the Regional Transportation Plan. In addition, they may affect the 5 comprehensive plans of local jurisdictions as local and regional plans are inter-related in the future." Secondly, the provisions of ORS Chapter 268 grant to Metro broad authority in the area of regional planning and planning coordination, and the voters have recently authorized development of a process which can lead to a Metro Home Rule Charter. RUGGO is very broad in its scope and the City should analyze its potential impact keeping in mind Metro's potential scope of authority. f_ The document is divided into two sections, the first being a short set of guiding principles; the second being the heart of the document, the four goals with 15 implementing objectives. The "guiding principles" are a vision statement which are to be defined by the goals and objectives, which will in turn be translated "into actual physical plans for the long-term evolution of the Metropolitan region." The four goals are: 1) The Built Environment of the Region; 2) Natural Environment of the Region; 3) Urban Form; and 4) Planning Process. Each of the goals has 3 or 4 objectives, with policies for each objective. All are important, but it is the interrelationship of Goals 1 and 3 that set the tone for the expansive scope of this document. While it is questionable whether Metro, at this time, has statutory authority to enact a comprehensive plan as the City would understand that term, Metro does have the authority to adopt, implement and enforce land use planning goals and objectives, functional plans which regulate planning areas of metropolitan } impact, and the potential exists for a Home Rule Charter for Metro. 1> With these factors in mind, RUGGO should be reviewed critically for its potential long-term impact on the City of Tigard's exercise of its land use planning responsibilities and provision of public facilities and services. Goal I Concerns the built environment of the region. The objectives under ( Goal I include the topics of: housing, public facilities and services, transportation and economic opportunity. Goal I is O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN Memo re: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives November 30, 1990 Page 3 designed to promote the development in the region in a coordinated and balanced fashion by providing, at a minimum, 1) the coordination of the provision of infrastructure and public services concurrent with the pace of urban growth, 2) meshing of local comprehensive plans with public investment decision making at all levels, 3) the continued evolution of regional economic opportunity, and, 4) the location of jobs supporting commercial activities, parks and open space in relation to each other in order to decrease the number and length of automobile trips required to support a household. Objective 1, housing, intends to change the current focus of the Metropolitan Housing Rule by declaring new policies that directly address the needs for diverse housing opportunities, affordable housing and housing location. The language of the objective provides authority for the creation of quotas or required minimum levels of density and development in residential zones. This is a departure from the current focus of the housing rule which is to provide opportunities for housing at particular densities and price ranges. There is also a subtle change in the definition of the Metro housing rule that promotes this new direction. One danger of a quota or allocation system is the tendency in such a process to ignore the realities of the marketplace and the impact that the market has on the housing type choices which direct development in the residential marketplace. Objective 2 deals with public services and facilities. Public services and facilities (defined to include public safety, parks, schools, libraries, solid waste management, storm water management and sewage systems) are to be planned and developed to 1) minimize cost, 2) maximize service efficiencies and coordination, 3) result in net improvements in environmental quality, 4) keep pace for growth, and 5) maintain desired service levels. There are specific policies dealing with planning area allocation efficiency, environmental quality, forecast need, facility sizing, and concurrent funding. Taken as a whole, these policies can provide the opportunity for forced consolidation of services and the allocation of service providers. Policy 2.1 states that the regional urban growth goals and objectives and policies for Urban Form (Goal 3) shall be used as the basis for identifying long-term geographical planning areas for the provision of services. This policy will give Metro the authority to allocate service areas and to direct which agency will be the service provider in a particular area, similar to the method by which it allocates service areas under the waste water treatment plan (208 plan). O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN Memo re: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives November 30, 1990 Page 4 There is language in Policy 2.3 concerning environmental quality which states that it shall be the policy of the region to promote the efficient use and conservation of resources. This language could be authority for the requirement to adopt programs such as the regional solar access ordinance. Under Policy 2.4, Forecast Need, the policy of the region is stated to be that the forecast growth shall be accommodated and public services and facilities development shall be planned to coincide with the forecast growth. With this policy statement at a regional level, the allocation of resources at the local level may be directed by a regional view of need. Policy 2.6 calls for funding of services concurrent with demand generated by growth. It is not clear if this is intended to be a departure from the current requirement on local jurisdictions to conclude that new development can be adequately served. As mentioned above, the key factor in determining the allocation of resources in the Metropolitan area is to be the Urban Growth Goals objectives and policies of Goal III, the Urban Form goal. One of the new concepts built into Objective 10 under the Urban Form goal is the concept of "economic activity centers." These are defined as a limited number of emerging areas that will be identified by Metro on a regional basis and programed for high- density commercial residential activity and transportation improvements. These economic activity centers are given a preferred status under all of the goals and the allocation of resources and services under Objective 2 is predicated upon the primacy of the economic activity centers. Objective 3 deals with transportation. Under Policy 3.3, System Priorities, it requires that the highest priority in meeting transportation needs will be the economic activity centers. Metro sees transportation as a key component of its long term control of regional planning. In viewing this policy as a whole, while it appears to be a policy designed to coordinate and promote transportation on a regional basis, each of the policies contain elements which can only be properly analyzed and implemented at the local jurisdictional level. For example, under the Policy 3.2, Mobility, for those portions of the region outside the economic activity centers, the transportation system is to be provided by encouraging growth in areas that have transportation system capacity that meet regionally-adopted goals. The effect of this language can be that resources allocated on a regional basis are O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN Memo re: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives November 30, 1990 Page 5 focused away from areas that perhaps have the most transportation related problems. Similarly, Policy 3.6 dealing with environmental consideration, includes elements dealing with car pools, van pools and traffic reallocation from neighborhood streets to other facilities. Transportation policies such as these from a regional agency which focus on sub-regional and single jurisdictional level problems and solutions may be a duplication of more focused local solutions by the regional agency. Objective 4 addresses economic opportunity. It declares that regional policy will encourage development of a diverse and sufficient supply of jobs and that this effort will be focused, again, into the economic activity centers or other appropriate locations in the region. Policy 4.1 and 4.2 call for coordination of planning for economic development by groups throughout the region and that there will be the development of economic subregions which reflect a functional relationship between locational characteristics and locational requirements for certain target industries. Policy 4.3 states that public policy shall encourage the development of employment opportunities and any rezoning of urban land or the zoning of new urban land in the future shall be consistent with the locational goals for regional urban grow th goals and objectives for housing, public facilities and services. Here again the regional decisions will derive and direct the local decisions. Goal II Goal II concerns the Natural Environment of the Region, and includes objectives dealing with water resources, clean air, natural areas and the protection of agricultural and forest resource lands. Objective 5 dealing with water resources calls for the planning and management of water resources to be coordinated. Long-term strategies are called for to identify the needs and sources for the region's water demands. Policy 5.1 directs that coordination of resource allocation shall occur. Objective 6 deals with clean air. The objective states that air quality shall be protected and enhanced so that growth can occur, human health is unimpaired, and the visibility of the Cascades and the Coast Range from the region is maintained. Policy 6.1 requires that a regional air quality management plan be developed. The potential ramifications of this single plan are very far reaching and would affect transportation plans, and local comprehensive O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN Memo re: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives November 30, 1990 Page 6 plans in terms of land use allocation and could include such features as suburban parking limitations. Objective 7 deals with natural areas, parks and wildlife habitat and calls for the inventory on a regional basis of open space, the creation of a corridor system and a land-banking program. Policy 7.3 requires a detailed biological field inventory of the region to establish an accurate baseline of native wildlife populations. Target population goals for native species will be established and regulatory programs necessary to protect and maintain habitat will be created. The potential is created by this policy for a fairly restrictive set of development regulations created at the regional level to be applied at the local level. Objective 8 deals with the protection of agriculture and forest resource lands. Policy 8.1 makes the fairly far-reaching statement that there exists outside and adjacent to the urban growth boundary, rural resource lands that should never be urbanized. Never is a long time and the policy may be somewhat of an overstatement. Policy 8.2 concerns prioritization of lands available for urban expansion. It creates a mandatory listing of the order in which lands will be considered for urban expansion based on their resource characteristics. This prioritization would seem to ignore other factors such as cost of providing public facilities and services and places the resource lands in a position of primacy in the analysis of where urban expansion should take place. That ranking structure is probably inconsistent with current law which requires that all land use goals shall be given equal weight in the Planning Progress. ORS 197.340. Goal III Deals with urban form and is intended to direct that the management of the urban land supply shall occur from a regional perspective and be directed to achieve 1) a compact urban growth form, 2) contribute a clear distinction between urban and rural lands, and 3) reflect the interrelationship between development of vacant land and redevelopment objectives in all parts of the urban region. The objectives under Goal III includes objective 9, urban/rural boundary, which deals with the definition of the meaning and purpose of the urban growth boundary. Objective 10 concerns developed urban land, deals with the concepts of redevelopment and infill and includes the economic activity center concept discussed above. Objective it provides guidance for the amendment process for the regional urban growth boundary. The characteristics of the O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN Memo re: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives November 30, 1990 Page 7 urban growth boundary are to, where feasible, include natural or built geographic features. Objective 12 deals with urban design. A new concept of the "urban reserve" is developed by Policy 9.2. The urban reserve is a defined physical area which will be looked to for future urban expansion. Expansion of the urban growth boundary will occur only in urban reserves and will not occur in lands outside of urban reserves. Policy 9.3 is entitled Sense of Place. It directs that there are a variety of features, both natural and built within the region of historic, cultural, biological and topographical significance which contribute to the region's identity and sense of place. It requires that they be identified and managed in a manner that supports the preservation of these features. This concept, while on its surface somewhat attractive, may have significant impacts on the local communities in which these significant regional features exist and, again, we have an example of planning at a regional level which will have a dramatic effect upon the functioning of local jurisdictions. Policy 9.4 requires that once the urban reserves are identified, that the ultimate providers of urban services, as designated by Metro under other policies, will incorporate these reserve areas into the public facility plans. Objective 10 deals with developed urban land and is a policy designed to recognize and deal with the opportunities and obstacles to development of the region which are created by existing development on urban land. Policy 10.1 directs that redevelopment potential will be included as an element in the buildable land supply for the region. The redevelopment potential in these areas will be assessed as a factor to be considered when a need appears to arise for additional urban land within the urban growth boundary. This policy seems to require that the existing zoning densities will remain in place and intensification of use will be encouraged in areas which are currently developed at a lower intensity than is allowed by the plan and zone designations. This "encouragement" may create pressure, through control of the regional funding process, to upzone and increase density in developed areas is likely to occur in areas targeted for regional transportation funding. Policy 10.2 directs that financial incentives be developed to finance redevelopment. This policy, while it is not phrased in mandatory terms, does provide Metro the direction to do a detailed analysis of the differences that exist between comprehensive plan densities and actual development and f provides direction for Metro to work with jurisdiction to determine the extent to which redevelopment and infill can be relied upon to O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CRFW b CORRIGAN Memo re: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives November 30, 1990 Page 8 meet needs for additional urban lands. Policy 10.2 directs that financial incentives be developed to finance redevelopment. Without more detail, it is impossible to evaluate the concepts on their effectiveness. Policy 10.3 is the economic activity center policy mentioned earlier and deserves a very critical examination by the City. The policy provides opportunities to the City but should the area not be selected as an economic activity center, then the prioritization for financial assistance through the other goals will be much lower. Objective 11 deals with the urban growth boundary identification and amendment process. Amendment criteria for the urban growth boundary are to be drawn from Statewide Planning Goals 2 and 14. Major amendments are to be initiated by Metro after a finding of need and will be considered a legislative process. The locational adjustments to the UGB will be brought to Metro by cities and counties only and according to Policy 1. 5, will be based upon public facility plans and adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plans. It is not clear from the policies in Objective 11 whether the current controversy on locational amendments regarding whether the urban growth boundary is looked at as a whole or whether a regional analysis can be made to the needs of an area less than the urban growth boundary is addressed by these policies. That concept may be dealt with in the more specific process document at the policy committee level at this time. Objective 12 deals with urban design and contains a variety of policies which one would typically expect to find in a local zoning or development code such as references to building orientation standards, setbacks, height, parking components, the desirability of mixed use housing in non-residential zonings, the desirability of a broad spectrum of residential lot types and the desirability ,'Wf incentives or opportunities for mixed use developments. It is not clear from these policies exactly what is intended. If the policies are designed to simply provide general guidance from the regional level, that is one thing. If they are, however, to be incorporated as mandatory factors to be considered or included in local plans and ordinances, it would be a significant departure from the past practices in the region. Goal IV deals with the Metro planning process and includes objectives directed at citizen participation, notification and amendments to regional urban growth goals and objectives. What is Memo re: Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives November 30, 1990 Page 9 conspicuous by its absence under this goal is policy language which specifically involves the local jurisdictions in the process of formulation and amendment of the policies. Also absent from this goal is any discussion of the mechanisms by which these 15 objectives are to be implemented on a regional basis. On those topics where Metro's authority is either lacking or questionable, this document should address the issue of how these policies are to be incorporated into the regional planning process. With the downward looking focus of RUGGO as a whole, some clarification of Metro's role in local decision making should also be addressed by this goal. In looking at the document as a whole, the question comes to mind whether it is intended to place Metro in the role of a mini- regional LCDC to be charged with acknowledging or denying local comprehensive plans based upon their compliance with these regional goals. It is also not clear to what extent Metro will become actively involved in the individual development applications within effected jurisdictions due to the apparent specificity and local impact of many of these "regional" goals. It is clear that the document serves as a basis for much more active Metro involvement in local planning decisions. It goes far beyond control over UGB changes. For that reason, we advise careful review of the implications before formulating a City response. Original Memorandum to: Pat Reilly, City Manager cc: Ed Murphy, City of Tigard Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney James M. Coleman JMC:dd 11/30/90 oe«~mc\tigera~roggo.mem/ad / !Dl CC7 TIGARD ISSUES MAINTAIN LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING AND REGULATORY CONTROL HAVE A VOICE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES THAT AFFECT OUR CITIZENS ADD MORE CERTAINTY TO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY DECISIONS -LONG RANGE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING -ANTICIPATE IF, WHEN AND WHERE WE MAY EXPAND TO THE WEST -ANTICIPATE FUTURE BOUNDARIES OF NEIGHBORING CITIES REDUCE LEVEL OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITHIN UGB BUT OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS i r BECOME DESIGNATED AS AN ACTIVITY CENTER ...GET A REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF CITY PLANS ENHANCE FAMILY WAGE JOBS AVAILABILITY REDUCE CONGESTION, INCREASE "CONNECTEDNESS" AND MOBILITY f i f i ii l/ 1 ~ ll v~~ v KEY THEMES IDENTIFIED BY PLANNING DIRECTORS MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE ROLE OF CITIES SEPARATE URBAN AREA FROM NON-URBAN AREA REDUCE CONGESTION CHANGE LAND USE PATTERNS TO LESSEN AUTO DEPENDENCE CONNECT EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY CENTERS IMPROVE OVERALL URBAN DESIGN RECOGNIZE DOWNTOWN PORTLAND AS ANCHOR ,dtud,ct 5Pssvvl ) a l w PROCESS CONCERNS TIME TABLE T00 FAST PROBLEM NOT ARTICULATED IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM NOT CLEAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES NOT YET DETERMINED d +I.r w a ' f► Nqt t . Ms. • 4 ~ 3 r I to «i'a ~ r«M `til ~6 F u r S j >t a t ~ puw E1 s a r J i I ' a WV. MINI e ~'t~. r MNt, MI ~ .art P+ NCaN Mt U w„ of W to a r - a unn I , ' r s t. t t_ asp , to ~ 1 ~y r t ~L~ ~u ra' ~i - ~ J•q. r„ ~ Y at' . ~ k.,~; a, - a 17,E ~ ~•'S.Y»~~ iW t ta',v .ptu-~"'?-+*1 _ ` ° si ~L a mr5t~ti * )rely w- 1r .g wr'+1 ~ a. ~r ~ k ~>_f' 0 Y Ste- V 7' •.,t -`:i t' ~~~~w-# * ~r• ~ r~'~} i t . Airs. y_yi rt ^';y ~'i~~,4' .ati 7s y6 ''t~Jsr ~F, wt ~ ~v iri ` Y !4 Lr s ov7r'+ r ! y[ MY1l ' r'`.s S'yy'~ 6 ' Ire, ~I ~ v gaT.Y:. ~ ?PpY~ ' iGKOr tG' h. Mi'~ 4 r'w/¢~ d J i - ~ Y",. ~ ry•wr i :g .~Y . r*~ ♦ i~-~' e#E' tz '~a>~j7„r Y :'tto -r ~ - >n. ~TL,J ~tr•\ h~ - r f!y[~~'~~`~M.ss>, ~iE nr~ ~s~-;w ,'l~. 1. r c d ! er- c^~Sat„~°; tF d'~ _ I r`.` C Z 4. F. L • 5wc G. ~ ~ ~K. 'I ~ftY q f{ r rr `<it lid. l}j ~ _ ! y.,ssy~ ~ ~ y„ Yy, + l ; ~ g y -r?E sa- E .sue r- 'yr U~ rPf[Oal RO r _ s~ ,vv..-4'{ r ~ zR~~l ~ ~ ~,~sF 5 r "r - ~ 4 ~ ay~~~ 9 i ~ . t°t ~~r~s~s n.Pr p ftr't caroLr ..n[,c ~ " ~ 4 ! s a ~ a Pt~ ~ S Y~y~ ti ~ ~ Ns<'K ,t . a rr 1• ^e~ , sJ ,.sz`~ ~.~;,rT 4' ' a vn d t ° a r td` $ o C 4 wM~ f't~"~y)era7 ,ltgus~a' 3 ; r••^~' ~ i ~ y, ~ • c p~// ` RL '~4f+~5t fill M ry g S v f t5't. r '4. ff~flr-J rr-! rj, 4. ; ~ i.. f Y J S+.r l:2 ~ ' TJ mot[' f \ry, S ~ e Y P 1~ t c rraPr ~ r ~ s ~ ' trtrA ? _ f ti4~ rn[ sG4 t s B' 4` r r GluoL i Ik A r < ~ s7ti r K s , '+A ~ ~ i'85,: fit" y r L: ~ _ y yi:K~iiq Cify~ c- s.Lr s NK ~ x A, < • +g' SOAk ri t"\ F LsLwp ~ ~e ~ "~p°T9~µ ~ _k olt4 ~ ` tip, ~ c P. NIP i r [Pt NO Fs ~ A ~0 v 3 ~ ~ .r„ X'" t[f tF; :r q ~ ~ _ti : 'MIas1 L1(1 , , PD 2 S P[ ~ a IMFE .or,ncr p+ 'ro u ewwg .,L sow"" f c I \\t1~ ~ rPrld~µ M CLACKS Co. I I[ g 1Wli&i CO /r I rrocnIs Lrroe~ Corby rr Borlow • `JTGI L~~j .~~1 U'1'1 /.A 1101q o SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOAL IV. METRO PLANNING PROCESS Should be first Goal, not last. Should emphasize a planning process that is collaborative, and that recognizes the role of cities in planning and development activities. institutional roles and responsibilities need to be determined. The legally enforceable elements of the goals and objectives versus those that are advisory elements needs to be clarified. A statement' of the problem, or a description of the vision that this document is trying to achieve, needs to be added. An explanation of why shifts in policy are needed, how adoption of these goals and objectives influences these policy shifts, and where those changes will lead the region in terms of the stated vision or problem would be useful. Achieving more consensus on financing, logistics, roles and responsibilities should be seen as a part of this planning process, and not as a subsequent step. At least an implementation program and a likely decision making structure should be proposed. ( GOAL 1. BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF THE REGION t OBJECTIVE 1. HOUSING Need to ensure that: 1. All jurisdictions share in the distribution of low income housing. 2. Metro does not set a minimum density standard. 3. Metro does not increase the overall density requirements. OBJECTIVE 2. PUBLIC FACILITIES Policy 2.2 should be re-written so that it does not suggest, as it seems to now, a bias towards consolidation as leading to greater efficiency and effectiveness. Also, it should be clear that other factors besides efficiency may outweigh efficiency factors. The policy on "concurrence" (2.6) needs further definition and analysis. Potentially it may be a method to ensure that development pays its own way for impact on major facilities, like transit and highways. It may also help ensure that parks are developed in those areas outside city limits and special parks districts. OBJECTIVE 3. TRANSPORTATION Modify Policy 3.2 (Mobility) so it is not hierarchial. Eliminate phrase "as a last resort". t Expand Policy 3.7 (transportation balance) to emphasize the need to reduce the use of the single occupant vehicle during peak hours through a variety of methods, with special emphasis on non-capital intensive approaches. Emphasize the transportation needs of existing activity centers versus newly emerging economic centers. Emphasize the need to improve transportation within and between suburban t areas with transit, highway and management approaches, and not just improve suburb to downtown Portland transportation. s r i OBJECTIVE 4. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY { Add a policy on intensifying by redevelopment underutilized or underdeveloped commercial or industrial lands. c t Emphasize retention and expansion (versus recruitment) and support to those centers already established. GOAL II. NATURAL RESOURCES. 5 I { Generally, use these policies in conjunction with Goal III to help achieve \ separation of cities from rural areas, and city from other cities... especially those cities outside of the urban growth boundary. i GOAL III. URBAN FORM. OBJECTIVE 9. URBAN/RURAL BOUNDARY Support policy 9.2, the urban reserve concept. Support creating transportation links with other surrounding areas, with open space in between (policy 9.5). OBJECTIVE 10. DEVELOPED URBAN LAND Clarify and define economic activity centers, and emphasize the need to reinforce existing centers, or those areas where substantial investment has already been made. Regional activity centers should not be defined as having to be served by light rail. Add a policy which reinforces the region's established commitment to a strong central business district (i.e. downtown Portland). OBJECTIVE 12. URBAN DESIGN Add language to emphasize the need to use good design to improve safety, reduce/prevent crime, and generally make the region safer. Delete policies dealing with specific building orientation standards and housing type as being too narrow and specific for a regional policy. Add language which would emphasize excellent design standards for major transportation and waterway systems. f F f { 2 L 6. t l t 1 k V 9 p'. yes h~ a mew ia~ml~n ~au~~~rav~ Gee 83?5S.!(/. tariff. fee, c c raft. i 1 X-4 M m -44 I , L!j m l • • II m - - _ . c..~.pjue~-- Z►-+E -yvc.T©?_-r_--~-~i~c~ ~2u%s -.o~F.__~u+~~ - - ---THE. wA~t{+a.f G,_. yous_ ?►2 ~lQT .-J41.~.4.V~(- ST.- - 7v4c - - - 1t2.=~}k~tsT~ ►.1SUl-t - - L4 -OFF _ e-~►u5T_SE -(Ze7A - - - A~ -='ccx~ _-~~G~~Y►.~~s~ __,4go,.~t:-- eat g~a+..~tos . _ _45$5 Vevb . Gt3 .1 fUEPZRJG~ D. _IT-_ - - - - 2U M ,yU 1~S DEI-OOU U C] \A eu.,,. A E . is Mow/ - - - - - PT -7 p m fg0v-rt_-EEQ -T-Hls (Duk.\,#J►)(owo wacz. 14EMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Marilyn Bauer OREGON Debbie Mangold FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner RE: Site Development Review SDR 90-23 Schmidt DATE: December 6, 1990 Attached is the City decision regarding the Schmidt's request to keep the underground tanks. The request' has been denied and the Schmidt's have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. If appealed, this issue will probably be heard by the Commission on January 22, 1991. The Community Development Code allows the installation of underground fuel tanks in residential zones and you will note that the revised condition 6. allows the Schmidts to install a new tank provided it is a minimum of 100 feet from all property lines and all other applicable regulations for such tanks are satisfied. This setback requirement will place any future tank to the west of the shop and accessory buildings near your property. I discussed your concern regarding the Schmidt's practice of washing trucks on the property with Andre Pollock of DEQ (phone 229-6923). His area of responsibility pertains to fuel tanks, but he felt that this activity was probably in violation of DEQ or Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) regulations. He suggested that Lyle Christensen (phone 229-5295) or Wendy Anderson (phone 229-5393) of DEQ be contacted. This activity is not regulated by the City and therefore it is not addressed in the decision. SDR90-23.LTR/kl i a r r - r 13125 SW Hall Blvd., RO. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 yM 4. CITY OF TIGARD ~NOTICE OF DECISION SCHMIDT'S SANITARY SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 90-23 APPLICATION: Request for Site Development Review approval to allow an amendment to the approved site plan for the expansion of a nonconforming sanitary service business. Zone R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units per acre) Location: 8325 SW Ross Street (WCTM 2S1 12CB, tax lot 900). DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Community Development Director's designee has DENIED the above described application. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background Schmidt's Sanitary Service, which occupies the site, has been operation since 1949. The company has a franchise agreement with the City to operate a sanitary service. The six acre property is the result of a minor land partition which was approved in 1979 (File No. MLP 2-79). The northern parcel created by this partition was later developed as LaMancha Estates subdivision. Over the years, the business has expanded slightly and complaints have been received in recent years pertaining to its operation. The present zoning does not allow a business of this type and therefore, it is considered as a nonconforming use. The Tigard Community Development CodeF does not allow for expansion or relocation of such uses. In order to address these concerns and the business' desire to expand, an application was submitted in an attempt to allow for a modest enlargement of the area used for the business and address the compatibility issues that had been raised. This application (Site Development Review SDR 89-22 and Variance V 89-26) for expansion was approved subject conditions which delineated the areas that could be used for various aspects of the business and required the removal of the underground fuel tanks by October, 1990. 2. Vicinity Information Properties to the north, east, and west are zoned R-4.5. Property to the south is zoned R-7 (Residential 7 units per acre). A single family residential subdivision abuts the NOTICE OF DECISION - SCHMIDT (SDR 90-23) PAGE 1 property on the north and a second subdivision 1-ies to the west on the opposite side of Hall Boulevard. Small acreage homesites and vacant parcels are situated to the south and east. Hall Boulevard is classified as a arterial street and Ross Street is a local street. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The six acre site contains a house, shop, garage, and two barns in the southeast corner of the property. The shop building and the two barns have setbacks ranging from five to ten feet from the eastern property line. A gravel employee parking area is located east of the house and a gravel storage area, screened by an eight foot fence, is north of the house. Three underground fuel tanks are situated south of the shop building near the eastern property line. The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the Site Development Review and Variance (SDR 89-22/V 89-26) to allow the underground fuel tanks to remain. The applicant indicates that the trucks for the business will no longer be fueled on the site and the tanks will only to be used for personal vehicles, including a tractor that is operated on the property. State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) records indicate that the underground fuel tanks contain diesel fuel (1,000 gallons) and gasoline (500 gallons and 474 gallons). The status of the three tanks changed to "unregulated" on October 22, 1990, because they are no longer being used in conjunction with the business and they are less than the 1,100 gallon size regulated by DEQ. 4. Agency and NPO Comments Portland General Electric, General Telephone, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department, Engineering Department, Building Division, and Tigard Water District have no objections to the proposal. NPO 5 reviewed the request and concluded that the circumstances had not changed and the NPO continued to support the enforcement the conditions of the previous decision. No other comments were received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION To grant the variance allowing the expansion of a NOTICE OF DECISION - SCM41DT (SDR 90-23) PAGE 2 C~- nonconforming use, it was shown that the proposal did not conflict with policies and standards in the Comprehensive Plan or other applicable standards, that special circumstances existed which were peculiar to the property, that the expanded nonconforming use would be accomplished in a manner that would be maintain the intent of the Community Development Code to the greatest extent possible, that there would be no adverse affect on existing physical and natural systems, that the hardship was not self imposed, and that the variance requested was the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. In order to meet these criteria, a number of conditions were agreed to by the applicant which were intended to mitigate the negative affect the expansion and continued operation of the business would have upon surrounding residential properties. Introduction of screening, and movement of the business activity away from the site's perimeter (including the fuel tanks) were instrumental in the City's determination that the variance was appropriate. The fuel tanks along the eastern property line were required to be removed because: a. The fueling activity along the property line was having a detrimental impact upon the abutting residential property because of noise, exhaust fumes, and visual impact. b. The fumes from the tank vents adversely affected the neighbor to the east. C. It was known that the new DEQ regulations would require the eventual removal of the tanks (subsequently, the applicant found that they could be retained for personal use). d. Concern was expressed that the tanks could potentially contaminate nearby wells. The retention of the tanks is inconsistent with the original variance approval because the adverse impacts caused by the presence of the tanks will remain with the exception of the elimination of the fueling activity for Schmidt's Sanitary Service. Their removal was a critical part of the variance approval. It was important that the tanks were removed in conjunction with moving portions of the operation to central sections of the site and the provision of screening. Although they are to be used for private vehicles, the number and capacity of the tanks are industrial in nature and the fumes, visual impact of the tank vents, and the potential for contamination of residential wells will have NOTICE OF DECISION - SCFHffDT (SDR 90-23) PAGE 3 a detrimental impact upon "physical and natural systems" as noted in the variance criteria above. Also, there is no apparent hardship caused by meeting the original condition of approval to remove tanks that can no longer be used for the business. C. DECISION The Planning Director's designee DENIES SDR 90-23 and the conditions of approval for SDR 89-22/V 89-26 shall remain in effect with the exception that condition 6. of the decision shall be amended as set forth below: 6. All existing underground fuel tanks shall be removed or decommissioned in accordance with state and federal requirements by January 18, 1991. Any new fuel tanks shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from all property boundaries and shall conform to all applicable City, fire district, state, and federal regulations. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division (639- 4171). D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: ,The applicant and owners ,~_Owners of record within the required distance -.Z_The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization ~_Affected government agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 42 /Y 9a UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within 10 days after notice is given and sent. Appeal fee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m._ 896 l NOTICE OF DECISION - SCMUDT (SDR 90-23) PAGE 4 4. Questions: If you have questions, please call City of Tigard Planning Department, City of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. PREPARED BY: DATE Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner SDR90-23/kl m smL t4uft0o= a ST. G t*~ NWNCaUI SITr v a 3 N U s 1 f NOTICE OF DECISION - SCHMIDT (SDR 90-23) PAGE 5 f 4 E i i i E i F vt i 7 V - 0-/v Z~ ~LG _._7f~ls ~~c~.U~i~ ~s/z s~rna~zs2a.<v.lJ7a2,c~.r,G ~S ✓r/67 S19~7F~ Div ~E ~.~/07 C1~~ ~1212 "I N, P. 14- 5- ce! O ~ { _Ac - -Cs/s L LL, i NPO #5 MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1990 CIVIC CENTER LUNCHROOM After a Joint presentation on the Solar Access Ordinance, NPO #5 convened its regular meeting in the Civic Center lunchroom. Present were Chair Hopkins, Bieker, Doty and Takahashi. Members Hawley and MacKinnon were excused. Guests this evening were Debbie Mangold, property owner in NPO #5 and Dick Bauer, a former property owner. Minutes of the September and October monthly meetings were approved as circulated. New business: SDR 90-0023 Site Design Review/Schmidt This was an amendment request for SDR 89-0022 on which a previously decision had been rendered requiring the removal of underground fuel storage tanks. Applicant has changed designation of tank usage to residential and farm use only. Discussion: Ms. Mangold is an adjacent property owner who purchased her property from Mr. Bauer, a principal affected property owner in the previous decision. Her concern regarding the tanks were based on the proximity of the tanks to her water supply (well) for her residence and the gas fumes which are vented close to her property. The NPO members present felt that nothing had changed to warrant altering the previous decision and the conditions imposed by the city. We support the previous decision and advise the parties to contact the city planning department and ask what factors would change the decision. Since this item was the only agenda item we had, we were able to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. spectfully)submitted, C~ ad 6 ka- V~, Sharon Takahashi, Secretary I i 1R RU . - - G ~~~►c~r...~Er7 sty }~►--tC p~~1 ~.1C~Z S 1.~t ~F 4~ f~Ly-r- 1~►-r-,LZ-tL~ c 1 \Ai ~3~L~_a...A c~c --__sc~c~' ~ -Q~.Pc-+•---~, o~ }-br-~t~ r Clay , •r F~~1.~ -„-rt ~'-~--~_~~T~ \d. LL S .t -now M049WO5 UOuLO c.ta~OS,1~.ST e~ W VJ T ►s.._ P,y l►.lC," ze3Ap&i.W c . TW5 n-"AILS fttrvQ%A%. 7 CAL ME 01-LT AC,, car=, m 'r '~~3 . r4IE;Y-F,L-f`-4T= isiZID[C"cgxuS-`tiT.~A.T- ►O~S CA+.U IGrcEP I V t' V Ect) Amt-noU0 meLrS p t\.io Ju+W CA44Ajc=S womola c, . 'may T1ts~uC,a1-~-~ -~ta,r~-tao~-~ ,-~y ~v ~rae.ea.ota~c~ cvr~wt~ss,cnJ 4i} ~W aj ~c~pptso ~a~c~ • t AS issue Gto-,E1> . ON-A Vp lcay r- ~ ;~~_c.~~.c~cefl 1.►_rx-..s-~ ~u ~s ~e~!_ T _ 77 94 z?mss Ce7- -&X/Si~c 71 4~Cy vr/wes /O/O r'AGs /~ov2E ?~1s :~5/2r- 4WD 'fe -row 7~W, 0 /YWO A AftZI-1 e-11OW174em-_7 ym, O 4 XZ. 4 M r ox.~lf ~Y~: r, ;jr• ~ ~ =~1-.~-C G-~t..=c..lZ~- etc. / '~,~v.:....~ .~..1::. i TO: THE CITY OF TIGARD FROM: CONCERNED CITIZENS OF TIGARD AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD I AM VERY CONCERNED WITH THE NONCONFORMING USE OF 8325 SW ROSS AS A GARBAGE REFUSE DROP OFF IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE CITY OF TIGARD HAS REQUIRED THAT UNDERGROUND DIESEL AND GAS TANKS WERE TO BE REMOVED BY OCT. 1990 AND I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE POSIBILITY OF A LEAKAGE OF DIESEL AND GAS INTO THE GROUND WATER SYSTEM IS A POTENTIAL HAZARD IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY! Rffi- E ADDRESS PHONE c _t, lw,_ `1J t.:-i._~/. l,S i%ii ui.ti' r~ :vv .C~• ~ ( ..~i / Y J J.J i:• - /1 [Y/~.,~ :L~' jE X _ ' / i l~• / / Y~ r2. _._/tfir' s~ ~ "jt c _ _ /L r fji l'~ ,/41.,' ~(1 % Y.1 ~ 1 L•r/~" ~ I t`~'_~ I. . L t ~ . _ -.r is C-r lac 66"Ll 54 UL- Lam- Irk y - \C'O'.I \ `'i,`lv-- . 141-,11~ ~w ~'l~~} Q.k~~ It^7-1.'/rl( - • TO: THE CITY OF TIGARD FROM: CONCERNED CITIZENS OF TIGARD AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD I AM VERY CONCERNED WITH THE NONCONFORMING USE OF 8325 SW ROSS AS A GARBAGE REFUSE DROP OFF IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE CITY OF TIGARD HAS REQUIRED THAT UNDERGROUND DIESEL AND GAS TANKS WERE TO BE REMOVED BY OCT. 1990 AND I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE POSIBILITY OF A LEAKAGE OF DIESEL AND GAS INTO THE GROUND WATER SYSTEM IS A POTENTIAL HAZARD IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY! RME ADDRESS PHONE YtAl ~ ~ ~ ~ „ ~ ~ a ~ a i Tt2~•t-~ u-~ t ~R t..1~Etc~~rz N a~~a_,__y,.1 F ' N-a~ F-~.~. -ram p~~c~ wl , 9 ~,C r1r -r E r~., (ZED r ~-~t x00 jMQTJ 9 ~k E NALCUtx> MAcK~ ~ OEU.SlcS►~ t~~~CxaO t-~1.(~4.~~h1 `YH-1.~~t-' (c% ~/~LC~U.(...I~ ~f.~~..~taa-L.~p 'r-N-t~T~~.l~ A,2~~.4Cs~ 6►..1_ c..T C~~r~IC~YZ~l~~ A~~~ C~r7s~v.l~- l WeK qA0- Lo ja;-1.~►2 E4--k °t, t o~__s "t't-!~~_~f,.~~(a~'(- A5 t-n,a.a~.Q~~_~,.J~~ "T~.~[~►J--~-t~ cr..1 ~~DC~_.~ _ _ -Tn tiCzti- 2~ OOOWWOWW llls~ AL AOL MV 'M Dale Johnson, owner of mountain t ill Shadows bed-and-breakfast In King "r City, says his guests hike the per- and it sonalized touches of B&S accom- modations - such as the antique bed above. B~REArtFAbT `M_ By BONNIE DARVES t fending legbdadon hall yet to be amend:,I. nix seconding to'f'erry Kupsiek, eoordimulf r.t suburb. Gloria Shaich says she could book ` L'brdand'shotel taxprogram. at his hundreds al guests annually in Washington tf While cities within Washington Count tngelm County bed-and-breakfast establishments appear to consider B&Bs too much tiouN / as were - if she had somewhere to put them. to deal with from a code-and•legislati„+• solid Stich, who owns Northwest Bed and standpoint at the least, or a "can of worm, r m. Breakfast, the region's largest reservations s :f ultimately, other nearby tides and counti • t I r have found such establislunenu to be rel.. 1, v it agency serving B&Bs in Oregon, I' IVI Washington and California. says wita-slim li! lively trouble-free and even beneficial we pkkins" situation when callers specify a from inecamomic standpoint. we Washington County bed•and-breakfast y~y~r v :r _ Yamhill County has a dozen B&Bs• with [ selec- (B&B), } many having been established in the pa,i playing "Basically. there are only duos places f it= yeam art play. an put them," says Slakh. "And we're DemisHgner, Newberg's planninl• ct .ir staning to get mote Ord more aces Gam director. says that city has developed dire. busivesspeopte. who are looking for sumo- methods of qualifying B&Bs c be- thing different a the baskoa4" "We have methods and conditional h gb• cmble u While B& B&Bs ate proliferating to other criteria that break up according to neigh. and metropolitan areas and suburbs across the boyhood density and number of room: 6)1a •1 Big country, the Pacific Northwest boasts rela- rented," says Egoer. "it's worked out well." <ating dvety few - at Imst outside of the coastal Newberg requires a minimum of one on the region and ind t parking spas for each two guest, The county's eau of deice B&Bs fn- and indirectly illuminated signs. The city /•v ~ .h the eludes the Yankee Tinker in Aloha' Moan- also limits the stay per guest to seven con v they fain Shadows on Bull Mountain and laurel secudve days (or 15 in a 311day period). pre. Orchards in Hillsboro. The fatter two are "Rnis seems to prevent any polenti.d iovie actually more of a homeWa;• (residence of rooming house situation," says Egncr. 'ways fering only one or two rooms on a iaegular Newberg also looks favorably on a,r:I I . o along rental basis). as a source of tourism dollars and at pre--•ni The appeal of B&Bs, from an owner- charges B&B owners no room tax. y'nlo operator standpoint are des opportunity for 1Smhill's former planning director I.ym, rung so extra Income especially for empty- Steiger says that city was fairly suppruti,c r before, - Mien who might, otherwise have so give when the requesd to establish B&Bs start tits up a tugs home - and the entatilmhent.'I '.Ins coming in. r+ value orgetlleg in know people Boat odw, - 4 "Ibere was an= recognition that MHz c t f;. tcJtiekdontryarwsxtd. ..•v. could almost be considered an industry i+. 1J0biaoe,:owaErN,9haeMarmtefn..R• themselves," says Steiger, who opened h• if Shidows B&B, says he has enjoyed his en own bcd•and-breakfast in 1988. "t' u~ new counters with guests in the eight years since looked at Jackson County, which has nc,,l- "16u he opcncd her ~ ' "We've met purple •w six dozen B&Bs - and couldn't %cc :u, Guy from all over - interesting people. Of ► reason not to give it a try." coum. it's not for everyone: you've got to Steiger believes the reason bcd ar.d ka< accept people where they are." " r breakfasts haven't gotten off the ground iii 11C first inn Tic reason for the dearth is that pospec- \ i Washington County has nothing to du w ids J fa this live B&B owners who approach planning ` demand and everything to do with die :n is Llose as departments in the area don't exactly find a thudes of city and county staff. home mat. "ihem's no reason Washington Count, 3C was o ob- a B&Bs see not allowed in Tigard, whose shouldn't have twice as many B&Bs : . .her city council his adopted a not-in•owdront- lkmhill County. You've got the dcmami I UuOmgh yards attitude toward the establishments, from busirmesspeopfe - we even get a loo, Tigard Commrmily Developmehl Dime- amount of that here, in addition to 'winch was ar PA Murphy says des city council can. traffic." says Steiger. :livered allowing B&Bs a few years ago. arrp'-iby rhwy. "Itiere'a a parochial attitude - mu, tell she but that des litho was not well rceelved EYE OPENERS -Jan Wadi who runs the Yankee Tinker Bed and Break. more conservatism in washington C"m".. me or her rout city COMB wait "boor al- fast with her husband, Ralph says the profile of their guests has changed In the land I= pee B&B i think a lot of st.+tt nine (ob- lowing dot sae of SUMO -in residential two years since they opened the B&B. 'We're getting more businesspeople and People view B&Bs as inappropriate co, , areas ,"saki Murphy. menial use of a residential structure. If it, °rur- professionals from In town and out-of-town.- die esvertan allows bed-and-breakfasts process wam't so stifling. I'm sure n11 and homesWyA but the criteria established a few years ago when they looked at a few decided dace yews no to esabiish a would be many more btd•and•brcakfasn for opening them are so stringent - herd properties Worthington Courtly." time costs. Including otwdent fees and hotel they thought would ts idrA but tttaatburina B&Bs. y Big g found area planning departments to b be be less Following s single incident in ore of the Shaich, Steiger and other bed•and•hn•:++ :a dance to taxes, so prohibitive - that would-be than receptive. city's two dozen bed-and-brWAsts - and fast owners suggest that there may be all :ells operawn ern inclined to took elsewhere. ''When we found out How' much red tape a member of heated public hearings, tempt to keep the numbers low to Pie""' v orile According b Beaverton Zoning coat- we'd have to go through, we gave up an ft Fbttlalld decided b impost the moratorium competition with established hotels in d i fast dinator Jim Hendricks, B&Bs arc allowed idea," says Sharon Polk. until bugs in the language of existing county. only under special limited criteria, which The Polks ultimately went Into partner- regulations could beworked rwl. Steiger says, however, tat he dell'' prohibit residence remodcttng and retail ship with Oda mwces, and opened a bed- Too incident that fueled the moratorium believe that's a valid thrat. her Tri- yaks wit limit the number of guests to five and-breakfast at the coast - although they involved complaints from a B&B Owner's "B&Bs really don't compete with hill"I „Satyr- or fewer daily. would have pmr=4 to remain closer to neighbors about parking problems time es- people who say in them arc really irxd.u, ..Y's al- Lou and eharon Polk, former Portland- tsblishmau was orating an the street- for that interaction they get with d,. rcd. So Washington C esidents, say they con- Perhaps Washington County tides have Al present, Portland is developing a basis,- says Steiger. "it's a completely d, iJay sidemd openb ahingion County B&B taken their cue tram Portland, which cW revocable-permit process. but th femnt markek" to col- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT E ISSUED: 11/27/89 ~Mp 1 13125 S.W. Hit Blvd., P.O. Boa 23397, 719MI, O.aga9=, (S03) 639.4175 M. PMT . N0. 892145 JOB ADDRESS: 8325 SW ROSS ST TAX MAP/LOT SUP: LT: BK: LAND USE: LOT SIZE: VALUATION: $ 9,000 SETBACKS FRONT: REAR: WORK. CLASS: NEW DWELL.UNITS: LEFT: RIGHT: , USE TYPE: COMMERCIAL NO.BEDROOMS: EXT.WALL CONST: CONST.TYPE: VN NO.BATHS: N: S: E: W: OCCUP.GRP.: B2 PROT.OPENINGS: OCCUP.LOAD 8 N: S: E: W: TOTAL AREA: 2400 NO.STORIES: 1 1ST: 2400 ROOF CONST: A FIRE RET? YES HEIGHT: 16 2ND: AREA SEPAR? NO RATED: BASEMENT? NO 3RD: OCCUP.SEPAR7 NO RATED: MEZZANINE? NO BASEM'T FLOOR LOAD: 150 GARAGE: FIRE SPRK.LR? NO ALARM? NO FLOW(GPM) DETECT? NO HEAT TYP : NDCP.ACCESa*2 PLAN CHECK BY: jhj REMARKS : Pole bldg for Schmidt San. Svc. REISSUE OF NO. LAST REISSUE FEES: Schmidt John E. PERMIT $74.50 8325 SW Ross St PLAN REVIEW $48.43 C Tigard OR 97223 FIRE DEPT $29.80 PHONE (503) 639-2378 STATE TAX $3.72 OTHER DEVELOPMENT CHARGES: WOODS TOM SDC(STORM) ECONO FAB BUILDINGS SDC(STREET) POBox6205 PDC(# ) Aloha OR 97005 PREPAID < $78.23) PHONE (503) 649-5454 REGISTRATION NO. Econo TOTAL: $78.22 RECEIPT NO. permit is issued subject to the regulations contained in Title 14 e TMC. State of Oregon Specialty Codes. zoning regulations REQUIRED INSPECTIONS II other applicable codes and ordinances, and it is hereby d that the work will be done in accordance with the plans and SLAB fications and in compliance with all applicable codes and FOOTING ances. The issuance of this permit does not waive restrictive FRAMING f Is. Contractor and subcontractors shall have current city ROOF NAILING I ess tax permits. This permit will expire and become null and f work is not started within 180 days. or if work is suspended or SHEAR WALL oned for a period of 180 days any time after work has FINAL enced. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to assure I uir inspections are requested and approved. I ~ilh c ~!ry1~G tte iature fay. - 639 405 - SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK OTHER THAN DESCRIBED ABOVE 4 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON October 29, 1990 Mr. Richard D. Bauer 8275 S.W. Doss Street Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Mr. Bauer: Thank you for your letter of October 5 reference SDR 89-28. I apologize for my delay in responding to you, but I have been waiting for certain information about Schmidt's intentions. For your information, the City has monitored the status of the fuel tanks. Condition 6 of SDR 89-28 required that the tanks be removed or decommissioned by October 31st. Also, for your information, Mr. Schmidt submitted an application to amend SDR 89-22 last week and we are now researching the implications of his application on the deadline associated with the fuel tanks. As soon as I understand our options, I will apprise you by letter per your request. Sincerely a 'ck J. ill City Admi 'strator PJR: cw c: Ed Murphy Keith Liden prc1029 t 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397. Tigard, Oreaon 97223 r5n.11 01Q-A171 .sa: October 25, 1989 CIT OF T167ARD E OREGON Larry Schmidt 8325 S.W. Ross Street Tigard, OR 97224 RE: underground fuel tanks File: SDR 89-22/V 89-28 Dear Larry.: Mr. Bauer wrote a note indicating that there two underground fuel tanks near the east side of your property rather than one as mentioned in the Director's. decision (SDR 89-28). The condition of approval requiring removal of the underground fuel tank (Condition No. 6) will apply to all underground fuel tanks which are regulated by DEQ and/or EPA. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this point of CY clarification. Since ly, Keith S. Liden Senior Planner O/C.. Richard Bauer i LSCHM/kl 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. P.O. Box 23397. Tigard. C yprir,^ 07'))'l SCHMIDT SANITARY SERVICE, INC. 8325 SW ROSS 639-2378 TIGARD, OREGON 97224 City of Tigard Oct. 16, 1990 13125 S.W. Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Or. 97223 Dear Sir, We ask that you consider amending SDR 89-22 to retain underground fuel tanks. All requirements have been met under the orignal agreement. The purpose of keeping these tanks in operation will be for residential and farm use only. All commercial vehicles will be fueled off of these premises. The above mentioned tanks are no more than five years old. These tanks do not leak. The soil has been tested in accordance with DEQ and the tests are in compliance with standards. (See enclosure). Thank you, Larry Schmidt Schmidt Sanitary Service, Inc. COFFEY LARORATORIESt INC. 12423 N.E. WHIITAKER WAY PORTLAND. OR 97230 PHONE: (503) 254-1794 FAX: (503) 254.1452 October 9, 1990 Log # A900925-AD6 Schmidt Sanitary Service 8325 SW Ross Street Portland, OR 97224 Attention: John & tarry Schmidt Sample(s) Collected: 9/24190 Sample(s) Received: 9125/90 Analysis Requested: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in soil by modified EPA Method 418.1 SAMPLE ID SAMPLE RESULTS B1 HW Unleaded 10-11' 35 B1 NW Unleaded 5.5-6.5' 4 B2 Reg. 10-11.5' 9 B2 Reg. 5.5-6.5' 7 B3 Diesel 10-11.5' 21 B3 Diesel 5.5-6.5' 22 Detection Limit: 4 mg/Kg Results expressed as mg/kg unless otherwise noted. SiIn;,,CCerely Sincerely, / Victor A. erry, - enee Chauvin, Quality Assurance Technical Director RJC/mlh This report is for the sote and exclusive use of the client. Samples are retained a maximum of 15 days Iron the report date, or until the maximum holdiag tine expires. t~ 1.3 ays s w An c 1 6/,4/ ~O. ba X a 33 77 `"C~~ ~•v(, d ~j~r g 7 a a 3 $ 3 a S. w- l0sr S4,, 't'7 n%d , d r am 47a~ 4- r-¢ k-C ~ 4& -6d0 / c,~.a... ` -tr/1 tt ~3' 16 C-A ~-'~d wit ree--~ /J cX , / p Co.-~"'t' "cam ~ LtIRS r~~~f y 1 I AN rA W xf,-e 4* 1„ 7 S ,Q.~nS O -fl lCAA't~l O u r ~A k ti t j oA ~"~e( A A S N a l+tiM i-°~'`q o ►-GA~ b a-6-R r-e- ~ '1 10 ~,r a r A,%-, l t b c Qrrac ~ ~ ~csti ,A its. Sal S 4-4r Sz a /~a-t p w -J,OJIP- R 4-4r ( Al L--a.- 1 ~ . ass /~Qs s -f4 k 97.21Y k z .Qsw~- cc r d T7"11 ,j/,3 4tc e e ~.es 1 Y .sc ~w i~-~T iris t=ids try CS1~ tQ $9' -~.?~f l~ d 9 t t -T4-rq. Z 4A-1 *.4otj6 o-, -fie /-c%•.t , w,4 ate. l6«+s I° 2, mn o,p,a 3 ~wel ro.. 4t, t: D.&6~ FJgPF= FOR CATS TO: DATE: September 12, 1989 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SDR 89-22/V 89-28 SCHMIDT'S SANITARY SERVICE A Request for Site Development Review approval to allow the expansion and relocation of a nonconforming sanitary service business. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: 8325 SW Ross (WCTM 2S1 12CB, tax lot 900) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you *wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Sept. 22, 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: x We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. nclosed letter. 1 Please refer to the e O(Ak- e"J3Vse"4ei, C94 At (3 irc- Is C. Written Comments: ! r Ee { ~cc+ c. l Gi. 3ti1 At W l ! ((W' qe:!; T :5c ~t ws c ,c,Vi G :r &e"Ir C `Jz= f,~~o cs..,(. ( wt t mi l ( c~~ e r cr- 1,L - f~~ ~ d u sc z s ex ct~ - ~cevt s iet, e vtt lirL>; s sItz u c 06q Name of Person Commenting: Cwt Phone Number: 2-3 r SEP 251989 bkm/SDR89-22.BKM ~ F~ y b L f ~r r y p..t r p by 1.../7 T I"¢ /1 1.~ ~ Y►+a~J Lf C `'T ~ 4 S Z 3 ~ ~ 9 Y 9 ~Jjl A-`!t o /-~/CII,1 ~ yblcr r S -~L ~i J O c~ ~ rc ~C S~~ ~n y e-~ -t' o "tir Sc_ ~1 ••,~K'f ,~R,~6 busin.afS. ~..o n c~~ v -t~~ l ; ./t/.e1 ~4 1" r he acs' GI-Y.9 . ~r 1,,,-Y► - Arc -C t c -~cy 4L ~M Irsi -low t- 6 ' Z-r A, KL a -k4,. T fi,.. -4Lk 44 ~ 't ( Gam' C:1 ct7 'st Yi . y pln t-~-~ S r~tL 0-1 Ff ~ /0 /A h 4- e 4(4 .Z wo. --gnu ,~S . .QS kv-P X ►.-k r-e uzo-us l .i~eJ , --E~ s f -t~.o --~irvc fcs Lv -Q rc , y .l-4 A-7 o A-J, A S cv ~ -~`1 l++ n r.~ o -~tr I- ~+a-4~' Lk G-1 1.5 1 r'r t ~ n ^ 'SI o S ~ C K (S Q ~ j-+~ H \ ~ 'y LI SA O ~4.~ r5 -&Cvk O11!-ii "'ti- Lv', 1. ,-4 4L SJL 4A kS fro ► ~ ..ry A 'IL4'r•- > --t~~ t ~ Liu r4 3 - -.~O Q C.O--r (a /4-11- M 's t r ez t I-- L A ~ tier ~ Ci~v-{ `►•n~d s Gu S ~ ° f h ~ S I,r • B u n :~t~+~o~c ~ • 51, '9'z? -7 s S' u~ z~ S-I CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION SGT'S SANITARY SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 89-22 AND VARIANCE v 89-28 APPLICATION: Request for Site Development Review approval to allow the expansion and relocation of a nonconforming sanitary service business. Zone R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units per acre) Location: 8325 SW Ross Street (WCTM 2S1 12CB, tax lot 900). DECISION: Notice is herby given that the Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above described application subject to certain conditions listed on pages 4 and 5 of this report. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background Schmidt': -,-iitary Service, which occupies the site, has been operation since 1949. The company has a franchise agreement with the City to operate a sanitary service. The six acre property is the result of a minor land partition which was approved in 1979 (File No. MLP 2-79). The northern parcel created by this partition was later developed as LaMancha Estates subdivision. Over the.years, the business has expanded slightly and recently complaints have been received pertaining to its operation. The present zoning does 4 not allow a business of this type and therefore, is it considered as nonconforming use. The Tigard Community Development Code does not allow for. expansion or relocation of such uses. This application has been submitted in an attempt to address the concerns that have been raised relating to this operation. 2. Vicinity Information Properties to the north, east, and west are zoned R-4.5. Property to the south is zoned R-7 (Residential 7 units per acre). A single family residential subdivision abuts the property on the north and a second subdivision lies to the west on the opposite side of Hall Boulevard. Small acreage homesites and vacant parcels are situated to the south and east. Hall Boulevard is classified as a arterial street and Ross Street is a local street. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The six acre site contains a house, shop, garage, and two barns in the southeast corner of the property. The shop building and the two barns have setbacks ranging from five to ten feet from the eastern property line. NOTICE OF DECISION - SCMiIDT'S SANITARY SERVICE (SDR 89-22/V 89-28) PAGE 1 • v The applicant is proposing the following amendments to the way the existing site is being used: a. A gravel employee parking. area will be provided along the eastern property boundary using the existing solid wood fence for screening. b. The storage area for drop boxes, containers, and recycling and part of the operation will be moved from the east to a new area immediately north of the existing residence. C. An eight foot, solid wood fence shall be constructed around the new storage/operations area and additional fencing will be provided along the eastern' property line to match the existing fence. d. A new pale building will be constructed to the northeast of the existing house to accommodate five to six trucks. e. A new driveway will be installed to the west of the existing 1 residence to provide improved access to the new operations area. I f. The. fuel tank near the eastern property line shall be decommissioned in accordance with DEQ regulations by October, 1990. g. A variance has been requested to allow the moderate expansion and relocation of the sanitary service business on the property and also to allow for gravel surfacing of the parking and driveway areas. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineer Division has the following comments: a. The site fronts on SW Ross Street, a local street with an existing 40 foot wide right-of-way but requiring a 50 foot right-of-way. b. SW Ross Street drains to a depression on the north side of the street, east of the site. Improving the street will require providing drainage that cannot be accomplished with improvements along the frontage of this site. Furthermore, there is a proposal to realign SW Ross Street along the frontage of the site. Consequently, the construction of street improvements along the SW Ross Street frontage is not presently feasible and a future improvement guarantee will be required c. The western portion of the site fronts on SW Hall Boulevard and is expected to remain vacant until developed as a residential subdivision. Street improvements should be constructed along the SW Hall Boulevard frontage upon future development of the site. NOTICE OF DECISION - SCHMIDT'S SANITARY SERVICE (SDR 89-22/V 89-28) PAGE 2 d. SW Hall Boulevard is an arterial street requiring a right-of-way of 45 feet from centerline. The existing right-of-way of 30 feet from centerline should be widened to the full width upon future subdivision of the site. e. State Plumbing Specialty Code requires drainage from roofs and pavement areas to a public stormwater drainage system or an on site system designed to prevent runoff on the adjacent property. A public system is not available so on site disposal should be required. The proposed parking area and driveway will not require on site disposal unless paving is required. f. The proposed improvements will not require additional public sanitary sewer improvements. The Building Division indicates that building permits will be required for the new structures including the eight foot fence. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department indicates that hydrant protection, access, and building design shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the department for review and approval. Portland General Electric, General Telephone, and the Tigard Water District ` have no objections to the proposal. NPO 5 has no objection to the request. However, it is noted that endorsement of this project is primarily dependent upon the willingness of Schmidt,s Sanitary Service to thoroughly comply with all criterian affecting their business expansion. The NPO believes that special emphasis should be given to the conditions outlined in the application addendum dated August 31, 1989. No other comments were received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposal is consistent with community Development Code standards for building setbacks and height, lot coverage, landscaped area, parking area, vision clearance, and access. Additional discussion is warranted relating to the fuel tank and the variance request for relocating a nonconforming use and for providing gravel surfacing for the parking/storage area and driveways. 1. Fuel Tank New regulations have been adopted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality which regulate the installation of new fuel tanks as well as the eventual upgrading of existing underground fuel NOTICE OF DECISION - SCSliIDT'S SANITARY SERVICE (SDR 89-22/V 89-28) PAGE 3 1.1 M tanks. The new regulations will require that Schmidt•s Sanitary J Service. provide evidence of financal responsibility in the event of any spill or contamination caused by the fuel tank! The applicant has indicated that In order to comply with this regulation, the fuel tanks will be removed by the October, 1990 deadline. 2. Variance Request a. Criteria for granting a variance In order to grant a variance, it must be shown that the proposal does not conflict with policies and standards in the Comprehensive Plan or other applicable standards, that special circumstances exist which are pecular to the property, that the proposed use will be the same as what is permitted by the zone and that the code will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, that there will be no adverse affect on existing physical and natural systems, that the hardship is not self imposed, and that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would eleviate the hardship. b. Expansion/relocation of a nonconforming use Schmidt•s Sanitary Service is presently allowed as a nonconforming use because since it is was legally established and the zoning regulations subsequently were y changed to no longer rermit the use. Chapter 18.132 of the Code permits such uses to be continued but it prohibits their expansion. During the past several years a number of improvements have been made in the southeast corner of the property which have caused conflicts with the adjoining residential uses. -The proposed relocation of the majority of the operation, along with a minor expansion to allow vehicles to be parked inside, represents an effort on behalf of the applicant to achieve greater overall compliance with the code especially in relation to setback area and buffering standards. The existing and additional site-obscuring fencing and the new pole b-Alding will act to reduce the visibility of the business as well as noise that is created from the operation. This modification is the minimum variation from the Code that would still allow a reasonable continuation of the business and reduce the magnitude of the existing compatibility issues. It is the position of the staff that this represents an interim use which will eventually be replaced by residential development. Also, this is a one time adjustment and future expansion must be considered through the variance procedure as an expansion of a non-conforming use. NOTICE OF DECISION - SCHMIDT•S SANITARY SERVICE (SDR 89-22/V 89-28) PAGE 4 C. Gravel parking and loading areas Given the special circumstances of this property and the particular use contemplated, the granting of a variance is a reasonable solution to this situation for several reasons. First, the property is designated for single family residential development and considering the size of the property and the relatively minor amount of existing development, it appears very likely that the property will be redeveloped in the future. Paving the site for a use that does not represent the ultimate development of the property would constitute a hardship. Second, the variance will not adversely affect the surrounding properties. Due to the location and proposed screening of the proposed gravel areas, they will be hidden from view and will not visually degrade the area. Also, the slope of the property is gentle and storm drainage will be easily contained. Third, the majority of the gravel area will be used for the storage of drop boxes and containers and the amount of traffic will be minimal. The existing driveway is paved and the, proposed driveway apron should be as well since it will become the primary entrance and exit to the site. s C. DECISION The Planning Director's designee APPROVES SDR 89-22/VB9-26 subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW Ross Street frontage to increase the right-of-way to twenty five (25) feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms and instructions are available from the Engineering Division. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Division (639-4171). 2. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future Local Improvement District formed to improve SW Ross Street. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division (639-4171). 3. The applicant shall provide for roof drainage by an on site system designed to prevent runoff onto the adjacent property. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 4. The necessary building permits shall be obtained from the Building Inspection Division for the new pole building and any fencing that is over 6 feet in height. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). NOTICE OF DECISION - SC MIDT°S SANITARY SERVICE (SDR 89-22/V 89-28) PAGE 5 S. The employee parking, outdoor storage area, solid wood fencing, pole building, and new driveway shall be installed as indicated on the submitted site plan by January 31, 1990. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division (639-4171). 6. The underground fuel tank shall be removed or decommissioned in accordance with state and federal requirements by October 31, 1990. STAFF CONTACTS Keith Liden, Planning Division (639-4171). 7. A street opening permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division prior to constructing the driveway described in condition S. above. The driveway apron shall be paved. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Division (639-4171). 8. The area occupied by the business shall not expand beyond the areas shown on the approved site plan that was submitted as part of this application. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division (639-4171). D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: The applicant and owners owners of record within the required distance The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization Affected government agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON06 10l'181UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within 10 days after notice is given and sent. Appeal fee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. A,% The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. Clot 11917 NOTICE OF DECISION - SCH14IDT•S SANITARY SERVICE (SDR 89-22/V 89-28) PAGE 6 i 4. Questions: If you have questions, please call City of Tigard Planning Department, City of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: DATE r f f s .A Y 33 e > w ~ ~ w a DR S.W. MURDOCK a ST. Cb D f LA MANCNA. t -~i w is R 11136 j s SITE CD J m J t 3 S.W. Gir ST vi N ET H 4?, 3 0 vi 0 F 2 Z ~ ~ r S tJf V H Cr T N I I C') ASHFORD S . s c SDR89-22/kl NOTICE OF DECISION - SC XIDT°S SANITARY SSRVICS (SDR 89-22/V 89-28) PAGE 7 MW I's to WOOD 200.6 X - .00 ~tus ,t X GCNtILI 1 ~1 1 TR,t1dOC5 k Ik.W VOL& p 1 a mtt)b F g '6Ut4~tp~ 6-16 rc~o mow- ~ 197. E j- EJr~w ' X x } oX s P a.,. nit~ F S 7. X 200.7 S. W. R O S S ` o~- aQ 1 lot X 201.8 Div 0 10 gr' X SWIM dh klor ,~.~7 S~xnk taq d~r~ ~,.,o S ~Av,d g ~ ,~a+q p1° u ` August 25, 1989 , CITY OF TIIFA Richard Bauer OREGON 8275 S.W. Ross Street Tigard, OR 97224 RE: Schmidts Sanitary Service Dear Mr. Bauers I am responding to your letter to Pat Reilly regarding a schedule for the review and resolution of the nonconforming sanitation business owned by Schmidts Sanitary Service. If the most recent site plan, which I sent to you and the Schmidts earlier this week, is satisfactory, I will begin an administrative review of the proposal next week. Such a review will take approximately three weeks to complete. It will be important to obtain comments from Neighborhood Planning organization #5 prior to issuing a decision. It appears that the next scheduled meeting for this group is September 20th. Therefore, a decision will be forthcoming by September 22, 1989. The decision will have a 10 day appeal period and a schedule for the Schmidts to make the necessary modifications to the layout and use of the site for the business. Please contact me with your comments on the latest revisions or any questions C that you may have. SinKeith S. Liden Senior Planner C: Pat Reilly SCH/kl 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 y AA S. Lt oy A ~h. /L~c[Qti o k J~ ! L~~9 Go Plw nfo? -b ~O►~~"'9' 3 v l e to -~cey+S a,, w, A w~ (T ha vA k w,-4k -t~{ . ~C ► ~e -4/4 l y e 1. wk-O s-4.-tJ -"014 A" WIA-k-s a y a 44 fc-4hs.w4,s h k v-k /.~-jr-k4 4z o ~-r- r-,Djk"45. b u~ h s v-Q b-A-44 --rjc -l 4% U" rk w. -4 ~ -UA ci -L o v t~s- : AQ *M /r'-j ox Ita t * 0 4 L4 1' 4 y s t C.-k es. i / 4 -Lc, to w*- wat .aK~-Q yon ,o ~.Ys. C. - - ~!.•.2 , .t..+':~' ^ s : l^• .-..~':':."Ir i'~ r f r.l J ' lAf ;1.::. :men: r ,.mac ~ sir-..:';,a..:"~.. .rx•:- •~i=-_"_':•'~ mac: '•'i:•: f7 _ 7 . ll ..1. t e : 901 :lfl~ ::XL• I~ . BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TIGARD DATE A6 'at 9 ,18 83,E 454 5 THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES FOR A PERMIT FOR THE WORK HEREIN INDICATED BUILDER PHONE 644°9039 ::yrr~:µr,.:• OWNER PHONE OR AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, 039-2378 ~ f LOT NO. rr%M' OWNER John Schmidt JOBADDRESS 8325 V Rose fl--~- ; ARCHITECT <r.:. ENGINEER J%3 BUILDER con-'o-Pah ADDRESS 870 -SW 122nd Ct. DESIGNER J' J STRUCTURE ~iNEW El REMODEL ❑ ADDITION ❑ REPAIR ❑ RENEWAL ❑ FIRE DAMAGE ❑ DEMOLITION ❑ RESIDENCE ❑ COMM El EDUCATIONAL El GOV'T 11 RELIGIOUS ❑ PATIO ❑ CAR PORT El GARAGE CSTORAGE ❑ SLAB❑ FENCE • :.`t~~rs-,"-:lam OCCUPANCY 1 LAND USE ZONE 1t-7 BLDG.TYPE 5N FIREZONF PLAN CHECK BY HEAT _ Construct detached storage building. SEWER PERMIT # OCC. LOAD FLOOR LOAD Cone. HEIGHT 171 NO. STORIES 1 AREA 1000 • NO. BEDROOMS -VALUE 11#200' ^<w'.;~ft;~<. • BUILDING DEPARTMENT .~:s':sl •~r/,•;; ;:=:~:J SETBACKS FRONT 165 REAR 115 LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE 5 Permit 92.50 THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN 'THE BUILDING CODE, ZONING - REGULATIONS AND ALL APPLICABLE- CODES AND ORDINANCES, AND IT IS•HEREBY AGREED THAT THE Plan Check ti0. 13 WORK WILL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IN COMPLIANCE ` Yir }5:,;;r;: WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT WAIVE : 71 ~ 'f= Subtotal 152. 63 . RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. CONTRACTOR AND SUB CONTRACTORS TO HAVE'CURRENT CITY, BUSINESS: ~,t o LICENSE. SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR SEWER, PLUMBING AND HEATING. 3.70 State Tax S'C Total 156.33 f, .1 PDCII APPLICANT OR AGENT ' (Jr s•r tint By Clt J. } ~i~ f ' t ~4 4~ J .J ~jluJr s: Receipt No. 'j. ADDRESS , PHONE "1.." Approved - - - lJC .7 ~lu...• 'lei e ":t°-•r:%f'iJl' :•r;i~t~.::..'=r,~;. 1 ~;7"'r',, / f-! f.• •yi' •r•~ _ :.x..'1,1. ~ Ir~! ! rf fff.l fJ.'.'!'`j~~.' ,:,7. %r'r' S r?sn~...:~f .c:,~.a'^.-.:a""y..'.x pp i1.iri• ,n ,...Fr....~.,.•rrr.,.:,~,..fr...:: •c to K t i~~t{i Z: 222`•': '`,k:i: 2 ` n , "2•,' . 2`i nom, n, ,2{{ 22 n i i•;i`22~~ 2{2.2,V, ,~,,n,`2,, ti,i, 1, • V:,. ,2 n 22 i , , 2, k~''2;``2 ,`~2:,~ 22• ' • '2 in•, ~ . 2r`2t r~~ •{::i,`{: 2E~,~ ~w''`~~`~'.; V fir` 2 ~E.2, y ``~a• 2:``:22'' E'2.: V ~ L 2 ~ i• ~'r~22, ~i o '222 ~ :2. `~2~{{~~~~~~ , ~°,'3t,ti~•;{~~ 2 ~ ~ ` 2~. ~~tt{t~ 2,t`is2 ~i~~t22.2:~:•~:`t'ii~r i :,,,v ' ,2~~`,2~{:;:•,`.,.~::•:;'2• 2 v.ty,i 2 W Q S Q s~ Z ~ z a ~ W ul c 5 LL C > 8 LL N a 5 c c° c Q• Z ? O Y Z Q T Q 0 y - b c m 'o x c o o o c c c o¢ C°} c qc o tttt W (L LL LL U d C7 (L LL LL iL y VJ U Q W J N i z W y s u P f 2 . 02 3{~ ~ y 3{~%~11 i ~ U a ov o ~ t ~ i Mel 3'`s t3{! ~ 222 ,s#f 3 ~tf~ r,;i{ s s;~} iS$!!'s%fS~'{'i<f3% 2 h Z )3 31' •t£2'`•'' rit >,s'££st{;i!s:tl;iSst£s' to a 'W''t ) W ~ ~ } r ) S t ri E .if..••. %it• ~i;4£i%>3s~%3 O ~ 1'<:2;;•t _<2`:•2:•<)2 3 s ~2`:`r,-: it2.7~ #232.;'=` ;:3:2.;t:';-c`:{2 •,~~~4:~vE_~~;;::~2, _ , . . ~~a ,n ..c ,^^r,;.^ec^~,.~c•;,,<~,p•x,<,,,_--.,_.;...,...• ^^f.•~-:^• r f~ii~iyr~' ~~;2~~~ :;:~i 2`^~,,~ eta , •,-.n-.,,.,. - ,:r.~'#i3ht~V~i.ti...Z~.. .~2~tttr:=, .•3~m,.raoc~y ;t--.,..,..' ,~3i3).•.. ..~?~?~'ff£,,L~;, fi.'' , ..rE ' . .•z•' !r<;.. ,.t. .,t<.:.., ~t.f.:y,3.2.<, '~eii:y`!?~t+:f`?"=~£+`+`~2;~2;tw.f' • .f,.. , : 2 . a , n ':`E•",)`!..?`t3 •_.,..,::.....v:...•. .,3i, 2••.:) :•.•:,:"`'•K~ i;#3;:3a2`<L~22)f3i~:3:)E•..;:%3r.;. )2:• ;ti:;~ )f Ks ~ , : x:i , , a.. 7 , , . 3...,.. ,...;f. _ ..,.~.:•52:., :22>c3 S't' i3.,..).3 ) 2 `f; t .,i,,....,.,,,..,t.i...,.. 1.2 ( 1.. ~ , it 18.132 NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS 18.132.010 Purpose (a) Within the districts established by this Chapter or amendments that may later be adopted there may exist lots, structures, uses of land and structures, which were lawful before the effective date of this Chapter, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the terms of this ordinance or future amendments. r (b) It is the purpose and intent of this Chapter to permit these nonconforming lots, structures and uses to continue but 'to A disallow the, enlargement, QxnanSi^^ ^r nvtaneinn of Q~ except ,~-tha►t the enlargenien or expansion of a si le family res n e wi a owe in the COD zone only. (d) Nonconforming uses are declared by this Chapter to be incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and with permitted uses in the zoning district involved. 18.132.020 Administration - Determination of Nonconforming Use Status (a) The Director shall make a determination regarding nonconforming use status. (b) Upon application and payment of fees, the decision of the Director may be appealed as provided by 18.32.310(a). 18.132.030 Pending Building Permits (a) In order to avoid undue hardship, nothing in this Chapter shall require any change in the location, plans, construction, size or designated use of any building, structure, or part thereof, for which a required city building permit has been granted prior to enactment of this Code. (b) If a building permit is revoked or for any reason becomes void, all rights granted by this Chapter are extinguished and the project shall thereafter be required to conform to all the provisions of this Code. 18.132.040 Criteria for Nonconforming Situations (a) Nonconforming Lots of Record. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) below and subsections (8) and (C), no nonconforming lut of record at the effective date of this Code or amendment thereto shall be developed for any use, and no existing use on a nonconforming lot of record shall be enlarged, extended, or reconstructed, except that the enlargement or expansion of a single family residence will be allowed in the COD zone only. 111 - 265 (2) If on the date of adoption of this Code a lot does not meet the lot size requirements of the applicable zoning district in which the property is located, the lot may: (A) Be occupied by one use permitted outright in a commercial zoning district; if the lot is located within a coavoercial zoning district; or (B) Be occupied by single family residential units and accessory structure if located in a residential zoning district. (3) In any district, construction on a single nonconforming lot of record existing at the effective date of this Code or amendment thereto, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this Code, shall be subject to the following: (A) The nonconforming lot shall be in a separate ownership and not contiguous with other lots in the sane ownership. (B) All setback, height and other applicable provisions of the zoning district shall be satisfied. (4) If two or more lots, or combinations of lots and portions of lots in single ownership are- of record at the effective date of this Code and are made nonconforming as to lot area, width, or depth by this Code the lots involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this Code; and (A) No portion of the aggregated parcels shall be conveyed, transferred or used in any manner which violates or creates a violation of this Code. (B) No division of the parcel shall be made which creates any lot remaining with the area, width, or depth which does not meet the requirements of this Code. (b) Criteria For Nonconforming Uses of Land. (1) Where at the time of adoption of this Code a lawful use of land exists which would not be permitted by the regulations imposed by this Code, and where such use involves no structure or building, other than a single sign or accessory structure thr? use may be continued as long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided: (A) No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged, increased or extended to occupy a greater area of land or space than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Code; 111 - 266 (B) No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Code; (C) The nonconforming use of land is not discontinued for any reason for a period of more than 6 months; and (D) If the use is discontinued or abandoned for any reason for a period of 6 months any subsequent use of land shall conform to the regulations specified by this Code for the zone in which such land is located. (E) For purposes of this Section, a use shall be deemed to be discontinued or abandoned upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events: (i) On the date when the use of land is vacated; (ii) On the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of merchandise or the provision of services; (iii) On the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the nonconforming use has occupied the land; and (iv) On the date a request for final reading of water and power meters is made to the applicable utility districts. (F) No additional structure, building or sign shall be constructed on the lot in connection with such nonconForming use of land. (c) Nonconforming Structures. (1) Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption ~~amand-ont of this Code thdt could not be built under the terms of this Code by reason of restrictions on lot area, lot coverage, height, yard, equipment, its location on the lot, or other requirements concerning the structure, such structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: (A) No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. but any structure or portion thereof may be enlarged or altered in a way that satisfies the requirements of this Code or will decrease its nonconformity; III - 267 (B) Should such nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 60% of its current value as assessed value by the Washington County Assessor, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Code; and (C) Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatever, it shall thereafter confo nn to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located after it is moved. (d) Nonconforming Uses of Structures. (1) If a si le lawful use cantainW,An,..'a._ sira#le structure involving;'that" structure' "or structure -:and- premises- in combination (except for a single, accessory structure) existed- as of. PSar_ch;=X26.:+a ]Q.B3'. would not be allowed in the zoning district in which it is located, or which is nonconforming because of inadequate off-street parking, landscaping, or other deficiency, (under the terms of this ordinance or amendment thereto) the lawful use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: (A) No existing structure devoted to a'use not permitted by this Code in the zoning district in which it is located shall be enlarged. extended, constructed, C reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except to accommodate a changing of the use of the structure to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located; (B) Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any existing parts of a building which were manifestly arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption or amendment of this Code, but no such use shall be extended to occupy any land outside such building; (C) A change of use for a single use in a single structure, may occur under the following conditions: (i) The nonconforming use status was registered with the Planning Director in the manner provided by 18.132.040 (d)(3) for the purpose of establishing the use classification as listed in any of the Permitted Uses subsection of this Code; and (ii) The new use is within the registered Permitted Use classification; or, (iii) The new use conforms to the zoning ordinance provisions. 111 - 268 (D) When a nonconforming use of a structure and premises is discontinued or abandoned for 6 months the ~T structure and premises shall not, thereafter be used except in full conformity with all regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. For purposes of this Section, a use shall be deemed to be discontinued or abandoned upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events: (i) On the date when the structure or premises are vacated, (ii) On the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of merchandise or the provision of services, f (iii) On the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the nonconforming use has occupied the premises, and (iv) On the date a request for final reading of water and power meters is made to the applicable utility districts; and (F) Where a nonconforming use status applies to a i structure and premises, removal or destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming use status of the land. f (i) Destruction for the purpose of this subsection is defined as damage to an extent of more than 60% of its current assessed value by the Washington County Assessor. (ii) Any subsequent use shall conform fully to all provisions of the zoning district in which it is located. (2) If a single structure or a structure and premises containing a number of lawful uses (except for a single accessory structure) existed as of March 16, 1983, and said uses would not be allowed in the zoning district in which they are located, or which are nonconforming because of inadequate off-street parking, landscaping, or other deficiency, (under the terms of this ordinance or amendment thereto) the lawful uses may be continued so long as they remain otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: (A) No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this Code in the zoning district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except to accommodate a changing of the use of the structure to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located; i 111 - 269 (8) Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any existing parts of a building which was manifestly arranged or designed for such use as of March 16. 1983, but no such use shall be extended to occupy any land outside such building except as limited by 16.132.040 (d)(2)(E). (C) A change of use may occur as follows: (i) The nonconforming use status was registered with the Planning Director in the manner provided by 18.132.040(d)(3) for the purpose of establishing the use classification as listed in any of the Permitted Use subsections of this Code; (ii) The new use is within the registered use classifications; and (iii) The new use does not cause an increase in the total number of square feet in the registered use classification; or (iv) The new use conforms to the zoning ordinance provisions. (D) Where a structure had vacant units as of March 16,1983, such vacant spaces shall be classified with the most restrictive use classification applicable to C the structure. (E) When the use of the structure, including all uses, is discontinued or abandoned for three ■+onths the structure and premises shall not, thereafter be used except in full conformity with all regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. For purposes of this Section, a use shall be deemed to be discontinued or abondoned upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events: (i) The vacation of the structure or premises. (ii) The making of a request for final reading of water and power meters to the applicable utility districts. (3) nonconforming uses may be registered with the Director upon proof that-the use was in lawful existence as of March 16. 1983. The Director shall: (A) Make a nonconforming use determination as provided by Section 18.12; r (8) Maintain a file of registered nonconforming uses and use classifications; and 111 - 270 R4,v 17!0`• (C) Approve a business tax request involving a change of use upon finding the provisions of (d)(1) or (d)(2) are satisfied. (4) The provisions of 18.132.040 shall not be interpreted as granting an owner of a nonconforming use a vested right. The provisions of the section may be revised in a manner which does not change the rights granted by this Section under this ordinance. 18-132.050 Repairs and Maintenance (a) On any nonconforming structure or portion of a structure containing a nonconforming situation, normal repairs or replacement on non-bearing walls, fixtures, wiring, or plumbing may be performed in a manner not in conflict with the other provisions of this Chapter. (b) Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting the public safety, upon order of such official. 19.132.060 Uses under Conditional Use Provisions Not Nonconforming Uses (a) A permitted use existing before the effective date of this ordinance which under the provisions of this Code is now permitted only upon receiving a Conditional Use permit under the terms of this Code shall not be deemed a nonconforming use in such zoning district, if it otherwise conforms to the standards of this Code, but shall without further action be considered a conforming use subject to the provisions applicable to Conditional Uses. (b) Enlargement, extension, reconstruction, or moving of such use shall only be allowed subject to the provisions for Conditional Uses, as contained in Chapter 18.130. 1 111 - 271 NNW r ; MIL 1 ~ J ; ~ ~ w! fv~ n 9~~ to . ` EtRDSC T p T YE4 , -Ip s \ r, 1 ~ 1 ' %F` ~ 1 r C s {I~tELNf'•'+aR ~ $ RD _1 t .r S. M. v4Cw t _ i S'a. t1LM SERB W - s r 1 c ° ,K tYLt J®i -CL % • ST ylyplOR w. ~ sw sT. { ~ I ~ t t. _L- al scHooL. '"1 ` S `~..r~1eO" I TEMP µTAR~ 1 e~ I j s ' ~LFtAf / 1 - wE r i V 1 W µ004 • l • _ ss _ '--""~.'yt,ttF'u•-t'--'-' 1 ^ to ^ 1 y1 SaTTL- i a~ so -1 ~ J t ! R-1 •-r j ` ~ "WELT s i J J w` 1cp 1 . J~' >~'t'~ ,•-=+-',~R.i PDT ' ~ ;1 ,fir ~ i~ 1 i Jew 4. _ ~G t tREAYM6NT r 'i~.'° sCµ00t. P%-ANT t +l Y 7 •'Y- low L` „1 t + _~k 1 ~ O June 21, 1989 C11YOFT11FAIM Larry Schmidt OREGON Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. 8325 S.W. Ross Street Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Business expansion Dear Larry: I am writing to follow up my letter of April 28, 1989 regarding the non- conforming status of your business and the complaints received relating to its operation. Because of the questions raised regarding the appropriateness of the location of Schmidt's Sanitary Service in a residential zone, I have reviewed your situation with our city attorney. I understand the relevant facts to be the following: 1. Schmidt's Sanitary Service was in operation at its present location prior to annexation into the City of Tigard on March 15, 1967 (Ordinance No. 67-20). 2. Based upon the zoning regulations in effect in 1967 and the subsequent amendments to the Tigard Municipal Code, the business has bean regarded as a "non-conforming use" because the residential zoning does nit permit commercial businesses. A non-conforming use is an activity which is legally established but where later changes in land use regulations no longer allow such a use. The City Code permits non-conforming uses to continue provided they do not expand. 3. The City issued a Building Permit to construct an accessory building on the property in April, 1974. A second permit was issued in August, 1983 for a 1,000 square foot accessory structure which is being used for servicing company equipment. 4. Although precise figures are not readily available, it is apparent that because of the growth of both the size and the population of your company's service area, the extent of the activity on your property (eg. number of employees, trucks, storage area, and building space) has undoubtedly increased. The complaints relate to the expansion of the business and the storage of dumpsters, parking of trucks and employee vehicles near the east property line, and the associated noise and exhaust fumes. Because of the non-conforming status of your business, the City is obligated to respond to this issue. It is not the request of your neighbor or City staff to necessarily have the business removed from the property. It appears that moving the operation as far west as practical would resolve the present problem. I would propose that we meet either at City Hall or at your property to see 1 what changes can be made to resolve this issue. If this problem cannot be resolved, the City will be forced to begin Civil Infractions proceedings to have the business removed from the property or reduced to its original size. Finally, it should be emphasized that any further expansion of the business on the Ross Street property is in violation of City Code and it will need to be moved to a location with the appropriate zoning. our staff will be glad to assist you in determining which properties are suitable within the City limits. Attached is an interpretation which indicates the zoning districts that are appropriate for the business. I will be out of town until June 27th. I will give you a call later next week so we may arrange convenient meeting time. Thank you for your cooperation. Since el , t t: Keith S. Liden Senior Planner f S l rl ! April 28, 1989 C1OF TIV OREGON Larry Schmidt Schmidt°s Sanitary Service, Inc. 8325 S.W. Ross Street Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Operation of trucks Dear Larry: I have received a request that the operation of trucks on your property be modified so that they are not parked along the eastern property line. The noise and diesel fumes are found to be objectionable In the early morning hours and on weekends. As we discussed earlier this year, your business is considered-a.anon-conforming use-In-the R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) zone and I must respond to complaints, particularly if they appear to be°xelated t? the:expansion, of such a,use., I will be out of town next week, but feel free to contact John Acker in our office if you have any questions. I shall be available after May 8th. Since y, Keith S. Liden Senior Planner c: John Acker • I C;l G~.. ~x1 ~.e:~Gc.~~ _ .._~._...~-~✓_~~x_c~~_s~.~-t?~. _ ...-~~,L.. s~ _ c.r~G(--.... Ce, _ _ x4 -A4 4ove-, CAI 1z, - 14 y e. t 4 i ; I l' i it! t i ~ I ( I I I I I , I I I "4 ! ! ~ i { ! ~ , 1 tom, ~ i ~ ' ! 4 ! i i i ~ I I I { I I I ; i i i i ~ i I ~ ' i ( I ! I ~ I ~ ' i I • I ~ I I ~ i ~I I I ( I ~ C~ n /015 91 4-0 /a7 Joe G FIJI j: ;r is O~ 1 i. /}'Lv a - -mow - ~ - - - - - - - , C r /~Q~~-~--~a+L Q J (-..4r. Keith Linden Senior Planner City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Or. 97224 Dear Mr. Linden, We are requesting you to take actions to correct a zoning use violation which has occurred on our neighbors property, Mr. and Mrs. John Schmidt, 8325 S.W. Ross St., Tigard, Or. 97224. Since we have purchased the prop- erty adjacent to the Schmidt's,their garbage business has greatly ex- panded. This expansion has decreased the value of our property and has created noise, smell and visual problems to anyone on our property. We have discussed this situation with the Schmidt's but with no corrective action taken by them. Last spring we placed a 100 ft. long cedar fence between our properties but this provided only limited resolution. Mrs. Bauer contacted Mr. John Acker of your office on several occasion's last summer. He indicated he talltd to one of the Schmidt's sons, Larry, but his contact resulted in no change. On September 16, 1988 Mr. Acker sent us a copy of the zoning map for this area and a copy of Noncon- forming Situations (18.132). This was much appreciated. Both of these items are enclosed (inclosures #1 & #2). After reviewing these doc- uments, Mrs. Bauer met with Deborah Stuart of your department in October, 1988 and she stated that the described expanded use on the Schmidt's property was in violation of the Noncbnforming Situation regulation. f hen we purchased our property at 8275 S.W. Ross St. in 1977 the Schmidt's arbage business consisted of one garbage collection truck plus a pickup ruck. The outbuildings consisted of a large metal garage where they ept the collection truck when not in use, a small tool shed and an old ooden barn. The current condition includes two garbage collection trucks, ne large truck to carry an 8 by 18 foot drop box, a pickup truck, on- ite drop boxes for glass and metal recycleables, empty 8 by 18ft. and by 6ft. drop boxes (stored for off-site use), two fuel tanks buried mmediately adjacent to our property line, a new large metal building nd drop boxes for people delivering garbage to the Schmidts; both the ast two items are also immediately adjacent to our property. The umber of employees has also increased; their cars are now parked just off the street but again next to our property line. This expansion of the physical facility is presented by the diagrammatic (enclosure #3) and photographs (enclosure #4). l~ n r The above described condition presents a visual, olfactory and audio disturbance to us and anyone visiting our home. We frequently babysit our young grandchildren but it is impossible for them to nap because of C the noise. Work commences between 0730 and 0800 after which time it is inpossibie for Mrs Bauer to sleep. The fumes from the gasoline and diseal tanks and trucks (see photo of vent pipes extending beyond top of fence) and the smell from the garbage drop boxes, both immediately on the other side of our cedar fence, makes it difficult for us to enjoy our backyard during the summer. The Schmidt's have several acres to the west and north of their current facilities that could be used for all these expanded uses. We are not trying to put the Schmidt's out of business but only to protect the living conditions and financial values that were present when we pur- chased our property. We hope you can take prompt action on this sit- uation. Our home phone is 639-2690 and Mr. Bauer's work phone is 231-6164. Sincerely yours, Richard D. Bauer Maryl in K. Bauer cc: Bradley Wall 1.. mw Air- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATE: December 3, 1990 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, December 190 - February 191 Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. December '90 1-5 Sat- National League of Cities; Houston, Texas Wed 7 Fri Tree Lighting - 5:30 to 6:30 p.m./City Hall Employee Christmas Party - 7:00 p.m./Metro Housing Office - 15555 S.W. Bangy Road *10 Mon Council Business Agenda (6:00/7:30) *17 Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) 25 Tue Christmas Day Holiday - City Offices Closed January '91 1 Tue New Years Day - City Offices Closed *14 Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) - State of the City Address; Executive Summary; Election of Council President; Employee Service Awards & Reception *21 Mon Council Study Agenda (6:30/7:30) Martin Luther King, Jr. Day - City Offices Closed *28 Mon Council Business Agenda February '91 it Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) 18 Mon Council Study Agenda (6:30) President's Day - City Offices Closed 25 Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) cccal Council Calendar - Page 1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: Dec. 10. 1990 - DATE SUBMITTED: 11129/90 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Bid award for PREVIOUS ACTION: Durham Road at 92nd Ave Traffic Si6rnA PREPARED BY: Gar Alfson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK~ REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Award construction contract for the Traffic signal installation complete with emergency vehicle pre-emption. - INFORMATION SUMMARY This project provides for the installation of a complete traffic signal system including emergency vehicle pre-emption. Three bids were received as follows: Grasle Electric $54,470.00 M & J Electric dba Marine & Industrial Electric $56,221.00 Cherry City Electric, Inc. dba Hamilton Electric $59,871.00 The consultant engineer (Mackenzie Engineering) estimate was: $68,150 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Reject all bids. FISCAL IMPACT This project is funded through the 90-91 Capitol Improvement Program. SUGGESTED ACTION That the Local Contract Reveiw Board, by motion, authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with Grasle Electric. ga/ss-dr92n.GA t COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3 3E~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 10, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: November 28, 1990 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Consent Calendar: PREVIOUS ACTION: The City Council Award of Summerlake Playground, Irri- previously approved advertising for gation and Landscape Bid. for year park levy improvements. PREPARED BY: Ron Bunch, Senior Planner DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director POLICY ISSUE There are no policy issues associated with this action. INFORMATION SUMMARY This undertaking is the first of two major projects to improve Summerlake Park as part of the Five Year Park Levy. The project will accomplish the following on the east portion of Summerlake Park. - Installation of a new playground. The playground area will be curbed and provided with a concrete seating wall and paved seating area. - Construction of new concrete pathways leading to and in the vicinity of the playground. - Installation of approximately three acres of lawn areas, landscaping and irrigation. This winter it is planned to develop the design and working drawings necessary to construct park improvements for the west Bide of Summerlake Park during the spring and summer of 1991. This project will include hard court areas (tennis and basketball courts), playground, picnicking areas, pedestrian paths and bikeways, landscaping and irrigation. The general locations of the above project areas are shown on the attached Summerlake Master Plan. It is requested that the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) award the Summerlake playground, irrigation, and landscape bid to ECCO (dba S&L Landscaping). ECCO's base bid for the project was $161,646. It is also recommended that the LCRB approve ECCO's bid for Alternate #1 at $1,400 which will allow the use of concrete for walkways in the vicinity of the playground instead of asphalt. Approval of Alternate #1 is recommended because concrete is more durable and aesthetic than asphalt. Furthermore, concrete will match the concrete curb and seating wall around the playground. The base bid plus Alternate #1 totals $163,046. The landscape architect's estimate for this project was $180,000. There were nine base bids submitted for this project. The bids ranged from a i ECCO's low bid of $161,646 to a high of $257,800. The bids are listed in the attached Exhibit "A". A protest was registered by James V. Cassetta, Construction services that ECCO's bid was "non-responsive" in that it did not include a written statement indicating what firm would supply the playground equipment. Cassetta's bid was second lowest at $179,633 and he has requested that the bid be awarded to his firm. This matter was referred to the City Attorney and he has determined that no wrong-doing has occurred and no unfairness to other bidders would occur if the City awards the bid to ECCO. Cassetta's letter of protest and the City Attorney's response are attached as Exhibits "B" and "C" respectively. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not to award the bid to ECCO and recognize James V. Cassetta's protest and award the bid to the second low bidder.: r Not award the bid and readvertise. l FISCAL IMPACT The base bid plus the recommended alternate totals $163,046. The landscape architect's estimate for the project was $180,000. Design, inspection fees, and overhead will total approximately $11,000. SUGGESTED ACTION j. It is recommended that the Local Contract Review Board award the bid for the Summerlake playground, irrigation, and landscape improvements to ECCO (dba S&L Landscaping). rb/ccsumsum.lke -2- 1,611MIM -W ©ttjj ':~.C~ Yl•4 Gl.r ~ ~ ~ ` • 0~ .kA~ 111 1l ~•YM~ pry FAO. / J 96 IA; ffm5wkill" M~M IY W SUMMARY OF SUMMERLAKE PARK PLAYGROUND BIDS 11/16/90 FIRM BASE BID ALTERNATE 1. ECCO (dba S&L Landscaping) $161,646 $1,400 2. Wilcott Irrigation: Bid not accepted. Wilcott Irrigation did not bid the entire project. They only submitted a bid for irrigation work. 3. Brant Construction $257,800 $3,400 4. Russell Construction $199,873 $4,437 5. NW Landscape Industries $179,699 $1,499 6. Krueger Landscape $191,830 $2,000 7. Cedar Landscape $185,083 $2,796 S. Tuef€el Nursery $229,345 $5,473 9. James V. Cassetta Construction $176,864 $2,768.70 Services rb/sumle.bid f:. JAMES V. CASSE FrA CONSTRUCTION SERNCES . 3709 N.E. Cax;H ST.. PORTLAND. OWGON 97232 a 503-232-3405 November 16, 1990 Jan Gonzales Purchasing Agent City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Or. 97223 Re: Summerlake Park Playground Improvements Dear Ms. Gonzales, As the apparent second low bidder on the above referenced pzoject, I protest the bid submitted by the apparent low bidder and.request that the apparent low bid be declared non-responsive, and that the city award the contract to the second low bidder. Section II. Specification Addenda, paragraph I.1. of Addendum #1 requires the bidders to submit with the bid the name of the proposed playground equipment supplier and also a signed letter from said supplier stating that they can meet all specifications for such equipment and also stating what coating option they intend to use. The apparent low bidder did not supply these documents. This ommission on the apparent low bidder's part has an adverse impact on the integrity of the competitive bid process because the other bidders were committed to a supplier whereas the apparent low bidder would be in a strong negotiating position with the various manufacturers, an advantage the other bidders would not have. I also submit that because of the escalating costs of fuel, concrete and asphalt, it would not be in•the city's best interest to rebid this work. Ve ruly yours, Jam s V. Cassett- cc. Ron Bunch Joe Percival Ken Fox, City Attorney Terrance Hunt, Esq. C.. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMEM • ESTIMATES a TRouBLE SHOOTING e COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION e HEAW CONSTRUCTION O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN CHARLES H. BACHAACii ATMRNEYS AT LAW SALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 STEPHEN F. CREW Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 CHARLES M. GREEFF (503) 266.1149 REESE P. HASYINGS TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN FAX: (503) 243-2944 NANCY B. MURRAY JAMES M. COLEMAN MARK P. O'DONNELL PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE KENNETII M. ELLIOTT DENNIS M. PATERSON III GARY M. GEORGEFF* TIMOTHY V. RAMIS ROBERT J. McGAUGHEY* SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* November 27, 1990 SPCCW `O11f l WILLIAM J. StALNAKER .Also Admitted to Practice RECEIVED in State of Washington V 2 8 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. James V, assetta Constructio Services 3709 N.E. ouch St. Portlan , OR 97232 RE: Summerlake Park Playground Improvements Bid Dear Mr. Cassetta: Your letter dated November 16, 1990, concerning the referenced bid, was referred to this office for review and response by Mr. Ron Bunch, Senior Planner, City of Tigard. Based upon my review of the City's contracting rules, bid documents, and the facts surrounding this particular bid, I disagree with your conclusion that the bid submitted by ECCO is nonresponsive and have so informed Mr. Bunch. The statement required by paragraph III (I) of Addendum #1 to be submitted from the proposed playground equipment supplier was not submitted with ECCO's bid. The statement was, however, in existence prior to the submission of bids and was in the possession of ECCO prior to the submission of its bid. The mistake made by ECCO in failing to submit the letter with the bid was an inadvertent technical error that does not affect the integrity of the competitive bidding process. The omission by ECCO does not affect the price, quantity, quality, delivery or contractual conditions for this bid. Because the commitment from Wildwood Playgrounds was in the possession of ECCO at the time the bid was submitted, your allegation that there was not a commitment by Wildwood to ECCO for the equipment is not supported by the facts. No unfairness to you or other bidders results from acceptance by the City of the omitted commitment letter. O DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW Fd CORRIGAN Mr. James V. Cassetta November 27, 1990 Page 2` F. In paragraph 7 of the Instructions to Bidders for this project, the s; City reserved the right to accept or reject any proposal and to waive any informalities or irregularities in the proposals. Mr. Bunch has been informed that the City may exercise the right which it reserved to itself in that paragraph in this bid process. Sincerely yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN r James M. Coleman JMC:dd a='~=%usWd\vaoz¢»XW cc: Mr. Ron Bunch, City of Tigard COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM_ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 12/10/90 DATE SUBMITTED: 11/29/90 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Street vacation PREVIOUS ACTION: Council request for portions of SW 74th Ave. initiated vacation on 8/277//900 PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD O ITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Should the City vacate an unimproved public street right-of-way if said vacation enhances a property's development potential, and the right-of-way is not needed now or in the foreseeable future for a public street? INFORMATION SUMMARY The Council initiated vacation proceedings on August 27, 1990 and called for a public hearing on October 8, 1990 to determine whether the right-of-way should be vacated. On October 8th, the Council decided to postpone the vacation action until questions raised by the public and the Council could be addressed. The staff has reevaluated this proposal in the field and has prepared a revised recommendation. Attached is a copy of a Planning Division memo and recommendation, the minutes from the October 8th hearing, and an ordinance approving the vacation. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached ordinance approving the vacation proposal including the dedication of a 50 foot wide utility easement. 2. Deny the proposal and direct staff to prepare a corresponding resolution. FISCAL IMPACT All fees and staff costs have been paid by the applicant. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the attached ordinance 74VAC.SUM/kl MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Murphy, Community Development Dept. Director FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner RE: 74th Avenue Vacation (Jolly) recommendation DATE: November 29, 1990 I recommend that the vacation be approved subject to the creation of a public utility easement which covers the same area as the right-of-way to be vacated. This recommendation is based upon the following: i E 1. From a planning standpoint, it is not necessary or € desirable to extend 74th Avenue south of Cherry Drive. Such an extension would limit the development potential of the industrial land to the south and it would create an undesirable connection between a residential neighborhood and an industrial district. 2. There is an undocumented storm drain along the western side of the right-of-way extending to Cherry Drive requiring a public utility easement. 3. A sanitary sewer has been extended to the southern terminus of the right-of-way. Providing sanitary sewer service to the Cherry Drive area will require extending the sewer north within the right-of-way area. If the right-of-way is vacated, a public utility easement should cover the same area as the present right-of-way because it is presently difficult to determine the exact location of the storm sewer line that is within it. Once the sanitary sewer is constructed, this easement could be narrowed by a partial vacation so long as both the storm and sanitary sewer lines are within a single easement which is adequate for maintenance of the lines. 4. The abutting property to the east is proposed to be divided and redeveloped. Typically, the City requires the installation of half street improvements along all abutting street rights-of-way. The creation of a public utility easement in lieu of a public street right-of-way would clearly remove any obligation for abutting property owners to improve this portion of 74th Avenue. 74VAC.SUM/kl f E Jill EXHIBIT "B" That portion of land in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the initial point of Rolling Hills - Plat 2, recorded in Book 21, on Page 46, in said County's Plat Records; running thence South 88° 48' East a distance of 50.0 feet; thence North 01° 06' East a distance of 180.0 feet; thence North 880 48" West a distance of 50.0 feet; thence South 010 06' West a distance of 180.0 feet to the point of beginning of this description, containing 9000 square feet of area. r br/ExhB.vg l C~~l2G~T~oaJ P/fl66 ~G~e4 I°td=fk 4l 2`/1 %0 dtJ1jc1 L SMC-4T VAA. - 0P ~Xatt~~'t '6~ ~ OV!Vt tJAPW-- CCU Cta 9t0,1-n 5 ~a i~vl~r CITY OF TIG D December 28, 1990 OREGON Mr. Hal Hewitt Greenhill Associates, Ltd. 9999 S.W. Wilshire Street Portland, OR 97225 Dear Mr. Hewitt: The appeal public hearing for Variance VAR 90-27 and Sign Code Exception SCE 90-05 (Sherwood Inn) has been continued to Tuesday, January 22, 1990. The business meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. sincerely, l~ Catheri a Wheatley City Recorder cwc1228 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Sox 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 GR,EENHILL ASSOCIATES LTD 9999 SW Wilshire St Portland OR 97225 Dec. 10, 1990 Tigard City Council Municipal Bldg. Tigard, OR ATTN: Cathy Wheatley, Recorder Dear Ms Wheatley, This letter will confirm our request for a hearing continuance, on 12-10-90, for Variance Appeal 90-27 before the city council due to the unexpected absence of one of the principals involved. A continuance to sometime in Jan. is acceptable to my clients. Also, this letter will serve as a formal waiver of your review and processing period for this matter. Please advise. Very Tpoly, c ~at~b/~iU KaT Hewitt cc: E. Ferryman l Real Estate Planning & Development (503) 292-6933 Material fear 12/10/Council Packet Agenda Item 5 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorderr~ec-,'--~ DATE: December 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Council Meeting - December 10, 1990 Agenda Item 5 Attached is a substitute 'Exhibit All which should be inserted behind the proposed Resolution for Agenda Item 5 of your December 10, 1990 Council packet. Also attached is a copy of the appeal filed for this case. Attachments ti CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 90-25 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN CODE VARIANCE (VAR 90-0027) AND APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY H. E. FERRYMAN (SHERWOOD INN). The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at a public hearing on October 16, 1990. The Commission has based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASES Sign Code Exception SCE 90-0005, Variance V 90-0027 REQUEST: Request to allow two freeway oriented freestanding signs where only one sign is permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign of approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 65 feet and a second sign of approximately 698 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 69.75 feet where the code specifies a maximum i allowable sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and a maximum allowable height of 35 feet. i APPLICANT: Greenhill Assoc., Ltd. Hal Hewitt r, 9999 SW Wilshire Portland, OR 97225 OWNER: H. E. Ferryman 9106 NE Highway 99 Vancouver, WA 98665 LOCATION: 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD Tax lots 100, 900, and 1100) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (Commercial General) 2. Background Information The existing Sherwood Inn motel and restaurant were constructed prior to annexation of the subject site and adjoining properties in 1976. Also in 1976, the City Planning Commission approved a Variance to allow the continued use of the existing signs that exceeded the city's size requirements. In 1977, the City amended the sign code to reduce the C FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 1 i t f P Exhibit A _ maximum sizes permitted and in 1978, a new 10 year sign amortization period was begun for those signs which did not conform with the new standards. The property owner was notified in 1988 that the two freeway oriented signs advertising Sherwood Inn and restaurant where were subject to the City's sign amortization program and that the signs would have to be brought into conformity with the sign code or a sign Code Exception or Variance would have to be granted by the City in order to retain the use of these signs. Site Development Review SDR 12-81 approved expansion of the parking area in 1981. In March, 1990, the Planning Director granted Site Development Review approval (SDR 89-23/V 89-40) to expand the existing motel. One condition of approval required the resolution of the pending sign issue. Also in March, Ken Fox of the City Attorney's office responded to the issue of the sign Variance granted by the City and its relationship to the following amendments of the City's sign code. Mr. Fox concluded that after the Variance was granted, the signs were regarded to be conformity with the code. However, after the city standards were amended to be more restrictive, they became nonconforming signs as did all other legal signs which did not meet the new standards. 2. Vicinity Information The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I-5 and SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. Two service stations flank the driveway from SW Upper Boones Ferry Road to the Sherwood Inn. ' The service station properties are also zoned C-G. Properties to the north and west of the site are zoned I-P (Industrial Park). The Pacific Corporate Center subdivision is currently under development to the north across SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. The subdivision is presently vacant except for two buildings under construction along SW 72nd Avenue. The property to the west is part of the Oregon Business Park. The parcel immediately west of the subject site is currently developed with a children's day care center and various industrial uses. To the south are other buildings within the Oregon Business Park which are developed with a variety of industrial uses and are zoned I-L (Light Industrial). The properties to the south and west of the site are approximately 20 to 30 feet lower in elevation than the subject site. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The 2.5 acre site consists of three tax lots set back from Upper Boones Ferry Road by approximately 130 feet. A 40 foot wide accessway located between the neighboring service station parcels connects the Sherwood Inn development to Upper Boones Ferry Road. The site abuts I-5 on the east. A number of mature Douglas fir trees are located between the motel and the freeway, both on the site and within the freeway's right- of-way. The site is approximately 20 to 30 feet higher than the FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 2 S , developed portions of adjacent parcels to the west and south. The slopes between these parcels are covered with grasses, shrubs, and several small trees. The subject property is presently developed with the 56 unit, three story Sherwood Inn motel, the single story 4,200 square foot restaurant, and paved parking for 135 autos. Access to the property is provided by a paved driveway shared with the adjacent service stations. The two nonconforming freestanding signs, which are the subject of this application, are located near the property boundary of the adjacent service station parcels. The applicant proposes to retain the existing signs and states that it is appropriate for the city to continue to recognize the 1976 Variance approval. The Sherwood Inn sign is part of a larger sign structure that includes an oversize sign for the Chevron station. This application does not apply to the Chevron sign. The Chevron Corporation has been also notified of the sign amortization program and the City's requirement to bring this sign into conformity with the Code. An application from Chevron is anticipated in the near future. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division, State Highway Division, and the Building Division have no objection to the proposal. Noeother comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS As proposed, a Variance is necessary to approve this proposal because it goes beyond the basic code requirements for number and size of signs, as well as the allowances that are available through the Sign Code Exception process. The Variance criteria which are relevant are listed in Section 18.134.050 (A) of the Community Development Code: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this title, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; 2. There are special circumstances that exist which are particular to the lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances which the applicant has no control and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; 3. The use proposed will be the same, as permitted under this title and city standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting some economic use of the land; 4. Existing physical and natural systems, but not limited to traffic, FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 3 drainage, dramatic land forms, or parks will not be adversely affected anymore than would occur if the development were located as specified in this title; and 5. A hardship is not self imposed and the variance requested is minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal is not consistent with the above variance criteria for the following reasons: 1. The purpose of the sign code and the sign amortization program is to reduce the amount of sign area and numbers of signs within the City limits in order to provide for an aesthetically pleasing environment. This proposal to retain the existing signs is not consistent with the intent of the Code because the applicant is requesting twice the number and approximately 22 times the total sign area that would normally be permitted. The proposal is also not consistent with the sign programs which have been approved for other commercial properties in similar circumstances. The retention of signs this size would clearly be contrary to the purpose of the Code which is intended to "prevent proliferation of signs and sign clutter". 2. There are no special circumstances with respect to this property which justify the continued use of two signs with orientation towards I-5. Vision of the property and the existing signs from I-5 is partially obstructed, however, the request to retain the number of signs, sign area;.and sign height is not justified in this regard. Also, the situation of Sherwood inn and the restaurant is similar to many other freeway oriented businesses in Tigard and Tualatin. Many have less than perfect visibility from the freeway due to their distance from the freeway, terrain, and trees. These businesses have dealt with this problem by utilizing informational signs provided by the State Department of Transportation. These blu signs indicate the specific businesses and or services that are available at the next exit. Sherwood Inn has the benefit of two such signs for southbound traffic. The first is located immediately south of the Highway 217 exit and it advertises Sherwood Inn and Chevron specifically. The second is located near the Bonita Road overpass and it indicates that gas, food, and lodging are available at the Upper Boones Ferry Road exit. 3. The proposed signage greatly exceeds Code standards and therefore it is not the same as what would normally be permitted under this Code and the staff finds that this proposal would not maintain the Code to the extent reasonably possible. The applicant has not shown why the lettering for the signs cannot be reduced, subsequently allowing for a smaller sign. 4. Existing physical and natural systems would not be affected by this FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 4 4~, .1 proposal. 5. The hardship is not self imposed because the signs in question were erected legally and have become nonconforming and subject to the sign amortization program due to changes in applicable sign regulations. However, the variance is not the minimum deviation from Code requirements that would alleviate the hardship. As an alternative to approving or denying the variance request, the Planning Commission may consider approving a modified proposal that would be consistent with the sign code exception criteria that are listed in Section 18.114.145 of the code. The criteria from this section are listed below: A. The Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an exception to the sign code based on findings that at least one of the following criteria are satisfied: 1. The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign visible from the street because of the topography of the site, and/or a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformity with Sign Code standards; 2. A second freestanding sign is necessary to adequately identify a second entrance to a business or premises that is oriented towards a different street frontage; 3. Up to an additional 25 percent of sign area or height may be permitted when it is determined that the increase will not deter from the purpose of this chapter.- This increase should be judged according to specific needs and circumstances which necessitate additional area to make the sign sufficiently legible. The increase(s) shall not conflict with any other non-dimensional standards or restrictions of this chapter; 4. The proposed sign is consistent with the criteria set forth in Subsection 18.114.130.E of this chapter; 5. The proposed exception for a second freestanding sign on an interior lot which is zoned commercial or industrial is appropriate because all of the following apply: a. The combined height of both signs shall not exceed 150 percent of the sign height normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district; b. Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or will project into the public right-of-way; and c. Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed 150 FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 5 i percent of what is normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district. a. In additional to the criteria in Subsection A above, the commission, or in the case of an administrative exception, the Director shall review all of the existing or proposed signage for the development and its relationship to the intent and purpose of this chapter. As a condition of approval, the commission or Director may require: 1. Removal or alteration of nonconforming signs to achieve compliance with the standards contained in this chapter; 2. Removal of alteration of conforming signs in order to establish a consistent sign design through the development; and 3. Application for sign permits for signs erected without permits or removal of such illegal signs. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) Additional sign height should be granted since visibility from I-5 to the property and the existing signs would be obstructed if the standard maximum height of 35 feet was required. It appears that a height of 50 feet is necessary for a sign to be visible from both directions on I-5. As part of this determination, the Commission finds that the bottom of a smaller sign will still be at a similar height as the existing signs with no loss of visibility from the freeway. 0 An additional 25 percent sign area will yield a sign with 200 square feet per face. Because of the necessary height of the sign and the distance from I-5 and Upper Boones Ferry Road; this addition is justified to make the sign more .legible. C. DECISION The Planning Commission denies SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 as proposed by the applicant and approves SCE 90-0005 subject to the following conditions: 1. The two nonconforming signs shall be removed by January 1, 1991. 2. Prior to erecting any signs, permits shall be issued by the Planning Division. 3. One freeway oriented, freestanding sign with a maximum area of 200 square feet per face and a maximum height of 50 feet shall be permitted. STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin, Planning Division, 639-4171. FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - --CE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 6 1 r THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE NOTED BELOW. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This 1..4"day of October, 1990, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. ent t Mi aid Tig E 90-05.PFO/kl SC e FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 7 LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right- to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code therefore sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. CITY OF TIGA The following form has been developed to assist you in e filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper OREGON form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. / 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: 1- 1 O2. 7 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: -A00 It 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: C ® IM w1 / S ► 4.A~._ C G _Qj 2) V. J. 4a Q l9►~+~ V coo Yi f -2 G~cs~ <JI~S 'SA 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: f Ca 6. SIGNATURE(S): :E#~E ~Ex-)HEx-x-x# -NHEIE#~Fx#lE~E -x~Ex•~t• FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Re eived By: 24~ate: ~D Q D Time: 1 %00e.... Approved As To Form By: Date I l o Time: j I:o Denied As To Form By. Date: Time: Receipt No. Amount: 1HHHHHHHEx#x iE x9HE x IE#x#it x#x # x~H(x~HE3E#x#x fE 1(##~E K X K x-X*** *X-x-x#~f x ~E 1E xdEx x ~E N ~ElHC x !E ~E x# G7,~pcaL Geo ..~teeu.~• o~ „o,~'qn ~~rf;~,~m ~ ~-r-xx-~c~~ J !D ! ~s 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 F 9 CRY ik~R® 12/5/90 Mr. Hewitt: Per our telephone conversation of today, enclosed is a copy of the Council Agenda for 12/10/90. Also enclosed is the Council packet material for the appeal - SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27. If you have any questions or need more information, please be sure E to contact me. Sincerely, E Cathy 2eatley City Recorder f M1 F t 12755 S.W. ASH. P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 i r s< S i f ti i~ L tl 3 i ~ i f i 6 4 f• E . _ .w__..- .._._.._.w_._._..-:_... . . . COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: "'~7 DATE SUBMITTED: 11/28/90 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Sign Code PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Exception SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27 Commission a royal appeal for Sherwood Inn PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD O ITY ADMIN OKi i REQUESTED BY: POLIC ISSUE Should the applicant be allowed more freestanding signs and sign area than permitted by the Community Development Code? INFORMATION SUMMARY This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 16, 1990. The Commission determined that the proposal submitted by the applicant was not consistent with Community Development Code criteria for granting a sign Variance. The Commission did approve a Sign Code Exception that would 1) require the removal of the two nonconforming signs and 2) allow one freeway oriented sign with a maximum area of 200 square feet and height of 50 feet. Attached is a copy of Commission's final order, the hearing minutes, the applicant's submittal and a draft resolution upholding the Commission's decision, Final Order 90-25 PC. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution 2. Modify and approve the attached resolution. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the attached resolution. SCE90-05.SUM/kl SW LAN R. O / ! W MEADOWS ROAD / GONIiA ROAD 1 s aTm :.i f = RURNA ROAD » Stl. SRAKESIEARE ST. a,tl 1 A Y. W y I 0- I I ~ :v I r~R 1 1 ~ tai ~•••1 AARLE LIE ! I / g Zoning r/ M R A / /A I1 ~ / ~ Jj4 1 I 111E k R t 3 'EVn.LE AVE' f 1 I ~ r"ps w ~ o / 1.1 - AINRI}T..w vi. 13 RedraWr N OREGON O, °RCOON w L. _ . r I Si a RO![eJOD YARR t M ' e LM• t KLOM • BRAOB°RY CT- :,tl. FINOLAY / / ~ r h 1 f AN r ~ 1 T I r r AO+AL r' Er CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 90- IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION APPLICATION AND DENY A VARIANCE APPLICATION (SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27) PROPOSED BY SHERWOOD INN (H. E. FERRYMAN). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the case at its meeting of October 16, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Commission denied the variance request and approved a sign code exception subject to conditions (Final Order No. 90-25 PC); and WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meeting of December 10, 1990, upon the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the requested appeal is DENIED and the Planning Commission decision is upheld based upon the facts, findings, conclusions, and conditions of approval noted in Exhibit "A" (Planning Commission Final Order No. 90-25 PC). The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final order to the applicant as a notice of the final decision in this matter. PASSED: This day of December, 1990. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor City of Tigard ATTEST: Tigard City Recorder SCE 90-05.RES/k1 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 1 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 90-25 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN CODE VARIANCE (VAR 90-0027) AND APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY H. E. FERRYMAN (SHERWOOD INN). i The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at a public hearing on October 16, 1990. The Commission has based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCH 90-0005, Variance V 90-0027 REQUEST: Request to allow two. Freeway oriented freestanding signs where only one sign is permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign of approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 65 feet and a second sign of approximately 698 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 69.75 feet where the code specifies a maximum E allowable sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and a i. maximum allowable height of 35 feet. APPLICANT: Greenhill Assoc., Ltd. Hal Hewitt 9999 SW Wilshire Portland, OR 97225 i y OWNER:. H. E. Ferryman 9106 HE Highway 99 Vancouver, WA 98665 LOCATION: 35700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD Tax lots 100, 900, and 1100) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (Commercial General) 2. Background Information The existing Sherwood Inn motel and restaurant were constructed prior to annexation of the subject site and adjoining properties in 1976. Also in 1976, the City Planning Commission approved a Variance to allow the continued use of the existing signs that exceeded the City's size requirements. In 1977, the City amended the sign code to reduce the FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 1 k Exhibit A _ maximum sizes permitted and in 1978, a new 10 year sign amortization period was begun for those signs which did not conform with the new standards. The property owner was notified in 1988 that the two freeway oriented signs advertising Sherwood Inn and restaurant where were subject to the City's sign amortization program and that the signs would have to be brought into conformity with the sign code or a Sign Code Exception or Variance would have to be granted by the City in order to retain the use of these signs. Site Development Review SDR 12-81 approved expansion of the parking area in 1981. In March, 1990, the Planning Director granted Site Development Review approval (SDR 89-23/V 89-40) to expand the existing motel. One condition of approval required the resolution of the pending sign issue. Also in March, Ken Fox of the City Attorney's office responded to the issue of the sign Variance granted by the City and its relationship to the following amendments of the City's sign code. Mr. Fox concluded that after the Variance was granted, the signs were regarded to be conformity with the code. However, after the City standards were amended to be more restrictive, they became nonconforming signs as did all other legal signs which did not meet the new standards. 2. Vicinity Information The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the i.nt3rsection of I-5 and SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. Two service stations flank the driveway from SW Upper Boones Ferry Road to the Sherwood Inn. ' The service station properties are also zoned C-G: E Properties to the north and west of the site are zoned I-P (Industrial Park). The Pacific Corporate Center subdivision is currently under development to the north across SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. The subdivision is presently vacant except for two buildings under construction along SW 72nd Avenue. The property to the west is part of the Oregon Business Park. The parcel immediately west of the subject site is currently developed with a children's day care center and various industrial uses. To the south are other buildings within the Oregon Business Park which are developed with a variety of industrial uses and are zoned I-L (Light Industrial). The properties to the south and west of the site are approximately 20 to 30 feet lower in elevation than the subject site. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The 2.5 acre site consists of three tax lots set back from Upper Boones Ferry Road by approximately 130 feet. A 40 foot wide accessway located between the neighboring service station parcels connects the Sherwood Inn development to Upper Boones Ferry Road. The site abuts I-5 on the east. A number of mature Douglas fir trees are located between the motel and the freeway, both on the site and within the freeway's right- of-way. The site is approximately 20 to 30 feet higher than the FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 2 developed portions of adjacent parcels to the west and south. The slopes between these parcels are covered with grasses, shrubs, and several small trees. The subject property is presently developed with the 56 unit, three story Sherwood Inn motel, the single story 4,200 square foot restaurant, and paved parking for 135 autos. Access to the property is provided by a paved driveway shared with the adjacent service stations. The two nonconforming freestanding signs, which are the subject of this application, are located near the property boundary of the adjacent service station parcels. The applicant proposes to retain the existing signs and states that it is appropriate for the City to continue to recognize the 1976 Variance approval. The Sherwood Inn sign is part of a larger sign structure that includes an oversize sign for the Chevron station. This application does not apply to the Chevron sign. The Chevron Corporation has been also notified of the sign amortization program and the City's requirement to bring this sign into conformity with the Code. An application from Chevron is anticipated in the near future. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division, State Highway Division, and the Building Division have no objection to the proposal. Noeother comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS As proposed, a Variance is necessary to approve this proposal because it goes beyond the basic Code requirements for number and size of signs, as well as the allowances that are available through the Sign Code Exception process. The Variance criteria which are relevant are listed in Section 18.134.050 (A) of the Community Development Code: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this title, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; 2. There are special circumstances that exist which are particular to the lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances which the applicant has no control and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting some economic use of the land; 4. Existing physical and natural systems, but not limited to traffic, FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 3 drainage, dramatic land forms, or parks will not be adversely affected anymore than would occur if the development were located as specified in this title; and 5. A hardship is not self imposed and the variance requested is minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal is not consistent with the above variance criteria for the following reasons: 1. The purpose of the sign code and the sign amortization program is to reduce the amount of sign area and numbers of signs within the City limits in order to provide for an aesthetically pleasing environment. This proposal to retain the existing signs is not consistent with the intent of the Code because the applicant is requesting twice the number and approximately 12 times the total sign area that would normally be permitted. The proposal is also not consistent with the sign programs which have been approved for other commercial properties in similar circumstances. The retention of signs this size would clearly be contrary to the purpose of the Code which is intended to "prevent proliferation of signs and sign clutter". 2. There are no special circumstances with respect to this property which justify the continued use of two signs with orientation towards I-5. Vieion of the property and the existing signs from I-5 is partially obstructed, however, the request to retain the number of signs, sign a.rea;.and sign height is not justified in this regard. Also, the situation of Sherwood Inn and the restaurant is similar to many other freeway oriented businesses In Tigard and Tualatin. Many have less than perfect visibility from the freeway due to their distance from the freeway, terrain, and trees. These businesses have dealt with this problem by utilizing informational signs provided by the State Department of Transportation. These blue signs indicate the specific businesses and or services that are available at the next exit. Sherwood Inn has the benefit of two such signs for southbound traffic. The first is located immediately south of the Highway 217 exit and it advertises Sherwood Inn and Chevron specifically. The second is located near the Bonita Road overpass and it indicates that gas, food, and lodging are available at the Upper Boones Ferry Road exit. 3. The proposed signage greatly exceeds Code standards and therefore it is not the same as what would normally be permitted under this Code and the staff finds that this proposal would not maintain the Code to the extent reasonably possible. The applicant has not shown why the lettering for the signs cannot be reduced, subsequently allowing for a smaller sign. 4. Existing physical and natural systems would not be affected by this FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 4 proposal. 5. The hardship is not self imposed because the signs in question were erected legally and have become nonconforming and subject to the sign amortization program due to changes in applicable sign regulations. However, the variance is not the minimum deviation from code requirements that would alleviate the hardship. As an alternative to approving or denying the variance request, the Planning commission may consider approving a modified proposal that would be consistent with the sign code exception criteria that are listed in section 18.114.145 of the Code. The criteria from this section are listed below: A. The Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an exception to the sign code based on findings that at least one of the following criteria are satisfied: 1. The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign.visible from the street because of the topography of the site, and/or a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformity with Sign Code standards; 2. A second freestanding sign is necessary to adequately identify a second entrance to a business or premises that is oriented towards a different street frontage; s 3. Up to an additional 25 percent of sign area or height may be permitted when it is determined that the increase will not deter from the purpose of this chapter., This increase should be judged according to specific needs and circumstances which necessitate additional area to make the sign sufficiently legible. The increase(s) shall not conflict with any other non-dimensional standards or restrictions of this chapter; 4. The proposed sign is consistent with the criteria set forth in Subsection 18.114.130.E of this chapter; 5. The proposed exception for a second freestanding sign on an interior lot which is zoned commercial or industrial is appropriate because all of the following apply: a. The combined height of both signs shall not exceed 150 percent of the sign height normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district; b. Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or will project into the public right-of-way; and c. Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed 150 FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 5 percent of what is normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district. B. In additional to the criteria in subsection A above, the Commission, or in the case of an administrative exception, the Director shall review all of the existing or proposed signage for the development and its relationship to the intent and purpose of this chapter. As a condition of approval, the Commission or Director may require: 1. Removal or alteration of nonconforming signs to achieve compliance with the standards contained in this chapter; 2. Removal of alteration of conforming signs in order to establish a consistent sign design through the development; and 3. Application for sign permits for signs erected without permits or removal of such illegal signs. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) Additional sign height should be granted since visibility from I-5 to the property and the existing signs would be obstructed if the standard maximum height of 35 feet was required. It appears that a height of 50 feet is necessary for a sign to be visible from both directions on I-5. As part of this determination, the Commission finds that the bottom of a smaller sign will still be at a similar height as the existing signs with ao loss of visibility from the freeway. e An additional 25 percent sign area will yield a sign with 200 square feet per face. Because of the necessary height of the sign and the distance from I-5 and Upper Boones Ferry Road; this addition is justified to make the sign more .legible. C. DECISION The Planning Commission denies SCS 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 as proposed by the applicant and approves SCE 90-0005 subject to the following conditions: 1. The two nonconforming signs shall be removed by January 1, 1991. 2. Prior to erecting any signs, permits shall be issued by the Planning Division. 3. One freeway oriented, freestanding sign with a maximum area of 200 square feet per face and a maximum height of 50 feet shall be permitted. STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin, Planning Division, 639-4171. FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 6 Ji- THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE NOTED BELOW. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of October, 1990, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. t n F. yV ident Tig d Planni Los' SCE 90-05.PFO/k1 s FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 7 S LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's ric,ht to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code therefore sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. TI~~ The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper OREGON form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: O= /V 6~M 1 O Z- 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY:_ r 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: C A IM w~ / S ~ .1,..~... `-'f' Q.a_J[~ lU ~ C►9~ S ~ C~t~ Co _Qj Y C -mod ~4__.~ 9 - 1&4 i i 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: SCI 6. SIGNATURE(S): 9fH M9HFxiE 3E x IHE )HHt , FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Re eived By: ate: ~0 Q O Time: ~VaG-1^ . Approved As To Form By:_4 ) 4Ifd&&G r Date:10/ I o Time: f:uOG.n- Denied As To Form By: Date: Time: Receipt No. Amount: ~HH(;~ic is Y~~i~i~HHE X IFiE )HHE)E)HEiHHHH()HfiHHHEiHE3t 1F)f 1f )H()EdH(H )()(X)()()( !(K)(MK-X*K-K4(* Q~pca.G Gco ,.2PQ.u~E• ~ .,(L~'~n ~srf~~;~m-~~ eJ r ~vcd. G ~v 4 i. !D1 / 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 f: ~M' PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 90-0007 TIGARD WATER DISTRICT (NPO #1) A request for a Sign Code Exception approval to allow a second monument sign on the property where the code allows for one monument sign. ZONE; CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 8777 SW Burnham Street (WCTM 2S1 2AD, tax lot 2100) o Senior Planner Liden described the existing sign and the location of the Water District office. He said staff recommended approval of the request because it is consistent with one of the Sign Code Exception criteria, which allows the City to approve a second freestanding sign on a different frontage for a corner lot situation. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Applicant had no further information to add. o Commissioner Fessler wanted to know if the new sign would be similar to the existing sign in design and lighting. John Miller from the Water District said the sign would be similar. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED * Commissioner Boone moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve SCE 90-0007. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. 5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 90-0005 VARIANCE VAR 90-0027 SHERWOOD INN SIGN (NPO #5) A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to allow two freestanding freeway oriented signs where only one is permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign of approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 65 feet and one sign of approximately 698 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 69.75 feet where the Code specifies a maximum allowable height of 35 feet. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION: 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD, tax lots 900, 100, and 1100) o Senior Planner Liden described the location of the subject site, Sherwood Inn and restaurant, which is near I-5. He described the sizes of the signs and their relationship to the freeway. He distributed photographs taken from different angles from I-5 showing the views of the signs in question. He provided a background summary of the property which was annexed to the City in 1976. At that time, the Planning Commission approved a Variance to allow the continued use of the existing signs that exceeded the City's size requirements. The City revised the sign code in 1977 to reduce the maximum sizes permitted, and in 1978 the City adopted a 10 year amortization period for those signs which were not in conformance with the new standards. In 1988 the applicant was notified that they would need to either replace the signs to conform with the new requirements or obtain a Sign Code Exception or Variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 PAGE 2 s Senior Planner advised that staff was recommending denial of the Variance because the Variance criteria were not met. However, the staff was recommending that a Sign Code Exception be approved allowing for some additional height up to 40 or 50 feet. Sign Code Exception criteria also would allow the Planning Commission to grant an additional 25 percent in sign area, which would be appropriate because of the distance from the freeway. o Commissioner Barber noted that the Sherwood Inn sign was part of the Chevron sign. She suggested that the Planning Commission should be hearing a request for Sign Code Exception from Chevron at the same time. Senior Planner advised that Chevron has received notification that their sign is in non-conformance with the Code. He said staff expects to receive an application from Chevron in the near future. However, although the signs are on the same structure, they are treated separately. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Al Hewitt, Greenhill Assoc., Ltd., 9999 SW Wilshire, Portland, was representing H. E. Ferryman, who owns the property, and Craig Banning, the owner/operator of the restaurant. He spoke about the site's unique situation due to the topography and growth of the trees, and because of the historic sequence of events. He said the construction along the freeway has also tended to be an obstruction. He handed out copies of the parcel map showing the three parcels: tax lot 900 (the restaurant), j tax lot 1000 (the existing motel), and tax lot 1100 (intended site for expansion if the motel). He pointed out that if the three businesses were independently owned, each would be granted its own sign. He suggested that the key issue was determining which criteria to use i indicating there is a condition for renewing the Variance which was granted in 1976. He explained that the 10-foot by 20-foot size recommended by staff for approval would not be workable because of the distance from the freeway and speed of traffic on the freeway. r Mr. Hewitt referred to the variance criteria on page 3 of the staff report under "B" FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS dealing with special s circumstances. He described the factors which fit into this category including the topography and traffic features. He commented that the field of vision for southbound motorists has been increasingly blocked by the trees and other structures. The northbound traffic has been mostly affected by the fir trees which have grown up over the years. He provided the original aerial photographs which he said were easier to read than the copies provided earlier. He discussed the height factor, stating that to lower the signs will make them unreadable from the freeway. He passed out photographs of the signs which were taken from different perspectives on the freeway. i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 PAGE 3 s o Commissioner FQssler discussed the use of freeway identifying signs to provide information about what is located at the next exit. o Commissioner Saporta asked Senior Planner about the feasibility of using two separate signs, one for each business. Senior Planner advised that would not be permitted. He said the Sign Code treated the subject property as a development complex, which allows for one sign. o Commissioner Fyre asked if the Sign Code treats freeway properties differently than other properties. Senior Planner explained the special sign allowances for those properties located along the freeway. o Commissioner Moore requested clarification concerning wall signs. Senior Planner described the wall sign requirements; and there was discussion to determine if it would be feasible to use these in place of, or in addition to, freestanding signs. o Gene Ferryman, 9106 NE Highway 99, Vancouver, Washington, is the owner of the subject property. He stated that he purchased the property a year and a half ago, and was not informed of the sign violation at the time of purchase. He explained that he purchased the property with the intention of expanding to at least 100 units, as the current 60-unit size is not profitable. He said much of their business comes from the freeway; and reducing the signage would probably cause the business activity to drop off, and this would discourage their expansion plans. o Commissioner Barber inquired whether the height was of greater concern than the sign area. Mr. Ferryman said both height and area were essential for visibility from the freeway. o Craig Banning said he operates the restaurant at Sherwood Inn. He explained that there are two businesses on the site. He reiterated the need for good signage and the special circumstances involved with this site. He requested the Planning Commission to allow the existing signs to remain. o Ian Witlock, representing Chevron U.S.A., said his business would be applying for- a Variance in the near future. o Mr. Hewitt spoke again to encourage the Commission to focus on the Variance criteria rather than the Sign Code Exception criteria. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Boone asked Senior Planner how Tigard's sign code compared with Lake Oswego's sign code. Senior Planner did not have that information with him. o Commissioner Saporta said he understood the applicants' concerns, but granting a Variance would be detrimental to the Sign Code. He advised he would favor granting a Sign Code Exception as proposed by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 PAGE 4 o Commissioner Moore commented that the existing sign has been somewhat of a landmark for many years. He agreed with staff's recommendation; and he suggested that the informational signs on the freeway provided by the State and the addition of signs to direct patrons to their site would solve the problem. o Commissioner Boone noted that the signs in question do not need to be as large as they currently are. o Commissioner Fessler discussed the size which the code would allow. She favored allowing the sign height to be greater, with one sign being allowed. She mentioned the possibility of waiting until Chevron presented their sign request, looking at both businesses together to come up with a better solution to the problem. o Commissioner Castile advised that it was possible that the Pac Trust buildings would obstruct one of the Sherwood Inn's signs when construction was complete. He favored the staff's recommendation. He noted that well-lit signs are more visible at night. o Commissioner Barber said she did not favor allowing a sign which would be 12 times larger than what the code allows. She noted that it would be detrimental to the code to approve such variances. She commented that the sign in question is one of the biggest signs in the area. o Commissioner Fyre commented that the most critical factor seemed to be the height. He agreed with the staff recommendation and concurred with the other commissioners that the sign was too big. * Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Boone seconded to deny VAR 90-0027 and approve SCE 90-0005 with conditions outlined by staff. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present. Commissioner Fessler voting no. Meeting Recessed at 9:00 PM Meeting Reconvened at 9:15 PM 5.3 CODE REVISIONS Landscaping: Senior Planner Ron Bunch presented the proposed revisions to the Landscaping, Buffering and Screening Provisions of the Tigard Development Code (Section 18.100). The ordinance is intended to improve the aesthetic quality of the community over time. The new ordinance would provide more clarity and direction in the approval process. He discussed the impact the ordinance will have on'business. He described the public presentations which are planned for the near future, including the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 PAGE 5 GR,EENHILL ASSOCIATES LTD 9999 SW Wilshire St Portland OR 97225 Aug. 1, 1990 CITY PLANNING COMMISION Municipal Bldg. Tigard, OR 97223 ATTN: Keith Li den Ladies & Gentlemen, The enclosed application for a sign code exception is submitted on behalf of Ferryman Enterprises, owners of the Sherwood Inn Motel and Restaurant. These businesses have been identified, since they were opened in the 1960's, by large free-standing signs designed to be read by fast moving freeway traffic, in a way that will allow that traffic to safely exit at Upper Boones- Ferry Rd. and utilize these facilities. This commercial complex was developed in Washington County, where the signs were in compliance with the County regulations. However, the property was annexed into Tigard in 1976. As a result the signs did not meet the city regulations and became legal non-conforming signs. The City Planning Commision has previously granted a variance for these signs in 1976. At the time it was understood by the owners that the variance action was permenant. However, the owners are now advised it was not and that they must once again undergo the same process. The owners have filed permit applications to construct an 44 unit expansion to the present facility and would like to proceed as quickly as possible. However, the signs are critical to the successful operation of the motel and restaurant. With the signs in jepordy, the project has been put on hold until resolution of this issue a second time. Your thoughtful reconsideration of this variance is requested. Very Truly, rXll ' Hal Hewitt cc: R.E. Ferryman SUPPORTING STATEMENT SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SHERWOOD INN JULY 1990 REQUEST: To reinstate the previously approved sign code variance. To vary from the height and area requirements. I r BACKGROUND: i This application involves primary identification signs located on the Sherwood Inn site at the I-5 interchange with Upper Boones Fery Rd. Both sign structures are located within the Freeway sign corridor defined under Special Condition Signs in the sign ordinance. (Sec.18.114.090) f The signs are illustrated in the attached Exhibit "A". Their location is indicated on the attached aerial photo, Exhibit "B", shown as signs No. I c & 2.: Sign No. 1 was constructed by the owners in 1966, advertising "RESTAURANT" and "SHERWOOD INN". Sign No. 2 was constructed in 1971 by the Standard Oil Co. for their sign. At that time, in order to improve visability, especially for north bound traffic, the owners entered into a contract to relocate "SHERWOOD INN" to the oil company's structure. The signs are intended to identify the location of the businesses to high-speed freeway traffic in a large scale visual environment somewhat complicated by variable topography. Until the property was annexed to the city in 1976, the signs complied with all applicable regulations. F Gd However, upon annexation the owners were advised they were no longer legal and would either have to be replaced or approved by a variance permit from the sign code. Such variance was applied for and approved by the planning commision on Jan. 20, 1976. In Oct of 1977 the city amended portions of the sign code. In 1978 a new 10 year amortization period was adopted for non-conforming signs. The owners are currently proposing a 44 unit expansion to the motel and accordingly have completed Site Development Review. As a result of the review the staff has indicated the signs must be removed or approved by a new sign code exception. While the owners feel the original variance remains in effect, they are willing to accomodate the current process in order to expedite the matter to a final conclusion. SIGN CODE EXCEPTION CRITERIA The commision or, on review, the council may grant exceptions to the requirements of this chapter when the applicant demonstrates that, owing to special or unusual circumstances relating to the design, structure or placement of the sign in relation to other structures or land uses or natural features of the land, the literal interpratation of this chapter would interfere with the communicative function of the sign without corresponding public benifit. The city has acknowledged with special provisions in the sign code, that some businesses have special needs for signing freeway locations. Unfortunatly, the standards do not address sign size and height requirements complicated by topography and other elements of the visual environment. Within this environment the issues of scale, proportion and readability are paramount, especially when the signs must be read by motorists traveling appx. 60 mph along the freeway corridor. -2- i Fur Southbound Traffic the special circumstances influencing the size and height of these signs are 1) The up-hill slope between the 217 and Upper Boones Ferry interchange exhibits a difference in elevation of 76 ft. according to the city's r topographical. maps. The latter interchange is built-over a small hill extending from the east toward 72nd Ave. This topographical factor is amplified due to the location of these signs on the reverse slope of the grade from southbound traffic. The net effect is the visual height of the signs appears to be appx. half the actual height. Visual preception is compounded by the uphill angle. In proportion to the existing visual environment the signs appear small. Any reduction of the present height would have the visual effect of placing the signs on or near the crest of the interchange hill. 2) Distance. These signs must be large enough to be read at a distance of appx. 3000 ft. at that point the motorist has passed under the Bonita Rd. overpass. (The attached aerial photo illustrates the south-bound visual corridor and the elements affecting it) Emerging from the overpass, the signs can be read by motorists in any of the three primary south-bound lanes. This distance provides a limited but adequate amount of time for the motorist to move to the right hand lanes and exit at the Boones Ferry Interchange. We believe the size of these signs is consistant with the scale created by the distance factor, and is neccesary for proper readability and safe movement of traffic along and from the freeway. Proportionally, the signs appear rather small on the crest of the westerly approach to the Boones Fery overpass. -3- 3) Increasing c-plications affecting the south ' and visual corridor. Several parts-of this corridor have changed since these signs were originally installed. Both the Gevertz and the Pacific Center signs have been added to this part of the corridor, with the latter being the most recent. The three fir trees affecting the visability of the signs have matured considerably since the late 60's. The Bonita Rd overpass was constructed in 1975, creating perhaps the most limiting readability factor for the signs. However, all of these elemants, combined with the uphill slope have made the present size and height of these signs critical to the identity of the motel and restaurant for southbound traffic along I-5. For North bound traffic the special circumstances influencing the size and height of these signs are: 1) A very limited visual corridor created by three sperate stands of fir trees shown on the aerial photo. North bound traffic approaches the site along a sweeping curve. As a result the signs are completly blocked from view by the most southerly stand of trees, then marginally by the second stand. As shown by the north bound visual corridor on the photo, these r o- motorists have a brief exposure to the signs after "clearing" the second t stand before the third stand of firs closest to the motel, cuts off visabliity. 2) The height and location of the motel building relative to the Restaurant/Motel sign give north bound motorists the impression the sign is on top of the building by obstructing the entire support structure. If this sign were reduced in height, it would not be seen by north bound traffic. 3) The distance at which these signs must be seen is appx. 2000 ft. At this distance the size of these signs is in proportion to the other elements of the visual landscape including the buildings, the trees and the freeway itself. -4- As the commision is aware, most sign codes are written to address business locations and identity within a downtown visual environment typified by 100-300 ft lots located along streets with 80-90 ft widths. The difference between the scale of the typical downtown area and the interstate highway is pronounced, especially after carefull inspection and comparision. The most notable differance of course, is the highway itself. I-5 for example, consists of two seperate roadways constructed within a right-of-way in excess of 200 ft. in width. In addition, major stands of trees define and to some extent limit the visual corridor and create a scale and proportion which are substantilly different from the more common visual environment experienced in the community and for which the code is written. We believe the previously noted factors affecting north and south bound traffic, provide a basis consistant with provisions of the city sign code, suffcient to allow reinstatment of the previously approved variance and the continued succesful operation of both businesses. -5- ~ I w --r I : d Y it I,' J I , t 10 i, I Q IIti v i K 1 I, ~I ~ i I I (~-a' ~ • o ' •G l-yF I II 4=4 C7 j ~I l ti I G G; ,c'~- , I I i E ''-;i ri~ o - ; t-- - - - ; - - - _ (DO • - - - - - - --t i vi G V 1 s t ~44r l~ yn ~ S 6 rY % .w'y w rt o y 1 \ _ H ~ Q n r ` 4..7 ~s~ aP tJ moo 4 T 1500 31 li . " 79 AG. ~ 9 tlo ~ t U O• / i R A0T ,M v° 1300 o ~•v~°J1~ ti°'' o .25AC• 1- 61j lid t 1 44.' ~ utO A set. ~ 1300- ' v O ~Ui • r y 90 rN l alp y0 t9 gin. S. ,s, ag 900 - p; u, -700 ;r4 Ac- t,: "Zi / v tcJ 1000 76 Ac- tr 41, •1yA~ //CJ ~4• t'e. b 5 O 0 .fit, f c °!r r~'jCi21 ct ' F 01 Cs. y AFt Ac-, a6 ice, c . \ t.; n« t F J A%oox co 72 Ae c5 A~1SJ5,j N alp1 40 400 tag lQ2941 41 'l ' .i \ • •Yr 1 a ~ A;A+• It A' ~ ~ Yt t ~n a a _K..~_~__ _ _ _ . r - ......F 2w_ _ _ _.~r_... II . _ . . , {I I!I i,l III I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I ~ I ~ I : '..rw ~ , I I I I I I I L.I I IIiJ LI I I I I ILI hh?~~.!flf!~'IIII(!II~I~TI_nI~IIiI!~iI!:L!I!IIIII'InIIIIIIII~~~llllllllllllllllllllllll"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIII1111111 ~°~sn+^.,.-:.a-.t„ ~s _ I 2 3 4 _ 5 6_ 7 6 9 I10 II 12° ' NOTE: IF THIS MICROF1lMED - DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR 1HAN ~ - ' ' ~ - THIS NOTICE;-IT IS DUE TO s THE QUALITY OF TFE ORIGINAL ~ DRAWING. ~ _ _ s OE 6Z BZ LZ _ 9Z SZ, OZ EZ ZZ~ IZ OZ 61 81 LI 91 SI' b.l EI ZI 11 OI 6 B L 9 ~SI~~~..,~~~bI~~~~'~~~~EI~~~~'~~~~ZI~ I NYLM qll uulim unlnnlnnhllllnulRUIUIIIIIIIIIIUluuI110 uuluuluulMNINIIIUIIIUIIIII plllllllll~ IIIIIOIIII~FtIlII111IAlIIIUI N!I flIIIIIIIIIIIIIwIII~IIDIIWIIIIIIIII~WIIIIUWII~ ~ IIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl1lWIWI1WIllWlUUllI~UllIWIWW~llllll r. ' ~ ~u~ ~'i AR J + . ~z,,. , y I ~1 . ..9 I ) .I ;I arr ~ ~ xy ~ ...c?' _'LF~b~fi!~ i :,='F~'~.~ ~ o-, I PJ YYY f~L 1 ~ - _ e ~ t ~ _ ~~r' dK y(. ~~y5~4: }I ...a ,I ` Ir, ~ ~ S` :0 I Y ~ i~ ~ ,3i ~ ,'r I Z - 4 y l t _ - - ~ r. ' 1 - - - L. ' tt, ~r~^y J . J• ui~~ .A, rr _ ~I ~ ;r•, `y 7 Ir c t ' E ' I rl '~rf~' ~ 6' 'ti y+~~L ' .1 S G"f i _ : ~ ' ~ 'tom\~~j,: t~ "1I' ..n c.Y. ~ 'fir ' ti . ~4~.. ~:r; :•V. , h ~v 'I'III~'III'II~'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'~'I'I'I''I'I'I'~I IIIIII~IPpn~III~IPpIgIII~Iu~IP~nglll~nyll l~glllp~lpl ql~, ll~gl~lnpll~lllpu~ilgin~lll~ll l~llglll~lllpn~illpl~~l~lpii I 2 3 9 5 6 7 B 9 10 II 12' ' ~ ~ OE fit 92 !2 92 52 02 E2 2E 12 02 61 BI LI 91 SI bl EI 21 II 01 6 B L 9 5 G e I+.~ ~~~~lnllinluli61116~~d~~IILnIhmhlnhmnllbndllllbnJn~d~~~~LaII1n1InILuI~InlLulhulml~ul~~~.~,:, Iur6mlulJun4.,d~inhm6nlhnJlnlnldnn6lu6nlhmbmbw6lIIIIIIdunhuJnnhnl6wfiw6nlmdulJllumdmlhmun 19 • 991 1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 10, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: 10/25/90 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordina e / PREVIOUS ACTION: City Council review Amendment ZOA 90-0002 ! and comment PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OW j REQUESTED BY: VT- P ICY ISSUE Should the City amend the Community Development Code to reflect changes in State law, to clarify the applicability of Code provisions on land use activities? INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council reviewed the proposed amendments at a public hearing on August 27, 1990 and at a subsequent study session. The attached Code amendment proposal is intended to reflect the comments made by the Council. The explanation of the purpose of the amendment is described in the attached memo. In addition to the memo, this packet includes a proposed ordinance with an exhibit illustrating the amended wording for the Community Development Code. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached ordinance 2. Modify and approve the attached ordinance 3. Reject the amendment and direct staff to prepare a corresponding resolution. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the attached ordinance 10-19-90.MEM/kl t k' F f; C' 4 a; N' MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Murphy, Community Developmentt Dept. Director FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner rL-- RE: Code Revisions - procedures; lot line adjustments, partitions, and care facilities DATE: November 15, 1990 The staff discussed possible Community Development Code (CDC) revisions pertaining to procedures (Chapter 18.32), lot line adjustments and partitions (Chapter 18.162), and care facilities (Chapter 18.42). The attached packet contains recommended amendments to the CDC which reflect changes in State law and the preliminary comments made by the Council. The packet contains sections pertaining to 1) procedure (Exhibit "A"); 2) lot line adjustments and partitions (Exhibit "B"); and 3) modifications pertaining to care facilities, clarification of wording, and amendments to other procedural items outside of Chapter 18.32 (Exhibit "C"). New language is underlined and deleted wording is shown in [brackets]. Chapter 18.32 Procedures for Decision Makinci: Ouasi-Judicial (Exhibit "A") This portion of the CDC has been reproduced in its entirety and the changes reflect the following: 1. ORS requirements pertaining to notice and procedural issues. 2. Designating the Hearings Officer for the review of all subdivisions which do not involve a planned development, sign code exceptions, and appeals of sign permits, administrative sign code exceptions and administrative sensitive lands decisions. 3. Allow fee waivers for other parties in addition to the NPOs. 4. Permit the Council to hold hearings based on the record or de novo. 5. Have transcripts of previous hearings produced only when requested by an interested party or the City. 6. Corrections of errors, omissions, or poor wording. Chapter 18 162 Land Division: Minor and Minor land Partitioning - Lot Line Adjustment (Exhibit "B") This CDC chapter is proposed to be amended to: 1. Comply with new ORS requirements. 2. Streamline the lot line adjustment process to reduce the ! review time by two to three weeks. 3. Modify the procedure for granting an extension to the approval period. Care facilities related amendments and miscellaneous revisions (Exhibit "C") The Council expressed concern about the adoption of definitions for babysitting services (called family day care by the State) and the implication that by defining this term, the City would regulate this use. Presently, the City regulates "group residential" (occupancy of five or more unrelated persons), "residential care facility" (five or more handicapped, etc. individuals), and "children's day care" (13 or more children). The City does not regulate "residential treatment homes" (five or fewer persons receiving care) and "family day care" (12 or fewer children). During the review of the CDC, it became apparent that several > revisions are necessary to clarify when provisions of the CDC apply to these types of care facilities as well as other land use activities which are identified in the Code. The major revisions in this segment of the packet include: r 1. Definitions for various care facilities which coincide with the State's (Section'18.42.020 A.). The references to these terms are also changed as needed throughout the Code. 2. Clarification of the procedure and permitted use section of each zone regarding all uses permitted in each zone (Sections 18..020 and 030). 3. Amending each zone to replace the partial list of other applicable requirements with a complete list (Sections 18.-.060). 4. The allowance for a caretaker's residence was inadvertently deleted from the I-P zone during the last Code revision and it is proposed to be included again as a permitted use. A caretaker is presently permitted in the I-L, I-H, and C-G zones. 5. The Site Development Review provisions are modified to clarify which permitted uses shown in Sections 18._.030 l are exempt from this review process. i a K 6. For the last Code revision in early 1989, it was intended that land use approvals would be valid for a one and one half year period with eligibility for a one year extension. Several sections were not appropriately modified to reflect this policy. 7. The Signs (18.114) and Land Division: Subdivision (18.162) portions of the CDC are amended to make the Hearings Officer responsible for the review of sign code exceptions and subdivisions. 8. Allows the Director to grant extensions of approval periods without requiring a hearing or notice. 9. Other sections noted in the packet are included to correct minor errors or omissions in the CDC. An ordinance is included in the packet which would adopt the changes noted in the three exhibits. 10-19-90.MEM/kl i s. l' r E. C t i. a E ¢r 6. EXHIBIT A Chapter 18.32 PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING: QUASI-JUDICIAL Sections: 18.32.010 Purpose 18.32.020 The Application Process 18.32.030 Time Period for Decision Making 18.32.040 Preapplication Conference Required 18.32.050 Application Submittal Requirements: Refusal of an Application 18.32.060 Duties of the Director 18.32.070 Alternative Recommendation by Director 18.32.080 Additional Information Required, Waiver of Requirements and Report Required 18.32.090 Approval Authority Responsibilities 18.32.100 Consolidation of Proceedings 18.32.110 A Decision by the Director: No Hearing Required 18.32.120 Notice of Decision by the Director 18.32.130 Notice of Hearings Officer, Commission and City Council Proceedings 18.32.140 Contents of the Notice for Public Hearings 18.32.150 Failure to Receive Notice: Computations 18.32.160 Hearings Procedure 18.32.170 Ex Parte Communications with Approval Authority 18.32.180 Continuation of the Hearing 18.32.190 Subpoena or Deposition of Witnesses 18.32.200 Evidence 18.32.210 Judicial Notice 18.32.220 Participation in the Decision: Voting 18.32.230 Record of Proceeding for Public Hearings [18.32.240 Effective Date of the Decision] 18.32.250 The Decision Process of the Approval Authority 18.32.260 The Form of the Final Decision 18.32.270 Notice of Final Decision 18.32.275 Amended Decision Process 18.32.280 Denial of the Application: Resubmittal 18.32.290 Standing to Appeal or for a Petition for Review a 18.32.300 Computation of Appeal Period and Effective Date of the Decision i Petition for Review Time Period] 18.32.310 [Decisions which may be Appealed or Reviewed] Determination of Appropriate Reviewing Body 18.32.320 Type of Appeal or Review Hearing: Limitations of Review 18.32.330 Transcripts 18.32.340 Notice of Appeal or Petition for Review 18.32.345 Fee Waiver Allowed for Neighborhood Planning Organizations 18.32.350 Persons Entitled to Notice on Appeal or Review: Type of Notice 18.32.360 Contents of Notice on Appeal or Review 18.32.370 Action on Appeal or Review: Time Limit and Authority to Change the Decision 18.32.380 Final Action of the Approval Authority: Effective Date 18.32.390 Revocation of Approvals DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 1 18.32.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures under this title for the consideration of development applications, for the consideration of quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments and for appeal or review of decisions. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 020 The Application Process A. Applications for approval required under this chapter may be initiated by: 1. Order of Council; 2. Resolution of a majority of the Commission; 3. The Director; or 4. A neighborhood planning organization or City of Tigard advisory board or commission; or (5} 4- Application of a recorded owner of property or contract purchasers. B. Any persons authorized by this title to submit an application for approval may be represented by an agent authorized in writing to make the application. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18 32 030 Time Period for Decision Making s A. The City shall take final action on an application for a permit or a zone change, including the resolution of all appeals within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, except: 1. The 120-day period may be extended for a reasonable period of time at the request of the applicant; 2. The 120-day period applies only to a decision wholly within the authority and control of the City; and 3. The 120-day period does not apply to an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation. (Ord. 89- 06; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 040 Preapplication Conference Required A. The applicant shall be required to meet with the Director for a preapplication conference. B. At such conference, the Director shall: 1. Cite the applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation; DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 2 C. 2. Cite the applicable substantive and procedural ordinance provisions; 3. Provide technical data and assistance which will aid the applicant; 4. Identify other policies and regulations that relate to the application; and 5. Identify other opportunities or constraints that relate to the application. C. Due to possible changes in state statutes, or regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the preapplication conference is valid for not more than six months. 1. Another preapplication conference is required if an application is submitted six months after the preapplication conference. D. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standards, criteria or requirements of the applications. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.050 Application Submittal Requirements: Refusal of an Application A. The application shall be made on forms provided by the Director as provided by subsection 18.32.060.A.1. B. The application shall: 1. Include the information requested on the application form; 2. Address appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; 3. Be accompanied by the required fee; and 4. Include a list of names and addresses of all persons who are surrounding property owners of record [within 250 feet of the site] as required by the specific application section of this title. The records of the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation shall be the official records for determining ownership. C. The Director shall not accept: 1. An incomplete application, except as otherwise provided by Section 18.32.080; or 2. Applications not accompanied by the required fee. D. An application shall be deemed incomplete unless it addresses each element required to be considered under applicable provisions of this code and the application form. DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 3 jillij E. If an application for a permit or zone change is incomplete, the Director shall: 1. Notify the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application of exactly what information is missing; and 2. Allow the applicant to submit the missing information. F. The application for a permit or a zone change shall be deemed complete when the missing information is provided and at that time the 120-day time period shall begin to run for the purposes of satisfying state law. G. If the applicant refuses to submit the missing information required for a permit or a zone change application, the application shall be deemed complete on the 31st day after the Director first received the application. This in no way negates the applicant's burden of proof, but it is for the purpose of allowing an application to be submitted for hearing. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.055 Applicant's Evidence A. All documents or evidence relied upon by the applicant but submitted after the application has been determined to be complete, shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff at least 7 days Prior to the time notice is mailed as provided in Subsection 18.32.130.A(1). B. When documents or evidence submitted Pursuant to Subsection A. above, significantly alter an application Previously deemed complete, the i Director may recalculate the date the application is deemed complete._ ? The recalculated completion date may then be used to determine: r 1. The 120 day time period for decision making as set forth in Section _ i 18.32.030; and 2. A new decision or hearing date. C. If additional documents or evidence is provided in support of the c r application after the time set forth in Subsection A, above, any party is entitled to request a continuance of the hearing. Such continuance does not count as part of the 120 day provision in ORS 227.178. 18.32.060 Duties of the Director A. The Director shall: 1. Prepare application forms made pursuant to the standards contained in the applicable state law, comprehensive plan, and implementing ordinance provisions; 2. Accept all development applications which comply with the provisions of Section 18.32.050; DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 4 R' 3. Within 60 days after an application is deemed complete pursuant to this chapter, except as provided by Section 18.32.110 (A Decision by the Director: No Hearing Required); a. Give notice as provided by Sections 18.32.130 and 18.32.140 except as provided by Section 18.32.120; b. Prepare a staff report or notice of decision which shall include: (i) The facts deemed relevant to the proposal and found by the Director to be true; (ii) Until the City's comprehensive plan is acknowledged, those statewide planning goals deemed to be applicable and the reasons why any other goal is not applicable to the proposal. The Director or approval authority need not deal with statewide planning goals 15-19, which are not applicable in Tigard; (iii) Those portions of the Tigard comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances which the Director deems to be applicable to the proposal. If any portion of the plan or ordinances appear to be reasonably related to the proposal and are deemed not applicable by the Director, the Director shall explain why such portion or portions are not applicable; (iv) An analysis relating the facts deemed true by the Director to the applicable criteria and a consideration of alternatives open to the approval authority, resulting in a recommendation of denial, approval, or approval with conditions under Section 18.32.250; and (v) A statement regarding a waiver of information or additional information required by the Director as provided by Section 18.32.080; (c. Make the staff report and all case-file materials available:] ((i) At the time that notice of the decision of the Director is given; and] ((ii) at least five days prior to a scheduled hearing date;] c. In the case of an application subject to a Director's decision, make the staff report and all case-file materials available at the time the notice of the decision is given; d. In the case of an application subject to a hearing, make the staff -report available 7 days prior to a scheduled hearing DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 5 Y d t t.' C sj date and the case-file materials available when notice is mailed, as provided by Section 18.32.130(A)(1). (d) e. Act on the development application pursuant to Subsection 18.32.090.A and Section 18.32.110 or cause a hearing to be held pursuant to Subsections 18.32.090.B through D and Sections 18.32.160 through 18.32.230 and Section 18.32.240, unless the applicant has requested or consented to a delay; 4. Administer the hearings process pursuant to Sections 18.32.130 through 18.32.190 and Section 18.32.200; 5. Maintain a register of all applications which have been filed for a decision. The register shall identify at what stage the application is in the process; 6. Rile notice of the final decision in the records of the Planning Division and mail a copy of the notice of the final decision to the applicant and all parties and to those persons requesting copies of such notices who pay the necessary fees therefor as provided by Sections 18.32.120 or 18.32.130; 7. Maintain and preserve the file for each application. The file shall include, as applicable, a list of persons required to be given notice and a copy of the notice given pursuant to Section 18.32.120 or 18.32.130 and the accompanying affidavits, the application and all supporting information, the staff report, the final decision, including the findings, conclusions and conditions, if any, all correspondence, the minutes of any meeting at which the application was considered and any other exhibit, information or documentation which was considered by the hearing body with respect to the application; and 8. Administer the appeals and review process pursuant to Sections 18.32.290 through 18.32.370. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.070 Alternative Recommendation by Director A. The Director shall make a recommendation to the initial hearings body on the application; however, in addition, the Director may recommend an alternative or alternatives. B. Such alternatives shall be considered only if: 1. Notice of such alternative(s) has been given as part of the hearing notice in addition to the matters contained in Section 18.32.140; and 2. The staff report prepared as provided by Subsection 18.32.060.A.3.b supports such an alternative(s). (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 6 ~w 18 32 080 Additional Information Required Waiver of Recruirements and Report Required A. The Director may require information in addition to that required by a specific provision of this title, provided: 1. The information is needed to properly evaluate the proposed development proposal; and 2. The need can be justified on the basis of a special or unforeseen circumstance. B. The Director may waive the submission of information for a specific requirement subject to the provisions of subsection (C) of this section, provided: 1. The Director finds that specific information is not necessary to properly evaluate the application; or 2. The Director finds that a specific approval standard is not applicable to the application. C. Where a requirement is found by the Director to be inapplicable the Director shall: 1. [Prepare a memorandum to] Indicate for the record and to the applicant [citing the grant of authority,] the specific requirements waived [and the reasons]; 2. Advise the applicant in writing that the waiver may be challenged on appeal or at the hearing on the matter and may be denied by the approval authority; and 3. Cite in the staff report on the application the specific requirements waived, the reasons for the waiver and the specific grant of authority. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 090 Approval Authority Responsibilities A. The Director shall have the authority to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the following applications: 1. Minor partition pursuant to Chapter 18.162; 2. Major partition pursuant to Chapter 18.162; 3. Site development pursuant to Chapter 18.120; 4. Temporary use pursuant to Chapter 18.140; 5. Home occupation pursuant to Chapter 18.142; 6. Minor modification to approved planned developments; DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 7 7. Variance pursuant to Chapter 18.134, with the exception of Sign Code Variances pursuant to Chapter 18.114; 8. Accessory uses and structures pursuant to Chapter 18.144; 9. Flexible setback standards for developed lots pursuant to Chapter 18.146; 10. Zero lot line setback standards pursuant to Chapter 18.148; 11. A detailed planned development proposal, under Chapters 18.80 and 18.120; 12. Determination of parking requirements for unlisted uses pursuant to Subsection 18.106.020.C; [and] 13. Tree removal permits[.]; and 14. Director's Interpretations. B. The Director may refer an application for review to the Planning Commission or the Hearings Officer, depending upon the type of application, as determined by Section 18.32.090. [B] C. The Hearings Officer shall conduct a public hearing in the manner prescribed by this chapter and shall have the authority to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the following development applications: 1. Conditional use pursuant to Chapter 18.130; 2. Sensitive land permit within the floodplain pursuant to Subsections 18.84.015.B.1 and B.2; 3. Historic overlay district amendments pursuant to Chapter 18.82; and 4. Subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 18.160 when not part of a planned development [and/or no variance to Title 18 standards is requested.) 5. Sign Code exceptions and sign code variances pursuant to Chapter 18.114. 6. An appeal of a sensitive lands (steep slope, drainagewavs) decision made by the Director pursuant to Subsections 18.84.015.D and E. 7. An appeal of a sign permit decision or administrative exception made by the Director pursuant to Subsections 18.114.030.D and E or section 18.114.148, respectively. [C] D. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing in the manner prescribed by this chapter and shall have the authority to approve, ( DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 8 deny, or approve with conditions the following development applications: 1. Subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 18.160 when requested as part of a planned development [and/or in conjunction with a variance to the subdivision standards or a variance to any Title 18 requirement]; 2. A quasi-judicial comprehensive plan map amendment except: a. The Commission's function shall be limited to a recommendation i to the Council; b. The Commission may transmit their recommendation in any form and a final order need not be formally adopted; and t c. The Council hearing shall be confined to the prior record and a final order shall be formally adopted; F' 3. A quasi-judicial zoning map amendment pursuant to section 18.22.030 except where the zone change application is being heard concurrent with a quasi-judicial plan amendment. In such a situation this t: zone change shall be decided in the same manner as a quasi-judicial F' plan amendment; r 4. A development application referred to the Commission by the E_ Director with the exception of sensitive lands decisions and sicM permits; 5. An appeal of a decision made by the Director under Subsection; 18.32.310.A of this section; f r: 6. A conceptual planned development proposal under Chapter 18.80; 7. Interpretations of the Tigard comprehensive plan or the adopted community development code, if requested by the Director or other interested persons; 8. Any other matter not specifically assigned to the Director, the Hearings officer, or City Council under this title; 9. The preliminary review of plan designations and formal imposition of zoning district designations made to lands annexed to the City; [10. Appeal of sign permits pursuant to Chapter 18.114;] [11. Sign code exceptions pursuant to Chapter 18.114;] [12. Variances to subdivision standards;] and [13] 10. Recommendations to the city Council on annexations. j DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 9 t i e t F C~x 4 6y t. [D] E. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing in the manner prescribed by this chapter and shall have the authority to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the following development applications: 1. The formal imposition of plan designations made to lands annexed to the City; 2. Matters referred to the Council by the Commission or Hearings officer for review under Subsection 18.32.310.B.3; 3. Review of decisions Of the initial hearings body, whether on the Council's own motion or otherwise, as provided by Subsections 18.32.310.8.1 and 2; 4. Quasi-judicial plan amendments; and 5. Resolutions to the boundary Commission for annexations and quasi- judicial zoning designations on property to be annexed. (Ord. 89- 06; Ord. 86-43; Ord. 85-32; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 84-09; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.100 Consolidation of Proceedings A. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, whenever an applicant requests more than one approval and more than one approval authority is required to decide the applications, the proceedings shall be consolidated so that one approval authority shall decide all applications in one proceeding. B. In such Cases as stated in subsection A of this section, the hearings shall be held by the approval authority having original jurisdiction over one of the applications under Section 18.32.090, in the following order of preference: the Council, the Commission, the Hearings Officer, or the Director. C. Plan map amendments are not subject to the 120-day decision making period prescribed by state law and such amendments may involve complex issues; therefore, the Director shall not be required to consolidate a plan map amendment and a zone change or other permit applications requested unless the applicant requests the proceedings to be consolidated and signs a waiver of the 120-day time limit prescribed by state law for zone change and permit applications. D. Where there is a consolidation of proceedings: 1. The notice shall identify each action to be taken; 2. The decision on a plan map amendment shall precede the decision on the proposed zone change and other actions; and, 3. Separate actions shall be taken on each application. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 10 _1.8.32.110 A Decision by the Director: No Hearing Required A. Pursuant to Subsection 18.32.090.A, the Director is authorized to make certain decisions, and no hearing shall be held unless an appeal is filed as provided by Subsection B of this section, or unless: 1. An appeal is filed pursuant to Subsection 18.32.310.A; or 2. The Director has an interest in the outcome of the decision, due to some past or present involvement with the applicant, other interested persons or in the property or surrounding property. In such cases, the application shall be treated as if it were filed under Subsection 18.32.090.C. B. The decision shall be in the form set forth in Section 18.32.120. C. The decision shall be based on the approval criteria set forth in Section 18.32.250. D. Notice of the decision by the Director shall be given as provided by Section 18.32.120 and notice shall be governed by the provisions of Section 18.32.140, Contents of Notice, and Section 18.32.150, Failure to Receive Notice. E. The record shall include: 1. A copy of the application and all supporting information, plans, exhibits, graphics, etc.; 2. All correspondence relating to the application; 3. All information considered by the Director in making the decision; 4. The staff report of the Director prepared under Subsection 18.32.060.A.3.b; 5. A list of the conditions, if any are attached to the approval of the application; and 6. A copy of the notice advising of the Director's decision which was given pursuant to Section 18.32.090, and accompanying affidavits, and a list of all persons who were given mailed notice. F. Standing to appeal shall be as provided by Section 18.32.290. G. The appeal period shall be computed as provided by Section 18.32.300. H. The method for taking the appeal shall be as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.A and the notice of appeal submitted by an appellant shall be as provided by Section 18.32.340. I. The hearing shall be confined to the prior record as provided by Subsection 18.32.320.A. i DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 11 J. Notice of the final decision on appeal shall be as provided by Section 18.32.270, Notice of Final Decision, and Section 18.32.260, The Form of the Final Decision. K. No decision by the Director may be modified from that set out in the notice except upon being given new notice. s L. The action on the appeal shall, be as provided by Section 18.32.370, i Action on Appeal or Review. y t M. A decision by the commission on an appeal of a Director's decision is final. s N. Resubmittal shall be as provided by Section 18.32.280, Denial of Application: Resubmittal. 0. The provisions of section 18.32.390, Revocation of Approvals apply to a decision by the Director. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 120 Notice of Decision by the Director - f t A. Notice of the Director's decision on an application pursuant to j Subsection 18.32.090.A shall be given by the Director in the following x manner: 1. Within five days of signing the proposed decision, notice shall be sent by mail to: a. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property which is the subject of the application; F b. All surrounding property owners of record of property within 250 feet of the property for the following types of Director's r: decisions: 4 t (1) Minor Land Partitions; [(ii) Lot Line Adjustments;] [(iii)] (ii) Site Development Reviews; [(iv) Administrative Variances;] and [(v)] (iii) Sensitive Lands (steep slope, drainageway); C. All owners of record of property immediately abutting a site subject to the following types of director's decisions: (i) Temporary Uses; (ii) Home Occupations; [and] t DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 12 5 (iii) Flexible Setback Variances; l (iv) Lot Line Adjustments, and (vi Administrative Variances. d. The applicant for a Director's Interpretation or a Director's Decision regarding an extension of approval; e. The affected neighborhood planning organization, if active; f. Any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice; and g. Any person who requests, in writing, and pays the required fee established by the council. i 2. Within [five] i0 days of signing tho decision, the Director shall post a copy of each notice of decision at City Hall; and 3. [Within five days of signing the decision,] Nfnlotice shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation for site design review, major land partitions, and minor land partitions a minimum of 10 days prior to the date the decision becomes final. Newspaper notice is not required for other decisions by the Director. B. The Director shall cause an affidavit of mailing, posting and publication of notice where newspaper publication was required in Subsection A.1 of this section to be filed and made a part of the administrative record. C. Notice of a decision by the Director shall contain: 1. The nature of the application in sufficient detail to apprise persons entitled to notice of the applicant's proposal and of the decision; 2. The address and legal description of the subject property, with the exception of Director's Interpretations; 3. A statement of where the adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained; 4. The date the Director's decision will become final; 5. A statement that a person entitled to notice or adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision may appeal the decision: a. The statement shall explain briefly how an appeal can be taken, the deadlines and where information can be obtained; and DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 13 b. The statement shall explain that if an appeal is not filed, the decision shall be final, except for notice published in the newspaper; 6. A map showing the location of the property (Director's Interpretations are exempt from this requirement); and 7. A statement that the hearing on an appeal will be confined to the prior record. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-08; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.130 Notice of Hearings Officer Commission and City Council Proceedings A. Notice of an impending action pursuant to Subsections 18.32.090.B, C, and D shall be given by the Director in the following manner: 1. At least [10] 20 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, or if y~ two or more hearings are scheduled, 10 days prior to the first ~F hearing, notice shall be sent by mail to: a. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property which is the subject of the application; b. All property owners of record within 250 feet of the property for the following types of applications: (i) Subdivisions; (ii) Sign Code Exceptions; (iii) Administrative Sign Variances; (iv) Sensitive Lands Permits (100-year floodplain); (v) Conditional Use Permits; and (vi) Planned Developments; (vii) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (viii) Zone Changes; (ix) Zone Ordinance Amendments; C. Any affected governmental agency which has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the City which includes provision for such notice; d. The affected neighborhood planning organization, if active; e. Any person who requests, in writing, and pays a fee established by the Council; and DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 14 f. The appellant and all parties to an appeal or petition for f review; and 2. The Director shall cause an affidavit of mailing of notice to be filed and made a part of the administrative record. B. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. An affidavit of publication shall be made part of the administrative record. (Ord. 89- 06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.140 Contents of the Notice for Public Hearings A. Notice given to persons entitled to mailed or published notice pursuant to Section 18.32.130 shall include the following information: 1. The number and title of the file containing the application and the address and phone number of the Director's office where additional information can be obtained; 2. A description of the subject property, reasonably calculated to give notice as to its actual location which shall include, but not be limited to, the metes and bounds description or the tax map designations of the [applicable] County assessor's office; 3. Except for notice published in the newspaper, a map showing the location of the property; w 4. The nature of the application in sufficient detail to apprise persons entitled to notice of the application's proposal; and 5. The time, place and date of the public hearing, a statement that both public oral and written testimony is invited, and a statement that the hearing will be held under this chapter and any rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) B. When the proceeding is an initial evidentiary hearing before the Hearings Officer, the Planning Commission, or the City Council the following information shall be included in the mailed notice, in addition to the information required pursuant to Subsection A, above: 1. A list of applicable criteria from ordinance and plan; 2. A statement that failure to raise an issue in the hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specific detail to give the decision maker or hearing body an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue; 3. A statement that all documents in the file are available for inspection at no cost, or copies at a reasonable cost; DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 15 i 4. A statement that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost, or copies at reasonable cost, at least 7 days prior to the hearing. 18.32.150 Failure to Receive Notice: Computations i A. The failure of a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate the action provided a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to notice. B. Personal notice is deemed given when the notice is deposited with the United States Postal Service, and published notice is deemed given on the date it is published.. I' C. The records of the Washington County assessor's office shall be the official records used for giving notice required by the ordinances codified in this title, and a person's name and address which is not on file at the time the notice mailing list is initially prepared is not a i person entitled to notice under Sections 18.32.120 and 18.32.130. D. In computing the length of time that notice is given, the first date notice is given shall be excluded and the day of the hearing or the date on which the appeal period or review period expires shall be included unless the last day falls on any legal al holiday or on Saturday, in which case, the last day shall be the next business day. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.' 83-52) 18.32.160 Hearings Procedure A. Unless otherwise provided by the rules of procedure adopted by the t Council the approval authority shall have the authority to conduct a public hearing, and: 1. Determine who qualifies as a party; 2. Regulate the course, sequence and decorum of the hearing; 3. Dispose of procedural requirements or similar matters; 4. Rule on offers of proof and relevancy of evidence and testimony; 5. Impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and set reasonable time limits for oral presentation and rebuttal testimony; 6. Take such other action appropriate for conduct commensurate with the nature of the hearing; and 7. Approve or deny applications or approve with conditions pursuant to Section 18.32.250. 'r DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 16 w: B. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedure adopted by the Council, the approval authority shall conduct the hearing as follows: 1. Announce the nature and purpose of the hearing and summarize the rules of conducting the hearing[;], and, if the proceeding is an j initial evidentiary hearing before the Hearinas Officer, the Planning Commission, or the City Council, make a statement that: I a. Lists the applicable substantive criteria; t i b. States that testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, or to 4 the other criteria in the Comprehensive Plan or the Code which the person believes apply to the decision; C. States that failure to raise an issue with sufficient ! s2gcificity to afford the decision-maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. F { P 2. Recognize parties; 3. Request the Director to present the staff report, to explain any graphic or pictorial displays which are a part of the report, summarize the findings, recommendations and conditions, if any, and to provide such other information as may be requested by the ; approval authority; C 4. Allow the applicant or a representative of the applicant to be heard; 5. Allow parties or witnesses in favor of the applicant's proposal to be heard; 6. Allow parties or witnesses in opposition to the applicant's proposal to be heard; 7. Upon failure of any party to appear, the approval authority shall take into consideration written material submitted by such party; 8. Allow the parties in favor of the proposal to offer rebuttal evidence and testimony limited to rebuttal of points raised. New testimony will not be heard; 9. Conclude the hearing by announcing officially the public hearing is closed; and I 10. Make a decision pursuant to Section 18.32.250 or take the matter under advisement pursuant to Section 18.32.180. i t i DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 17 C. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedures adopted by the Council, the following rules shall apply to the general conduct of the hearing: 1. The approval authority may ask questions at any time before the close of the hearing, and the answers shall be limited to the substance of the question; 2. Parties or the Director must receive approval from the approving authority to submit questions directly to other parties or witnesses or the Director; 3. A reasonable amount of time shall be given to persons to respond to questions; 4. No person shall testify without first receiving recognition from the approval authority and stating his full name and address; 5. The approval authority may require that testimony be under oath or affirmation; 6. Audience demonstrations such as applause, cheering and display of signs, or other conduct disruptive of the hearing shall not be permitted. Any such conduct may be cause for immediate suspension of the hearing; and 7. No person shall be disorderly, abusive, or disruptive of the orderly conduct of the hearing. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 165 Record May Remain Open; Admission of New Evidence A. Unless there is a continuance the record shall remain oven for at least 7 days at the request of any participant in the initial evidentiary hearing before the Hearings Officer the Planning Commission, or the City Council if the request is made prior to the conclusion of the hearing. B. When the record is left oven to admit new evidence, testimony, or criteria for decision-making any person may raise new issues which relate to that new material. 18 32 170 Ex Parts Communications with Approval Authority A. Members of the approval authority shall not: 1. Communicate, directly or indirectly, with any party or representative of a party in connection with any issue involved except upon giving notice and opportunity for all parties to participate; nor 2. Take notice of any communication, report or other materials outside the record prepared by the proponents or opponents in connection DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 18 with the particular case unless the parties are afforded an opportunity to contest the material so noticed. B. No decision or action of the Commission or Council shall be invalid due to an ex parte contact or bias resulting from an ex parte contact with a member of the decision making body, if the member of the decision making body receiving the contact: 1. Places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parts communications concerning the decision or action; and 2. Makes a public announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties' right to rebut the substance of the communication made at the first hearing following the communication where action will be considered or taken on the subject to which the communication related. C. Members of the commission shall be governed by the provisions of Oregon Revised Statute 227.035 and the provisions of this section. D. This section shall not apply to Director decisions made under Subsection 18.32.090.A. E. A communication between the City staff and the Commission or Hearings Officer or Council shall not be considered an ex parte contact. F. Subsection (B) of this section does not apply to an ex parte contact with a Hearings Officer. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.180 Continuation of the Hearing A. An approval authority may continue the hearing from time to time to gather additional evidence, to consider the application fully or to give notice to additional persons. B. Unless otherwise provided by the approval authority, no additional notice need be given of the continued hearing if the matter is continued to a date, time, and place certain. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.190 Subpoena or Deposition of Witnesses A. Any party to an appeal or petition for review who wishes to subpoena or depose witnesses may do so by application to the Director not less than seven days prior to the hearing and a showing that the witness resides in Oregon, is unable or unwilling to appear and the testimony is material and relevant. B. Upon approval by the Director, application for subpoenas or depositions shall be made after proper completion and payment of those fees applicable to civil cases, to the Washington County circuit court. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 19 18.32.200 Evidence A. All evidence offered and not objected to may be received unless excluded by the approval authority on its own motion. B. Evidence received at any hearing shall be of a quality that reasonable i persons rely upon in the conducting of their everyday affairs. P C. No person shall present irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious testimony or evidence. D. Evidence shall be received and notice may be taken of those facts in a manner similar to that provided for in contested cases before state ` administrative agencies pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 183.450, except as otherwise provided for in this title. E. Formal rules of evidence, as used in courts of law, shall not apply. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) i 18.32.210 Judicial Notice t `r A. The approval authority may take notice of the following: F 1. All facts which are judicially noticeable. Such noticed facts shall be stated and made part of the record; 2. The statewide planning goals adopted pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; and 3. The comprehensive plan and other officially adopted plans, ' implementing ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Tigard, and the comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances of, other planning authorities within the Metropolitan Service District'.= boundary. r e B. Matters judicially noticed need not be established by evidence and may be considered by the approval authority in the determination of the application. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.220 Participation in the Decision: voting A. In addition to the provision of Oregon Revised Statute 227.035 which applies to Commission members or Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 244 which applies to all members of an approval authority, each member of the approval authority shall be impartial. Any member having any substantial past or present involvement with the applicant, other interested persons, the property or surrounding property, or having a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding, or having any prehearing contacts, shall state for the record the nature of their involvement or contacts, and shall either: DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 20 E i 1. State that they are not prejudiced by the involvement or contacts and will participate and vote on the matter; or 2. State that they are prejudiced by the involvement or contact and will withdraw from participation in the matter. B. An affirmative vote by a majority of the qualified voting members of the approval authority who are present is required to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application or to amend, modify, or reverse a decision on appeal or review. C. Notwithstanding Subsections A and B of this section, no member of an approval authority having a financial interest in the outcome of an application shall take part in proceedings on that application; provided, however, with respect to the Council only, a member may vote upon a finding of necessity which shall be placed on the record by the presiding officer. D. Only those qualified members who have reviewed the entire record shall vote. E. In the event of a tie, the decision which is the subject of appeal or review shall stand. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 230 Record of Proceeding for Public Hearings A. A verbatim record of the proceeding shall be made by stenographic or mechanical means, and: 1. It shall not be necessary to transcribe testimony except as 4 provided for in Subsection 18.32.330.A; and i 2. The minutes or transcript of testimony, or other evidence of the proceedings, shall be part of the record. B. All exhibits received shall be marked so as to provide identification upon review. C. The official record shall include: 1. All materials, pleadings, memoranda, stipulations and motions submitted by any party to the proceeding and recorded or considered by the approval authority as evidence; 2. All materials submitted by the Director to the approval authority with respect to the application including in the case of an appeal taken pursuant to Subsection 18.32.290.A the record of the Director's decision as provided by Section 18.32.110; 3. The transcript of the hearing, if requested by the Council or a party, or the minutes of the hearing, or other evidence of the proceedings before the approval authority; DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 21 4 c r t i Z 4. The written findings, conclusions, decision and, if any, conditions of approval of the approval authority; 5. Argument by the parties or their legal representatives permitted pursuant to Section 18.32.320 at the time of review before the Council; 6. All correspondence relating-to the application; and 7. A copy of the notice which was given as provided by Section 18.32.130, accompanying affidavits and list of persons who were sent mailed notice. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) AV 118.32.240 Effective Date of the Decision] [A. A decision by the Director shall become effective on the tenth day after notice is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as provided in Subsection 18.32.120.A.3 unless an appeal is taken pursuant to Subsection 18.32.290.A.] [B. A decision made by an initial hearings authority, other than the Director, shall become effective on the tenth day from the date notice of the final decision is mailed pursuant to Section 18.32.260 unless a petition for review is filed as provided by Subsection 18.32.290.8.] [C. A final decision by the Commission in the case of an appeal of a Director's decision, or a final decision by the council in the case of a petition for review of a Commission or Hearings Officer decision, shall be final on the tenth day from the date notice of the final decision is mailed pursuant to Section 18.32.260. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)] 18 32 250 The Decision Process of the Approval Authority A. The decision shall be based on: 1. Proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with: a. The City of Tigard comprehensive plan; and b. The relevant approval standards found in the applicable chapter(s) of this title or other applicable implementing ordinances; 2. The standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was (first submitted) determined to be complete at such time as the City's plan and applicable ordinances are acknowledged. 1 DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 22 B. Consideration may also be given to: 1. Proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application; and 2. Factual oral testimony or written statements from the parties, other persons and other governmental agencies relevant to the existing conditions, other applicable standards and criteria, possible negative or positive attributes of the proposal or factors in Subsections A or B.1 of this section. [C. If an application for a permit or a zone change was incomplete when first submitted and the applicant submits the requested additional information within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted, the approval, approval with conditions, or denial shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted.] [D] C. In all cases, the decision shall include a statement in a form addressing the requirements of Subsection 18.32.060.A.3.b which refers to the Director's staff report. [E] D. The approval authority may: 1. Adopt findings and conclusions contained in the staff report; 2. Adopt findings and conclusions of a lower approval authority; 3. Adopt its own findings and conclusions; 4. Adopt findings and conclusions submitted by any party provided all parties have had an opportunity to review the findings and comment on the same; or 5. Adopt findings and conclusions from another source, either with or without modification, having made a tentative decision, and having directed staff to prepare findings for review and to provide an opportunity for all parties to comment on the same. [F] E. The decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions, pursuant to subsection 2 of this section. 1. Conditions may be imposed where such conditions are necessary to: a. Carry out applicable provisions of the Tigard comprehensive plan; DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 23 b. Carry out the applicable implementing ordinances; and Alp, c. Ensure that adequate public services are provided to the development or to ensure that other required improvements are made; 2. Conditions may include, but are not limited to; a. Minimum lot sizes; b. Larger setbacks; C. Preservation of significant natural features; and d. Dedication of easements; 3. Conditions of approval shall be fulfilled within the time limit set forth in the decision or, if no time limit is set forth, within one year. Failure to fulfill any condition of approval within the time limitations provided may be grounds for revocation of approval, after notice and an opportunity to be heard as an administrative action; 4. Changes, alterations or amendments to the substance of the conditions of approval shall be processed as a new administrative action; ( 5. Prior to the commencement of development, i.e. the issuance of l any permits or the taking of any action under the approved development application, the owner and any contract purchasers of the property which is the subject of the approved application, [shall] may be required to sign and deliver to the Director their acknowledgment and consent to such conditions; 6. The conditional approval may require the owner of the property to sign within a time certain or, if no time is designated, within a reasonable time, a contract with the City for enforcement of the conditions and: a. The Council shall have the authority to execute such contracts on behalf of the City; b. If a contract is required by a conditional approval, no building permit shall be issued for the use covered by the application until the executed contract is recorded in a real property record of the applicable County and filed in the County records; and c. Such contracts shall be enforceable against the signing parties, their heirs, successors and assigns by the City DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 24 i i i by appropriate action in law or suit in equity for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare; and 7. A bond in a form acceptable to the Director or, upon appeal or review by the appropriate approval authority, a cash deposit from the property owners or contract purchasers in such an amount as will ensure compliance with the conditions imposed pursuant to the Section, may be required. Such bond or deposit shall be posted prior to the issuance of a building permit for the use covered by the application. [G) F. The final decision on the application may grant less than all of the parcel which is/ the subject of the application. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.260 The Form of the Final Decision A. The final decision shall be a decision which is in writing and which has been: 1. Signed by the Directory in the case of a final decision by the Director, and filed as a final decision within 10 calendar days unless extended pursuant to Subsection 18.32.240.D; 2. Formally adopted and signed by the chairperson of the approving authority other than the Director, and filed with the Director within 10 calendar days of the formal adoption of the decision; or 3. Formally adopted by the Council, and signed by the Mayor and filed with the Director and the City Recorder within 10 calendar days of the formal adoption of the decision. B. The final decision shall be filed in the records of the Director within 10 calendar days after the decision is signed, and notice thereof shall be mailed to the applicant and all parties to the action, and shall be available to members of the Council. C. Notice of a final decision shall contain: 1. A statement that all required notices under Section 18.32.130 have been met; 2. A statement of where the adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained; 3. The date the final decision was filed; and 4. A statement of whether a party to the proceeding may seek review of the decision, as appropriate, to wit: a. In the case of a final decision by the Council, the statement shall explain that this decision is final and how review may be heard by a higher authority; or DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 25 b. In the case of a final decision by the Hearings Officer or Commission, the statement shall explain briefly how a review can be taken to the Council pursuant to Subsection 18.32.310.B, the deadlines, and where information can be obtained. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.270 Notice of Final Decision A. Notice of the final decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to all the parties to the decision, and shall be made available to the members of the Council. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.275 Amended Decision Process A. The Director may issue an amended decision after the notice of final decision has been issued and prior to the end of the 10-day appeal period. B. A request for an amended decision shall be in writing, accompanied with the appropriate fee and filed with the Director not more than eight days after the notice of final decision has been filed. C. A request for an amended decision may be filed by: 1. The neighborhood planning organization affected by the initial decision; 2. The City Council; 3. The Commission; 4. An employee of the City's planning staff; 5. Any party entitled to notice of the original decision; or 6. Any party who submitted comments in writing on the original decision. D. The amended decision process shall be limited to one time for each original application. E. The Director shall make the determination as to issuance of an amended decision based on findings that one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. An error or omission was made on the original notice of final decision; 2. The original decision was based on incorrect information; and DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 26 3. New information becomes available during the appeal period which { was not available when the decision was made which alters the facts \ or conditions in the original decision. F. An amended decision shall be processed in accordance with Section 18.32.120 of this title. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 84-31) 18 32.280 Denial of the Application: Resubmittal A. An application which has been denied or an application which was denied and which on appeal or review has not been reversed by a higher authority, including the Land Use Board of Appeals, the Land Conservation and Development Commission or the courts, may not be resubmitted for the same or a substantially similar proposal or for the same or substantially similar action for a period of at least 12 months from the date the final City action is made denying the application unless there is a substantial change in the facts or a change in City policy which would change the outcome. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 290 Standing to Appeal or for a Petition for Review A. In the case of a decision by the Director, any person entitled to notice of the decision under Section 18.32.120 or any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision, may file a notice of appeal as provided by Section 18.32.340. B. In the case of a decision by the Hearings Officer or the Commission, except for a decision on an appeal of the Director's decision, any person shall be considered a party to a matter, thus having standing to seek review, provided: 1. The person appeared before the Commission or Hearings officer orally or in writing and: a. The person was entitled as of right to notice and hearing prior to the decision to be reviewed; or b. The person is aggrieved or has interests adversely affected by the decision. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52 118 32 300 Computation of Appeal Period: Petition for Review Time Period) 18 32 300 Computation of Appeal Period and Effective Date of the Decision A. In computing the length of the appeal period and the effective date for a Director's decision, the day the notice is published in the newspaper shall be excluded and the last day for filing the appeal and the effective date, the tenth day, shall be included unless the last day falls on a legal holiday for the City or on a Saturday, in which case, the last day shall be the next business day. The Director may extend the appeal period and the effective date to the day following a Council meeting when the computed appeal period would not otherwise provide an DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 27 opportunity for interested parties to appear before Council regarding the decision The appeal period thus computed shall not be greater than 20 days Notice published in the newspaper shall be in accordance with Subsection 18.32.120.A.3. B. In computing the length of the [petition for review period] appeal period and effective date, the day that notice of the decision is mailed shall be excluded and the last 'day for filing the petition or review shall be included unless the last day falls on a legal holiday for the City or on a Saturday, in which case, the last day shall be the next business day. C. The Director may grant an extension of the appeal period and effective date on a Director's decision for a reasonable time only if requested by - the applicant and in the condition where no appeal has been filed to that date except as described in (A), above. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 83-52) [18 32 310 Decisions which may be Appealed or Reviewed] [A. Any decision by the Director made pursuant to Subsection 18.32.090.A may be appealed to the appropriate approval authority as provided in section 18.32.110 and the approval authority's decision shall be final. An appeal shall be taken by:] [1. The filing of a notice to appeal, as provided by Section 18.32.340, by any person entitled to notice under Section 18.32.120, by the t close of the City business day within 10 days after notice of the decision is published in a newspaper of general circulation as provided by Subsection 18.32.120.A; or] 12. The Commission or Council, on its own motion, seeks to hear the matter by voice vote within ten days of the publication of the notice as provided by Subsection 18.32.240.A.] 18.32.310 Determination of Appropriate Reviewing Body A. All appeals of decisions or interpretations made by the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission or Hearings Officer pursuant to Subsection 18.32.090, except: 1. The Council may on its own motion, seek to hear the matter by voice vote prior to the effective date of the notice of decision. B. Any decision made by any other approval authority under Subsections 18.32.090.E or C may be reviewed by the Council by: 1. The filing of a notice of review as provided by Section 18.32.340 by any party to the decision by [the close of the City business day within 10 days of the sending] 3:30 p.m. on the effective date of the notice of [final] decision; DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 28 2. The Council or Commission, on its own motion, seek[s]ing review by voice vote [within 10 days of mailed notice of the final decision) prior to the effective date of the notice of decision; or 3. Referral of a matter under Subsection 18.32.090.D by the initial hearings body to the Council, upon closure of the hearing, when the case presents a policy issue which requires Council deliberation and determination, in which case the council shall decide the application. C. Failure to file an appeal or petition for review shall be deemed a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It is the purpose of this section to provide the parties every remedy possible. The filing of an appeal or petition for review is a condition precedent to litigation. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-36; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) 18-32-320 Tyne of Appeal or Review Hearing: Limitations of Review A. The appeal of a decision made by the Director under Subsection 18.32.090.A and Section 18.32.110 shall be confined to the prior record and conducted as if brought under Subsections 18.32.090.B or C. B. The review of a decision by the Commission or Hearings Officer by the Council shall be: 1. Confined to the record of the proceedings [as provided in Section 18.32.320 and] unless Council determines the admission of ~k. additional evidence is appropriate. Each member of the reviewing body shall be provided with a transcript of the proceeding on j appeal, 2. Limited to the grounds relied upon in the notice of review as provided in Subsection 18.32.340.A, and conducted in accordance € with the provisions of Sections 18.32.160 through 18.32.260 and Section 18.32.310; E 3. The subject of written and oral argument. Such written argument shall be submitted not less than five days prior to Council consideration; and 4. Reviews on the record by Council of Hearings officer or Commission decisions shall be completed within 40 days of when the notice of review is filed. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.330 Transcripts A. [Within 20 days after the filing of the notice of review,] If a transcript is requested by any party, the City shall provide each Council member, the applicant and the neighborhood planning organization (if requested), a copy of the complete transcript of the hearing and a copy of the minutes. DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 29 c yF' `LF B. The appellant or any party who is the first to request a transcript shall be responsible to satisfy all costs incurred for preparation of the transcript at a rate of actual costs up to $500 and one-half costs for any amount incurred over $500. Payment shall be made in full at least five days prior to the hearing. C. Any [other] party other than the appellant or the first party to request a transcript [requesting a copy 'of the transcript] shall be charged the actual copy costs. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 84-09; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.340 Notice of Appeal or Petition for Review A. The notice of appeal or petition for review shall contain: 1. A reference to the application sought to be appealed or reviewed; 2. A statement as to how the petitioner qualifies as a party; 3. The specific grounds for the appeal or review; and 4. The date of the filing of the final decision on the action or, in the case of a decision by the Director, the date the decision was filed and the date notice of the final or proposed decision was given. i B. The appeal or review application shall be accompanied by the required t fee except as allowed under Section 18.32.345. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-45; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.345 Fee Waiver Allowed for Neighborhood Planning Organizations A. Fees for land use applications and applications for appeal or review of a land use decision shall be waived for applications filed by a s neighborhood planning organization (NPO) if all of the following conditions are met: 1. The appeal or land use application must have been supported by a majority vote of NPO members at a public meeting where a quorum of NPO members was present; 2. A copy of the minutes of the NPO meeting where the appeal or land use application was initiated must be submitted with the appeal or land use application; 3. The appeal or application will be considered valid when conditions (1) and (2) of this section are met and all other filing requirements are met; and 4. The NPO chairperson or designated representative shall appear at the next available City Council meeting after the application or appeal is filed. The NPO shall work through the Planning Division to schedule the item on a Council agenda. Should the Council deny C DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 30 'r the NPO request for a fee waiver, the NPO shall submit the required fee within three working days of the denial. The fee shall be filed by three p.m. on the third day. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-45) y~ B. Council may, on its own motion and by voice vote waive the appeal fee ~F for other parties, when appropriate. 18.32.350 Persons Entitled to Notice on Appeal or Review: Type of Notice A. Upon appeal or review, notice shall be given to parties entitled to notice under Sections 18.32.130 and 18.32.290. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84- 71; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.360 Contents of Notice on Appeal or Review A. Notice shall include those matters provided by Section 18.32.140. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.370 Action on Appeal or Review: Time Limit and Authority to Change the Decision A. The approval authority shall affirm, reverse, or modify the decision which is the subject of the appeal; however, the decision shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.32.250; or B. Upon the written consent of all parties to extend the 120-day limit, the approval authority may remand the matter if it is satisfied that testimony or other evidence could not have been presented or was not available at the time of the hearing. In deciding to remand the matter, the approval authority shall consider and make findings and conclusions regarding: 1. The prejudice to parties; 2. The convenience or availability of evidence at the time of the initial hearing; 3. The surprise to opposing parties; 4. The date notice was given to other parties as to an attempt to admit; or 5. The competency, relevancy and materiality of the proposed testimony or other evidence. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.380 Final Action of the Approval Authority; Effective Date A. Action by the approval authority on appeal or review shall be known as a final order which shall be effective on the day of mailing notice of the final order. l DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 31 oil B. Within 10 days of the filing of the final order of Council, the Director shall give notice of the final order to all parties to the proceeding, informing them of the date of filing, the decision rendered, and where a copy may be found. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.390 Revocation of Approvals A. The hearings authority may, after a hearing conducted pursuant to this chapter, modify or revoke any approval granted pursuant to this chapter for any of the following reasons: 1. A material misrepresentation or mistake of fact made by the applicant in the application or in testimony and evidence submitted, whether such misrepresentation be intentional or unintentional; 2. A failure to comply with the terms and conditions of approval; 3. A failure to use the premises in accordance with the terms of the approval; or 4. A material misrepresentation or mistake of fact or policy by the City in the written or oral report regarding the matter whether such misrepresentation be intentional or unintentional. i B. In the case of a decision made by the Director, the hearing on whether to modify or revoke an approval shall be held by the Commission. C. A petition for review may be filed in the same manner as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.B. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) E s a i I a t; f b 4 a I C i I i. i DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 32 E t i e\/ i EXHIBIT B Chapter 18.162 LAND DIVISION: MAJOR AND MINOR LAND PARTITIONING - Y LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT t Sections: i' 18.162.010 Purpose 18.162.020 Partition Review Required 18.162.030 Administration and Approval Process 18.162.035 Expiration of Approval - Standards for Extension of Time 18.162.040 Partition Approval Criteria [18.162.045 Expiration of Approval - Standards for Extension of Time] 18.162.050 Special Provisions for Lots Created through Partition Process 18.162.060 Lot Line Adjustments: Approval Standards 18.162.070 Preliminary Application Submission Requirements 18.162.080 Final Application Submission Requirements - Minor Land Partition 18.162.085 Final Application Submittal Requirements Lot Line Adjustment 18.162.090 Additional Information Required and Waiver of Requirements i 18.162.100 City Council Acceptance of Dedicated Land 4 18.162.110 Centerline Monumentation: Monument Box Requirements 18.162.120 Recording of Partitions, Lot Line Adjustments ' 18.162.130 Variances to Standards 18.162.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to provide rules, regulations, and standards governing approval of major and minor land partitions and lot line adjustments. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.162.020 Partition Review Required A. A major land partition review is required when a division of land [(three lots or less)] creates a street or road,within one calendar year. B. A minor land partition review is required when three lots or (less] fewer are created without the creation of a street or road, within one calendar year. C. A lot line adjustment is any adjustment to a property line (which does not create an additional lot of record nor make the existing lots in violation of the base zone minimum lot requirements. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)) by the relocation of a common boundary where an additional parcel of land is not created. 18.162.030 Administration and Approval Process A. The applicant of a partition or lot line adjustment proposal shall be the recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the DRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 1 ' i owner. B. Any application for a major -or minor land partition or lot line ! adjustment shall be in conformity with all state regulations set forth in ORS Chapter 92, Subdivision and Partitions. i C. No lot or parcel to be created through the partitioning process shall be sold until approval and filing of the final partition plat. D.[C] When partitioning tracts into large [lots] parcels, the Director shall require that the [lots] parcels be of such size and shape to facilitate [the] future repartitioning of such [lot] parcels in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title. E[D]. The applicant is required to meet with the Director for a preapplication conference in accordance with Section 18.32.030: 1. Another preapplication conference is required if an [any site development] application is submitted more than six months after the preapplication conference; and 2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this section shall not constitute a waiver of the standard, criteria, or requirements of the applications. F[E]. The Director shall mail notice of any land partition [or lot line adjustment] application decision to the applicant, the owner of the subject property,and to all owners of record of property within 250 feet of the subject property. G. The Director shall mail notice of any lot l=ne adjustment approval to the owners of the parcels involved in the proposal and to the owners of abutting properties. H[F]. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application. The Director shall apply the standards set forth in Section 18.162.[030] 040 when reviewing an application for a major or minor partition or the standards in Section 18.162.060 when reviewing an application for a lot line adjustment. I[G]. The decision of the Director may be appealed in accordance with Subsection 18.32.310.A. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) NOTE: THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED FROM 18.162.045 18.162.035 Expiration of Approval - Standards for Extension of Time A. The partition or lot line adjustment approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of one-and-one-half years from the date of C approval. B. The partition or lot line adjustment approval by the Director shall DRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 2 f lapse if: 1. The partition or lot line adjustment has been improperly recorded with Washington County without the satisfactory completion of all conditions attached to the approval; 2. The final recording is a departure from the approved plan. C. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that: 1. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by the Director; 2. The applicant can show intent of [initiating construction of the site] recording the approved partition or lot line adjustment within the one year extension period; and 3. There have been no changes in the [facts or] applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. D. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by Section 18.32.310.A. 18.162.040 Partition Approval Criteria A. A request to partition land shall meet all of the following criteria: 1. The proposal conforms with the City's comprehensive plan; 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations; 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) NOTE: THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED TO 18.162.035 [18.162.045 Expiration of Approval - Standards for Extension of Time A. The partition or lot line adjustment approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of one -and-one-half years from the date of approval. DRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 3 Mill B. The partition or lot line adjustment approval by the Director shall lapse if 1. The partition or lot line adjustment has been improperly recorded with Washington County without the satisfactory completion of all conditions attached to the approval; 2. The final recording is a departure from the approved plan. C. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that: 1. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by the Director; 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction of the site within the one year extension period; and 3. There have been no changes in the facts or applicable policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. D. The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by Section 18.32.310.A.] _ i 18.162.050 Special Provisions for Lots Created through Partition Process i A. Lot Width: 1. The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. B. Lot Area: 1. The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. C. Lot Frontage: 1. Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum i 15 foot wide access easement. D. Setbacks: 1. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. E. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: 1. When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less DRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 4 i t than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. F. Screening on Flag Lots: 1. A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. G. Fire Protection: 1. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on firefighting capabilities. H. Reciprocal Easements: 1. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. I. Accessway: 1. Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. (Ord. 87-66; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) J. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for 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. 18.162.060 Lot Line Adjustments: Approval Standards A. The Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the criteria stated are satisfied as follows: 1. An additional (lot] ap rcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the [approved] zoning [for that] district; 2. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; and DRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 5 3. The _resultin2 parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district. (3. If the applicant disagrees with the decision of the Director, an appeal shall be filed in accordance with Subsection 18.32.310.A.] 8. (Application submission requirements for a lot line adjustment shall comply with Sections 18.162.070 and 18.162.080.] [C.] The provisions of Section [18.162.040] 18.162.050 shall also apply to lot line adjustments. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)] C. A lot line adjustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining whether floodplain, greenway, or right-of-way dedication is required. 18.162.070 Preliminary Application Submission Requirements A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: 1. Copies of the preliminary partition map or lot line adjustment map (number of copies determined at pre-application conference) and necessary data or narrative; 2. [A list of the names and addresses of all property owners of record within 250 feet of the site; and 3.] The required fee. S. The preliminary partition or lot line adjustment map and necessary data or narrative shall include the following: 1. The name s , (and] address(es), and phone numbers of the following: a. The owner(s) of the subject parcel(s); b. The owner(s)' authorized agent( if applicable); and c. The land surveyor and engineer(if applicable); 2. The map scale, north arrow, and date; 3. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed area to be partitioned or adjusted; 4. The scale shall be an engineering scale sufficient to show the details of the plan and related data; 5. The location, width and names of streets or other public ways and easements within and adjacent to the proposed partition; DRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 6 6. Other important features, to include: a. The location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines; b. The location and width of all water courses; C. Any trees having a six inch caliper or greater at four feet above ground level; d. All slopes greater than 25 percent; and e. The location of existing utilities and utility easements; 7. In the case of a major land partition, the applicant shall include the proposed right-of-way location and width, and a scaled cross section of the proposed street (to include any reserve strip); 8. Any deed restrictions that apply to the existing lot; and 9. Where it is evident that the subject parcel can be further partitioned, the applicant must show that the land partition will not preclude the efficient division of land in the future. C. The [sketch plan] preliminary partition plat or lot line adjustment map shall be as accurate as possible to ensure proper review by affected [City] agencies. D. Upon receipt of an application, the Director shall review it for compliance with the requirements for submittal (see Subsections A and B above). If the application is found to be incomplete, the Director shall within 30 days notify the applicant of the reasons therefor and advise the applicant of the requirements for an acceptable application. E. Upon acceptance of a complete application, the Director shall transmit copies of the preliminary land partition application or lot line adjustment map to the City Engineering Department and Building Division [of Public Works and] as well as other potentially affected agencies where necessary. F. The Director shall review the [proposed partition] proposal for compliance with the provisions of this title and coordinate the review conducted by affected City agencies and applicable districts for compliance with applicable regulations. G. The Director shall review the proposed lot line adjustment for compliance with the provisions of this title, and shall issue a decision to owners of the involved parcels, abutting property owners, and affected service providing agencies with regard to the compliance of the application with respect to all applicable approval criteria. If the Director believes that existing utilities may be affected by the proposed adjustment, the Director may defer making a decision on the DRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 7 application until the affected service providing agencies have been given an opportunity to review and comment upon the proposal. In addition, an affected agency may request an amended decision within 10 days of the issuance of a decision for which comments were not requested, if the agency finds that utilities may be affected by the proposed adjustment. [G.] H. Following the review of the land partition or lot line adjustment by the applicable agencies, the applicant will be advised of the status of the proposal and of any additional information which shall be required prior to the filing of a final land partition [survey] plat or lot line adjustment map and shall be notified of conditions to be attached to [final land partition] the approval. IH•] 1. The review of the preliminary land partition or lot line adjustment does not guarantee the applicant that the final application for a land partition or lot line adjustment will be approved nor that additional information or revisions will not be required by the City. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-23; Ord. 83-52) 18.162.080 Final Application Submission Requirements - Land Partition A. All final applications for major and minor land partitions [or lot line adjustments] shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: 1. Three copies of the partition [map] plat prepared by a land surveyor or engineer licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative[; and 2. The required fee, submitted with the preliminary application]. S. The partition [map or lot line adjustment map] plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05) and by Washington County and shall include the following: 1. Sheet sizes for the final partition map shall be drawn on paper that is 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches, 11 inches by 17 inches or 18 inches by 24 inches in size (if 18 inches by 24 inches, then one copy must be on reducible paper); 2. The scale of the map shall be an engineering scale; 3. The name and address of the following: a. The owner(s) of the subject parcel; b. The owner(s)' authorized agent; and c. The land surveyor and engineer; DRAFT November 15, 1990 PAGE 8 4. The assessor's map and lot number and a copy of the deed, sales contract or document containing a legal description of the land to be partitioned; 5. The map scale, north arrow, and date; 6. Dimensions and legal descriptions of the parent parcel and all proposed parcels; 7. Boundary lines and names of adjacent partitions and subdivisiono, and tract lines abutting the site; 8. The locations, width and names of streets or other public ways and easements within and adjacent to the proposed partition; [9. Other important features, to include: a. The location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines; b. The location and width of all water courses; c. Any trees having a six inch caliper or greater at four feet above ground level; d. All slopes greater than 25 percent, and; e. The location of existing utilities and utility easements;] 9[10]. In the case of a major land partition, the applicant shall include the proposed right-of-way location and width, and a scaled cross section of the proposed street (to include any reserve strip); 10[11]. Any deed restrictions that apply to the existing lot; and [12. Where it is evident that the subject parcel can be further partitioned, the applicant must show that the land partitioned will not preclude the efficient division of land in the future, and (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52)] 11. Signature blocks for City approval and acceptance of public easements and rights-of -way. 18.162.085 Final Application Submittal Requirements - Lot Line Adjustment A. Applications for final lot line adjustment ma approval shall include three copies of the final lot line adjustment survey ma ; B. The lot line adjustment survey man and data or narrative shall include the following: DRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 9 ~W. 1. Sheet sizes for the final map shall be drawn on paper that is 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches, it inches by 17 inches or 18 inches by 24 inches in size (if 18 inches by 24 inches, then one copy must be on reducible paper); 2. The scale of the map shall be an engineering scale; r - r 3. The name and address of the following: 4 a. The owner(s) of the subject parcel* b. The owner(s)_, authorized agent; c. The land surveyor and engineer; 4. The map scale, north arrow, and date; y: 5. Dimensions and parcel sizes of both the original parcels and adjusted parcels; s 6. Boundary lines of parcels abutting the parcels; 7. The locations, width and names of streets or other public ways and easements within and adjacent to the subject parcels;,. 8. Any deed restrictions that apply to the parcels; and u _ E 9. Signature blocks for City approval and acceptance of public t easements and rights-of-way. i' 18.162.090 Additional Information Required and Waiver of Requirements % A. The Director may require information in addition to that required by this chapter in accordance with Subsection 18.32.080.A. B. The Director may waive a specific requirement for information in accordance with Subsections 18.32.080.E and C. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.162.100 City [Council] Acceptance of Dedicated Land A. The City Engineer (Council) shall accept the proposed right-of-way dedication prior to recording a land partition or lot line adjustment. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) B. The City Engineer shall accept all public easements shown for dedication on partition plats or lot line adjustment maps._ f DRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 10 i 9 t T. o! 18.162.110 Centerline Monumentation: Monument Box Requirements A. Centerline Monumentation for all Major Partitions: 1. The centerlines of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented as prescribed in ORS 92(060(2) before City acceptance of street improvements and] under the following specifications: [2. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline-centerline intersection points: b. All cul-de-sac center points; and c. curve points, beginning and ending points (point of curvature (P.C. and point of tangency (P.T.)). (Ord. 83-52) B. Monument Bores Required: 1] a. Centerline monuments are required to have [Mjmonument boxes conforming to City standards set for those monuments within the pavement area; and [shall be required around all centerline intersection points and cul-de-sac center points; and 2) b. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.162.120 Recording of Partitions[:] and Lot Line Adjustments A. Upon the Director's approval of the proposed partition or lot line adjustment and the [Council's] City Engineer's acceptance of any dedicated land to the City, the applicant shall record the partition plat or lot line adjustment survey map with Washington County and submit the recordation numbers to the City, to be incorporated into the record. B. The applicant shall submit a recorded reproducible copy of the final partition plat or lot line adjustment survey map to the City within 15 days of recording, or notify the City Engineering Division of the County survey number. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.162.130 Variances to Standards A. An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.134, Variances. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) JO:18162 rDRAFT - November 15, 1990 PAGE 11 E%SIBIT "C" CODE REVISIONS - 11/26/90 USE CLASSIFICATIONS (pp. 80-81) 18.42.020 A. 5. Group Residential: Refers to the residential occupancy of living units by groups of more than five persons who are not related by blood, marriage or adoption, and where communal kitchen/dining facilities are provided. Typical uses include occupancy of retirement homes, boarding houses, cooperatives and halfway houses, but excluding [group care facilities] residential care facilities as specified in Subsection 6 of this section; 6. [Group Care Residential:] [Refers to services provided in facilities authorized, certified or licensed by the state to provide board, room, and care to six or more physically disabled, mentally disordered, mentally retarded, handicapped persons, dependents or neglected children, but excluding those uses classified under hospitals. Typical uses include intermediate care facilities and institutions for the mentally retarded and physically handicapped;] L. i Residential Care Facility: Refers to services provided in facilities licensed by the state to provide board, room, and care to six or more mentally retarded; developmentally disabled; mentally, emotionally, or behaviorly disturbed; physically disabled or socially dependent residents; alcohol or drug dependent persons or any combination of such residents totaling six or more in one or more buildings on contiguous properties. Excluded are those uses classified under hospitals. Typical uses include intermediate care facilities and institutions for the mentally retarded and physically handicapped; 7. [Residential Care Facility:] Residential Treatment Home: [A residence of five or fewer mentally or physically handicapped with staff (need not be related);] A facility that provides for five or fewer mentally emotionally or behaviorally disturbed individuals or alcohol or drug dependent persons, residential care and treatment in one or more buildings on contiguous properties. Supervisory staff are required for the operation of the facility. 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 1 8. Children's Day Care: F ~t [Refers to services or facilities authorized, certified or licensed by the state for children's day care of 13 or more children at any one time for a period not to exceed 12 hours per day with or without compensation. See Subsection 11 of this section;] A day care facility operated with or without compensation that is certified by the state to care for 13 or more children, or a facility that is certified to care for 12 or fewer children and located in a building constructed as other than a single family dwelling Typical uses include nursery schools, preschools, kindergartens child play schools before or after school care facilities or child development centers. [9. Mobile Home: Refers to a structure transportable in one or more sections, each built on a permanent chassis and which is designed to be used for permanent occupancy as a residential dwelling;] [10. Manufactured Home: s Refers to a factory-fabricated transportable building which meets the Uniform Building Code which is incorporated with similar structures or units at a building site and used as a dwelling unit;] s [11. Babysitting Service: t Refers to day care services for children if the compensation therefor is paid directly by the parent or legal guardian or if the service is provided without any compensation in either the home of the parent or guardian or the home of the babysitter. A babysitting service provides for care for not more than six children for eight or more hours in a 24-hour period and the service may be provided for not more than four other (part-time) children for not more than three consecutive hours in a 24-hour period. No more than a total of 10 children including the babysitter's children can be present at any one time. Variation from the above constitutes a day care facility. See Subsection 8 of this section;] 9. Family Day Care: Includes two types of child care service: Family Day Care and Group Day Care Home as defined by Oregon State Statute. Family Day Care refers to the provision of day care services for children, with or without compensation in the home of the caregiver. Family Day Care may provide care for six or fewer children full-time, with an additional four or fewer full-time or part-time children. During the school year, a family day care provider may care for i 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 2 four additional day care children on days and during the hours school is not in session Such children must be at least an age eligible for first grade During summer vacation, a family day care provider may care for four additional day care children of any age up to a maximum of four hours per day. No more than a total of 10 children including the provider's own children may be present at any one time. A Day Care Group Home is one in which care is provided in the home of the care giver, with or without compensation for seven through 12 children It is subiect to certification by the Children' Services Division. Variation from the above constitutes a Child Day Care Center. See Subsection 8 of this section. - For the purposes of this section "full-time" is defined as eight or more hours in a 24-hour period "Part-time" is defined as four or fewer hours in a 24-hour period. ADMINISTRATION (p. 76) 18.40.010 Classification of Zones Dwelling Minimum Units Per Lot Size in Zoning District Map Symbol Net Acre Sguare Feet Medium Density Multiple-family residential R-25 25 1,480 [1,742] ZONING DISTRICTS (PP. 96-152) 18.44.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.44.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.44.030 Permitted Uses A. 3. [Residential homes] Residential treatment home; 4. Farming; [or] 5. Manufactured homes[.],;. 6. Family day care. 7. Home occupation; 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 3 8. Temporary use; 9. Fuel tank; or 10. Accessory structures. 18.44.040 Conditional Uses A. 3. [Group care residential] Residential care facility 18.44.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the R-1 district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; 6. Accessory structures, Chapter 18.144; 7. Home occupations, Chapter 18.142; - 8. Temporary uses, Chapter 18.140; 9. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84; and 10. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040.] 1. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040; 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 building Height Limitations: Exceptions 18.100 Landscaping and screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas 18.104 Fuel Tank installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress and circulation and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120• 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use 18.132 Nonconforming _situations, 18.134 Variance 18.140 Temporary 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 4 i t Uses 18 142 Home Occupations 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adiustment and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18.46.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A (use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.46.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. if a use is not listed as a (use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.46.030 Permitted Uses A. 3. [Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home; 4. Farming; [or] 5. Manufactured homes[.],, 6. Family day care; 7. Home occupation; 8. Temporary use; 9. Fuel tank; or 10. Accessory structures. 18.46.040 Conditional Uses A. 3. [Group care residential] Residential care facility 18.46.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the R-2 district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; 6. Accessory structures, Chapter 18.144; l 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 5 IM 7. Home occupations, Chapter 18.142; 8. Temporary uses, Chapter 18.140; 9. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84; and 10. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040.] 1. Residential density transition, section 18.40.040; 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Reaulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 building Height Limitations: Exceptions 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120• ` 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessorv Structures 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and i 6. Land Division and Development Standards Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adiustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. t 18.48.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.48.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.48.030 Permitted Uses A. 3. [Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home; 4. Farming; [or] 5. Manufactured homes[.]t 6. Family day care; 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 6 } i~ 7. Home occupation; 8. Temporary use; 9. Fuel tank; or 10. Accessory structures. 18.48.040 Conditional Uses A. 3. [Group care residential] Residential care facility 18.48.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the R-3.5 district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; 6. Accessory structures, Chapter 18.144; 7. Home occupations, Chapter 18.142; 8. Temporary uses, Chapter 18.140; 9. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84; and 10. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040.] 1. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040; 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120, 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 7 5. Development and Administration, Chanters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adiustment and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement standards. 18.50.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.50.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.50.030 Permitted Uses A. 3. [Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home; 4. Farming; [or] 5. Manufactured homes[.]. 6. Family day care; 7. Home occupation, 8. Temporary use; 9. Fuel tank; or 10. Accessory structures. 18.50.040 Conditional Uses A. 4. [Group care residential] Residential care facility 18.50.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the R-4.5 district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 8 Y 6. Accessory structures, Chapter 18.144; 7. Home occupations, Chapter 18.142; 8. Temporary uses, Chapter 18.140; 9. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84; and 10. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040.] 1. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040• 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands, 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 building Height Limitations: Exceptions 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas 18.104 i Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation and 18.114 Signs; ti 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration Chapters 18.130 Conditional use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations 18.144 Accessory Structures 18.146 _ Flexible Setback Standards, 18.148 Zero Lot Line Setback Standards and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18.52.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.52.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable (the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.52.030 Permitted Uses A. 6. (Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home; 7. Farming; [and] 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 9 8. Manufactured homes[.]; 9. Family day care; 10. Home occupation; 11. Temporary use; 12. Fuel tank; or 13. Accessory structures. 18.52.040 Conditional Uses A. 4. [Group care residential] Residential care facility 18.52.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the R-7 district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; 6. Accessory structures, Chapter 18.144; 7. Home occupations, Chapter 18.142; 8. Temporary uses, Chapter 18.140; 9. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84; and 10. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040.) 1. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040-- 2.. Overlay Districts Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exce]Rtions, 18.98 building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening 18 102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 _Fuel Tank Installations 18.106 off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 10 jijjij~ j Signs; " 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards,'18.148 Zero Lot Line Setback Standards and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adiustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18.54.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.54.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.54.030 Permitted Uses A. S. [Group care residential] Residential care facility ` 8. [Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home ; [and] 9. Manufactured homes[.]: 10. Family day care; 11. Home occupation; 12. Temporary use; 13. Fuel tank; or 14. Accessory structures. 18.54.040 Conditional Uses A. 5. [Group care residential] Residential care facility 18.54.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the R-12 district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 11 S r 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; 6. Accessory structures, Chapter 18.144; 7. Home occupations, Chapter 18.142; 8. Temporary uses, Chapter 18.140; 9. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84; and 10. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040.1 1. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040; 2. Overlay Districts Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84 Sensitive Lands and 18.86 Action Areas; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions 18.98 building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.108 Access Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses 13.142 Home occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitionina- Lot Line Adiustment and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18.56.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.56.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright,. but is subiect to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 12 18.56.030 Permitted Uses A. 5. [Group care facilities] Residential care facility 8. [Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home ; [and] 9. Manufactured homes[.] 10. Family day care; 11. Home occupation; 12. Temporary use; 13. Fuel tank; or 14. Accessory structures. 18.56.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the R-25 district are as follows: [l. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; 6. Accessory structures, Chapter 18.144; 7. Home occupations, Chapter 18.142; 8. Temporary uses, Chapter 18.140; 9. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84; and 10. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040.] 1. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040; 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84 Sensitive Lands and 18.86 Action Areas; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 13 Landscaping and Screening 18-102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18 108 Access Egress and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs;_ 4. Site Development Review, Chanter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration Chapters 18.130 Conditional Uses 18.132 Nonconforming situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses 18.142 Home occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures,_ 18.1.4_6_ Flexible Setback Standards and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18 58 020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.58.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.58.030 Permitted Uses A. 6. [Group care residential] Residential care facility 9. [Residential care facilities] Residential treatment home; [and] 10. Manufactured homes[.] 11. Family day-care; 12. Home occupation; 13. Temporary use; 14. Fuel tank; or 15. Accessory structures. 18.58.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the R-40 district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 14 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; 6. Accessory structures, Chapter 18.144; 7. Home occupations, Chapter 18.142; 8. Temporary uses, Chapter 18.140; 9. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84; and 10. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040.] 1. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040; 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84 Sensitive Lands and 18.86 Action Areas; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile } Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and F Exceptions, 18.98 building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 1 Landscaping and screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adiustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18.60.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.60.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.60.030 Permitted Uses A. 2. C. [Day care facilities] Children's day care 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 15 'r r 3. Home occupations subject to provisions of Chapter 18.1421 4. Family day care; 5. Temporary use; 6. Fuel tank; or 7. Accessory structures. 18.60.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the C-N district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; and F 6. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84.1 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Recmlations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and r Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioninct- Lot Line Adiustment, and 18.164 Street and utility Improvement Standards. 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 16 z 5 i 18.62.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.62.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.62.030 Permitted Uses A. 2. g. [Day care facilities] Children's day care S. Family day care; 6. Temporary use; 7. Fuel tank; or 8. Accessory structures. 18.62.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the C-G district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; S. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; and 6. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84.] 1. Overlay Districts Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.108 Access Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review,_ Chapter 18.120; S. Development and Administration Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 17 i i i Flexible Setback Standards and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18.64.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.64.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.64.030 Permitted Uses A. 2. f. [Day care facilities] Children's day care 3. C. Family day care; 4. Transient lodging/restaurant (on the same parcel)[.]] i i 5. Temporary use; i 6. Fuel tank; or i 7. Accessory structures. i 18.64.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the C-P district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; and 6. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84.] 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 i 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 18 t liiiiii,lllllllii IM Landscaping and Screenina, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18.66.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.66.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.66.030 Permitted Uses A. 3. f. Family day care; 4. Temporary use; 5. Fuel tank; or 6. Accessory structures. 18.66.040 Conditional Uses A. 3. [Day care facilities] Children's day care 8. [Group care residential] Residential care facility 18.66.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the CBD district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 19 S. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; and 6. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84.] 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84 Sensitive Lands, and 18.86 Action Areas; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 s Flexible Setback Standards and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- C Lot Line Adiustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18.68.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.68.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.68.030 Permitted Uses A. A. 2.o.(ii) [Day care facilities] Children's day care 4. Farming[.], 5. A single-family detached unit or a single manufactured/mobile home provided that the use is limited to the following: a. A dwelling for a caretaker or superintendent which is located on the same site with the permitted industrial use and is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the industrial use and family; or 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 20 C z• b. A dwelling for a kennel owner or operator which is located on f the same site with the kennel and is occupied exclusively by the owner or operator of the kennel and familyt.11 6. Family day care; 7. Temporary use; 8. Fuel tank; or 9. Accessory structures. 18.68.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the I-P district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, chapter 18.132; and 6. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84.] 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 _ Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions 18 98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120-,- S. Development and Administration Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adiustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 21 18.70.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.70.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable [the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18,43, Unlisted Use. 18.70.030 Permitted Uses A. 5. A single-family detached unit or a single manufactured/mobile home provided that the use is limited to the following: a. A dwelling for a caretaker or superintendent which is located on the same site with the permitted industrial use and is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the industrial use and family; or b. A dwelling for a kennel owner or operator which is located on the same site with the kennel and is occupied exclusively by the owner or operator of the kennel and family[.]., 6. Family day care; 7. Temporary use; 8. Fuel tank; or 9. Accessory structures. 18.70.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the I-L district are as follows: [1. Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; and 6. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84.] 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 22 Landscaping and Screening 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access Egress and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, chapter 18.12.0, S. Development and Administration Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses 18.142 Home occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- Lot Line Adiustment and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 18 72 020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A [use] permitted use [outright], Section 18.72.030, is a use which [requires no approval under] is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable (the] provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as [use] permitted use [outright], it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.72.030 Permitted Uses A. 5. A single-family detached unit or a single manufactured/mobile home provided that the use is limited to the following: a. A dwelling for a caretaker or superintendent which is located on the same site with the permitted industrial use and is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the industrial use and family; or b. A dwelling for a kennel owner or operator which is located on the same site with the kennel and is occupied exclusively by the owner or operator of the kennel and family[.]1 6. Family day care; 7. Temporary use; 8. Fuel tank; or 9. Accessory structures. 18.72.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the I-H district are as follows: 11. Off-street parking and loading, chapter 18.106; 2. Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 18.108; 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 23 3. Landscaping and screening, Chapter 18.100; 4. Signs, Chapter 18.114; 5. Nonconforming situations, Chapter 18.132; and 6. Sensitive lands, Chapter 18.84.] r 1. Overlay Districts, chapters 18.80 Planned Development 18 82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chanters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Reaulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading F Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation and 18.114 k Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120, i 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance 18.140 Temporary' Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and j 6. Land Division and Development Standards Chapters 18.160 Land Division: subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning- E Lot Line Adiustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (pp. 156-157) 18.80.030 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time C. The [Commission] Director shall, upon written request by the applicant[,] and payment of the required fee, [notification and a public hearing, grant,] grant [with conditions, or deny] an extension of the approval period not to exceed [12 months] one year [upon finding] Provided that: 2. The applicant can show intent of applying for detailed development plan review within the [12 month] one year extension period; and 3. There have been no changes [in the facts or] to the applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. D. [The Commission may approve an extension of time up to one year, approve 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 24 i z the extension of time subject to modifications and conditions, or deny _ the extension of time. The decision may be appealed as provided by Subsection 18.32.310(B).] Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. i r SENSITIVE LANDS (pp. 185-187) 18.84.030 Expiration of Approval: Standards fofl for Extension of Time E i A. Approval of a sensitive lands permit shall be void [after one-and-one- half years] if: i 1. [Unless s]Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a [two-year] one and one-half year period; or i 2. [If c]Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. E 6 B. The [original approval authority] Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year, provided that: 3. There have been no changes [in the facts or] to the applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. " C. [The decision of the approval authority may be reviewed by the Council as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 B..] Notice of the decision shall i be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32 310 A 1 k' SIGNS (pp. 292-293) t 18.114.030 Administration and Approval Process F. No hearing before the [Commission] Hearings officer shall be granted...... J. Application for administrative variances to this chapter shall be reviewed by the [Commission] Hearings officer, according to...... 18.114.140 Sign Code Exceptions A. The Hearings Officer [Commission] or, on review, the Council...... B. When the Hearings Officer [Commission] or...... 1. If, at the expiration of one-and-one-half years from the date of approval, construction of the structure or initiation of the use 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 25 i giving rise to the need for the exception has not begun, the ( rights given by the exception approval shall terminate without \ further action by the City, the Hearings Officer [Commission, or the Council; and 2. Said rights shall also terminate at or after the expiration of one and one-half years from approval if, though not commenced within one and one-half years, construction ceases...... 18.114.145 Approval Criteria for Exceptions to the Sign Code A. The Hearings Officer [Commission] shall...... B. In addition to the criteria in Subsection A above, the Hearings officer [Commission], or...... SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (pp. 299-304) 18.120.020 Applicability of Provisions A. Site development review shall be applicable to all new developments and major modification of existing developments, as provided in Section 18.120.070 except it shall not apply to: 1. Single-family detached dwellings; C 2. Manufactured homes on individual lots; [2.] 3. A duplex, which is not being reviewed as part of any other development; [3.] 4. Minor modifications as provided in Section 18.120.070; [4.] E. Any proposed development which has a valid conditional use approved through the conditional use permit application process; [or] [5.] 6. Mobile home parks and subdivisions[.], 7. Family day care; 8. Home occupation; 9. Temporary use; 10. Fuel tank; or 11. Accessory structures. 18.120.040 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time C. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of l 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 26 the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to ( exceed [12 months] one year; provided that: 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction [of] on the site within the [six-month] one year extension period; and 3. There have been no changes [in the facts or] to the applicable comprehensive elan policies, and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. D. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. 18.120.070 Maior Modification to Approved Plans or Existing Development B. 3. A change that requires additional [off-site] on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.106; 18.120.180 Approval Standards A. 1. a. Chapter 18.84, Sensitive Lands; s b. Chapter 18 94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 's (Modify subsections a. through g. to c. through i.) f A. 1. [h.]j_ Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and circulation; [and] [i.]k. Chapter 18.114, Signs; 1. Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal; and i m. Chapter 18.164, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. CONDITIONAL USE (pp.317-320) 18.130.030 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time A. Approval of a conditional use by the Hearings officer shall be void (after one-and-one-half years) if: 1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within that [one-year] one and one-half year period; B. The [Hearings Officer] Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed (six months) one year [after a hearing as] provided that [in Chapter 18.32;]_ 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction [of] on the site within the [six-month] one year extension period; and 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 27 C. i i i f 3. There have been no changes [in the facts or] to the applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. C. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The [decision of the Hearings Officer] Director's decision may be appealed t by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. i 18.130.050 Maior Modification to Approved Plans or Existing Development C. Upon the Director determining that the proposed modification to the conditional use plan is a major modification, the applicant shall submit a new application in accordance with Section 18.130.070 for conditional use approval (prior to applying for site development review]. D. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The i Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. P r VARIANCE (p. 347) 18.134.040 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time N A. Approval of a variance shall be void [after one-and-one-half years] unless: B. 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction [of] on the site within the [six-month] one year extension period; and t 3. There have been no changes [in the facts or] to the applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. f C. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. [No notice of the Director's decision need be given.] TEMPORARY USES (p. 357) 18.140.030 Expiration of Approval - Renewal i C. A temporary use approval may be renewed once by the Director for a period not to exceed one year. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. I C 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 28 I i J i I t E HOME OCCUPATIONS (p. 365) C 18.142.020 Exemptions A. [4. Babysitters as defined in Subsection 18.42.020 A. 11 of this title;] and [5.] 4. Proven nonconforming use (see Section 18.142.032 below). ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (pp. 373-375) 18.144.050 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time B. The accessory structure approval by the Director shall lapse if: 1. Substantial construction of the approved accessory structure plan has not begun with a [two-year] one and one-half year period; or C. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed [12 months] one year, provided that: 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction [of] on the site within the [12-month] one year extension period; and 3. There have been no changes [in] to the (facts or] applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. D. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. 18.144.070 Approval Criteria A. 4. See Chapter 18.98, Building Height Limitation Exceptions, for exceptions. SUMMARY OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Maximum Maximum [Maximum] Minimum Building Size Building Height Side/Rear Setbacks FLEXIBLE SETBACK STANDARDS (p. 379) 18.146.040 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time A. Approval of a flexible setback shall be void [after one-and-one-half years] unless: ( 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 29 B. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed (12 months) one year, provided that: 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction [of] on the site within the [12-month] one year extension period; and 3. There have been no changes [in] to the [facts or] applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. C. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision mgy be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. TREE REMOVAL (pp. 386-387) 18.150.035 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time - Revocation B. 3. There have been no changes [in] to the [facts or] applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based; D. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant._ The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION (pp. 388-395) 18.160.020 General Provisions A. 1. The preliminary plat shall be approved by the Hearings Officer [Commission] before...... C. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Hearings Officer (Commission] shall...... 18.160.030 Administration and Approval Process E. 1. Schedule a public hearing to be held by the Hearings Officer [Commission] within...... 2. Furnish one [two copies] copy for the proposed preliminary plat to the City Engineering Division; 3. Furnish one copy of the preliminary plat and supplemental material to: a. The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation (County surveyor]; and 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 30 4. Incorporate all staff recommendations into a report to the Hearings Officer [Commission]. F. 1. The Hearings Officer [Commission] shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for preliminary plat. The Hearings Officer [Commission] shall...... G. The decision of the Hearings Officer [Commission] may...... 18_.160.040 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time A. The preliminary plat approval by the Hearings officer [Commission] shall...... B. The [Commission] Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant one extension of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that: 1. No changes are made on the original preliminary plat plan as approved by the [Commission] Hearings officer; 3. There have been no changes [in the facts or] to the applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. C. [No notice shall be required and the Director's decision may be appealed as provided by 18.32.310 A..] Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310 A.. 18.160.050 Phased Development A. The Hearings Officer [Commission] may...... 18.160.060 Approval Standards: Preliminary Plat A. The Hearings Officer [Commission] may...... B. The Hearings Officer [Commission] may...... 18.160.080 Variances Authorized A. Variances to the subdivision regulations prescribed by this title may be authorized by the Hearings Officer [Commission], and...... 18.160.110 Appeal A. The Hearings Officer's [Commission's] action...... 18.160.120 Criteria for Granting a Variance A. The Hearings Officer [Commission] shall...... 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 31 B. A variance may be approved[,] or approved with conditions[, or denied] provided the Hearings Officer (Commission) finds: 10-19-90.CDC/kl s 10/19/90 - CDC REVISION PAGE 32 t L i F Chapter 18.32 4Mrs-^-o 'PAS=S PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING: QUASI-JUDICIAL Sections: 18.32.010 Purpose 18.32.020 The Application Process 18.32.030 Time Period for Decision Making 18.32.040 Preappli_cation Conference Required 18.32.050 Application Submittal Requirements: Refusal of an Application 18.32.060 Duties of the Director 18.32.070 Alternative Recommendation by Director 18.32.080 Additional Information Required, Waiver of Requirements and Report Required 18.32.090 Approval Authority Responsibilities 18.32.100 Consolidation of Proceedings 18.32.110 A Decision by the Director: No Hearing Required 18.32.120 Notice of Decision by the Director 18.32.130 Notice of Hearings Officer, Commission and City Council Proceedings 18.32.140 Contents of the Notice for Public Hearings 18.32.150 Failure to Receive Notice: Computations 18.32.160 Hearings Procedure 18.32.170 Ex Parte Communications with Approval Authority 18.32.180 Continuation of the Hearing 18.32.190 Subpoena or Deposition of Witnesses 18.32.200 Evidence 18.32.210 Judicial Notice 18.32.220 Participation in the Decision: Voting 18.32.230 Record of Proceeding for Public Hearings [18.32.240 Effective Date of the Decision] 18.32.250 The Decision Process of the Approval Authority 18.32.260 The Form of the Final Decision 18.32.270 Notice of Final Decision 18.32.275 Amended Decision Process 18.32.280 Denial of the Application: Resubmittal 18.32.290 Standing to Appeal or for a Petition for Review 4 18.32.300 Computation of Appeal Period and Effective Date of the Decision F Petition for Review Time Period] c 18.32.310 [Decisions which may-be Appealed or Reviewed] Determination of Appropriate Reviewing Body 18.32.320 Type of Appeal or Review Hearing: Limitations of Review ` 18.32.330 Transcripts 18.32.340 r e IMns n Notice on Appeal ®rR101w. of Not ce 18.32.360 Contents of Notice on Appeal or Review 18.32.370 Action on Appeal or Review: Time Limit and Authority to Change the Decision 18.32.380 Final Action of the Approval Authority: Effective Date 18.32.390 Revocation of Approvals DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 1 2. The Council or Commission, on its own motion, seek[s]i-nnc review by voice vote [within 10 days of mailed notice of the final decision] ~y prior to the effective date of the notice of decision; or ~P 3. Referral of a matter under Subsection 18.32.090.D by the initial hearings body to the Council, upon closure of the hearing, when the case presents a policy issue which requires Council deliberation and determination, in which case the Council shall decide the application. C. Failure to file an appeal or petition for review shall be deemed a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It is the purpose of this section to provide the parties every remedy possible. The filing of an appeal or petition for review is a condition precedent to litigation. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-36; ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.320 Type of Appeal or Review Hearing: Limitations of Review A. The appeal of a decision made by the Director under Subsection 18.32.090.A and Section 18.32.110 shall be confined to the prior record and conducted as if brought under Subsections 18.32.090.B or C. B. The review of a decision by the Commission or Hearings Officer by the Council shall be: 1. Confined to the record of the proceedings [as provided in Section 18.32.320 and] unless Council determines the admission of additional evidence is a ro riat 2. Limited to the grounds relied upon in the notice of review as provided in Subsection 18.32.340.A, and conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.32.160 through 18.32.260 and Section 18.32.310; 3. The subject of written and oral argument. Such written argument shall be submitted not less than five days prior to Council consideration; and 4. Reviews on the record by Council of Hearings Officer or Commission decisions shall be completed within 40 days of when the notice of review is filed. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.330 Transcripts A. [Within 20 days after the filing of the notice of review,] If a transcript is requested by any party, the City shall provide each Council member, the applicant and the neighborhood planning organization (if requested), a copy of the complete transcript of the hearing and a copy of the minutes. DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 29 B. The appellant or any party who is the first to request a transcript shall be responsible to satisfy all costs incurred for preparation of the transcript at a rate of actual costs up to $500 and one-half costs for any amount incurred over $500. Payment shall be made in full at: least five days prior to the hearing. C. Any [other] party other than the appellant or the first party to request a transcript [requesting a copy 'of the transcript) shall be charged the actual copy costs. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 84-09; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 340 Noticecf Appeal or Petition for Review A. The notice of appeal or petition for review shall contain: 1. A reference to the application sought to be appealed or reviewed; 2. A statement as to how the petitioner qualifies as a party; 3. The specific grounds for the appeal or review; and 4. The date of the filing of the final decision on the action or, in the case of a decision by the Director, the date the decision was filed and the date notice of the final or proposed decision was given. B. The appeal or review application shall be accompanied by the required fee except as allowed under Section 16.32.345. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-45; Ord. 83-52) i 1 A. Fees for land use applications and applications for appeal or review of a land use decision shall be waived for applications filed by a neighborhood planning organization (NPO) if all of the following conditions are met: 1. The appeal or land use application must have been supported by a majority vote of NPO members at a public meeting where a quorum of NPO members was present; 2. A copy of the minutes of the NPO meeting where the appeal or land use application was initiated must be submitted with the appeal or land use application; 3. The appeal or application will be considered valid when conditions (1) and (2) of this section are met and all other filing requirements are met; and 4_ The NPO chairperson or designated representative shall appear at the next available City Council meeting after the application or appeal is filed. The NPO shall work through the Planning Division to schedule the item on a Council agenda. Should the Council deny 1 DRAFT REVISIONS - CC - 11/19/90 PAGE 30 _ i r t i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA 90-0003) INITIATED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard initiated the review of Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code regarding procedural requirements, care facilities, partitions, lot line adjustments and a variety of Code corrections; and WHEREAS, the City solicited comments from the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the proposed changes on August 27, 1990 and November 5, 1990 to review the Planning Commission recommendations as wall as public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code is amended as shown in Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" with the deleted language in (brackets) and the new language underlined. l fi SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after its passage by Council, and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after s being read by number and title only, this day of November, 1990. S t Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder a APPROVED: This day of November, 1990. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor e Approved as to form: d f r City Attorney Date ZOA 90-03.ORD/kl ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 1