Loading...
CPA 13-84 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. • �t BUY ,UCPA 13-84 . ." --. .. $ec, 184.98 1, N t r Ni,' T `, • { F t ,. • f t� t,i i ir. 8 4'; 1 1 .. • w • 11 • r • •b ,se r r m.s..,e.► a ‘.06.01....I.,...)106e 11%.../1 N.,..f"•"?'itI s- i m t Legal (' P:0,BOX 370 PHONE(503)6t; 360 plc //yam Notice 7-6180 - ■�\ .E/vEO ,• BEAVERI'ON,OREGON 97075 VV Legal Notice_Advertising ' tiC 1 8 ^y) `'. 0 0 Tearsheet Notice CITY OF IIGA City of tigardd P.O. Box 23397 ® D Duplicate Affidavit , } Tigard, Oregon 97223 , PUBLIC HEA INNOTICE G �r _ C) PUBLIC AFFIDAVIT The following will,be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on STATE OF OREGON, )ss. August 23, 1983 at 7:30 P.M.at.tate Tigard XooI District Board Room, 13137 •' Oreg& Fu'tliO lnforrination may be obtained •' COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) SW'Pacific Itigb.�r€�y, Tlgard;- � � ;. g 9 12755 SW Ash.Avc , from the Director.�of•�ianning acid•T)eveltlpment at aue; I, n ninkle. a being �.�� Ti:•:rd,Oregon,97223 orb calling639--ri171.� A., ', •' , �r� � ; . first duly sworn,a! clerk,sof hsaay i C.OM N O�# PLAN AMEI\NDMEN'T.+ c l ?dakota Greeay�vaa Coni , Direr , • top+ p +, ,f . a newspaper er of general circulation as dA remand ffomi"C:lty'Council to allow, or,N�#7 input for a Comprehe,asN a and 193.020; published at Tigard E CPlan Amendent from•Medit}rn,l)enatty to Medium High Density and a.tone aforesaid county and state; that the Change frdn 'A 12 to'A-20 (Multi Fe l y l esidential)a bn 6.38 acres"of lq.n a PUBLIC HEARING_NOTICE heated at x.0485 SW,North Dakota(Wash.Co.Tax Map'1SI 34DA Tax Lot 100). 9'icomp E1 «1M r {PI 'ly*AIVIENDMEN'1 ZONE CHANGE 8- aZC,p ` phereto annexe ' n on�A remand from Ci ,.Council�o ow forjNPO #7-Input e Builders NPO�7 . rented co y of which is l,3 j SCJBDIVISX®N`5 7-83 esel o s,, for a Cornp'ry ensive \ entire issue of said newspaper for " �' ,. 'fro,. ., •h .. Plan Amendment from Low De ty�,to Medium X)ensiity Residential tat,d.Zond consecutive in the following issues; 'v Chactge from.It�7 (Singie,l~amily��sidential) to R� (single FamilyRedden: teal) ,Alsoµapproval of a•'22 tot Si': Famil tsidential Subd' ion for.5,000 !' August 11, 1983 A 1 "+ 3. �i ...Tigard met and '1 3ti; ��IEX!�:;:' : 'it,�:lot$ on ��' � wcated,ti ! i ., Wash.Co.Tax Map 1SI 34DC Tax .t.29_00),•41 •C r3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AM i a . '#e', .. « •� X • �,.�etluest,,ta arriead.'poYi�r i1.�.2"1�'4?k, d 114.2b regarding.the NPO '#4 • opppr4"1"m°"'"wAmp, .` � 5d ZONE" �;�. tt�,°8 and;Im�plementatlon Strategies document;°°' sr�ea ia`�th�;�lndlnt Poll�i ��«tr .M 3 8t erg/C hapelle/Sorenson/Larson/; Sbllats jZlmrrtarterrtzan jPateclky NPO#7 requestfor!a zone change.frons R-20 to Ifi- 0,.the:property`is designated Low ,. Subscribed and sworn' ' be *re a this_�n�t t located at 10570,10660,10600,10630,10750 10770 and•10800 SW North Tat Map 1S1 34DA,.Xax Lots,2300,,2400,5Q0,2600, 700,1 . rs- -.-� Dakota (Wash.CO. ;. / 42800,2900,3000.,,-31'06.a.ncf3200) ' ' ''` �,. . `.ft. 4: X5.5*COM'RLHENSLEPLAN AMENDMENT , ,,,,,'ZONE d0E,ZC -83 rtichard uest fors NPf #1 :f '' ,,f .« , L . eq 's,� mprehensive'Plan'k codnnent'front M `;:,.tai Density to My Commission Expirest ,. Febb,, 2 l jAya'y�� �y .High Density Aoki a'Zone Change from A-12 to X.i10 Mtilti•Famly resident al ` AFFIDAVIT ,l sated at 13335 SW'Taal'Blvd,'(Wash.C0:Ta*Ma.:2I2DATagX.ot702). C,,b~ .�OMPRE13ENStVE PLAN AMEPdD « "` `" ":, . •, ! A re,!uest by the City of Ti: rd to update the COmpreb,eas'ive Plan to comply with LCI c tate oda Pt, ,y Goall#5 const er1ng an analysis of onornic,, , y� Social't n 4Sunme l,an E 4 gy4, sE)factors.Copies of the EESE Report are available fon"revfee*at 4he 'Public Library,'1250 5iw Mala,Street, Tigard,Oregon. 4 4: L Si PLANNED 1.)'EVEI.,dlPl,'1ZEl\l„ip, 2i-•' ;Brittany Square 'IIP)* , A,j approvedplltd anned development 1n order to allow4. i e 45j foot�settbac, ,on all lots..f rop'rty IS located est of 135th Avenue between Scltolls Ferry"Road . «Co.Tai Map'131 33D,"T Lot X00 and Mngt'lSt� and�algdt ��treat('d'as'h 33DC,Tax Lots 100,300,400,and 500). 5.8 COMPI1E ENSr'V'E PLAN REVIEW OF P7JANNEL) DEVELOPMENT' s`"= CPIIPt 41x0"6, ° e Meadows'-NPO#7' ..y Ayretlu'et by"1to0ebttd'Erlterprise )<'.pc.:for luin'ttxte:nsion,of time for approvel of a "Is tie 'd General Plan Review of a planed development.The prop- ` � a�P�Uminta rty'` ; artheast of sick,.hack Diamond Way (Wash.Co Tax Map 131. Tax tot" 00.0), .. , 'l Written comments are,encouraged:Pleasesubmit written n�odocuntents toµth Director of Planning,&Development: at the above d advance of the * public hearing date. ` T'6130*Publish August 11,1903 u ,, r r , • • • • TO g MCNE`EF OF THE PL.ANN I idle COMMISSION :.. CCg. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, NPO# FRomg MARY CLINTON t.. DATER HMAY 81 15' 3 SUkrJECT u` $U i'L..D I NC HIEIGHTS. AND FLAB LOT RECOMMENDATIONS Flag lots should only be used in developing areas that 'do not have direct. access t O any street .rt order to'.Use valuable pr"oper"ty fact t close enough' to tie directly ad jacent to the treet. If flag lots .are, put into developments they should be used 'in 'no smaller thanR-lEwr 'the planning, Camti ..ss i ar► all ems flag l rpt des .gnat c ns On smaller lots the mere restrictive 'should be the Code. The NPO memo to the Planning Commission addresses the height' 'portion 18.98.0Zr!O. Other restrictions,. under iS.9S. O3O Shduld remain to. pr Ovide rrµe tri cti one to "preserve the privacy. ae neceasi tat ed by the often, add p�acenent �� a homeon a flag litn Cfrom M ~ Mo-ahan 's me mr tctht .Planning Commission dated March 2 19'84) 'especially .an. otR45orer les Recommend Proposal' to read is.fie.O: 0 E• uliding Heights and Flag Lot Themaxum fora single,•-family duple> , attached orr�tratii µi pie w mi lr~e��:r�ent�.ai s structure' on a flag lot or a lot , having sole access from an accessory prwi vate drive' or easement shall be no higher than ,the lowest established structure on any abutting lot oriligher than 3(.,' feet, whichever Is less. `. The r o o e�d r e . ng on a flag lot shall comply with the p p 1� . .« a yr applicable' rwl�.mc�r�srwiena�. r egrrwri.u ement� r � ti��, zoning'. district and shall meet setback requirements stated i r y .t fa 9 .. ', 0 and # ` r ' « A new residential' structure Thai 1 oca+e n c� r er than , 50 feet +rpm an established residential' e'l.:ructur4eb *� g ai i riot face '� Windows-15' feet �r more a.bcr�e rade �h d re lin, r rr 3r i n e, or patio on any abutting lot unless the proposal includes an agreement to plant trees cap.abl of mitigating ,direct. ti er s (the agr~' ement shall b'e deemed a, condition ofapproval under the pr-�,�vi si on.s. o Section cn `) o . that, such. trees , 1 i, t an d ill be preserve m IM ar .. • • • • t •, The purpose of this Code change is not to make the code loss ss • restrictive or easier to administer but needs to be a1s restrictive as it now is and used +7 law when issuing building .permit; for flag lots. The problem_m i s not in the code restrictions, rather in the application and enforcement of this Codes proposethe wording to be changed but not the` intent nor the restrictions of this Code11 • After extensive r-esGarch into thie Code on Eiuilding Heights an/4 Flag Lots this Code has proper.M yrestrictions to preserve the intent of the Cod, however the enor'"cr-'mend. Codethe Code of this has been blamed on the itself. -opofjlly these s g r etx mar_; will be of help in rewriting but r1 o f eliminating sections of this Code 11 • • This i s an optional proposal for #2» above to include the restrictions in 113» 9b»oao Lot' area for Flag Lots And 1C.96.090 Front yard Determination for a flag lot. 2 The proposed dwelling on a flag lot shall comply with the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning district and shall .1 a» The lot area for a flag lot shall complyy with the J, lot area requirements of the applicable zoning district b. The lot area shall 'be provided entirely within the building site area eaxc u ive of any acceesway.' c. The owner or developer of a flag lot May determine the location of the front yard, p rovided no side Y and setback areas is less tan 10 feet. f4 .d .; ....;. .,,.,.., :.... ..;. . : • '..._., i,:,,.. .,..... :n, ,...,. 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 6-n4 W.L. & Bertina Sawyer/CECIL BOONE ?.ARK NPO # 5 Planner' Newton explained that staff, the applicant, and the sta,:e' Highway Division had met to discuss the � Associate �: y road issue for this, application and that more time was needed to prepare information. 7 Staff recommended this item be continued to the June 5th hearing. } • Vice President Moen moved to table S 6-84 and continue to the:. June 5, 1984, public hearing. Commissioner Peterson. seconded. Motion carried unanimously by ' members present., TIGARD WEST a Staff commented that the application ;or Tigard West had been `µ withdrawn from the agenda. Discussion followed on how many times r this item could be set over. 5.3 CPA 13-84 13tJIL DING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS Director of Planningand Development Monahan reviewed had. been encounteringwith: Section of tt-� pr:: lem,s which staff 18.98Community Development Code. NPO COMMENT - Phil Pasteris,. -D 6 Chairman, reviewed the memo he had ,. submitted to the Planning Commission. ' 1 P ' ., PUBLIC TESTIMONY 4 Mary Tinton, 9865 SW View Court, submitted and *tread into the record a letter recommending changes to section 18.98.030. Morgan Bleek, Titan Properties, 2090 SW TV Hwy, explained he had just obtained a minor land partition which has two flag lots. He felt the Code very restrictive ' was ,... �.,TM e,�tr�.� that section out and didn't address important issues. He . , recommendedeither throwing or having flag lots brought before the Planning Commission.. Lengthy discussion followed. r CROS8 EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL 9 Mary Clinton asked NPO # 6 Chairman, Phil Pasteris if City staff had. input in his meo. He responded City staff had only typed the memo for hitt'. She continued that she felt flag, lots should be restrictive and that developers should be made aware of this fact. a Lengthy discussion followed between staff, Planning Commission and 1 public' to Associate Planner Newton explained, that the Building' Inspector would " prefer to see the section on flag lots eliminated and just have a. height restriction. '.' PL.A.NNING CO SSION t1JT 1 J JS May 81984 Page e 1 . . , . ;„ t rg i :.»,moi•. ee Vice President Moen questioned if these restriction were intended to apply to flag lots created by minor land partitios to protect ;. adjoining ra erties and notsubdivisions.new s ubdi,►�sx ons a rurther discussion followed. O Mrs. ClintoncopyUniform Building Code. and , 1 erto�r; had .a of the read how' building stated shea building heights are determined. • ,'`I PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION Commissioner Leverett favored the Building Inspectors and staff's recommendation. Commissioner Fyre commented that the problem would have been worse if the `lot had nc�. been a flag lot. He wanted to see the staff come y. back with a specific recommendation. •` Commissioner Butltr suggested contacting other jtirisd::ctions to see /, theystaff submit a written recommendation. what : have and have Commissioner Peterson did not support having flag lots z tore f' ,.,•, - restrictive. He felt the issue of flag lots in a subdivision shaa�ld be dealt with., Commissioner Vanderwood concurred with Commissioner Pyre that subdivision flag lots should not beincluded under` Builain Heights ;4LL and Flag Lots. el Commissioner Owens supported staff working on wording, possibly with Mary Clinton and other jurisdictions taking into consideration the , Building.Inspectors recommendation. Vice President Moen as concerned withthe higher height limit in the clearer' that R 4 � toned. He � made felt the Code needed to b restrictions_ for flag lots applied, to flag lots creat.{ud by minor land partitions not subdivisions • • Lengthy discussion followed. Commissioner Pyre movad4 to recommend to Council that Section ,' Cityt 18.98.030 be titled 'eui1din_ He ..hts arid Pia: Lots (Flag loY subdivisions excluded),Wthen under section A. change "may be ? 1/2 stories" to' "must be 2 stories" and change "35 feet" to "30 freet°. b,. under Section 18.52.050 Section E. , change "35feet" Also. � to "30 ft." { Commissioner Leverett seconded. Motion carried by majority vote; Commissioners Moen and Butler /toting no. e Consensus of the Commission was for the staff to rewrite section. 18.98.030 after c ..".+4-!"`'. other jurisdiction and resubmit to the Planning Commission PLANN NG COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page <a-.x 9 May 7, .984 Tigard Planning Comoiss ion, c/o Tigard City Hall Tigard, Oregon ' ..f Ladies & Gentlemen Please accept my apologies for being absent this evening; I seem to have conflicting demands on my time right now. I have •review, ..;< ed. the Planning Commission packet for May 8, 1984 and wish to offer the following comments : Item 5.3 Building Height Limitations I am intimately ac quaintedu. nth the specific issue leading Lo this discussion. I concur that the current language in y 18.98.030and is difficult to understand and explain andagree that some clarification is needed. I can support NPO # 6's recommended language if two clarifi cations are added. They are: . .e a) We need to define how we measure theheight of homes on adjoining lots, and b) We still need to address the window height issue as de- srr'ibed under 18.98.030 A.3 Item 5.5 -- Setbacks I undrstard and concur with staff, that the sideyard setbacks y should not be more restrictive than the front yard setback requirements. I am not persuaded, however, that we should eliminate nt yard s kswould ery,co araeethe Commission to retain the10 feet frontyard setback, change she side yard :. setback req .n requirements (ocorner lots) to 10 feet and to a'on- tinue the (visual clearance) requirements. Thank you. Sincerely, ,t9-4,(1d Phil. tdin 13110 S.W. Ash, Drive Tiga-A-dr 23 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission May 49 1984 FROM: NPO # '6 SUBJECT: Suggested Changes to Development Code Sectic*.o 18.1 .ldintleiq.hts and Flamm Lots This section of the code has come under increased scrutiny because of const.uction at 14185 SW 98th Court. The NPO has found the true intent of this section somewhat unclear and subject to misinterpretation. The NPO feels the true intent is to make flag lot heights more restrictive than standard lots. Perhaps the following wording can clarify this section of the code: y�. 18.98.030' A. The maximum height for a single—family duplex, attached or p multile family residential structure on a flag lot or a lot having sole access from yin accessory private drive o easement ghouse on an ad joi,k ng lot or shall be no ��i her than the tallest 25 feet whichever is less. This wording accurately describes our intent to e_akebuilding heights on " if e restrictive, but `ill7rs.�" are 'h'�1 flaglots more" ,� carificat±on is required. ll��[g to'work with the Comm�ss�.on further 1 All other wording rs deleted. 0402P 11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA IC-84/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission regarding various sections of the Community Development Code. A complete list of i the Sections recommended for amendments and the proposed language / changes are available in the City's Planning Department. a. Public Hearing Reopened • b. Planning Director commend some of the changes suggested on the • errata sheet were by other agencies which have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan. Most changes were ,,:commended by staff as a ' - result of having implevented the code 1.or the last few months. Changes recommeAded are primarily for clarification of sections of the code. Planning Commission recommended changes and staff recommended approval. c. Public Testimony • Mary Clinton, 9865 S.W. View Court, Tigard, Oregon, commented on Section 18.98.030 and suggested the insertion of Lhe %lord "Or" any , abutting lot. She also proposed that flag lots should be in larger areas because of setbacks. This would be a more restrictive ren'lirement. Staff responded they felt Mrs. Clinton's recommendation was too restrictive and changes the meaning entirely. • Public Hearing Closed. , d. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to direct staff to prepare an ordinance with the Planning Commission's ' recommendation for the May 14, 1984 meeting. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. MAYOR PRO TEM SCHECKLA ARRIVED AT 8:30 P.M. 12. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 13-84/BUILDING HEIGHT LIR/TATIONS A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission regarding Section. 18.98 of the Community Development Code. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 14-84/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENT A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission regarding various sections of Volumes I, 11, and III of the comprehensive plan in response to issues raised in correspondence from Washington County, the Home „Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, Oregon Legal Services Corporation, The Department of Environmental Quality, The Oregon State Housing Division, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, Metro and the Land Conservation and Development Commission Staff. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 15-84/SETBACKS IN THE Co AND OP ZONES A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission regarding the required setbacks in the Ceneral Commerclal (CC) and Commercial Professional (Cr) zones. Page 6 COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 30 1984 0 i, 0. 4, HLNSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA '7-84/VOLUME 1 & VOLUME 2 -- DEQ ,. •.; 18. Co�P� �. � .. A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission to amend the Air, Water & Land Resources Quality Comprehensive Plan Report, Volume 1 ,.m and to amend Volume 2, Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies `` as recommended by the Department of. Environmental Quality. a. Public Hearing Opened L• b. Motion by Councilor Cook, second4d by Councilor Brian to continue to April 30, 1984. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 19. CONVRERENStVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 8-84/POLICY 6,3-2_ (b)"'COMPATIBIL"IT"Y , A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission to amend policy 6.3.2 (b), compatibility standards for density transition, in Volume II, Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies. a. Public Hearing Opened b. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian cco continue to April 30, 1984. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 20. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 9-84/CHAPTER 18.26 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i Ear INITIONS y A recommendation n by the City of Tigard rd Planning Commission t o amend Chapter of the Communtty Development Code adding d ?finitionsi for j.:,' HomesOc u ations"; "Remodel ; "Addition"; "Cotrcpatibil t ; "Window; r "Face ,; and "Story, half ' jai :l a. Public Hearing Opened b. Motion by Councilor CoOk, seconded by Councilor Brian to ceutinue to April 30, 1984. Approved by unanimous, vote of Council present. 21. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANENI3 ENT/CrA 10-84/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 11 A recommendation by the ► i,:y of Tigard Planning Commission regarding various sections of the Collmv.nity Development Code. A complete list of the ,Sections recommended for amendments and i ,w n _ �,; ,� nd the proposed language changes are available in the City i s Planning Department. a. Public Hearin Opened "• b. motion by councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Hrian to continue to Apr 1 30, 1984. • s vote off` Cono,ci1 re�sen A roved b uftan moo. ( p t. Pp �` 22. COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT/CPA 1 -84/BDI:LDINc' .H1 ICHT LIMITATIONS A recommendation by the C°it,, of Tigard Planning Commission regarding r section 18.98 of the Community Development Code. i. Page 10 COUNCIL MINUTES .� APRIL.IL 23 1984 , I : a. Public Hearing Opened b. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to `continue to April 30, 1984. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. ` 23. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 14-84/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENT A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission regarding various sections of Volumes 1, II, and III of the comprehensive plan in pissues raised in correspondence from Washington' County, the • response to • Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, Oregon Legal Services Corporation, The Department of Environmental The Oregon State Housing Division, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, Metro and the • Land Conservation and, Development Commission Staff. a. Public Hearing Opened b. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Briar` to continue to April 30, 1984. Approved byunanimous vote of Councilp Pp resent.. 24. COMPREHENSIVE. PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 15-84/SETBACKS IN THE CG AND CP ZONES • A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission regarding the .fi required setbacks in the General Commercial (CG) and Commercial f re ux Professional (CP) zones. a. Public Hearing Opened b. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to continue to April 30, 1984. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. w 2$. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 16-84/AMENDMENT DECISION PROCESS A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission regarding Chapter 18.32 to allow the Planning Director toamend a decision after • ,, findings nave beenn prepared in response to issuesthat are' raised prior to the appeal deadline. a. Public Hearing Opetx<.d b. Motion Councilor Brian to continue on by Councilor Cook,,. secu�,°'�E',d byounc�. to April 30, 1984. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. . . ' 26. COMPREHENSIVE PLN AMENDMENT/CPA 17-84/DENSITY TRANS"TTItN A recommendation by the city of Iigari planning Coaimissio rl re ordxng; the Density Transition section of the code, section 18.40.040, and conditions when application of this provision may not be required } a. public 'Hearing. Opened, Page 11 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1984 yM k 00 j • • ri Agenda Item # 5.3 CPA 13-84 Tigard Planning Commission May 8, 1984 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON /1 , .e TO:• Planning Comm ,ssi.on April 1,2, I98� ,, FROM: Planning. Staff SUBJECT: Building Height Limitations ians, Exceptions Some members of the Planning Commission .and NPO #6 have asked that the Building Height Limitations, Exceptions section of the Community Development Code be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Chapter 18.98 Building Height Lim.tations, Exceptions is attached for your review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not have a recommendation. on this issue. suggests that the �- Staff s Commission review the Building Height Limitations, Exceptions section of the Code, take public testimony and make a recommendation to the City Council. Staff will be available to answer questions and address any concerns raised at ,.. the April 17 1984 meeting. (EAN pm/0400?' t ss e rt sta ♦ 18.98 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS n 18.98.010 Pcaitstipns Not Used for Human Habitation � Pro•ections such as chimneys, spires, domes, elevator shaft w housings, towers excluding TV dish receivers, aerials, flag poles and other similar objects not used four human occupancy, are not subject to the building height l imitat f,ons of this Code. 18.98,02tb Buy ldnHe qht Exceptions A. Any building located in a non-residential zunc may be built to a maximum height.of 75 feet provided: . f y 1. The total floor area of the building does not exceed one and 1 1/2 the area of the site; w 2. The yard dimensions in each case are equal to at least 1/2 of the building height of the principal structure; 3. The approval of this exception is a part of the approval of the conditional use allowed under Chapter 18.130; and zoning The strurtur,0 is� not abutting a residential district. 18.98.030 Buildi Hei•hts and Fla. Lots e:„„&..,;',20 A. The maximum height for a si ", 'hgle--family, duplex, attached or multiple family residential structure on a flag lot or a lot : havio.i sole access from an accesaway, private drive or easement shall be 1 1/2 stories or � 25 feet, whichever is less, except ,..44:5'„; O, that± the maximum :.height��� be 2u �"r_ stories '� 3 ..ei ,rflr whichever is less, provided: 1.' The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable dimensional requirementsqof thei zoning district; 2. A residential structure on any abutting lot either is located 50 feet or more from the nearest point of the subject dwelli. • �;� or the res ldentlal structure exceeds 1 1/2 stories or 25 feet in height on any abutting lot, and 3Wr.ndC»ws 15 feet or more above grade shall not face dwelling unit windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal includes an a3reement to plant trees capable of m�tx 'gatx ng direct ct views without;. loss of solar access to any ";' dwelling unit,, or that such trees exist and will be preserved B.• Where an agreement is made to plant trees capable of mitigating direct views,, the agreement shall be deemeda conditiono approval, under theprb,,sza.sSection rf 1g.,, r260 ( '). 1$8 �M a.. v 4y C. The tree planting agreement shaU be a condition of (SITE_ "" DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) for 3 or more attached units or a multiple d' family residential structure, or for single detached units, 1 duplex or 2 attached residential units, at the issuance of .; building permits. • III — 15 7. K .may 44, 7 ! 0 0 0 ;' m ' '' )-''(`-l':' 8 () C)©n , h' c) w" lr > 3 0: E) 0 I 1\•11 al (T) a r 8 8▪ - p a, x o A g. -... M f F-� x N �. c to �� D O W 1-3 • o \ iii. ) I\C) -., E. * 1-1 �', it O O -Tl W H. ..E,'?si Z C7 m 7.1 o 1.0. N s trim p 0_▪0� a ; 0 D N a Ws'• CD n w (3 c -c .• ?; o . 70 m• z 'y a) n o ,CT n 0." o , ars CD �a.Cn C ' `� `w m CO z o " i' ' C1 I/M 0m r,... • c. c C.T. tee. t C7" O F�<D • • • t7Z r o Q , 0) Cr)CCD Gl '1J J 0 a• .J. () C > m . 111144. a CO O CO f -0w _ o 0• , .,, ITYOF IIGARD- '0P1dON r� a, rt o + i C33 0 y, ,......—..........„1,-,.. - + rrr.rr.��w.--...ww�.n....- " ' The'Irollowing will•be cod,�stderd �by..the Tigard Phnnning Commission on '� 2 April'17,1984,at 7:30 P.M.at Dowler:Junior High School Lecture Room,10865 ., SW Walnut,Tigard, Oregon, ,,`rther.inter natlol may.be obtained,from the Director`of Planning and 1)evelevmentat12755 SW Ash Ave.—Tigard,—Or.97223, . or by calling 639-4171. ' ', ,r ,, ' P, I.IC aEEARINGS " ds ,W. rea .,r7oONE ,-° 5 ? ,`.x i , ii , Iottdevelop- C) a 'rent once 2:37"acre parcel:zoned•£t-12'(Resideatial,12•nnits/acre).locat ry • •ed on the northwest corner ot Dtithitii.Road,and 81st Avenue(West.Co. '*"nN'lap 2S1 12CC,Tax T ctts,1800 and.%1t02).;, . , '`, / SUBDIVISION S.—84 .VAR1A C E V 7r84'Century 2i,,I ropertica/SEAI)GW` " , -s I' PAR k .#1 ,.'',,rr 1 .MY t" "P. I . ., •'i l a A'request for•p.e iii iiivis op plat approval of a 67 lot develop- w • ,,tnie it . a innce,ta tite rd requirements°of,the R-12(Residential, Ski ' 2't i ,t ) e' Ilox, i 5'foot"side yer and a"' 5 foot rest yard `'2"� • ere`"1,i `irnd•20*feaf Lively-are't'egiaire+il:.The'property'is located at 89125 S4i,,b'Mara Street,T d( Wash,Co.r Tak".Map 2S12Di3 Tax rots .4 t `k00):"...,. . . x., •x �, '.r. ►" /•�OltiP C m ,Y 1 " ATION SE�CEFTi '�1 2��#�� �4 BUILDING liE1GHT I:VE'P'i.Ax`t �. ,_ONSr-•4t r , A request by theYCity'llttf. .y= to revlew'Section 13.98'of the Community Development Code�f . ' «t ,, 1. . ." ' - i ' : . CO RE..� 'P.,SiVE iki 4 DMEN;T CT's x4,84 COMFREIIENS1VI �'� DOCUMENT AMEND T`S „, by. ty ''".:r� Y�� ,' Volumes I, A est ttie C.1 int 7C �►'"�ar(at�sections of 4 cori,. the comps V .p,'an' response tti issues railed la tI, and IT1�t►f of Metropolitan troth�'Washi h 'n County,• dein Association rtland, Oregon Legal Services ��corporation, The pertinent of Environmental) tyi The'Oregon Stets Rousing Division, COMP Erienda of Oregon and:Metro.''° F �,� IENST'l�''E-PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 1�4 S _, „•_CRS IN THE C CP ZONES A' ythe City of Tigard tit, vie*the setback*in the General CQnIIClolal(CG)ai Co trete',Professianal(CP)zones, • C ►MPRENENSIVE PLAN . DCPA 16-84 AMENDMENT DECD giON PROCESS ' .. A.request by the,City'o&Tigaid to amend Chapter 18.32 to allow the Planning Director to Amend ttdecisi atter� n�have been prepared ' di ' in re perise,to iSsties that areraised prior to the ape, ,'d dline» EH ,,. .. 1` COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 17'44 D SITY TRANSITION A request by the City of Tigard for a review of the Density Traositi+ n .," ' .+ , *S. 44 n,.lit ....iii09-k,Aittwr,,-'4tho,41orthltr^i°tittri,`I 41,,kr qui \ 1e .i °LI " .irt.•t�i�..- CITY OF TI4RD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: Members of the Planning Commission ' FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of planning and Development DATE: March 23, 1984 SUBJECT: Building Heights Recently the City Council received much testimony from citizens adjacent to f the McDonald Acres subdivision concerning the height of a two story dwelling now under construction.. The particular issue dealt with the interpretation of • section 18.98.030 of the Community Development Code which relates to flag lots. Under the code, a house cn a flag lot is restricted to 1 1/2 stories or 25 feet in height unless the building qualifies for anexception allowed by the Code. The purpose is to preserve privacy as necessitated by the often odd placement of a home_on a. flag. et 1 rDuringbefore the City Council, NPO #6 raised the following the discussions heightflag lots should be discussed and a ' + on issues 1) That limitations possibly be madebuilding height information for more restrictive and 2) That att entire subdivision should totne under close scrutiny. y ou may wish to evaluate the flag lot height limitation issue. a8 Well as the overall height limits in the community. Presently the height limit for residential dwellings is as follows: P,.1 30 R.2 30 R.3.5 30 R.4V5 30 R.7 30 .a. R.12 35 R.20 45 R.40 LSO Single family development is taking place in all zones up to R.12 at this time. The standard home in the community ranges from .I to 1 1/2 to 2 stories, less than 50 feet. The house which was in question before the City Council is a two story house: The provis ow' u p to 2' stories or 35 f y ions' of 18.��»D�f� r�l�l, p1/2 a � feet on a' flag lot if steps are taken to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood. You may wish look section of the code to determine if it should be revised. at this, copy is attached. 12785 SW.ASH 1:)0 I OX,23397 TIGARD,0.1,1GON 97223 PH639-41/1 r �a , ' w The 'Council felt that the issue of building heights should be studied. I have stated that: I do not believe that we should limit all single family homes to less than two stories as this would limit the size of future homes, particulwry in those areas with smaller lot sizes. We may, however, want to revise the flag lot section of the code so that it does not allow a building to exceed the height of other units in the area. If the Planning, Commission would like to discuss this issue, I would, suggest that we set aside some time at the April 17, meeting. Please let us know in advance if you would like to discuss a possible change in our building height restrictions. t 1, } M , , 1r jj 21. RESOLUTION NO. 84-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD_ ON MAY 15, 1984, IN CONJUNCT .ON WITH THE STATE-WIDE PRIMARY ELECTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF TIGART) THE QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING A NEW TAX BASE FOR THE CITY. , a. Motion byCouncilor r Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve. b. Councilor h,:heckla stated he felt the 'Bu ' et Committee should have cut more than $100,000 from the Staff' requested budget and thus could not support the tart base request. c. Corwacilor Brian expressed his concern that the Budget Committee had cut all they felt could be cut and still be able to respond to the citizen's needs. He stated the Budget Committee did not plan to go back to the voters if the measure does not pass in May. Councilor Brian also noted some of the areas where cuts would be , made if the tax base fails at the polls. d. Mayor Bishop stated this was one of the mostefficiently run and vest presented budgets in his time with the City. He praised staff'snoting that they were presented in keeping with Budget Committee s request for service levels II and III.' , Mayor Bishop went on to compliment the Budget Committee for their hoursof work. r 0 IM Motion to approve Resolution No. €4-20A approved by 3-2 majority vote of Council present. Councilors Scheckla and Scott voting nay. 22. DVILDING HEIGHT LIMIT REPORT (Mrs. Clinton's H,equest For Review of 1113C/'114C) a. Director of Planning & Development gave history report on issue and stated that the City has met the requirements in the UBC and TMC for inspections and requirements on the builder. He stated, that the height of the solar glass wall/windows was over the 15 feet limit in the code and that was the issue to be resolved. b. Mrs. Mary Clintons 9865 SW View Court, distributed pictures and _ memo setting out her concerns. She felt the City inspectors did not know the code and had not enforced the code. She was concerned with the loss of her views the loss of privacy, the height of the building being over code and the windows being over height restrictions. She also stated the home that is being built. the y of her home. Mrs. Clinton presented a ' has loweredsaleability petition to the Council from. surrounding property owners stating their belief that the home being Constructed at 14185 SW 98th Avenue is in violation of the codes intent and that the building is in sever conflict with the established character of the neighborhood. o. Reg Justus, 14270 SW 100thl appealed to the Council to bring the house into conformance with the code. o Mr. Robert C. Lamb 9735 SW. `McDonald j requested council give every Possible consideration to Mrs. Clinton's concerns. Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAR011 12 1984 o Mr. Robert Steen, 14130 SW 100th, stated the house being constructeddoes not fit with the surrounding styles of homes and wished Council action. o Don Feller, 9875 SW View Terrace, spoke in support of the code, noting that the City staff has misinterpreted the code for building and window height. Court stated o PhyllisGreer 9845 SW View the newdevelopment y , � e elopment is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and requested the Council work with the citizens to come to, a satisfactory decision on the issues. o Phil Pasteris, NPO #6 Chairman., presented Council with concerns of the NPO regarding the ''building. NPO #6 feels that an examination of building height limitations may be in order and suggests that height limitations dealing with flag lets be made more restrictive. The NPO also° felt that the solar access windows were over height and should be changed in tht specific house in question. c. Di re of Mrs. Planning & Development responded to the allegations 1 presentation: and advised Council that the window height issue could be addressed in one of two ways: y 1. require trees be planted to mitigate direct view; or 2. feet above grade. d they are not more than 15 . the windowsbe altered so that g d.. Lengthy discussion followed. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to require owner/builder no more than 15 feet from the grade' on the height c the solar assist windows ' or that screening be planted to mit:iga. ;irect view. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. a ' e. Council consensus was that the PlanningCommission look' at the e • 1.4st,e5 that NPO #6 addressed in the near future. u RECESS t 10:V5 P.M. RECONVENE: 10:26 P.Mi. 23. APPROVE OLCC :APPLICATIONS & RENEWALS G Pietro's Gold Co t Pi:µE u 13405 SW Pacific Hwy.., Ti ard,, Axa Parlor, o Orf Pp application ' 206 Tigard Gaffer's Prime gib & Seafood " . Restaurant, g Plaza, Tigard,e or DA application, and new partner application t 11660 SW Pacific 'y : application o, ''1"igard, Bowl, 1C Hw, Tigard) Or, RMB 'aid o Zoop's Food Warehouse, 12230 Sti Main Street, Tigard, Or, PS application ,. o'' Codfather's' Pizza, 12286 SW Sc'hollsPerry Rd., Tigard, Or, application oSavory .Sandwich, 242 Tigard Plaza, Tigard, Ory R application Page 6 COUNCIL MINUTES - CCN 12, 1984 II y 12 March 1984 TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FROM: NPO #6 SUBJECT: Allowable Building Heights on Flag Lots Mary Clinton' s Review of Construction 14185 SW 98th Ct. NPO #6 convened a special ial meeting ' on 7 March to discuss this IIissue with Mrs . Clinton. A city staff report dealing with this subject was made available to the NPO by Mr. Bill Monahan, Director gDevelopment. report with of Planning and. The NPO. reviewed the staff Mrs. Clinton and several other interested guests . A. NPO Analysis of Mr. Monahan' s Re We agreed that the house under construction complies with the first two exceptions provided for by the Community Development Code. 1. dimensional requirements of the, zoningdistrict 2. a residential structure on any abutting lot either is located 50 feet or more from the nearest point of the subject dwelling, or the e residential structure exceeds 1' stories or 25 feet in height on any abutting lot; i ,,i However we disagree with Mr. Nonahan' s interpretation of conditc n ' #3, "windows 15 feet or rrtore above grade shall not face dwelling , unit windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal in- , • eludes an agreement to plant treescapable of mitigating direct views without loss of solar access to any dwelling unit, or that such exist y st an,d 'will be Preserved, " The following facts support the NPO's position ' 1. Photographs provided to the NPO by Mrs. Clinton clearly show that even the W,, h these are windows intended to act as a passive solar system, a clear and unobstructed view of Mrs. Clinton' s backyard and patio exists 2. According to the current Develo me t Code mitigationof what the NPO feels 1.8 a violation of condition # requires i. plaiting of trees which would not, block solar access to the dwelling unit The NPO feels the planting of trees �,.5 in conflict with solar accessprovision of the code. .... ...., .. ........ vr.r. .sem v 1s ,.. • +:., t � k The house is situated on the north slope of a substantial hill. Solar access during the prime winter heating season will be minimal at best without trees planted to mitigate the view of Mrs. Clinton' s property. ry Therefore, we feel the solar access argument for the two- story windows in this situation is a moot point. A structural change in the house design should be investi- gated. B. Other Specific Concerns 1. Mrs. Clinton related experiences with city procedures for inspection and enforcement of the Development Code. Some of these deal with: . a. Measurement of building height on a terraced . property 1 b. Determination of final height before construction of the dwelling in question is completed. The NPO feels specific procedural matters such as this should be addressed and solved or they will surely come up again. C. Su1.mar*f In a broader sense the NPO feels that an, examination of building height limitations may be in order- Current R-7 zoning provides that no building shall exceed 35 feet in height. In the situation under discussion tonight, a dwelling 35 feet in height could directly to the the dwelling under construction, north or east of currently thus blocking any view the current owners sought to gain with their current house design (see attached map) . The NPO suggests that the height limitations de .ing with flag lots be made more restrictive. The NPO also suggests that building height information for an entire subdivision come under close scrutiny during .the established city process so that height related, "One-up- manship" is uninimized in order to keep the livability we haveworked so hard the last 2 years to preserve. . l \r- ( 7 . i, 1 6 if . i:'0 It.-4 .41-rrActim6.' ii iii- - ti,,,.., ............... ...„,....................._...... rn• N �J ecv C)V ...:_ s95i.Z.,5*Y4, ...4i(ii.....-: •,.1. ' .41nr."0C3-' 54.--:Tr.''.4:'7.";11% .(\3!..... ............. ''.----'''-''..-- ."--*".' 3 ,..=ca e. . _ Cu� O 4<� NUJ"('" N , PLAT %I �.gQ.4�I1-1'•• "i -• ,31Mc,ts 2 .93 ' p. 1 .rI� F- • �Z,■?.� ' L� 92 b . CH' .07 10C"c' r -e•� 7 Vti 041-' `' is ......1).7 "' '-2 r. ''.�a-J•'$�'" G•t-i. ' 'z.�✓•'''-7 iiy ri - .il-t'T • 1 • : '• +3 �� I A .. Gi�'t= G- .t.8�•� A .54 Z 8 -47' i0'{!helitierrare,.eeAf O .�ir 0.7. J' r .. i -t57•z+'" - ` 7500 Ili s Meft 17. r .$ LRQ`1. e Grf. 5?. .,z„-•. -.- ..r 3& ;Z 1` , h Do•• t` ch a, t,'o -.6- 50 `- A ,6,9 '�D ' 1 N$9 51 W4 K, ®'-4{,27 N� • . ,. rJ'o-4- a 41 . r. ��� .;3'L.31 t` �/'s 2 : -) .y- '2. o - 05 t,e 4� r ' ,,- '<}-2 19 0 .,�, \ C• <,o. 5 ��8284 � L,y �, 1�, ," v� ,�,. 1 . - ' 4 E-- -4... !' eta 4 I Z T 'T 5 39 � Po* � ' ti' yn� '"���`�"+ V � Lt...... �, ...,c_,.) �,: X37 ��� t`�' a O. 9 .s r ,�''G,, .,,4, . '�` i.,.pe, 4 �m.1s• . + ,�5e5--050'w' ' 0 {1.i4.A ,� so' .6„.677 -G�'1 G �� ' -�.� ka•aa-ay. , irz�:mac.' '� ' _�� p,•21'-4l� CH.. = -7 �� ra 15.09 t�1 /.4-r , a-8.2.v./ zs tra - � �til E- f 9 ' n .\G <.) �'r1'' a�c ?g•5q' `c,%, s ,'' IL + " _ 1,0T -7 1A. •,�•I r • h-t,•7 . 5, N ,., M .1 r+ g'' . t I . b ' K%657•�' f .Z•-7•-.7 • o �1 to-r. sod . LOT CH.ii.X1.89'•55°44.0. .. .t °o .vi. N, 9•�1-e+ Z . 7�, ' a ,3-7 �9 Gh1 'Z.? ' r C?./ i• • 100,0,5. ' �'si .` 1� p . A, 4 5",4..41:d5 CH.r {-. Vr .1 t`' --� 'ta'0N •6• �- e•-.3r3 G s l"`D 5i 4,, .7 4 R p'' C t'-t--4 AL1.8�i ,\) S ray*..++-' •N .t1tV1EN-C • 15t6 '*"'-'115Z1d1 _a lis [ ,.t 0 Y ' 1 ._.t �Y / zr" '-� .7.,: +J w - 1771 • Y. �' 17:1 4- • L=.627-1-1+,-, .�,.•. ate,"o"' t:G H. = 19 a, ti r o w1-. t .6, ;,6,t.z.c.,6.41!II s.•..,....., .. Is, ._. 0 , # I 4:''24:,T 1,.t.., 1 c) , « j1/41 ,, " ,) "' .' «� i'• I. L "moi. Lo -r. 16. , . cil .-.: s-7 .D0 416 4,,,„„..0,-„,,t..44 --„.......sr...-e,ce-cii .ILL1R,..,. ...zo, A.... , . e ,60, L,-,ti, s,.,,,,,„o 1)11161PIC u c (( II GAS:_!'k.,,C r Airs. , 4351' -11.°"-A- ,;"' 'Z*4)),,t.alofr is.i .i;041 t1744641,:'Z'l--e'44-1CilYt;t6°11:14**16t31'' '' 1r"Il�4 i ` y ,5 ,r„1--r Ic 't I T - . 11`,.1,7'•�: ,,, 1,,.,,= ►' .45� , A 1.-,1 1\"-e-. "' ANi" ,t j "�"'. 1 t.-,ipt_r1 1 t-4- + 6 , - • it,t� .L.,.,C=: .(4't-t tali . 41''x.11* -'' �, 1 t- 1 .-- - 4- ,'d"-+.,'° c (- * 4 µ,.'4 4 'I'4.1*'al F'`41 k4"': t l..'�. '�i'