CPA 8-84 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
a t �,..,I.�t�.., �.,�....:, ..•. .. .�_•.• '. 1',,._-.''_.,... .. ,tilt � � 1+ll. r, <}
Policy 6.3.2 (b) CPA8--84
---City of Tigard ...�"' •
rM:
r :
•
is
.n
•
t
r.
A^
r
i,
;
r.
r J
.
1
y.
d
,e
•
a
•
ti
1,
•
1•
0.
s;;l'''',.,''',''''''''',..''''',1'
1,
it
4:.
t
I
+ d ,.
•
•
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON •
ORDINANCE NO. "'84- '
• AN ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICY 6.3.2(b) IN FINDINGS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES, VOLUME 2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CPA 8-84) ; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, during the Comprehensive Planning process the City Council
adopted Policy 6.3.2(b) to address housing development compatibility; and
'
WHEREAS, 1,000 Friends of Oregon objected to the' vague and discretionary
language contained in the policy; and
•
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April
: 3, 1984,. to consider an amendment to this policy.
HEREFORE THE CITY OF TIGARD T ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS,
,
Section ction 1. Policy 6.3.2 b shall be amended, to delete the words within ;.
brackets below:
.4:
•
WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS AN EXISTING HOUSING •
DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYPES SHALL BE COMPATIBLL. [FOR
EXAMPLE:]
[1. HOUSING UNITS WHICH
ARE ATTACHED ARE CONS IDERED
COMPATIBLE WITH A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNIT: BUT
t2. MORE THAN TWO HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE NOT
CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT. ]
. Section 2. Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health and safety of
the -people of the City of Tigard that this amendment be made with the least
possible delay, an emergency hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance
shall become effective immedi: tel j upon pass;b, by the Council and approval by
the Mayor.
' PASSED: BY the City Council by vote of all Council
members present, after being read by numtr and title only,
this 8 day of / t 1984.
d
—
Deputy Recorder ,.
De uty Reco Cit of ar
APPROVED: This c day of r
1984k
Mayor pro tem – City of Tigard. r.
ORDINANCE NO. 84 .
(0407Pdm j)
e. ORDINANCE NO. 84-23 - AN ORDINANCE 'AMENDING, CHAPTER 18.130
; (CONDITIONAL USES) OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
} ADDING STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSIENT LODGING; WHOLESALE, ,
! STORAGE AND ;DISTRIBUTION; PA1TICIPATION SPORTS AND RECREATION -
INDOOR 'AND, OUTDOOR; AND VEHICLE FUEL SALES WITH CONVENIENCE SALES; '
AND''DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (File No. CPA. 6-84)
counciltypo noted. t o error in third Whereas of the ordinance._.
f. Motion by' Council Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt as
corrected.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council pr.esent.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 7-84/VOLUME 1 & VOLUME 2 - DEQ
by City g g nd the
A recommendation the. of Tigard ' Planning Corr�rniss�.on to erne
Air, Water & Land Resources Quality Comprehensive Plan Report, Volume 1
and to amend, Volume 2, Findings, Policies and Implementation strategies .
' ' as recommended by the Department of Environmental Quality. '
. a. Public Hearing Reopenc.d
PI .
b. PlanningDirector reported item deals with' review of ConP rehensve
Plan by DEQ. Their comments deal with technical infoi.'mation and
t, will, improve the plan. Staff has no problem with them and ,'.
Planning Commission recommended the revision. " ,
c. Public, Testimony - No one appeared to speak. .
d'i. Public Hearing Closed .'t;.
e. ORDINANCE NO. 84-24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE�t• __ ' No. 83w-52
` VOLUME VOLUME II FINDINGS, ES AND .
- 1, RESOURCE. DOCUMENT;
POLICY .
LEMENTATION STRATEGIES; AND VOLUME III, COMMUNITY
.. IPL DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO INCORPORATE CHANCES RECOMMENDED BY THE, OREGON STATE' '•:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
f. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt.
f
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
W , .
9.. COMPREHENSIVE ,PLAN - • . COMPATIEILITY
AN AMENDMEST/CFA 8,-84/POLICY 6 3b
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, Polities and Implementation Strategies.
a. Pantie Hearing Reopened
b. Planning; Director reported the item deals with issues raised by _.
1000 Friends. The objection is not to the po)lcy. itself but to .
the example
it p +� givenas too vague. Staff ,e+ .....e ._, d ,.et ng
example and oheng,.e in language of policy to clarify policy.
c. public Testimony
COUNCIL MINUTES' A•' RIL. 3O�` � 1984
Pe
a 4
.. ,,
Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Coutt, inquired about interpretation of
the language. Staff responded.
d. Public Hearing Closet . ...
e. Staff noted typo e..'ror in Section 2; correct spelling of
"Necessary".
f. ORDINANCE NO. 84-25 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICY 6.3.2(b) IN
FINDINGS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES, VOLUME 2 OF THE
di COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CPA 8-84); AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
g. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to` adopt as
amended.
Approved by unanimous vote of C 4ncil present.
10. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 9-84/CHAPTER 18.26 COMMUNITY `.
DEVELOPMENT DEFINITIONS
A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission to amend
Chapter 18.26 of the Community Development Code adding definitions for
"Home Occupations" "Remodel"; "Addition"; ",Compatibility"; "Window ;
"Face" and
"Story, half"
a. Public Hearing Reopened ,4t4
b. Planning Director noted item deals with definitions left out of
the Development Code. He pointed out matrix that was included in
public hearing last fall and used as a guideline. Ct-,ff drafted
1 •
some' lt.nguage as a recommendation and vas' approved by the. Planning
Commission.
r. Public Testimony
Mary Clinton, 9865 S.W. View Court,, spoLe to definitions in the
code. Staff explained the necessiry.,
d. Public Hearing Closed
e. Staff recommended adoption with correction of typo error in
.
Section 1 "Window", . . .. .air, framed, and spanned vithgl ss".
f ORDIN'A1 E NO. 84-26 - AN ORDINANCE, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.26,
DEFINITIONS, OF THE TIGARD' COMMUNITY DLVSLOPMENT CODE ADDING
DEFINITIONS FOR "HOME OCCUPATIONS" "REMODEL'° "ADDITION",
COMPATIBILITY", "WINDOW", "FACE", AND "STORE HALF" AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
E. Motion by Councilor Cock, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt as
corrected,
Motion approved by unanimous vote of council present.
page 5 ' COUNCIL Mi ? TES" '' APRIL 30, 198=
1.
r.
18. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 7-84/VOLUME 1 & VOLUME 2 - DEQ
A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Commission to amend the ,
Air, Water & Land Resources Quality Comprehensive Plan Report, Volume 1 ..
and to amend Volume 2, Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies
as recommended by the Department of Environmental Quality.
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Motion by Cowncilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to continue
to April 30, 1984.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. s;.
19. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AM°;NDMENT/CPA 8-84/POLICY 6.3.2 (b) i'IOMPATIBILITY
A recommendation by the City of Tigard Planning Corimission to amend ,
policy 6.3.2 (b), compatibility standards for density transition, in � .' :
Volume II, Findings, Policies and Imple•'entation Strategies.
a. Public Hearing Opened
•
b. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to continue
to April 30, 1984. 4
r
• Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
,.
ti
20. COMPREHENSIVE PLAT' AMENDMENT/CPA 9-84/CHA°TER 18.26 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEFINITION
y g Planning
A recommendation b the City o Ti and Commission to amend
Chapter 18.26 of the Community Development Code adding definitions for
"Rome Occupations"; "Remodel"; "Addition"; "C(2n patibility"; "Window";
II ',Facets.; and "Story, half".
a. Public Rearing Opened
b. Motion
y` Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to continue
to
April .i , 184
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present
21. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 10-84/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
A renOmmendation bythe Cityof Tigard Commission
8 Planning regarding
• various se .tiots of the Community Dove opment ';ode. A complete list of
the Sections recommended for amendments and the proposed language
changes etre available in the City t s Planning Department.
a. Public Hearing Opened
t ,
b. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to continue
to April, 30, 1984.
w
APProved byunanimous vote o f Counc cl Present.
ent
p r
w
22. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CSA 18.84/EDILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS
A recommendation by the City ` of Tigard Planning ;CommLssion regarding
Section 18.98 of the Community Development +Code.
Page 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES, .' APPtIL 1.3, 1984 1'.
iii.
* a^
i4 4
AGENDA ITEM 5.12
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 1984
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF T/G,ARDOREGONC40
,fi‘
T'J: Planning Commission March 23, 1984
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Policy 6.3.2(b)
In their letter of objection to the City's Comprehensive Plan, 1000 Friends of
Oregon
is a$ fol n issue regarding pall cy 6.3.2 b Their d acus oto of this k .
issue . .
Plan Contains Unlawful Va lIe and Discretionar Housin Polk :.
b Prior to LCDC's implementation of Goal 10, needed housing often became
excessively expensive because developers were forced to prove that their
projects met vague and discretionary approval criteria. This often required
money outlays for lawyers and interest. These costs were, of course, passed
on to the housing consumer.
' Recognizing that vague gue a PProval standards interfere with the intent of Goal
10LCDC adopted the following policy (now codified as OAR 660-08-015):
Local approval standards, special conditions and procedures
regulating the development of needed housing must be clear
aii ob iective, and must not have the effect, either of
themselves or cumulatively of discouragingousa.��g
through unreasonable cost or delay.
*�eedd h
Ti
gand Ms comprehensive plan contains a policy which viol
he
ates this standard.
Policy 6.3.:2 b (Plan, P. II-37) says,.
•
WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS' AN EXISTING HOUSING
OUSINC
DEVELOPMENT, T
T`HE HOUSING TYPES SHALL BE CMjPATIEL . ► �
E AMPLE W .�
WHICH ARE ATTACHE
�.., D ARE CONSIDERED TWO HOUSING UNITS
CC1 ;IBLE WITH A DE.�A,` CHED SINGLE FAMILY UNIT; BHT
1PAT
2.
MORE THAN;; TWO HOUSING UNITE WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE NOT
-
CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH A SIt4t�LE � FAI�I��` DE'rAC11EII UNIT
temphasis added].
The pol:Lcyls compatibility standard is vague, discretionary and 'open ended
Though the l'*eample'l given in the policy is clear and objective (and hence
IV I
44
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
mARCH 23, 1984
PAGE 2_
permissible), it is included in the policy only as an example. Housiug
providers are hence forced to play a guessing game regarding any other
'tlexamplesia or instances of incompatibility which may exist.
Polic:ir 6.3.2 b. must either be deleted from the plan or amended so that all
requirements for developments abutting existing neighborhoods are' spelled out
in a clear and objective manner."
Staff agrees that thy: examples cited in the policy are not specific enough and
make the policy coufusing. Staff recommends that, the policy be amended ,. .
deleting the words as underlined below:
WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS AN EXISTING HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYPES SHALL BE COMPATIBLE. FOR
EXAMPLE:
1. TWO ROUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE CONSIDERED
COMPATIBLE WITH A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UGIT, EUT
2. RE 'THAN TWO HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE NOT fi wwr+ww,�,
CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1
Staff recommends that the Planning Coutmitsion forward a recommendation to the
' City Council amending policy 6.3.2 (b) by deleting the examples contained,' ire
the policy.;
' (EAN.pm10373P +.
{
{
.4' I
a.
a u N {•
- t
a j