Planning Commission Packet - 04/22/1975 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
� ` .
AGENDA - Study Session
TIGARD PLANNTNG COMMISSION
Apri1 22, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
Twality Junior High achool - lecture rootn
14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. MINOR LAND PARTITIONING
MLP 2-75 (Ashbrook Farm/Peterson)
A request to approve t�}e artitioning of lot 22, Ashbrook Farm,
11090 SW 9�th. �-�'u�i�ec� �r'o►r� �as-� ►nre�'�'n9 �
4. FROGRESS REPORT ON NPO FORMATION
5. DISCUSSION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Proposals for the May 6 hearing
6. DISCUSSION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
�`V ommercial-industrial uses in M-4 and C-3
applicable to c
zone districts.
7o STREET NAME CHA.NGES
8. OTHER BUSINESS
g. ADJOURNMENT
a
�
{
� I
�
I
�
�
�`'
� � O`"��/j ' r°'�a'�.�3'l
��_
�.... � , �
MINUTFS
TIGARD PLANIVING CON�+[ISSION
� Study Session - Apri1 22, 1975
Twal3.ty Jun�.or High School - Lecture Room
. 14650 S. W. 97th Avenue
Tigard, Oregon
1. CAL� TU ORDER
The meeting was calied to order at 7:45 p.m.
2. �bLL CALL
. �Members presents Hartman, Hansen, Nicali, Porter, Sakata,
Wakem, Whittaker; Powell, staff
3. �IINOR I:AND PARTTTIONING
MLP 2-'75 (Peterson)
� A pax�titioning of lot 22, Ashbrook Farm, at 11095 SW 95'�h
, A. Staff report was read by Powell.
B, l�ublic Testimony
�- • b Mr. Peterson described his proposal.
o Wkiittaker asked if he intended to extend the �iriv�way
` thrAUgh the site.
' o Mr. Pe�erson said he did not.
o Sakata asked about sewer connections.
. o Mr. Peterson replied they were in already.
C. Staff Recommendation
APPROVAL
D. Cornmission Discussion and Action
o piscussi:on centered on whether there wauld be a future
need for aacess to the re�r of this site and whether
there was a need for street improvements or dedication
on SW 95th.
o Moved to approve (Hartman) , seconded (Hanson)
� o Vote tio approve, unanimous, none�• opposed.
� _ _ _ _ _
• ' ;
4. PROGRESS REPORT�rJ N.P.0 o FORMATI ON �-,�'
Staff Memorandum Membership Structure of NPO's 4 and 5,
- dated April 22, 1975 '
�_
Discussion primarily dealt with the way in which members
would be chosen and the potential ��loading�� of the NP0's
with individuals representing a specific interest. Gon-�
cex�n was t�oiced that some common members - members of
, bQth Np0!$ - were necessary to preserve conti:nuity of pur-
' pose betweeM ad�acent planning areas. '
Porter suggested a proportional voting scheme be used to j
select delegates. Question was raised abou� the legal
standing of ttle NPO�s. '�
WYiittaker said there had been a problem defining legal
. sta�us, btat that the Council was taking st�ps to remedy
` � that.
For$er said he thought that representation ought to be
weigh�t�d i�n favor of residents.
, � Wakem said a simple methodology for the selection process
as 'well as for selecting alternative planning schemes would
be pref��able to a complex one and that the '�general assembly"
ough�t' ta have the opportunity to propose alternatives early
in the process and then have the opportunity at a later point
_ to select from several likely alternatives instead of bei.ng
;
�,y given a "fait accomplit" to ratify.
Porter said he was not in favor of the staff-proposed
�election method.
' Whittaker said the "town meeting�� concept would help to gain
" • in�:tial f.nput -- that the problem with the process in NPO #1
was later when the plan was "presented�' ta the people.
Wakem said the idea was to maintain contact with the public --
� that that was where NPO #1 had failec� its exppctations.
5. DISCUSSION OF ZONING ORDJNANCE AMENDMENTS
A. Powel.l read memorandum on ZOA strategy, outlining the
staff's overall approach. Staff proposed the current
etetus of proposed amendments and then read the revised
woxding of the C-P zone amendment.
B. Commission Discussion
o Porter suggested that lang�zage be tightened up tc�
restrict view of signs from o�'f the site.
{
�� PC Minutes - April 22, 1975 - page 2 �,
, i
t
R
,
;
;
� � � � � �� � � � � �i
i:,_ .
o Whittaker said he felt confiden+ in��he Design Review
, Board's ability to deal with those questions. He
thought the Design Review Board ought to review the
� ordinance before it is approved.
a Whittaker asked if staff had resolved the problem
with defining "garden court apartments".
o �'owe11 responded tlaat an alternative worda.ng that
would be consistent in the code was being worked on.
o Hartraan asked if an amendment to increase th� lot
si�e requiremerits for duplexes in an R-7 zone could
be developed by staff.
o Powell responded that he would discuss it with Bolen.
o Powell said th�t it would take some time to work
out the overall effect of the presently-proposed
ordinance amendments and that with the process now
, staTted, there would be a constant, ongoing revision
process taking place.
6. DISCUSSION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO CONDITTONAL
USE PERMITS
o Hansen asked if staff would contact Clark County or visit
. the mini-warehouse commercial project off St. Johns Rd.
�
near BPA in Vancouver.
o Staff said they'd look into it.
• o Whittaker asked for an opinion from the City Attorney on
. whether permitted uses are foreclosed or modified by
the existence of a conditional use permit for a specific
� use nf a premise.
7. STREET NAME CHANGES (M 3-75)
A. Staff explained that the Planning Commission had authority
to change the names of streets (in conformance with state
snd county street names policy) by resolution. No public
hearing is required unless a contest is involved.
B. Commission Discussion and Action
o Wakem moved approval of a reso�ution to change the
'. • names of subjec,t streets per staff recommendation.
o Seconded (Porter) , approved.
8. OTfiF'rR BUSINESS
�:
PC Minutes - April 22, 1975 - page 3
�,
� - ,..
�;'� �
�, �;
�.
' A. Transportation Planning
� (1) Porter repo .rted on his transportata.on study asked
previously by the Commissionv Summarized, his
major points were that:
1. A mass transit alternative should be considered
in future planning -- that future land use
planning should recognize the potential for
' transit service and allow for it.
2. Design of transportation system should consider
trip to work peak hour in order ta provide
best economy and satisfy greatest need.
3. Design alternatives should include park and
ride and express service to Portland (already
included in Tri-Met plans) and con�ider in-
creased service levels for these alternatives.
4. A possible innovation that could be developed
in the Tigard area is a shuttle bus service
�.ncorporating mini buses or special b�ses
such as school bu:ses out of service at the
time.
B. Discussion
: � o Much interest surfaced in the possibility of the
City of Tigard operating a mini bus/school bus
° system auxilliary to Tri-Met, serving the town.
o Porter said that there appear� to be no legal reason
�he City couldn't and that demonstration grant money
could be available. The cost of operation, maintenance
and insurance was mentioned as major problems.
o Location and design of transit stations was briefly
brought up.
. o Whittaker said that he thought Bolen. and Buttke were
going to aontact Tri-Mete
o Porter said he would have his report in a publishable
form fairly soon.
9. ADJOURNMFNT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pamo
� PC Minutes - April 22, 1975 - pag� 4
� _ _ _,.
� � �
� Tigard Planning Commission
Staff Report
April 15, 1975
Agenda Item 6
(�LP 2-75 (Ashbrook f arm)
(�inor Land Par•titianinq
A rec�uest to partition a . 66 acre parcel on the ea5t side
of S.W. 95th Avenue, between Shady l.ane a�d North Dakote
Streets. (Tax �Iap 1S1 35A, Tax Lot 1400)
Aaplicant
Charles Peterson (staff has varified ownership)
Applicant' s Request
To divide the subject parcel into 3 separate parcels f�r
purpose af providzng single famil�r hausing sites.
Staff Findin�s �
�
1. Parcels 2 and 3 on the attached map have alreacty
been built upon, withou� planning commission approval.
However this is the Fault of the City in th�t a
permit Was issued. The only remaining l�t to be built �
on is the only parcel remaining to be built upon. ;
j
2. The proposal conforms with NPO Plan #2 which designates thi� �
area appropriate for single family development �
3. The 1ot sizes conform to the present R-7, Single Family �
R�sidential zoni�g.
4. The proposed 20 foat Wide access me�ts the zoning ordinance
access �tancJard for twa dwelling units, provided that
80% is paved.
5. The granting oF this request tiill not result in an undersirabla
or unacaeptable burden upon the community and nearby area
in the staff' s judgement. {
StafP Recommendation
To be advised following ��.ose of public hearing. �
�
q
�� ,. _ _ _ . _ _
LoCA T ED i N DA1�l C� G G�ANAM D.C.C•"'S2
� t NCv4 SECT1ol�1 35, T- IS, R-tw,wM•
( � ASH ING I ON C'OUN`f.'Y� �CZG ►n�' �/'�"�Y�-S ('�,�f�crs
5C/�f._C . �"_ SO' DATE : �-20�� C4.rv� C
�+hprlcS w i�
..lob No. 72-33'i3 G f p �' ,C�:�e�!,� 5�itr,�.,,pl�o�
r3RS�s o� L�C.IaI�IUG: c,s� Nz39
t. F�r�: ' -TotG-? ���d .G 7 �e res
�- f�ENoTCs PTS. Fn. .
O-SETs�g�x?A"LO�JGIRof� Roh � _:��• _-.-_-... _.____
- 40.00 �%! �.;C . . ��+:
o.5. N .v�l. . ;! 1 n:; ;-` � �I��!.� ;�,
. �' _ .,,.�
r��w M��.��_ i� - _.. .:. .... - .. ,_:-..�.�
� r '�%.<<••�:.�, ��1/�`il�f'":r.—.-y.�w
M s� '4"=.�r� . �--. -. :�," ; ,- �;�---..--�t
'M � �.1.W.�d2 ;' � , i"�� . i:
°� � T(LI4op �, ,•� �r � .. ,, t I!
, � :�:
. �N 3°I•`�I ,Q,_ ��Z:'L.r,f". S,w. c ot� 1�, . . .. . . _ . . � , _. :'
yF„�,. �r. 't � � i .
� R�U� <_�� °_� �' , . . , ..�.N� •� �• ! _ ,:�:<:ri
„�td�l... _, �. ,• '' � . . ;'hl,.• :�/.: �
$ o ` 'I;G . � � • .. , ' . ,t �
� � 35.4\ �� , i
� _� _.__ � p I
, ,v i
S/„�.a,r.-S � `�- a �G./3�0 �
-Q r,�o`.
c�.GCoR. � ,;� 0
�OT" 8 � �
h� -r�y
t���naW v,cW N N-�`i�3G�=� ���E R
.�iT
1�� , f�ly ����.R.F.
� �, i i ,.,._ ?_I S.•2'..3 _. .,__
Q ` ^ '—._._ ..— _,.
� Vl ��'\�_S'/�'.L.R,F. (ao.� .., ^ II 3. 7_3�� % �
a ,' ` �, ► � T/G.
�� ' -�c_
^ .� ,q-o� . �� r I�/aR� � �-- 'n ����
� � Q %K� �y � � ;Z�3 23' �}
�, n ,� �o x � � .
0 ,� � �pj�;ncn
;� � � I' �'' r /�'�o.��� � __=-= -- ---�� �n `o
,• _�^ _._. G/.s. .c�. .S �vauGl ..:� � �D
, / _��,_' � '�c_.._ .. �.. '��3G �:';J=��r��—I- -- -- � �
U �joO,o� '�T J - ;' 0 12 o r ` p�
• • ( � \�` T'fG ��I`�C7o w _ � , K F"e'� Pad �
�, ' �� � �-��� � C� L ���� y . � ( � � ,
. �
� I � � � E�0`' 2 � o�
' . � � `'� �,, E�,Srr,oc..t
. � /v x.Z�3.23.
l Y ( , ' � !
� � �'�`��jG� � r ^ � ' � � VI b//3, �.s' ._., , ,� !�,.��.�C.R,F.
• �-_- .-��'��_'� � ,z/3..�3-- — -- --^-=='_."" 4�
� ., ��:{z.F. 3
' a i 3����.!?�"• .t/•���'�G�S�- �= �nt. �F Sui o�.
a � �'� 3.�� TfL l�}c��.,
N '
� ;7 o a '.. . :. . . . � "
� �, ,;,;'rt:y., , , ' .... • ,. .
h�2a Iz •
, „
0
i �J �; -
r
i �
___—____ ._..._ _ � � __ . . . _
. , . ,.��„�_r.�,,�.�„�_,n�
_ --�.�.�._ , _ .
�,
� ��, �.
° - ��
t
�
Cll°Y OF TIGARD
�.�� d!!,,o ,.
P. O, Box 23557
12420 S, W. Main ,
Tigard. Oregon 97223
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission Members
Fromt Planning Director
Subject: Membership Structure of NPO's 4 & 5
Date: April 22, 1975
Neighborhood Planning Organizations No. �+ and 5 present some new
issues for Tigard's citizen planning effort due to the large
amounts o.f existing and potential commercial and industrial land
and especially the growth which is occurring in areas previously
� used and zoned residentially. The primary issue to be considered
is how to constitute the N.P.O. membership in order that each of
the various interests are represented and to an equitable degree.
A properly constituted N.P.O. is the mos� effective means of re-
solving conflicting interests while resulting in. development of
� a plan most acceptable to the entire neighborhood.
The followi.ng represents a listing of the major interests existant
in each N. P. 0. and subsequently recommends a membership com-
position.
I Land Use �Interest Groups - N.P.O. 's 4 & 5
1. Resident of an area planned in 1971 to remain residential
2. Resident of an area p_lanned in. 1971 to be converted to
somE use .other than residential
3. Absentee landowners
4. Businesses - commercial
5. Businesses - industrial
These interest groups are defined as follows:
1. Resident of an area planned in 1971 to remain reside�.tial:
anyone residing in an area which is depicted �n either
the Community Plan o�r the Triangle Plan to remain in
residential. use (single farriily or apartments) .
2. Resident of an area lanried in 1971 to be converted to
some use other than residential: anyone residing �.n an
area which is depicted on either the Community Plan or
� the Tri�ngle Plan to be converted from residential use
to commercial or industrial use.
, • , 1.�.. 4' . .
3. Absentee landowners: any person or corporation owning
real property in the neighborhood who resides or has its
�', primary business office outside of the planning area.
4. Businesses - commercial: any retail, service or pro-
fessional business located within �;he neighborhood.
5. Business - industrial: any manufacturing, warehousing
or wholesale distribution business located within the
� neighborhood.
II Structure of the N.P.O. memberships
A. NPO #4 - Tigard Triangle
l. Resident of an area planned in 1971 5 reps.
to remain. residential
2. Resident of an area planned in 1971 1 rep.
to be converted to some use other than
residential
3. absentee landowneis 1 rep.
4. businesses - commercial 5 reps.
5, businesses - industrial 0 reps.
12 total
B. NPO #5 - Freeway Industrial & Rolling Hills
� 1. Resident of an area planned in 1971 5 reps.
to remain residentia�
2. Resident of an area planned in 1971 1 rep.
to be converted to some use other
than residential
3. Absentee landowners � rep. �
4. Businesses - commercial 1 rep.
5. Businesses - industrial 4 reps.
12 total
III Comments
Both NPO 's are proposed to provide an equal representation I
between the interests of residents and those of business people I
and developers. With twelve members the resultant 6 to 6 split �I
should result in neither group having a voting advantage. A
deadlock over any issue wou�d hopefully result in a compromise
solution, making the plan more acceptable to the larger community.
The diffeientiation between the two types of residents is made I,
because it is assumed that the point of view of persons living in '
� an area planned for conversion to commercial or industrial develop- ,
ment could differ from persons living in an area planned to remain
in residential use. The person whose property is subject to con-
version could either be agreeable to the increased potential value
� of his land or opposed to being forced from his domicile. This
person therefore represents somewhat of an unknown quantity and
could be aligned with the business representatives rather than the
residents as previously assumed.
Memo 4/22/75 - page 2
• a
. ,
� _ ,
4/22/75
� �,
Subject: Zonyng Ordinance Amend�ents
�..,,
The proposed amendments tabled at this tirne are:
l. Amendment of Section 18.20.030, adding a 60 ' minimum
average lot width to the lot size standards in an R-7
zone.
2. Amendment of Section 18.40.011, adding "Garden Apartments"
to the conditional uses in a C-P zone and 18.40.070, ex-
panding the allowable sign t3rpes and providing design
review.
3.' Amendment of Sections 18.48.010 and 1�.48.020 - modify the
permitted and conditional uses in an M-3 zone.
� 4. Amendment of Sections �8.52.010 and 18.52.020 to modify
the permitted and con.ditional uses in an M-4 zone.
5. Amendment of.Sections 18.59.010, 18.59.030 and 18.59.040
to exterr�: the jurisdiction of architectural design review
to signs and providing additional criteria and procedure.
6. Amendment of Section 18.92.060 to provide fees for archi-
tectural design review and flood plain permits and to
review the existing fee schedules.
�.
� Staff proposes to deal with the above as four separate issues:
ZOA 2-75 .Amending Ch. 18.40
ZOA 3-75 Amending Ch. 18.48 and 18.52
ZOA 4-75 Amending Ch. 18.59
ZOA 5-75 Amending Ch. 18.92
We feel that this will provide the staff -and Commission a better '�''
chance to deal with each set of related issues without getting into �;
a situation wherein the separate proposals would be passed, modified ij
or failed without regard to their relatedness or independence. ;',
��
,.
Cur�ent Status
FI
1. ZOA 2-75 �- the difficulties seen by the Commission have been ;;
substantially worked out �nd the proposal is again ready ,s"
for Commission discussion. i
i
2. ZOA 3-75 - a study of the various impacts of a commercia�- r
industrial interpretation of M-4 intent on the present M-4 ``
zone is not yet under way. Any further pra�ress on this �
amendment will depend on (1) further study a�id (2) a policy �
decision as to how the '�M" zones shou�d be imployed with �
respect to the comp:reher�sive plano Staff recommends pursuing. �
� t
;
�_ 3. ZOA 4-75 - awaiting further information ?
�
4. ZOA 5-75 - needs further study. '
�
. �
,
�
� < . . , . ..:�
J
. � �.�, . . � � . . . . . .�.
���
T0: Tigard Planning Commission
FR0�1: . StafP
SUBJECT: Change of street names: ,
S.W. ?7th Avenue
S.W. Cherry Street
S.W. Watkins Avenue (part)
S.W. Watkins Court �
SaW. Post Road I
S.W. 106th Avenue '
S.W. Tigard Stseet (part) I
Changes described as: I�
1. That portion of street bearing sou�h of S.W. Uarns Stre�t
to S.W. 72nd Aven�ue known as S.W. 77th Avenue and S.W.
Cherry Avenue be changed to S.W. Cfierry Drive:
2. That portion of street bearing northeast of S.W. Walnut
Street joining to S.W. Brooksida Avenue known as S.W.
Watkins Avenue be changed to S.W. Brookside Avenue:
3. Tfiat portion of streot bearing northWest of S.W. Watkins
Avenue as a cul-de-sac knoun as S.W. Watkins Court be
changed to S.W. Brookside Court:
' � 4. That portion of street in Summerfield knoWn as S.W.
Post Road be changed to S.W. Greens� Way:
5. That portior� of street bearing northeast of S.W. Walnut
Street knoWn as S.W. 106th Avenue to be changed to S.W. '
106th Drive (this portion is in 'the Caunty)
f. That portion of street bearing north from the intersection
of S.W. Tigard Street and S.W. Tigard Drive and Formerly
. knoWn as S.W. Tigard Street to be changed t� S.W. 106th
� Drive;
These changes have been requested by the public Works department
to bring existing street names ioto conformance With city street
names policy and to alleviate present conflicting names.
�, '
r. _ .. .. : s ,� -.... _ ,.a. , • ,�„ . , .,_ _. .. �i�n-,�