Planning Commission Packet - 02/27/1979 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
AGEI3DA
STUDY SESSION
,° TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Feb�u.ary 27, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Rpom
10865 S.W. Walnut Street � Tigard, Oregon
1. Open Meeting:
2. Roll Call:
3. Planning Commission Communicatbon:
4. Discus5ion Items;
A. Mr. John Adams, representing the Suanmerfield R�etirement project will
present a phased development, east of the shopping centar off
Pacific Highway and S.W. Durham Road. This presentation was a
condition of the total project when approved in 1975.
B. R�view and discuss "Draft Ordinance Revisions for Subdivision, Major
& Minor Land Partition, Planned De�relopment, and Others.
C. Review and discuss "Chapter 18.57, Sensitive Land Considerations -
�'lood Plain, Drainageways and Greenways.
D. Discuss letter sent to all memUers of the Site Design Review Board
from the Planning Director :regarding the "I�sign Review B�ard".
�" 5. Adj�ournment:
I
I
�
' _ ,
. . . ...:..__... . . . � . ... . . . . . .
Ghaptez 18.5�
� Sensitive Lanci Corisiderations
F�.00d Plain, Drainageways and Greenways
�+ect ions:
18.57.010 Intent and purpose.
18.57e420 Definitions.
18.57.030 Permitted uses.
18.57.040 Prohibited uses and activities.
18,57.05A Noncanfoxming uses.
18.57.060 Special permits or exceptiotts.
1$.57.070 Standards for permitted structures.
18.57.075 Treatment of created hardships.
18.57.080 .Appeal to city cou�cil.
18.57.090 Army Corps study.
i ��
�
. . t .. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. � . . _. . . _. ... . .. ... ._ .. . � . . ., . . ..
�
18.57.O1Q Statement of Intent:. Open Space is considered �o be land unsuit-
able for development because of location within the 100 year floodplain or t"��
within the drainageway associated with the floodplain or the slope� along,these
areas. Open space may al.so be land designat�d for park development or land
designated as a greenway area.
This section of the cc�de seeks ta protect and preserve natural water
storage areas, tlaodplains and drainageway areas ancl the greenways by discouragi.ng
vr prohilaiting i.ncompatible uses except in those instanees where findings may
properYy be made by rhe Planning Comarission or City Council allowing limited use
of such areas.
The substantive el.emenk.s upon wh.ich this cYiapter is based may be refe.renced
in Ordinance 77-70 passed by the Tigard City Council August $, 1977 entitled
,� °�'�"°' , „
"Environmental Design and Open Space P7.an."
18.57.Q20 Definitions. In this chapter the followin.g wards and phases shall
be construed to have the specific meanings assigned to them as follows:
(1) "Fill" means any act by which earth, sand, gravel, rock or any other �
sianilar materia], is deposited, placed, pulled or transported and inaludes the
conditions resulting therefram. !
(2) "Flood" means a temporary rise in stream flow that results in water I
E
overtopping stream banks and inundating land adjacent the normal flow of water �
through the stream channel. :�;:�,
�i
(3) "F1ood hazard" means an immediate danger to property or health as the �!
1
result of inundation of the floodplain. �
�
;
�3
�
, � 3 e
i;
�
k
(4) "Floodplain" means the relatively flat area or lowlands adjoining the
channel of a rivery stream, watercourse or other body of water which has been `
;
or may be cnvered by floodwaters within the area of applicability defined by
the floodplain district.
(5) "Floodplain district" is defined as those areas within the City of
Tigard inundated by the one hundred year regulatory flood as defined by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(5) "F1ood surface elevation." Those elevations depicted on the tloodplain
series maps are based on mear sea level datum� and their locations are an
indication of the surface elevations at that location.
(7) "Obstzuction" means ar�y dam, wall., embankment, levee, dike, pile,
abutment, projection, excav�ation, channel modifica�ir�n, bridge, conduit, culvert,
builcling,gxavel, refusea fill, structure or matter irl, along, or across or
projecting into any channel, watercourse, or floc�dplain drainageways areas which
a �y �
may impede, retard or change the direction c�f the flow of waCer, ei�her in it- �
self or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water, ar that is placed
;
where the flow of water might carry the same downstream s�o the damage of health �;
,
or propertp.
�
(8) "Regulatory flood" means the flood used to define the outer boundary
linea of the floodplain flistrict. The maximum flood predicted to occur within ��
each one hundred years. i
, i
(91"Struc[ure" means constructed edifice or building of a•ny kind. s�
'1
(10) "Drainageways" are defined as those areas, associated with the floodplain :�,1�
which convey concentrations of water over or near the surface of the land whether 1
�'
i
or not there is a visible channel and include portions of slopes E
i
down which water travels to reach said areas. ' '
�.
i�
�
� (11) "Wetlands" are defined as those areas where the water table seasonally �
c
within li feet or less of the surface due to low lying, poorly drained soils. ±"
�.
;
,..
�
i'
�
�
. �
�., _ . -- ......�
. 4 �
(12) "Greenways" are defined as lands tihat. esCablish a greenway system that
`
wiZ1 (a) tie together recreation areas, schools, and their service
areas; (b� provide prntecti�e bu�fers between inco�npatible land uses;
(c) reduce flood t►azard by restricting development along natural t
drainageways; (d) provide o�portunities �ar passive recreation
activities; (e) a�ford alternaCive pedestrian and bicycle circulatzon
routes separated £rom the street system and motorized vehiCles; a�d
(f) preserve the amenity �f the area.
In reference to the Ti.gard Community Plan of October 1971, page 51.
(13) "Steeply sl.oping 1.ands" are portions of the ground surface which have
a sla�e of 127 or greater, as shown on maps marked Exhibit "B", tifiled
"�ity af �igard and Vicinxty - Environmental Con�traints."
18.57.Q30 Permitted uses. 'The following uses by their nature do• x�ot
threaten obstruction of water flow i.n the floodplain and do not �.mpair the
water storage capacity of the floodplain and shall be permitted within the
�loodplain district subject to the limitations in this section, however,
each and every request tor any development within any pe�rtion �f the Flood-�
plain Drainageway steep slope, wetland, or Greenway area sha11 require a i
i
permit. '
j
i
(17 Flaodpl.ain nistrict: t
�
a) Off-street parking and maneuvering areas, acce�s ways and service �
j
drives Iocated on the ground surface. ExcavaCian, grading and paving may occur �
�
,
to constr.uct said facilities; however, no fi].1 shal:l, be allowed for construction j
'i
of said facilities other than gx'avel. for a paving base and only an amount !
,
of gravel commensurate with city construction standards for said faciliGies ;
�:��.
� ;,� {
shall be allowed; ��� !
i
I
i
. . 5
b) Aecessory residential uses such as lawns, gardens or play areas
noC causing substantial o�sfirucr_ions to floodwaters and including fen�es
��.
designed to minimize the obstxuction of floodwaters �.xrr� fload-�carried debris;
c) Roadways, i�ridges or utilitq structures designed to nofi significantly
impede the flow of floodwaters;
d) Agri.cultural uses conducted without locating a structure in the
floodplain district including a boundary fence designed to minimize the
obstruction of floodwaters and flood-carried debris;
e) Coamunity recreational uses such �as bicycle and pedestrian paths,,
archery range, athletic field or parks. The recreational use sha11 not include
any permanent structures causing a significant obstructian to the flow of
floodwaters;
f) Public and pri.vate conservation' areas for the conservation oE
water, soi1, open sgace, foxest or urildlife resouxces.
' ' � (2) Drainageways and wetland�: The following uses are generally compatible'
w�ith the purposes of this Chapter in minimizing human injury and propexty
damages, enhancing the environmentaJ. quality of the City, controlling erosion,
and siltation, preserving water quality and quan�ty, and protecting natural
vegetatian and wildlife;
a) Accessory residential uses such as landscaping or gardens which do
nat significantly impede the flow of floodwaters and which preserve major
components of the natural vegetation;
b) Necessary roadways, bridges, or utility structures designed which
do not significantly impede the flow of floodwaters;
c) Low-intensity recreational uses such as �icycle and pedestrian paths.
The recreational use shall not include any permanent structures causing a
significant obsCruction to the fZow af floadwaters;
�.
�
F
6 �
s
d) PubYic and private conservation areas for the conservation of water, �
S
soil, open space, forest or wildlife resources. j
,
J
� (3) Steeply sloping lands: The fo'Llowing uses aXe generally compatible with �
the purpases of this Chapter in minimizing humati injury and proper�y damages, �
enhancing the environmental qual.ity of the City, con.trolling erosion, and ;
siltation, presPrving water quali.ty and quantity, and protacting natural,
vegetation and *:�ildlife:
a) CYn slopes b�tween 12% and 25%y as indicated an the 1°City of Tigard.
and Vicinit}r Environmenta7. Constraints" Maps -� "Exhibit B", single familq
residences and appurtenant structures not to exceed a clensity of two (2)
dewlling units per gxos5 acres o� the azea liaving that slope.
b) Necessary roactway�, bridges or utility structures designed and
�
constructed with minimum grading and fillin�.
c) L�w-�intensity recreational uses such as bicycle and pedestrian ;
�
pathsa °
d) Landscapin� or gardens wk�ich aprovide substantial vegative eover. �
e) Public and private conservati.on areas for the conservation of water,. �;
a
soil, open space, forest or wildli.fe resources. � ;;
18.57.040 Prohibited uses and activities. The following uses and
,�
activities a�e prohibited except pursuant to special permit �ranted by the
Pl.anning Comm�ission based on �indings as by Sectiore 18.57.060 provided; or
as r�tr�erwise permitted by Sertion 18.57.30;
A. Within all sensitive lands:
1. Filling:
2. Permanent structures permitted in other zoned areas of the
�
eity; except those listed in Y8.57.030 above.
,
!
�
r
-- -----=�
,::.
�
, . , 'l
3) Dumping of garbage, rubbish, debris, junk, or any other soZid
waste;
4) Lxcav�ting;
5) R�moving any live vegetation other than poison oak, tansy
ragwort, blackberry or any ather naxious vegetation identified by the
Planning Director.
B. Within drainageways, wetlands, and floodplains:
]., Subsurface sewerage disposal septic tanks ansl drain fields.
C. Within floodplain:
1. .Any temporary structure which by its nature cannot be .
readily removed from the floodplain area during periods of flooding and
which wauld signifi.cantly impede or interfere with the flow of flaodwater� I
within the distri�ct;
2. Any change in the topography or tesrain whic.h wou�.d have a
t "�- substantial tendenr_y to change the flow c�f waters during flooding period or
which would increase flood k�azard or aZter the d�.rection or velocity of the
floodwater flow;
I 1�.57.050 Nonconforffiing uses. Any pre-existing �ond�tion or
structure within the(floodplain) sensitive lands district is subject to the
provisians of Chapter 18.68 of this Code.
18.57.460 �ec�'1a1 permits or exceptions. In accordance with the
procedures and requirements set forth in Chapter 18.84 of this Code, an
application for a special use permit filed as by said chapter stated may be
approved or denied by the Planning Commission following a public hearing.
�
_
: _ _ �
, , . g � ,
All applications f�or a "gpecial use P�rui,it" sha11 be '
suppor�ed. by the following information to enable the Elanning Commission to ���..�
adequately determine whether the proposed use is located in the fl�odplain
or drain.aoeways district and if so, whether the proposal, if granted, wi11
conform to the purposes and guidelines as set forth in this Chaptez;
' A. Elood Iain:
1 Plans drawn to s�ale, submiCted i,n �ripli.cate as prepared by a
registered professional engineer with experi.ence in lxydraulic and hydrologic
princi�les and processes showing the naeure, locat7.on, da.mensions, elevatians and
topography a� the site; the locaCion of existing a:nd proposed structures Iocated
upon the site, existing and proposed fill areas, and the rel.ationship of these
to the loeation of the stream channel and proposed method.s for controlling ero�i�n..
(2) Any documentation., photographs, water. mark.s, anci similar evidence
of�ereci �.n support of the claim tha� the site or area in q,uestion lies above
high water a� defined by the regulatory flaod; � ' -
(3) If it is determined by the YYanning Commission that td�e proposed use is ��
within ttze fZoodplair► district as herein defined, the applicant sha1Z €urni.sh such
further information, data and evidence as may be reasonably available tn support
�he granting of the permit in accordance with �he fo3.�.owing guidelines, in the .
. absence of rah.icl� said petition sha11 be d.�ni.ed by the Planning Commissi.an.:
(a) Proposed improvements wi11 not change the Flara of fl.00dwaters
during future flooding such as to cause a com�aoundi.n� a� flood hazards and to
thereby seriously intexfere with the intent and Qurposes of the floodplain
district regulations.
(b) No structure, fiXl, storage or other uses sha11 be permitted which
would reduce the capacity of the £l.00dplain area or �caise th� flood sur�ace
elevation on adjacent properties, or creat�e a present or foreseeable hazard to
publ�ic health, safety and general welfare. � ����
, The city sha11 reserve the right to reta.i n a registered professional engineer
with experience in hydraulic principles and processes for the purpose of re-
viewing evidence submitted in support of any application for special use perunifisa
� 9 :;
,
, ;�
B. Drainagewa� and watlands �I
1. Plans drawn to scale, submitted i.n triplicate as prepared by
a qualified registered professional engineer showing the na.ture, location, dimensions,
elevations and tnpography of the site; the location of existing and p�oposed
�
structures located upon the site, existi.ng and propossd fill or excavated areas, ��
a
and the relationship of these to the location af the stream channel (if any), i
and pzoposed methods of controlling erosion; �
s
2. Affirmati.ve documentation that the proposed action will nat j
�
adversely impact runoff, erosion, ground stability, water quali.ty, ground water #
level, or flooding and that the site can support the proposed modification or i
i
structure, as designed, without damage:
3. A copy af the permit required by the State of �regan, under
;
Q.R<S. 541, for removal or fil7.ing of waterways, or positive evidence demonstrat-
ing that the provisions of this statute do not apply;
r 't� C. Steep slopes
1. Plans drawn to sGale, submitted in triplicate as prepared by
a qualified registered professional engineer showing the nature, location, dimen�
sions, elevations, and topography of the site; the location of existing and proposed
structures located upon the site, existing and proposed fill or excavated areas,
and proposed methods of controlling erosian;
2. Affirmative documentation that the proposed action will not
adversely impact runoff, erosion, ground stabxlity, water qualitq, ground water
1e��i, or flooding and that �he site can support t'he proposed modification or
structure, as designed, without damage.
18.57.070 Standards fox permit�ed structures. Any structure Qr
additions to existing structures permitted within the (floodplain) sensitive lands
�, district pursuant Sections 18.56.030, 18.56.050 or 18.56.060 sha17. comply wi�h the
� follawing standards:
I
�
� lo `
1. Permitted str�uctures, such as electrieal and service equip—
ment, etc., shall be canstructed at or above the regulatory flood protection ' �
elevaCion. Utility openings sha11 be sealed and locked; �
�. The lowes�. flood elevation c►€ a structiire designed for human �
occupancy s�iall be at least one and nne�half teet above the flood surface elevation;
3a xhe lower portions of any structttre sha11 be flood-�proofed
or otherwise protected from signifi,cant dlamage or inundation to a minimum flood
surface e`Levatian of the regulatory fl�od;
4. The design of substructur.es and stzuctural members of all
buildings shall be designed to withsLand expected water pressure and velocities
as well as minimize flaod risk conditions.
5. The provisions of Chaptez �0 ("Excavati.on and Grading'r)
of the Unitorm Buildirig Cades as adopted �y the City of Tigar� Code (14.04.Q20)
(b)), shall apply ta a11 buil.dings on or adjacent to steeply sloping land, the
setback requirements (Section 7011) being given particular attention.
�
18.57.075 Treatment of created hardships. It is the intention of �
this Ci.ty to acquire �or public use al?. lands within floodplains and drainage
;
basins. AII developments which ir.�clude portion,s of the floodplain or drainage '
basin wi�l be conditioned to dedicatE appropriate l.an�ds to the City if and when
developmenC takes pZace. This wil.l create cez�ain hardshi�s. It wi1l be the poli�y
of this Citp L•o al.�.ow increased density of buildable porti.ons of effected lands
in exchange for public dedications, or other applicable allowances as det�xxnined
bq either the Planning Commission or the City Council. Additional allo�,aances
shall mean, but shall not be l.iminted ta additional parking within the areaf in— i
cr�ased building coverage on the buildable land portio�, increased height, ete.
�t must be realized that the City will prote�t the communities interests generally '
and is able to use its authority to do so.
x
a,
�.
�
}
_
_ __ __ _ _ � _ _
,;
. �� � i
� 11
,
Wkien an application for development of property, any portion of
�,'
which is in a floodplain, drainageway or sensitive land is received by the Planning
Department the fol.lowing action shall, be taken.
--w---.M,..,,.'.,...,,.__
1. Staff wi11 determine the buildable land portion of the ; � ,. � �T
,
� +-� � � ���
total property involved in the proposed development. �f � ;����
2. The maxinium building density allowed in the underl.ying oiiel }4�i�
;�,� � ��:�,;
will be detezsnined for the builda�Ole land area. 'F � ��;,�
, �,r�.
� .: .-r.�Wt..:a�id;pp����.................�.
3: A 3.D' increase in allowed density will be considered if the,�
prop�sal is designated a Planned Unit nevelogment.
4. An additional 10� increase will be considexed above the
maximum allowable density af the underlying zone for ��at porti.on of the builsiable
land as determined by staff.
S. In other th�� residen�ial development allowances s�taaTl be
considersd by the Planning C�mmission if the proposal is a P�anned Unit Dev�lo�-
� ��
ment. Allowances Co consider are greater land caverage for commercial buildings,
adciitional heighl: considerations, or inereas� parking spa�e allowances.
;
;
18.57.080 A��e�a.l to City Council. An appeal af any decision by • �
�. �
b
the Planning Co�ission a�ay be filed wzth the Gity ReaQrder for hearing by the " �
�:
City Council as provided hy Chapter I8.92. . . :j
A
I8.57.090 The Ar�y Cor�s of Engineers floodplain Study and the
;7
� CH2M Hill Storm water drainage Study be made a part af this ordinance followi ��� } � '"�� r;
,
t��i r� ��
.1 i� F r a x:. � ���i
receipt of the studies and adoption of this ordi.nance, ' i.'�� �' �'
s 3,:.
ti �; �
s��� ' �'
�,:c �, . �;.
t��'� �,
1�;�.� ��
�
"� I.;� ��
t � �,.
� r,�}r�,;�`, , �=i
. _ ,r���
:����
� ; �5
.� ,
'•.ik ,
^«'i�,i
� . � '. ���
. �,r.
. . . .. . . � ` �
1 e,
. . , . .. �� . :".�I�S�
. � . � . � .. �� ���
(
4�`�
�^ _._ ie%'s.
' ° ' SFEC IAL �JSE PERMI T i
APPLICaTION FILE r
E'EE REC'D. '
�igard Planning Commission 639-4171 RECETPT #
1.2420 S .W. Main St . , Tigard, Oregon 97223 pATE REC 'D. �
BY �
_.__ I
PLEASE PRINT IN IIVK OR TYPE �
Action Requested
Applicant ' s Name � Phone
Applicant' s Address
(Stxeet) (City) (State (Zip)
Owner ' s Name Pho;��
O=.�mer' s Address
Stzeet) Czty State Z�p
Applicant is: Owner Con�ra�t Purchasec� Dev�loper Agent
Other • •
Or�,�wner Recognition of Application: '
signature o� o4mer (s)
� Person resUOnsible for application
(Street) (City) (S�at�) (.Zip)
Registered Engineer ' s Name � Phone
Registered Engin.eer' s Office Phone
Registered Engineer ' s Address .
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip}
PROPEI2TY INVOLVED: Tax Map # Tax Lot (s)
Address ArEa
(acres)
.� '.sting Buildings (� and type )
Currsnt Zoning Current Use
Applicant ' s . A�aplicant' s
Proposed Zoning Proposed Use
OVER -
.
_ ._ _ . _ : _ , , . 1 �.., ;
,_ _
. �..'. ._ . ._.. _ . __�_._�_.:__ ..... _. ,..�.,
_ . _ � ..
� � Page 2 � , .
, ' ,,
_ SPECFAL USE PERMI T- � � �
.. . .,.n.
,.
L��-
�'i11 mYP� of fill:
Cubic ya.rds af fill o�
Ar�a of aite to be oecupied by fill: sq. ft:
{Sq.Ft. (Fill) /5q.Ft. (Si�e)) x I00 = $ of •site to he
. ��.xiea.
Distanee o� fi11 from stream's edge : Horizontal D�.stance F�.
� Veztical, Drop: �Ft..
Typz af bank �a be insta�.I.ed:
Net change .in stor�ge capacity of :�1oad�7.ain resul�ing from fill.
CU.�'t.
Will the fill increase �he fload crest or modi.fy the ilaw o� flood.aater.�7
Yes �Io If so, what will the quantitative
effects be? (Attach a sheet for explanati.on) . � �
Stru�tu.res Existing structure (s) in floodplain:
Height Ft. Width Ft.
Distan,ce from stream's edge:. Horizantal Distance Ffi.
� �lertical Drop E't..
Prapos�d structure (s) in fl.00dplain � .
_ _ I
H�igh� Ft. WidtM �t,
Dista.nce from strEam' s edge: Horizc;ntal Distance Ft. '
Vertical Drop F�,,,
Distance betw�en existing and proposed s�ructure (nearest Point)
i�,�.t,'{:
F�. 'f���'�
���
�-..;`�
�. ,,,�,�.
Wil1 the structure increase the fl.00d crest or modify tk�e flow , ';���;;
4f fl�ad waters? �les No Tf so, what wi11 the . ,a�'
quantitative effects be? (Attaah a sheet tor explana�ion) , .�;< �:
� ,�y�, <;�,
Will the proposed st�ructure be designed to w�ithstand the destruc��ve
effects of a flo.od without siqniticant damage? {At�ach a sheQt to
explain specifics) .
.,,
�`S.:ry
.
�
. .• � PAGE 3 �
. �
� BP�.TAL� LTSE PERMIT ;�; .
�` '
�:> � � ��
�:,.. ''
!:
. . . . . . _ . . ' .�,,
t
Storaqe 4V;�at type of matPrials arE to be stored? k, '
� �r
ti
• __ Iv
?, '
' k'
F;
Volume/quantity of material (s)� �
�`.
Distance of storage from stream's edge: Horizontal Ft,. �
i';
� Vertical Drop Ft. ;
;:
�
Distance of star�ge from nearest building Ft. `
� j
. �
Will the material be anchored to prevent movement in the even of a �"
Flood? Yes How? No Why Not? �
(Attach a sheet for explanation) f
,:
Type of screenirig for storage �
— �:;!.
1';
�
s;
i:
` 1�
�.. � �
��
�j
{t
�i
f?
�k
�1�
� �!
(a
. �V
. �;:
. �
!.�
�;�
A
' �
{
�.
' �i
t`,
. . �•,
. . . . �.
. �;
�.
.. . . �. 1 � � . � . . . . . .
�_ . ' . . . , ... -
�'A'
DRAFT ORDINANGE �iEVISIONS FOR
SUBDIVISIONS, ,
MAJOR & MINOR LAND PARTITIONS, %!
� � � � ���
�
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS,
AND OTHERS
f ��
AN EVALUATION OF TIGARD'S PERMIT PROCESS
,
Prepared By: Amy Svoboda, Consultant
For: City of Tigard Planning :
- . Commission and Planning
UeparCment
Date: JanuarX 31, 1979
i`
�
j.
. i
�`
1
�
i
�
.
�� �
,. , . , , _ _ _ _ . _ _ �
�
�
�
�� TABLE OF CONTENTS
�
i
�
�
I
�
Page �
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . � �
;,
Acknowledgaments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . 2 �I
�
Draft Land Partition Ordinance v . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 3-17 €I
�I
i,l
!'
Mis�cellaneous Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e , Zg i
I�
�
Design Review e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �,$ �
�
Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 �I
� Planned Development. . . . . . . � . . . . . . , � Zg
• . . . . .
� Eva2uation of the Permit System . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 �!I
1,
,.�
A Review of Other Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ��
Good Points , . . . . o e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2� �
. I
S��W YD�AJZZ Points • a ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • 22 �
What to do to Improve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . , 23
�l
��t
I'.
�k
� �
f
;.
i
�
,
�
i
INTRODUCTION �,
� The objectives of my work were originally five: 5
tI
I. Review the Subdivision and .Minor Land Partit.ion Orda.nances.
A. Revise the contradictions in the aode. ��I
B. Streamline and make more explicit the requirements
and what the "real procedure is to be".
C. Draft amendments (in cooperation with the Ci�y
Attorney) . ,
' D. Evaluate the notice and comment systems and incorporate �
a formalized system into the subdivision ordinance as �
an amendment.
;'
II. Review the Planned Development prdinance.
A. Revise to make more explicit the requirements.
B. Attempt to develop a system of procedures that
alosely parallels the subdivision procedure
(e.g, te�minology, review steps, etc,) .
C. Draft amendments. ;;
IIT. Review Conditional U'se Permit Categaries and OutrigY�t Use
Permit Categories. !
l IV. Study the Feasibility of thP EstabZishment or a One S�op ��
'� l
. Permit System in Tigard.
A. Haw do they work?
II. What is required to set them u�?
C. What xs a model system?
;
V. Define the Linkages Between the Above Procedures with the E
Design Iteview System.
i
The special aim of the revision of the subdivision, major, and minor
land par�itioning ordinance was to make it def3.nit9,ve and easily under-
standable far the property owner azid develaper. Much attention was given
to the organization and clarity of sections. Some sections were added
tYiat the Planning Commiss5.on and Department will find useful in particu.lar j
circumstances, such as resubdivsion of land, vacation of plats�, and review �
of old plats. Sectirans that conflicted with or repeated ather sectians I
v�ere eliminated or corrected. Necessary procedures that the Planning �
Department were already following, such as public notice and agency !
involvement, were made specific in the revisions. Changes suggested by
John Hagman, the City Enqineer, were incorporated in these rev.isions,
The first several pages are included as example of �ormat.
2'he changes in the Planned Development Ordinance make clear what
development standards will be used.
�.
.- .. ,
. . _. ._ .:. �
. ,
. ,
2
Work on the Conditional Use Permit Categories was superseded by the
. it ..�-..
4 ion un
ers
co
nv
preparation of a legal memo on the legality of the NPO �
procedures. The memv wa5 requested by the past Planning Director and the F�, `
memq was presented to the Planning Direc�or and the City Attorney. � ,?
� i
The feasibili�y study for tl�e one-stop permi.t system in Tig�.rd began � ,
writh several interviews with sta.ff inembers from p].a.nn,ing ai�d bui.lding � ;.
permit departments around the Willamette valley anc� a suxvey o£ the literature
on permit systems. Thi.s information provided a basis on which an evaluation � '
of Tigarcl's system could take place. The results af the eval.uation are
�.:
concisely listed under three overlapping categories: the good poi.nts of �
Tigard's present system, the slow down po5.nt of the system, and wha�t Tigard
c�n do, in--house, to improve its permit pr�cess. A diagram completes t.h� . �:
picture o£' Tigard's permit proce�G. This diagram will a]:so explain the � .
linkages between design review and other pexani�so �
�,.:
The miscellaneous sect�an includes changes the the planning staff � E;'
�,rould like to see in the zoning ardinance' and dESign review o'rdinance. �<
They are not mean� to be camprehensive, but are ir►cluded tor consideratzon �
in this report �or I�lanning Conunission's convenience, �'
�
�_
ACKNOWLELIGMENTB '''
€:
j::
�'his �report owes a txemendous acknawledqment to members of the pl�nning, '
�'',
buil.ding and enginesring staff for their generous help and cooperation. �;
Y�{
Gary Ross of the City of Portland, Eric Davenport of the Permit �""
Application Center of Salem, and Jim Kellex of Protective Services of
Gresham, also provided a goad deal o� assistance in the early par�. �f 'this
study. '
�;
City Attorney, Joe Bailey heYped me mak.e sure it was a17. l�ga1; , k;
Joe Greulich of the Fire District and Th� Chamber of Coiranerae also �
contributed. �'.
i
k
�;
�
�
�
. . _
� � s
� � '.
' . 3 �
� � � �;� �.
,:
LAND PARTITION ORDINANCE
� �:
TitYe 17 �
�. i'<
f:.
� � �:�
;4
1. Title 8. General Standards ,,
Streets ;:'.
1. Purpose Blocks r`
Lots �
� 3. Intent Public Use Areas �
t;
4. D�finitions 9. Tmprovements ,.
,
� � � E�;��.
5. General Provisi�ns 10. Variances #;
6. Subdivision & 11. Fees �:'
Ma_ior Lan�3 Partition '
Preliminary Plat Procedures 12. Enforcement ;
Informati.on Requred s
Final Plat Procedures 13. Resubdivision �',
Information Required
14. Vacations �
�
10 Minor Land Partitions s,.`
Proc�dures �'�
In�ormation Required �
r
±;:
( .
��� \ TITLE s'�
.. �. i;�
� 17.01.100 Short title. The ordS.nance codified in tk►i.s title sha1.1 be known
G"''
�"�
as the "City of Tigard Land Partition Ordinance," and may be `
�;
cited as such. �'
i'','
,
�;,.
PURPOSE Ci;.
i ;
i::;
17.02.100 This title is adopted for the foll.owing purposes: To further t�ie �f�
orderly use of land and �a�out of streets, to carxy out the Com� ��}'
prehensive plan of the city, and Co promote the publi�c heal.th, sa£ety t ,
and general welfare, lessen congestion in the streets, secure � :'
safety from fire, flood, pollution. and other dangers, provide ` '
adequate light and air, prevent overerowding of land, and �;:
facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water supgly, i�'
sewage, drainage, rp eservation af open space, and to provide g`,
standards of design and procedures far subdividing and partitioning ��'
1 and. � ���
!�
�,�
�a
T�eans chan.ged words #�
� , . . . � .
Continued as the same `
�C ti
' � j����:�.
�:
i
�'?�
•#��
. . � � . . . . . .. . �: . fAi
� i
4
INTENT _
�
17.03.100 Intent. It is intended that the Land Partiti.oning Ordinance shall
supplement and f.acilita�e the regulations of �h� state r.egarding
subdiWision and publie impro�vements and the pravisions o� all
other city ordinances, including the zoning ordinance, the street
and sidewalk otdi.nance, and building and housi.ng codes.
i
DEFINTTIONS�
,
i
17.04.U1Q Building line. 17v04.090 P1.at and map.
17.04.Q20 Capital Improvement Program. 17e04.1Q0 Right-of-way. i
17.04�030 Community Services and 17.04.110 .. Roadway. '�
. TransportaCion Plan. 17.�4.120 Sidewalk.
17.04.040 Comprehensive Plan. 17.04.130 Streets or roads.
17.04.050 Easement. 17.n4.140 St.a�eet p1ug.
1.7.04.060 Lot, . 17.04.150 Subdivide land.
17.04.070 Partit�.on. 17.04.160 Subdivisic�n.
17.040080 �'edestrian way.
Z7s04.010 Buildinp Iine. "Building line" zneans a lYne on a plat indicating
the limit beyond which bu�.ldings or. structures may not tae erected. �
d
17.04.020 Ca�ital Improvement Program. A �chedule of a11 future projects - �
requiring public funds listed in order nf coristruetion priority
together with cost estimates ancl anticipated means of financing
each project.
�
F
Z7.04.030 Communit� Services and �ransporta�ion Plan. A component of the `.
comprehensive plan dealing with pr�lici,es for transportation and �'
community facilities. `�
i
,'�
].7.04.040 Comprehensive P1an. The afficia.l public document ac3opted by the �ity !;i
as a policy guide to decisians aboui. the physical develo�ment of `'
the comnunity. :J
;
17.04.050 lEasement. "Easement" means a granC . � e �'
_.W_.�.�._.___ N
a
17.04.060 lLot. A recorded traet, plot or portion of contiguous land in the �
same ownersha.p. ;'
(a) Corner lot. A lot that abuts the intexsection of two or � `
4
more streets. I
(b) Double f ronta�e lot. A lot that has frontage on two parallel �
or approxomately parallel streets othex than the all.eys. �
17.04.070 Partition. (a) . o . (b) . . . (c) . . m (d) "Partition land"
means to divide an area or tract of land into two or three Lots i
within a calendar year when such area ar tract of land existis a a
unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership at the {
beginning of such year. "Partition land" floes not include da.visi.ons i
of land resulting �rom lien foreclosures, divisions of lanid resul�- ;
ing from the creation of cemetery lots and divisons of land made
_
' �.
��
.,
� J
5
pursuant to a court order, including but not limited to court orders
1 in proceedings involvinK teslCate or interstate succession, and
"partition land" does not include any adjustment of a lot line by
the relocation c�f a common boundary where an additional Lot is n.ot
created and where the existing Lot reduced in size by the adjust- ,
ment is not reduced below the mina.mum lot size established by
any applicable zoning ordinance.
17.A4.080 Pe�destrian way. "Pesestrian waq" . . .
17.0�+.040 P].at and map. . . .
17.04.100 Right-of-way� . . .
I7.A4o110. Raadway. , . .
17.04.12A Sidewallc. . � .
17004.130 Streets or roads. . . .
�.7.O�e.140 Street plug. . . .
17.04.15Q Sul�divide landa. e o
17.0�+.160 �uubdivision. . . ,
4 �,
GENERAL FROVISIONS
17.OS.Q10 Adopti6n �f state statutes.
' 17.OS.020 Amendments.
17.05.030 Provisions for sub�dividing and parti.tioning iand.
17.0�.040 Plat ana map approval delegated; reserved
17.05.050 Planning Director approval required befare rec�rding
17.05.060 Conformity with regulations required before permits granted.
17.OS.q70 A�peal
17.OS.080 Negotiations and sales.
17.05.090 Temporary sales office
17.05.010 Adoption of state statu�es. e . .
17.05.020 ,Amendments. . . .
17.05.030 Provisions for subdividing and partirioz�in� land. No person maq
subdivide land or partition land except in accordance with
ORS 92«O10 to 92.100 to 92.160 and the �rovisions of this title.
�
r� , _ _ _ _ ._-_
- _ .._
. . , .
6 "
17.05.0�+0 Plat and ma� approval dele�ated; reserved. The Gity Council
delegare's its power and du�,ies with respect to approval or denial ��,r
of preliminary and final subdivisions and maps of major and
min�r partitions to Che Planni.ng Director. The Gity Council
reserves unto itself the right to exezcise equal powers and
duties in any �iven casQ, at its options.
17.05.050 Planning Director ap�roval re�uired before recording. Approvai
by the Planning Director af subdivisions and major and minor
partitions of land inside �he boundaries of the city is required
in accordance with this title before a plat for any such: sub-
divisi.on or a map with respect to a ma�or or minor partition ma�r b�
filed or recorded in the county recnrding office, and the City
Coun�il reserves unto itself the right to exercise equal powers and
duties in any given case, at its option.
17.05.060 Conformit� with re�ulations req,uired before o.the� permits granted.
No' building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for
any parcel or lot which was created. by su.bdivi:siau or parti.�ion if
not a.n confnrnaity� with the provisi.ons of these subdivision
regu].ations and no excavation of l.and or canstructi�n of any public or.
private improve.ment sha11 take place ar be co�ur►enced �xcept in
conformity wirh �he regulationse
17.OSm070 A eal rocedures.
a Any pexson aggrieved by a decisian of the Planning nirector in
apgroving ar disappxov�ing any subdivision or major or minor
partition proposal may appeal such decision t� the Planniz�g Y
Commission by noeice served upon and filecl wi.fih the �it�r Fec:order.
The appeal must be within ten (10) days after the date of s,uch action
by the Planning Director from which the appea.l is taken in the case
of a minor land partition and within thi.rty (30) days i.n the case
of a subdivision or major land partition.
(b) Any person a.ggrieved by a decision af the Planning Cou�missi.on
in approving ar disapproving any subdivisian or major or
minor parti�ion praposal may appeal such decision to the
Ci.ty Recorder within twenty days afCer the date of such action
of the Planning Commission fzom which the ap�eal �.s to
be �aken.
17.Q5.080 Prere uis�.�es for ne otiation and sale.
a No� person sha11 negotiate to sell any lot in a subdi.vision
until a preliminary plat has been approved. �
(b) No persan sha11 sell any lot in any subdivision until
�;l) �he final plat has been appxov�d in accordance with the
prav'isions of these regula�ions, and
(2) The final plat has beez� recorded by the county clerk.
(c) No person shall dispose of, transfer, se1l, .offer, or
negotiate to sell any lot in any subdivision by reference to
or exhibition or other use of a plat of such subdivision
l�efore the plat for such subdivision has been so recorded.
��,
�j
7
�,r_, 17.05.090 Tempora� Sa1es Office . . .
r�
SUBDIVISIOIV & MAJOR LAND PAKTITION
17.06.010 Overview
17.06.015 Contents of the preliminary plat '�
, 17.06.020 Supplemental material
17.06.025 Scale
17.06.Q3D Procedures for Preliminary Plat for review and approval
17.06.035 Pre-filing conference
17.06.040 Submission
17.06.045 Notification of affected agencies and dePartments
17.06.050 Agency and department review
17.06.055 Public notice and comment
17.A6.060 Decision
17.OE�.065 Criteria of apprnval
17.Ofi.070 Contents of the £inal pl.at ,
17.06.075 Supplemental informatinn required
17.05.080 Procedures for review and approvaY of final plat
17.06.085 Time limit
17.06.090 Phase development for subdivision
�� �� 17.06.095 Re-approval after expiraCion �
'` 17.06.100 Final plat submitted
17.06.105 Review and approval
17.06.110 County surveyor approval
17.06.115 Criteria for approval
17.06.120 Improvement agreement
! 17�06.125 Bond, cash deposit
17.06.130 Filing requi.red
17.06.010 Overview Application for a subdivision or major partition has
two main steps: The prel�.minary plat and the final plat. The
preliminary plat must be approved before the final plat ap-
plication can be accepted. Approval of the preliminary plat
shall not constitute final acceptance of the plat of the proposed
subdivision ar tt�e map of the proposed major partition for re-
eording. Qnce the preliminary plat is approved, the city will
require only those changes on the plat that are necessary to
show complian.ce with the conditions of approval.
Pr�liminary Plat
17.06.015 Contents of the preliminary plat. The fallowing general in-
formation shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
� (a) Appropriate identificati.on . . .
(b) Propased name . . .
.. . .,. . ... .. �,.,�.. ...... .. .. ... ..... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . ... .. .. . ... . . ... . .� ]
, til
V
(c) Date, northpoi.nt . . .
(d) Location of ehe subdivision . . . ;
(e) Names, addresses and phone numbers of the owners, the sub- '
ditrider, and his engineer and/or surveyor. j
(f) The location, widths and names . . .
(g) Cont�u� lines . . .
(h) T.he location of at . . .
(i) Locatian and . . . i
(j) Na�ural features . . . �
(k� Existing uses . . . ��
(1) F'roposed streets . . .
(m) Proposed easements . . . �
(n) Proposed lots o 0 0 ;!
� (o) Proposed sitss . . a
�
17.06.020 Supplemental materialo Any o� L•he following information may be ,
required by the Planma.ng Commission and if it cannoC b� showri
practicably on the pzeliminary plat, i� sha11 be submitted oi1
separate sheets accompanying the preliminary plat:
(aa} A vicinity map showing all existing subdivision, streets
and unsubdivided land ow�ersl�ips adjacent to the proposed
subdivisions, and showi.ng how proposed streets may lae
extended to conneet to exhisting srre�ts. The v3.cinity '
map shal'1 be at a scale of one inch equa�s four hundre.d
.feet and shal.l show a1.1 lands within a radius of one-half
mile from the proposed subdiva.sion. The vicinity map• �
shall show the propased sCreets wi.thin the pzopo5ed sub-
division and their connection with adjacent streets plus
zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
(bb) Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished
grade oP all s�reets a� approved by the city engineezy �
including extensions for a reasonable distance be�and the �
limits of the proposed subdivision.
(cc) Approxxmate plan and profiles of propased sani�ary and �,
starm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated and
glan of th.e proposed water distribution system showing pipe
sizes and the location af valves and fire hydrants. A1so
�he location in the adjacen� streets and property ox existing �
sewexs, water drains, culverts, and drain pipes, electric '�
conduits or lines proposed to be used on �he property to be �
subdivided and invert elevations of sewers at point of '1
proposal connection. ';
(dd) Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part af the
tract owned or controlled by the subdivider, the P1�?!r_?*�g ;�
Couimission shall require a plan of a tentative layout for
streets in the unsubdivided portion. 4
(ee) If special building setback lines are to be established in �'
the subdivision, they shall be shown on the subdivision �
plat or included in the deed restrictions. `
i;
a �
;
;..
�
�
�.
't;
--�,-�-�. , .. ,
9
17.06.025 Scale. The p,reliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen
�..- by twenty-four in�hes in size or a multiple thereof at a seale
oF one inch equals one hundred feet or, for a�reas over one
hundred acres, one inek► equals two hundred feet.
17.06.030 Procedures for Preliminar�P1at for Review and approval. Review
and approval of a preliminary plat shall be in accordance with
the provisions of 17.06.010 through 17,06.070.
17.06.Q35 Pre-filing conferencee Prior to the submission of the preliminary
plat the applicant shall make an appointmenC with the Planning
Director for a pre-filing conference. This conference wi11 pro-
vide an exchange of inFormatioY� regarding the procedure, tha
applicable Comprehensive Plan, zaning, and development require-
ments, and such technical and design assistance or wi11 aid the
applicant in preparation of �is plat.
17.06.040 Submission. Tkle appZicant shall submit 10 copies of the pre--
liminary plat to the Planning Department, and pay the filing fee
as prescribed i.n 1.7.500010.
1�.06.045 Notification of Affect�d Agsncies and Departments. The Planning
Seeretary s�all immediately send out review sheets and copxes
of the preliminary plat to the affect?d agencies and Gity
departments. These include the City Public Works Department
�. Ca.ty Building Department _
� �. �eaverton Schaols and/or
` Tigard School District
'Tualatin Fire District
City Police Department
Oregon Deparkment of Transportatian
Washi,ngton Coun�y Public Warks
Department - Pe�cmit Section
Ather agencies including Tri-Met will be sent plans when appropriate.
17.06.050 A�ejency and De�ar�ment Review. The Planning Director shall. co-
ordinate the agency and department review of the P�eliminary t�ag.
A meeting will be scheduled twice a month during which the agency
and department representatives will present and di�cuss their
concerns about upc�ming preliminary plats. The applicants may
, attend to answer questions.
The Planner wi11 compile tihe comments from the agencies and dep�art-
mentis an3 prepare the glanning staff raYart. A ;.aFy wiZ�. be s�rt
to the applicant.
17.06.055 Public Notice and Comment. Public notice shall be given and �he
reports and commeints sha11 be available for public gerusat and
written comments for 14 days prior to the decision of the Planning
Director. Publi�c notice shall be given by all of the following
� methods:
(a) By publication in a newspaper of general cirGUlation in the
City of Tigard.
_ _ : : : .
�.
_ �;
c
. • �,
�I
10 �
(b) By mail to all owners o� property, as shown by the tax recards � }
,�LL
oP Washington Countg Asse3sors office, within 300 feet, �"
includin� streets of the property for which the plat was 1'�
submitted. °�'
G,
(c) By mail to the presa.dent of the Neighborhood Planning '�
Urganizations in the affected area. The Planning Director
shall take' the comments of the public inta consideration �
in her decision. ��
17.C16.060 Decision. The decision of the Planning Director givin� approval,
inctuding any modificati,ons ox disapproval, sha,ll be a:�a wziting,
and shall state the reasons for the decision within 60 days
aE� the submittal of L-he appl.ication.. The action sha11 be noted
in two copiss of the plat, one copy returned to the a�plicant
a�nd one retained by the Planning Department.
17.06.065 Criteria af approval. In deca.ding whether a subdivis�on ar major
partition shc�uld be approved the Planning Director shall weigh
how well the subda,vision or major partition wi11 fulfill the .
purposes of this ordin�nce. No preli.minary plat for proposec�
subdivision and no map or major partition �hall be approved unless
the Planning Direc�or finds:
(a) Streets an3 roads e o .
(b) Streets and roads . o .
'� (c) The preliminarp plat complies with the comprehensive p'7.an, �
including the capiral improvement plan and the co�nunity ` ��
�acilities and transportation plan, the applic.able zoning �
r.egulations, and the re�ulations within this title. ;
(d) 7.'hcre will exist adequate quantity and qualitq of water �'
�
mnd an adequate sewage disposal system tQ support the
prapose� use of Che land des�ribed in Che pxoposed pl�t. ;
Fina1 Plat f�l
G.;.
�;,��,
� Chapter 17.20 shall be amended as fol:�ows: �;�
17.06.Q70 Contents of the final plat in addition to �hat information required I'''�'�
in the preliminary plat the �ollowing information shall be shown :�:�;
on the final plat o . . �;
. �,.II
17.06.075 Supplemental information required . . . , �
. �°
�.7.06.080 Procedures for Review and Approval of Final Plat. Review and approval '4"
of a final plat shall be in accordance with the provisions of � I.'�
17.06.085 through 17.06.115. � �?
�.:�
i:`;
f'.
j3:
r
r,.
�•}
l i,
• �r !`
�r
��
i.,
���
i
� t
. t
. , `.
1� Z
�II
17.06.085 Time limit. The final subdivision plat or final partition map �I
( shall be delivered to the Planning Director for approval within `i
one year following the approval of the preliminary plat and shall �
incorporaCe any modification or condition required by approval '
nf the tent�tive plan. The Planning Directox may, upon written �
request by the applicant, and payment of the required fee, grant an i
extension of the approval period, not ta exceed six months, upon ',
a written finding that the facts upon which the approval was based
have not changed to an extent sufficient to warrant refiling of the
preliminary plat,
17.06.090 Phased development for subdivision. When an appl�.cant desires to
record and develop subdivision plats covering portions of an approved
preliminary plan in stages, the approval authozity� may 'authorize
a time schedule for platting the various stages in periods of time
in excess of one year, but in no case shall the ts�tal time period
for platti.ng of al]. stages be greater than five years .without
re-filing of the preliminaXy plat.
17.06.095 Re-aPProval after expiration. After the expiration of the approval
period and any extension, if any, a preli.minary plat shall be
re-filed and considered as a new applica�tion.
17.06.100 Final Plat submitted. The original drawing, the cloth, fi�ve prints
of the final plat, and the required in�ormation sha11 be submitted
in the form required by these regulations and state laws, including
i
� O.R.S. 92.050 through O.R.S. 92.12� for plats of record. ,
17.06.105 Review and Approval. The City Buildi.ng Official, Planning Director,
and Engineer shall determine whethex the final plat is a.n fu11
confarmax�ee with the approved preliminary plat and this ordinanceo
� If it is determined that there is a nan--con£armity, the planner
i shall. advise the applicanG and allow an o�portunity to make. car-
rections. The applicant must again submit five capies of the cor-
rected map or plat. When the plat or map is found to be in con�
formance, it shall be signed and dated by th� Flanning Directoro
The acti�ns shall. be reported to the Planning Commission at the
next regular meeting.
17.06.110 County surveyor approval. Af�er si.gnature by the Planning Gommission
Chairman (Planning Director) the subdivider st�all. transmit the '
final plat and supplemental information. to the county surveyor.
The Planning Director will send a copy of the plat and supplennental
i.nformation to the County Surveyor. The County Surveyor shall
examine the final plat to determine whether there has been complian�ce
with a11 provisions of state law and this title. The County Surveyor
may make such check.s in the field as he may desire to �'erify that
the map is sufFiciently correct and he may enter the property for
this purpose. When the County Surveyor finds the documents in
full conformance, and has been paid the statutory £ee for sueh
service by the subdivider, he sha11 sign his approval in the space
provided.
�
.
22 .
17.06.115 Criteria for approval. No plat of a proposed subdivision and no
map of a proposed major partition shall be approved unless:
(a) The provisions of 17.Z0.00, Con.tents of Fi,iial Plat, and ;
17.20.030, Supplemental information, required have been
satisfie3. '
i
(b) The plat or map is in substantial conformity with the pro-
visions of the preli.minary plat for the subdivision or the
major parti.tion, as approved;
(c) The plat or map complies with any applica}�Ie zoning
ordinances and regulations, and any ordinances or regulations
car regulations adopted under O.R.S. 92.044 that are then in
effect;
(d) Sireets and roads for publ.ic use are dedicated without any
reserv'ation or restriction uther than reversionary rights
upon vacation of any� such street or road and easements for
public utiliti�s;
(e) Streets and roads he].d for private use and indi:cat�d an the
preliminary plat nf such subdivision or major partition have
been approved by the city•,
17.06.120 Improvement agreement. Before app�roval by the Planning Diaector
�s cerrifi.ed on the fina7� plat, Che subdivider sha11, execute and
fiLe with the City a c�mpliance agreement between himself arad the
City Council specifying the period wi�hin which all proposed and/aar �
required �+ublic improvements and repairs shall be completed, and
providing that if such work is not completed within the period f�i
specified, the City may compl.ete the same and recover the fu11 "" i�
cost and expense �hereof �rom �he subdivider and/or from t'he �ub- 4�
dividers surety. Such agreement may also provide for canstruction ��
of i.utprovements �:n stages, f,ar exten,sion of trme undex conditions !t
therein specified, for special specifications, fees, plans and/or �
other canditions applicable thereto. ;:
17.06.125 Bond, cash deposit I
i'
�a) � � . !
(b) Such assurance of full and faithful performance shall be �Eor
a suni of one hundred perce.nt (1007) of �he City Engineers ;`,
estimated in-place construction cost of all public improvements,
including rel.ated enginee�ing and incid�ntal e�penses. �'al
(c) In the event the subdivid.er fails to carry �ut aZl provisions '"'
of the agreement and/or if the City has unreimbursed costs
or expen�es resul.ting from such failure, the Cit� may call on �
the bond or cash deposit for rei,mbursement(s). ;;`.
t
},,
17.06.130 Fi1in� recuired. After approv'al as described in 17.20.050, tl�e ;";
�ounty Surveyor shall transmit L-he final plat and traczng ta t1�e • i:�;
County Assessor and to the County Health Department and to the �:
County Board of Commissioners and to �he County Clerk for signatures y`'
of the public officials required by l.aw. Approval of the final plat t,t
shall be null and void if the plat is not recorded within sixty days "`�
afCer the date the last required approving signature has been �'�� �`'
obtained. �'
;�,
`:;;:
r;;
��
U
' 13
�r" MINOR I.AND PARTITIQN '
'i�.��. �
17.07.005 GeneraL. Minor Land Fartitioning shall be in accordance with section
17.07.005 througk� 07007.0
27.07.010 When to Process as a Subdivision. The proposal must be submitted
a.n accoxdance with major partition and subdivision provisions
17.05.010 through 17.06.140 if:
(�) More than three lots wi1Z be created from a tract o£ land I
which existed as a contiguous unit uf land under a single
owner one year priar to the date of application for a
partition of larid, or;
(b) The proposal includes, or the Planning Staff requires, the
dedication of land and easements for roads or streets.
17.07.015 Submission. 7'he applicant shall submit seven (7) copie,� of the
sketch map to the Planning Director and pay the fees. If any
changes ar conditons are necessary to process the urinor Iand partxtion
the applicant shall incorporate the required modifications in a
new sketch map and resubmit it ta the I'lanning Director.
17.07.020 Conteits of the sketch mag. The sketch map sha11 be eigh.t and ane
half by 11 inciaes, ar eighteen by twenty four inches �n size and
it sliall con�ain the follawing information:
's� �.- (a) The date, northpoint, . o .
(b) The name and address . e .
(c) The apgroximate acreage . . .
(d) For l�nd adjacent » . . I
(e) The location of eacisting . . . I
i (f) The lot layaut . . . I
(g) Approximate topograplay at the same scale as the sketch map,
(h) Location of. temporary states.
(i) Location of existing wooded areas and trees sight inches
or more in diam�ter, measured four feet above t�.e ground �:evel,
17.07.025 Notification af affected a�encies and departments. 'The Planning
Seeretary shall immediately send out review sheets and copies of ,,
Che minor land partition to the affected agencies and city depart-- 'I
ments. These include the City Public Works Department
� City Building Department
Beaverton Schools and/or
Ti.gard School District
Tualatin Fir� l�i:strict
Ci�y Police Department '
O�egon Department of Transportation
Washington County Public Wozks DepartmenC-
Permit Section �
�,� Other agencies including Tri-Met will be sent plans when ,appropriate.
��
._ . :. . . _ :
�- _ _ .
. _.. _. _ , . _ _ _
..,_ .r_:..,
.
, �:;
. �,4 ` (:
17.07,030 A ency and department review. The Planning Director shall co-
ordinate the agency and department review of the minor land par- �`'"'�
Cition. A meeting wi11 be sclleduled Cwice a month during which '`� �
the agency and department representatives will present and discuss (�;,
iss�xes presented by such application. ` °
���
The planner will compi].e the comments fram the agencies and '�
depaxtments and prepare the Planning $taff repart. A copy will
be sent to the applicant.
17.07.035 Pub].ic notice and commenC. Yublic notice �ha�.1 be given and the �;
reports and comments shal:l be available for publ�.c perusal and i'-
written comments for 14 daqs prior to the decision of. the f�
Planning Director. Public natice sha11 be given by all the �;;
following methods: �
(a By publication in newspaper of general circulation �.n the City �;y,
of Tigard. �j
(b) �y mail tn all owners of property, as shown by the tax records
of Washington County Assessors office, wlthin 300 feet, including �'
s�reets of the property for which rhe plat was submitted.
i�
(c) By mail t� the president of the Nei$hborhood Planning Or�anization
i,n the affected area. 7;
�;
17.07.040 Deci,sion» The Planning Director shall �ake the eomments o� �he �
public int� consid.eration in his dec�.sion. The Pl.anning Director �
shall give approval, with modifica�ions,if any, or disapproval 4
within 60 days of the submittal of the application. It ahall be in f�
writi.ng, and state the reasons �or the appr�val oz denial. �The 4.�,�,;
action sha11 be noted in two copies of the monor land partition, one
co�y returned, to the applicant and an� retained by trie �lanning
' Department. If approved, the appli,ca:nt ma.p now file the par�ition
to the County RecorditYg Offxcer.
1
I
�
�"
, i
15 I
�
I
GENERAZ. STANDARAS �
�� �
Srreets I
All items formerly in Chapter 28 shall remain the same in .cantent but ,
shall be included in Chapter 8. One section shall be added. ;
,
J.7.08.170 Street Crossections.
17.08.17U Street Crossections. 7;he crossection of streets in inches
shall not be less than the minimums shown in the following table.
Type af Street: Sub-base: Leveling Course; Surface:
Commercial and
Collector Streets: 8" 2" 2"
Local Streets: 6" 2" 2"
Sub-base and leveling coursa shall be of select crushed rock.
Surface material sha11 be of Class "C" or "B" asphaltic concrete. An ad-
ditional one inch (1'°) CYass "C" A.C. overlay shall be placed on all new
construction roadways within subdivisions prior to City final acceptance
thereofe
i � '
BIOCICS
A11 items farmerly in Chapter 4Q shall zemain �he same in content but shasll
. be included in Chaptes 8.
17.08.250 Consideration for dedicatian.
17.08.260 Indicated in development plan---Dedication zequirements.
17.08.270 Not indicated in development plan--Dedicati.�n requixemens.
17.08.2�0 Acquisition by public agencye
IMPROVEMENTS
�
.�..._.. _ , „ ..,,,,.. �, �, . ; .,,,.. ., :. w . . al
, _ _ _ . , _ _ _
. . .... � �
16 '
VARIANCES �
__._,._.e._
i
� �..,:
All items in variances shall re�ain the s�me except application for exception. : .
The Chapter No. sha11 be changed to Chapter IO and the sectian approval of
variance in glanned develogment district zaning proposals sha11 be dropped. E
17.10.010 Application for exception. A�plication for a variance may be
made wiCh respecE to a proposed subdivision, proposed major or
minor partitioning, by filing a request for same with the City �
Recorder. Such application shall be suppor�ed by a full clis-
clasure of all material facts upon whieh petitioner proposes to
rely in seeking such variance, including a copy of map or pre-
l.imi�ary plat of the proposed partitioning or subdivision..
s;
�
FEES ''
„
�
,.
i:
17.I1.OZ0 Filing feeo To partially d,efray aduninistrative expenses incurred ;
by the City in processing land partitions, the £ollowing fees ;
shall be paid by tYie developer aC tihe time the application is !
�
filed:
Minoz land partition
A. Partitioning of a residentially zoned land parcel $� 50.00
B. Partiti�ning of a parcel of land zpned for mul.ti-
family, commercial or industrial useR $100.00
Major ].and partition $150.00
Preliminary plat $250.00
+ $ 5.00/1ot
, Street dedication $ 59.00
I Street vaca�ion $ 50.00 +
deposit
Variance $100.04 �
ENFORCEMENT �
17.13.010 Violation--Penalties. � . .
�
,
I _
, _ 17 ,,
i.
. RE'SUBDIVISIONS
�
� �
� � . � � .. Si��.
17.13.100 Resubdivision of Land. In the case of any change in a map of an �;'
approved or recorded subdivision plat, if such change affects any �:'
street layout shown on such map, or any area reserved thereon for �
pubYic use, or anx 1ot line, or if it af�ects any map or plan �'
legally reached prior to the adoption of any regulations controllin� �4
subdivi.sion, such parcel sha11 be appraved by the same procedure, �
rules, and regulations as for a subdivisiox�.
�,.
1;'
� � �
VACATI01� �-
r:.
� � � � �<,
17,i4.100 Vacation of Plats. �'
�:`
(a) Any plat or any part of any plat may be vacated by the awaer s°
of the premise� at anp time before the sa].e of any lot Z'�;
therein, by a �wr�.tten instrument, to whic� a copy of such �'!
plat sha1�. be attached, d�claring ehe same [� be vacat�d. �
(b) Such an instrument s19a1�. be appxoved �n like manner as plats 7�
of subdivisia�. The instrument may be re,jected if itt alarid;ges ,:
or destroys any public right in any of its public uses, #y
improvements, streets, or a2leys. �
(c) Sr�ch an instrument shall lae executed, acknoweldged or approved, �
, � and recorded or fi.led, in lika manner as plats o£ subdiv�.sioz�s; ��
and being duly recorded ar filed shall operate to destr�}r the �
force and effect of the recording of the plat so vacated, a�nd ��
to dzv�est all public ri.glnts in �he streets, alleys, and public �
grounds, and a�ll d.edzcations lairl out or described in such plat. �$
(d) When lots have been sc�ld, the plat may be vacated in the �
manner herein Frovided by a1Z the owner, ot lots in such �Slat �,Y�
joining in the execution of such wr.iting. ��
!,";
�;'
�:;�
€;`,,.
i;;�,
4':';
�,,,
f,
1',
q',:
��ii
. . ��:...�.
�',.:
. Nf�
y"ia
� .. . . : � .' �N�.
r<<:
�:
;.,:.
�,,
��
��
� t�
�
;�
' 18 �;
�
MISC�LLANEOUS
�t`
The Design Review Ordinance shall be amendPd as follows:
18.59.60 Design Review Procedure.
(a) . . .
(b) . . .
(c) Application for Design Review . . .
As a minimum, the design plan must contain the following:
1. Site plan, showing tapography, and vicinity map . . .
(d) Standards and Criteria
2. Project Development
(A) It sha11 reasdnab�.y conform ta the natural eontours
of the site, incorporat�.ng special designs, where
appropriate, to accommod�ate unique topographic
features;
(E) It shall provide a minimum onsite landscape area . . .
In the Planned Development District Ordinance,
18.56.050 (c) stxall be deleted. �
18.56.165 shall be added as follows:
18.56.165 Minimum street widths. Street width for public strPets wil� not ';
� � be varied to allow a width less than 30 feet fax a public street ;:
�•
or 24 feet for a private street.
�
18.64.O1Q Shall be changed to: ,3
��
;,
18.64.010 General Provisionso Zh� f�llowing requiremen,ts and standards
sha11 not applq where they conflict with the subdivision ordinance.
(1) . . . �`.
,.
18.64.940 sha11 be amended to read: t:
�.
18.6G.040 Width and location of curb cuts. The curb cut standards shall be �'II
in accordance with Title 15.04.080, Streets and Sidewalks. ;;�
;`ul
In the Zoning Ordinance a proposed change; '?�
��A proposed zoning change: That a veterinarian office or animal ,�
hospital be included as a permitted use in the Commercial Profes- ;:�
sional C-P zone. At present iC can only be allowed as a Con- "
ditional Use in the i+iain S�reet C�mmercial Zone C-3M, or �eneral �:
Commercial Zone C-3. ��
I'
��'�
� �il
f�
��
#
i:
G
G
�� . .. . . .. . . . . _. .. .. . .� . . .. ..
� � lg �',
� �a
���
ONE STOP PEJEtMIT SYSTEM IN TIGARD: FEASI�ILITY STUDY I''
�' �r
��,.
,;
A Review af Other Permit Systems �j
i`
�;:
�
i;
The name "one stop permit system" is a misnomer for all the various
systems and procedures that try Co streamline �he permit process. No- '
where did i find a city or county that did, in fact, have a "one-stop �':
permit system". Fairfax, Virginia, did try a system in which the developer :
't.
had to make only one stop, but it was discontinued after two years because '''
�;�
the new system toe�k longer than the applicant waving the permit through the ��
,;
;,
agencies himself. Tigard, in fact, is ahead of many municipalities in t�at "
Che represent3tive of each processing department is located in one building. �
,"
��I
�';r,
��
ForC Worth, Texas, eliminated the stop entirely for many building �':�
. ��
�,,,. department permits. An applicant just phones in the received information '�
a
and pays with a charge card. �'he application is routed to the appropriate �
��
reviewing profes5ionalsand the app]_icant is notified of its approval or denial `��
;�
r�
by phone. $oulder' Col�rado, instituted, but later discot�tinued, a "plans !;;
�
,.
room" where all building permit applications were filerl, and where each �'
�;,
�,
reviewing department could inspect an application at its convenience. �''
r'
�+
3,
�,
i,'
I visited the city offi.ces of Salem, Pc�rtlandeand Gresham to gather t„
z.:
perm.it system ideas. Salem received a $25,000 IiUD GranC to streamlin� its �,
permit system. It established a Permir Application Center that processed all �;
,€;;.
buildin , traffic arks olice fire and en ineerin ermits. It ublished , i<
g � P � P , � g g P P
t:
a permit and license catalog. It consolidated and eliminated appli.cation fortns. �
��
E
Salem also established a central fil.ing system for permits based on the address i;
� j_;
�
�'
;:
�
20 °
of the applicant and a revenue accounting system. The results were imprassive:
the staff needed to process applications was cut from about seven to four I�I
people, and costs were reduced by $2,000 from t�e previous year despite the
increase in permit applications �rom 17,000 to 20,000. The International
City Management Association survey of Salem contractors reported that the
permit time for building the sewer connectxons was shortened considerablq.
The City of Portland has organized its $uild�ng Department so that the
applicant needs to ga to only one counter. The counter person heips the ap-
plicant fiLl out the appropriate form. Almost all the pQrmits use the same
I
form and� if possible, the permit is issued on the spot. Otherwise copies of the j
plans are simultaneously sent to other �ivisions such as pZumbing, traffzc
- or fireo Ko processing is done unless the plan� check off as conforming to �he li
zoning ordinance (This is relatively easy �or the City of Portland because, unLike
Tigard, there is little undeveloped land requiring extensive planning review.) ,�_. �y
Each application is given a number and filed in rolodex. When each division is
finished with its revie��, it is marked-off on the applicant's file card.
�
This allows an applicant to be a.ble ta cal� the filekeeper/r�ceptionist
and find Qut in what stage of review his application is. The City is
alsa currently considering cambining the planninb and building depart-
ments under one council person.
In Gresha�, the planning and buil.ding departments are in one depart-
ment caLled "Protective Services"o They hold periodic meetings whexeby
all upcoming subdivisions, conditional use permits, zoning variances,
etc. , are reviewed by a fieam called by the head of protective serviees.
,, �
21.
The teaim is mar�e u� of regxessntatives of the Planning Staff, Building
.� Department, Engineering, Fire, Police, arnd Superintendants of Schools-.
Appl.icants are also invited to the meeting, to review the Fermit ap-
pliCations. The Pl.anning Co�ission appzeciates this approach because
they get one comprehensive packet to consider. The developer likes the
system because it can be faster, more open,, and he is less apt to get
�I caught in the cross-€ire between two different departments. This is .
�
easiex on staf� beeause it takes less indivicival caordination. Their
evaluations can be double checked by others, and they can otten presenti
a united front to the Planning Commission. Windsor, �onnecticut, among
others, has found tt�is system to be beneficial.
Even thpugh their pesmit processiz�g i,� reZative�.y efficient, t1�e
pressure in Gresham far development is as severe in Tigard. I heard
� ..
someboay in their department say "if we are not fast enough for the
develope;�s here, maybe they should �o bacic to California where theq came
.from."
�
�,
^^ 4
LL
The Good Points of Tigard's Permit Processing
�he process that Tigard uses has several assets that should be �'° "
recognized.
* All City permits go through one cashier which enables the Citp to keep �
r:
close tabs on the revenue. i;
i
� The Planning, Building, and Engineering Departments are all in cmP `�
t+uilding making it easy for referral of applicants, and for con-�
ferences among staEf.
* Contetiences are k�eld with Po7.i.ce, Fire, Engineering, and Planni.ng for
Majoz Partitions, Subdivisxons �:�ad Conditional Uses, Agencies and
Departments should zeceive regular Plannirsg Commissi,on agendas and/ar
notifiCations of planua.ng items that need �heir inpuC� The Planning �;
Depaztment should act as coordinator for a meeting to revie.w the plans
before the Planning Commission meets. �his system has been spelled-
out in the proposed subdivision �evisions and proposed administrative �
procedures. !
s'
Slowdown Points of Lhe Permit Sy�tem
;�
The following s�.owdown points descri�ie some aspects of Tigard`s
permit processing that cause delay and explai,ns how the delays can be
eliminatedo
;.,
* The electrical permit must be obtained from the state cextified '?
electrician in the Stats Office kiuilding in d.own.town Portland. �;,�
' The processing of the electri.cal permit is immediate and inspections ;,�
are usually done the day they are requested. The only way in which �''
Tigard could eliminate the referral of electri,cal permits i.s to hire �;
its own state cer�ified electrician. To be certified, the person ;;'i
must be a general st!pezvisory electrician with two years of experienceo ;;'i
This is obviously a very expensive person. to hire. Very few, if ;";'
any, of the suburban cities have hired Cheir awn electrician. � '
i���
, �
* Z'he Fire, Life, Sa�ety permit must go to �he Stat� Fire Marshall
in Sa1em. This takes fxom IO days �o two weeks and the devaloper �!�
must send the plans in himse7lf. Tigard may apply for an exemption �::�
under ORS 476.030, but the State certification requires more expertise `�
than the Tigard Building 9taff now has. �>�
��1
* Developezs try to get building permits before plann,ing action is ap- y`!
proved or bypass planning altogether. This could be eliminated by: :
s,
I) 7nstituting a land development permit which would be needed
in order to apply for a bui.lding permit, j'-;
's
2) Developing a check-off on the building permit itself could be a ``
solution; or �
. �. �.
t
3) A central building-planning applicati�an counter mi.ght also �,� �
facilitate efficient referral of applicant to the appro priate
• staff. ��`
�;`'.
,;
k`
� . � 23 .
.��-
* The cagacity of the Planning Co�ission to review requests is limited
to maximum six items a night, two meetings a month. This is a natural
�" ghenomenon for a group of human beings with lives outside Planning
�f£airs, but it has caused action on planning applicati.ons to be
delayed as much as two months just to get a place on the commissian
agenda. Sixty days is supposed to be the deadline a�cording to
�he Oregon Revised Statutes on how long an application aan take
before it is automatically approved.
A solution might be �o split the commission inta two five-member
commissions which would meet separately when there was a backlog
of current planning items. �"he Planning Commissiun would be ane body
when the plan.ning load was normal and for comprehensive planning
items. Consideration of this alternat�ve Froulcl have to be accompanied
Uy the realization that staff capaeity to handle more current p�anning
irems mare rapidly would have to be increased.
What can Ti.gard do, In-fiouse, to Lmprave its Perm.it Processing?
�
�
There are several things that �:h� Building, Engi.naering, and Planning ;
Department can do to impzove the processing of permits. �
i
* C�ntraZ f�.l.ing (by address ar 3t least, crass reFerenced by number) i
of a11 impr.ovements de�ne to lancl. This raoul.d entail merging the i
fs.les of Building and 'Planni.ng. 'So avoid being lost, check-out cards
would be placed in the f31e when a staff inember wants to use the• file.
�>.
* Standardize the format o� per�it forms. Consolidate application
forra� when pcessible. For exam.ple, Plumbing, Heati��, Buildiztg m�y go
on one form. Candit�onal Use, Variance, caxi go on another.
�
* Have availabl� the list of requirements and pra�cedures that tYa� - !
dev�eloper or homebuilder will have to perform for each kind af action �
or permit. The Building Depaxtment has suc'h a list. 'The Planning 4;
Department also has a procedures list. They would be easier to ��
understand i� they used t'he same format. �;
t'
� A goad looking folder in which the applicant eould put all of �
his forms and informatian is something that other municipalities ;�
have tried and liked. The inside of the folder could have �_
general information abnut city procedures and permits. The ',`,�
folder may be suger£luous for some of the simple building ;;�`
perffiits, but may be vezy helpful for Che 2.pplicant in ;f
organi^,ing the planning information. ''
p;'
k:
, �:
* A list of the various city licenses an.d permits and their fees. �,
Thzs list has been organizec3 by the current Planning Director. r
The Salem Permit Coordinator found that although only a few �-;
dev'elopers or home builders needed the 1ist, �.t was very im- 1''
portant for in-house staff £amiliarity and use. �'
� �t;
, �`:
�'
4-
�
4
�'
r
. . . ..... , . ........... �
�FE...�..�..� .. . . .. � . . . . _. . . . .... ......-.
,.
., '_
� MEMOR.ANDUM
�� February 2, 1979
To: Members of the Site Design Review Board
Membe�s of the Planning Commission
Members of the Tigard City Council '
From: Planning Director, Aldie Howard
Subject: The Color of Elmer's Roof and The Site Design Review Boa.rd (SDRH)
Following the meeting of the Site Aesign Review Board on February 1, 1979, a
general discussion was held concerning the necessity and worth of the Site
Design Review Board. I was asked t'o draft my thoughts on the fiopic for review
by the members of the Site Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City
Council.
Attendance at meetings is a problem. The Ordinance which establishes SDRB states
that a quorum consists of four out of the five members. If a vacancy occurs and
is not filled itt�anediately this body is nullified because of this requirement and
because it is seldom, if ever, 'that four members are present. Last night �aas no
except9.on. . . , only three members showed up, anc� after :[ tried to contac� one
alternate and one regular, those present decided to proceed without a quorum.
Adding to this was the fact that this meeting was the �econd for the appli.cants
who showed up last week anly to find out that the meeting had b�en cancelled and
' that the Site Design Review Planner had resigned. Tn short we are prolonging the
agony of the applican.t, are certainly not im�roving our public image, or are we
being fair to the people who now struggle t4 serve on the 5ite Design Review
�, �` .
�� Board.
Mr. Doug Smith, SDRB member and member af �the Ti.gard Planning Commission, proposed
that the 5ite Design Review Board expand its authority and scope of operations.
H.is point was that site design review has very little authority to make any changes
i in a proposal at such a late date. He noted that any changes of significance would
necessitate going back through the Planning Commission process to add conditians,
etc. Mrs. Olson nnted that the SDRB had had significant input in the Payless
Shopping Center and since that ti.me all of the functions had been centered in-house
to Planning 5taff'. It was suggested that the main thrusfi. of site design review is
aesthetics. I poin�e8 out that staff reviews each application in conjunction wa.th
Engineering, Building, Oregon Department of Transportation, the Fire Di.strict,
Utility Companies, etc., and the NPO's and the Tigard Comprehensive P],an. The staf£
xeport to the Planning Commission is an extensive document and is someta.mes very
technical. especially in �he case of traffic considerations for large projects, I
. special fe�tures such as flood plain etc. I pointed out that the members of �h�
SDRB do not and could not relate to all thefactions which staff now considers. �!
If the SDRB was to meet initially with the applicant, they would still have the I�!
staff reports trom both current planning and site design review. In this case they
would pick up all the details, but would finally advise staff concerning aesthetics.
This process would add one more night meeting involving a very large and Gumbersarae
body and producing an agreed upon document for Planning Commission approval. However,
I thi.nk that the same thing which happens now at the Planning Commission level will
� continue to happen. . .the applicants will agree to certain conditians and "negotiate"
_ . _ _
_ _ . _ __.
�
J/ . .,
� � ~ i
with the P�.anning Co�nission for certain conditions placed upon them by staff. '
Th� necessity for one more body standing in the way oE development seems a bit I
much.
t i
One eommex�t which T think has merit... .the Pick's Iaanding project wh�.ch was �he `"� ,
topic r,f' discussi�n last ev�ning went thrnugh the upheaval of staff, the ��
Planning Commission and the City Council and in the final analysis we ende$ up �
with tw� minor concerns.. .the type o£ shrub ar�aund a neighorhood park and the
placement of the bike pa�h along �he river. Le•t me expand on this. . .the neighborhood
park is mai,n�ained by the Honieowners Association and may be removed at the vote
of that Association. They construct it, supervise it and maintain it. The place-
ment o� the bike path came ou� of the Park Board in that they wanted it along the
rzver to connect with Cook Park and eventually run up �o King City. The land
area in question contains steep slopes dnwn to th� rivex and i.t just was not smart
to have the bike path along the xiver and not up hic�her where peapl,e from �he
projeet cou1.8 use it. So �.t was dhangec3. Flad a sta�'f' membex walkcd the land we
would never have gotten ourse].vPS into �k�' .. I have mac�e it an order that each
parCel wil]. be personally i.nspe�ted by a member ot staff_4 The meetirig l.ast night
was a waste of time and en�rgy. •
So where are we? Z think w� are at a point where we coul.d disband the Site Design
Review Board compgetely. ThE Design Review ChaQter in the Tigard Municipal Cod€:
is c1E�r, the st��'f has proven v�ery e�fec�ivE f.z� design revi_ew, th.e P].ann.�ng
Cummission is operating quite we11 under severe strain a.nd all the bases are being
�overed. Staff is under pressure to reduce the "red tape°1, governments are und�r
fire because cae all want less o� them, we don't have any monEy to ha.re additiona.i.
�ta£f and we ca�nnot keeping burning our p�op1F out at night mee�tings.
, If the Site Design Revi.ew �aard is going to be reciuced �o discussi.ons aver the
color of Elmer's roof or the type of siding used an a structure th�ri it is time -�
to rethink the necessity for such a body. Aestheti.cs axe to be consic3ered, and
will be considered by staff. I do not want any more ziigh� meetinqs. T want a
' chance to pu].1 this thi.ng toyether anc� znake it responsive in light s�f �he pressures
of the taxpayers who scream less costs, less delays, less govsrnment. I do not
� want another bndy reviewing the process that staff is hired to supervise. Basic
fact. . .the Council will aot fund more people unless T have very good reasons and
I don't think this is a reason for more sta£�. I do not want to be i.nvolved with
"value judgement" after the final guns have snundecl. I vaan,t �o reduce the rec�
tape and make government more responsivee � don't wanfi. ano�t►ex cumbersome bodX
sitting around mumbling abou� issues which tn me are impoxtant anc� which I wiii
address �hrough my paopl.e for the }�nefit u� this communi.ty. T am askinq far a
la.�tle trusta
�ach Appliaation to this depart�nent is reviewed by ap�roximately 34� people and
if �hat is not enough then I give up.
Aldie
,':,
i
�
. i
�
' j
i
• j
�
�
�. �
�r
February 15, 1979
I�r. Aldace Howar�
Planning Girector
City of �igard
1242� S.W. Main
Tigard, Oregon .
Dear Aldie,
Regarding you.r recen� letter in which the Tigard Design
Review Board may be abolished via staff recommenda�tion, highly
disturbs me as both a member of the Board and local land owner
and resident.
The original Board was set up to help assure the community
that furtue devslo�ment wnuld not become hap-hazard nor blig�t
the fast growing community. The original Board did not
attempt to slow develapment or cause a bureaucratic stumbling
block for �evelopmen�.
During it' s first four years only two projects wer.e ever
k rejected totally. The remaining projects, of which there
• were hundreds, were normally approved within a two week
p�riod after application, with changes that were worked out
and agreed upon during tYi� �oard Meetings.
' ThE�e changes were of much greater depth than a color of
� a roof or the addition of a tree whic;h your letter refers
to.
Approximately a year ago conditions changed. The Board
became an a�peal body with staff being able to approve or
rejec� almost at will.
Since that time �he Board' s effectiveness is al�ost n�l.
The danger is that one sta�f inember now can dictate
his/her own attitudes on the developer and community,
This is not a good situation and therefore under th.e present
procedure all direction to�ards design review should be
abolished and future development should be at the owners •
own volition only. "Look out Tigard! "
� .
�
_ _ _ _ _. __ _ __
.w _ _.
. `^�..
Sn discussion about the B�ard's future with yc�u and tl�e Boar.d
members, I feel there is a grea� philosaphical difference •
betcaeen what you see as design review and reason t'ax th,e
Board' s �xistence. Tk�e City and State have many technical
ordinances which atfect the building �ram life, safe�y,
zoning and quasi aestY�etic rules and regulations.
Items �uch as width af curb cuts, set backs, percent of si.te
lartdscaping, access to the sit�, �x�erior lighting, screening,
sic�nager gedestrian anci vehicul.�r moveme��. are very general.ized
' in tk�� Code Rec�uiremerits, wit,hGUt a r�ali.stic and l�gical
ap�7roach to those types of itez�ts a proj�ct can be�ome very
mundane or even detrimen�tal tn adjacent prc�perties and �o
the grow�h of the cummuni�y.
T certainly can apgreciate �.he budget concerns af the Tiqard
municipality bl�t I wonder where the value judgements are.
Deci�ions concerning zoning, planning, gro*�rth and c�eve�.opment
have a tasting effect for hundreds of years. "Drive down
82nd Avenue, Portland, bregon and target what color the
�oofs �.re painted. "
It is zny opinion that if the Board mai.ntains it' s presertt
s�a-t:us quo, all review for design quality both from the �:,..,��
$oard or staft should be abolisY�ed. I would reGazrunend that
�he Board be brought back to it's arigin�l status as c�efinec�
in �.he or:iginal Ordin.ance that e��tablis�ed the Board sc�
as to at least have a vehic"le to stop or change developments
, whicxi may be legal but are nnt, realistic to a positive grow�th
of a c�mmuni�y.
Sincexely, !
/�� � � � ��
Monte �. Cook, A. T.A.
Tigard Design Review Board Member
l
�
I
�;
". ':':�
,
ti
� i