Planning Commission Packet - 11/10/1981 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1981, 7:30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - Lecture Room
10865 SW WALNUT STREET - Tigard, Oregon
1. Open Meeting
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes From Previous Meeting
4. Planning Commission Communication
5. Public Hearing
5.1 CPR 14-81 Dr. Roberts - NPO #7
5.2 CPR 15-81 Summerlake II •- NPO #7
M-6 Summerlake II NPO #7
5.3 CU 14-81 Kevin O'Brien - NPO #1
5.4 V 10-81 National Safety/Skourtes NPO #5
6. New Business
7. Other Business
7.1 NPO Memberships
Change in NPO #4 - Addition to NPO #6 - Application to NPO #3
8. Adjournment
STUDY SESSION
A. Administrative Procedures - Ed Sullivan.
B. Floodway Ordinance - Bring Flood Insurance Maps & Study
C. Draft Noise Ordinance
D. Discussion of City Staff Changes - Bob Jean
IIMIIII"Mllilhdllil"glliaIIIIIIIIII"lrnll"IMIMIIIIIIIMITIFMiliaaiiia17
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1981
Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room
10865 SW Walnut St. , Tigard, OR
President Tepedino called the meeting to order at 7:35.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bonn, Christen, Herron, Kolleas, Moen, Owens, Speaker,
Tepedino
Excused: Helmer
Staff: Planning Director Currie; Associate Planner Newton;
Ken Elliott of City Counsel; late in the meeting,
Bob Jean, City Administrator
The MINUTES of the October 6 meeting were considered. On MOTION
by Kolleas, seconded by Bonn, they were approved as submitted.
There were no COMMUNICATIONS to the Planning Commission or its
members not treated in other agenda items.
The President opened the PUBLIC HEARING by reading the usual
statement of authority for and procedure to be followed in the meeting.
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 1 -81 DR. ALVA L.
ROBERTS NPO #7
A request by Dr. Alva Roberts for a Comprehensive Plan Revision
from. A-12 (Multi-Family Residential) to CP (Commercial-
Professional) on 1.05 acres, located at 12520 S.W. Scholia
Ferry Road Wash. County Tax Map 1S1 33AD Tax Lot 2500.
I.
Newton read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATION.
The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by the applicant, Dr.
Alva L. Roberts, Jr. , 12805 SW Trigger Drive, Beaverton. He stated
the increase in his practice made moving to a larger facility advis-
able, and the site behind his present office is available and
apparently well suited to his needs. He will provide pavement (at
this time not to city standards) to assure a professional appearance to
his establishment. He is mid way between two points from which sewer
might serve his location, but sewer will have to await development of
intervening properties and may be deferred for some time.
There was no 'PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: Bonn inquired as to the surrounding
zoning. - Newton stated it is CP immediately to the east of this site
Moen felt the request -to be in order because of that zoning, and asked
about possible conditions. Bonn agreed, as did Owens. Christen asked
about how to assuathe applicant Would eventually pay for the street.
1
MINUTES
TIGARD_'PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1981
Page 2
Curry proposed a nonremonstrance agreement. Speaker inquired if what
the applicant spent on the street would be recoverable. Currie said
no, on the basis that what he would put in now to make the site present-
able would be far from city street standards.
Bonn MOVED approval of CPR 14-81, based on the findings in the
staff report, with conditions that a nonremonstrance agreement be
secured on future street improvements; that agreement be secured to
dedicate necessary right-of-way for the road; that the septic system
be approved by the Washington County Department of Sanitation prior to
issuance of occupancy permits; that the site be connected to sewer when
available. The motion was seconded. Currie suggested the inclusion of
the standard conditions and one that is not standard, which is that he
apply for conditional use for a veterinary office. There insued
discussion on the necessity of the conditional use application.
It was agreed after the minutes of the April, 1979 Planning Com-
mission hearing on Dr. Roberts were read by staff that the code had been
amended to include veterinary offices as a conditional use in the C-P
zone, and that it would be necessary for Roberts to request conditional
use. Possible procedures were discussed, including continuing the
request to allow the applicant to include the request for conditional
use. The motion on the floor then failed, 5 to 3.
Speaker thereupon MOVED continuance of CPR 1 -81 to allow applicant
and staff to work out conditions they feel are appropriate, and to
allow the applicant to request conditional use, with the fee to be
waived for the conditional use, and that the item be placed first on
the agenda of the December meeting. The motion was seconded by Bonn
and carried unanimously.
The President declared a five-minute recess.
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 1 -81
AND SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT M-6-81 AMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NPO #7
A request by Amart Development Company for a Comprehensive
Plan Revision from 11 .7 Single Family Residential to A-12
Multi-Family Residential; and application to address issue of
Sensitive lands in Summerlake Phase II (Washington County Tax
Map 1S1 33D Tax Lot 100.)
Newton read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATION, illustrating
various points on the wall map. She explained staff's concerns, and
suggested the Commission might wish to recommend a resubmission at a
lower density, perhaps to R-5 standards instead of A-12.
The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Mal Stout of Benkendorf
Associates, 620 SW Fifth—Avenue, Portland. He opened with the request
z
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1981
Page 3
that the written presentation be entered as part of the record of this
hearing. (See the copyright notice on the sheet of tables following
page 86.) He stated that since the first phase of Summerlake was
started the company has contributed improvements worth over one-half
million dollars, including 17 acres for park and park improvements,
trunk sewer line, etc. Their request for changes in Phase II are
occasioned by (1) real changes since 1977 in the housing industry,
(2) increasing pressure from Metro and LCDC to increase density, and
(3) unanimous direction by the City Council to the developer of an
•
adjacent property to increase his density beyond his request.
•
Stout detailed negotiations with the previous planning director
which prompted the nature of this request. He described the physical
characteristicts and uses of neighboring properties, and showed drawings
of the types of units proposed, and a few slides of actual units in
other nearby projects, and clustered units in California. He emphasized
that all of the units.would be for individual ownership, and stated
the density would be 9.27 units per acre. He stated the density
proposed is acceptable because of the large amount of open area in the
vicinity.
He discussed for the benefit of the audience other material in
their printed presentation on the access to the site and the proposed
street system, the school situation, Carl Buttke's traffic analysis,
compliance with LCDC goals, and approval from the fire marshall.
He introduced Phil Millard, President of Lutz Development Company,
8925 SW Beaverton Highway, Portland.
Mr. Millard discussed the real estate market in some depth.
As a builder-developer he stated their task was to provide "affordable
housing" for the acknowledged large market for new housing within the
guidelines established in the area. Their proposal represents their
effort as developers to meet this public need.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY, almost all in opposition, was presented by:
*** K. J. Won of Ginther Engineering, Beaverton, representing
Wedgewood Homes, who is the developer of the development to the
southwest of the Summer Lake site. He took a neutral position. He
felt what is proposed is a major change, to which they have no objec-
tion, but that if this proposal is approved, they would like to have
similar consideration and action on their development. He submitted
a letter from Wedgewood Homes expressing their concerns.
Mr. Won was followed by several Katherine Street residents who
presented well-cordinated arguments in opposition:
*** Bruce Parker, 12705 SW Katherineafelt that one week prior
notification was inadequate for those in opposition to prepare a proper
case against an applicant possessing the resources of Amart Development.
MINUTES
TI GARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1981
Page 4
He asked those in the audience who are not speaking but who are opposed
to the proposal to stand. Perhaps two score did so. He expressed the
conviction the developer is unable to sell 7,000 square foot lots in
todays market, but that this situation would change "in the immediate
future." He urged the commission to resist the pressure under these
conditions for higher density, stating the developer had not made a
case for the drastic change of the comprehensive plan.
*** James Nicole, 12750 SW Katherine, read from the 1978 staff
report on the Bellwood Park subdivision in which it was found that
128th, then designated as a local street, was already used over capacity.
While it is now designated, as a collector, the level of traffic remains
and will increase with the development proposed. He felt the proposal
is insensitive to goals in the NPO #7 plan. Another concern was the
ability of Fanno Creek to absorb the additional water from the imperme-
able surfaces in the development.
*** Mark Zimel, 12925 SW Katherine, whose property adjoins the
development, credited the Lutz Company with quality developments. He
recognized Carl Buttke as an expert in his business, but raised the 'II
question whether the traffic proposed on 128th is usual or unusual--a
question which had not been addressed. He suggested that if the fore-
cast of more people living in smaller units is correct, then the
Beaverton School District's estimate of school population based on
fewer children in the smaller units could be incorrect, because the
smaller units could be housing a more representative element of the
population with the normal ratio of school children. This, he felt,
would overburden the school capacity in either Beaverton or Tigard.
While he approves Art Lutz's developments, he noted there is no assurance
that Art Lutz would actually develop the site if the density were
increased. He felt the present high interest rates will change, so
that people generally will be able to purchase normal size homes on
7,000 square foot lots.
*** H. Kay Capron, 12770 SW Marie Court, felt that this proposal
materially reduces the options available to those who want single
family homes on standard lots. She expressed concern for the increased
traffic through their established residential area, increased crime
rate, and the change in the land use from what people expected when
they bought their homes in the area. She did not feel it desirable
to have all types of dwellings in every neighborhood. She urged a
change in the proposed traffic flow, should this applicant submit a
request for lower density.
*** Ron Wagner, 12645 SW Katherine, read a paragraph from an
article about increase in density in Beaverton which raised the ques-
tion of "public need" of condominiums and other high-density land uses.
***., Nancy Campbell, 12790 SW Katherine, opposed the development
from the traffic standpoint. She told of her bad experience in another
locality with private streets. She outlined possible difficulties With
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1981
Page 5
the development should the Lutz organization have to abandon it only
partly finished. She wants to keep the neighborhood single family.
*** Alan Patterson, 11605 SW Manzanita Street, stated he owns
property just east of the site. When he developed the eastern portion
of his property it was suggested that he not cross the sensitive lands
to reach the western portion, but that instead access be gained through
Summer Lake II. The street plan proposed does not do this.
There was no CROSS-EXAMINATION or REBUTTAL testimony offered.
COMMISSION DECISION AND ACTION: Herron expressed concern for the
traffic situation, especially with respect to school children, and
felt higher density is out of place at this location. Kolleas disapproved
the higher density in the middle of a single family area. Speaker
explored with Mr. Patterson the previous arrangements for access to
his property (which are apparently a matter of public record). He
could not approve the density requested, but expressed a desire to see
a small example at least of the cluster housing, which is new to this
area and needs to have some examples to show that the concept does
work well. He questioned the accuracy of the statement that there were
no adjustments to standards being asked for in the proposal. He
inquired the school district situation and the prospect of getting it
changed. It was pointed out the request for change would have to come
from the residents, but Commissioner Moen stated a number of people
have bought in the area because they wanted to be in the Beaverton
school district. He considered it an emotional issue with little
prospect for change in the foreseeable future.
Owens reported the NPO #7 plan did not contemplate densities of
this magnitude, nor were the roads planned for the traffic which would
be generated. Bonn felt the increase of density from about 160 to
400 units would have an adverse impact on the highway system. Moen
commended the applicant on his professional presentation, and the
opponents on the well-considered presentation they made. He felt the
developer had an obligation to protect the neighborhood as contemplated
in the comprehensive plan, and expressed the opinion that the high
interest rates are not In adequate reason for changing density in this
location. Tepedino, while recognizing Tigard's obligation to provide
a range of housing, felt that the policy issues of established neigh-
borhoods and traffic generation involved carried greater weight.
Ken Elliott of the city attorney's staff discussed the LCDC
goals, which had been well addressed by the applicant in his written
presentation.
Moen MOVED denial of CPR 15-81 and 111111110, based on staff findings,
conclusions and recommendations, and on the evidence presented during
the meeting. The motion was seconded by Kolleas and carried unanimously.
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1981
Page 6
5.2B SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT M 6-81, AMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NPO #7
Newton explained the requirements with respect to the sensitive
lands in the development, which require an application in a case such
as this, even though no sensitive lands will be built upon. There was
some discussion as to the desirable handling of the matter. Moen
MOVED for continuance of Sensitive Lands Permit M 6-81. The motion
was seconded by Bonn and carried unanimously.
5.3 CONDITIONAL USE CU 14-81, KEVIN O'BRIEN NPO #1
A request by Kevin O'Brien for a Conditional Use to permit
construction of a duplex located at 104th and SW McDonald.
(Wash. County Tax Map 2S1 2CC Tax Lot 3300.)
Newton read the STAFF REPORT through the STAFF RECOMMENDATION (but
not the recommended conditions).
The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Kevin O'Brien, 21559 SW
99th Avenue, Tualatin. He questioned Condition 1 of the recommended
conditions on the basis that it differed from the conditions placed on
the minor land partition, which allowed a less restrictive time frame
for the drainage plan. He stated he has no plans for building at the
present time, and hence the requirement for site design review seems
unnecessary.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY was presented by
**ar Phil Westover, 10340 SW Hillview, who favored the application
because he considered development is inevitable. However he expressed
concern about the eventual appearance of the site, which now has a
house which has been moved in setting on blocks. His principal concern
Was for the drainage problem, which he explained at some length. He
questioned what his responsibility is to improve drainage of his
property, and means of financing such improvements.
CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: Mr. Westover questioned Mr. O'Brien
as to how much longer the house on blocks would remain in that status.
O'Brien related the recent history of the lot and the house moved onto
it, which will be set on a foundation as soon as the conditional use
permit is obtained. Currie explained the arrangements between the
mover of the building and the city, and the time frame within which
certain actions must be taken.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: After a little further discussion
of the drainage problem and the 14-day time limit in Condition #1,
Bonn MOVED approval of Conditional Use CU 14-81, based on staff findings,
conclusions and recommendations, with modification of Condition #1
to 30 days, and with the addition of ',prior to issuance of building
permits" to Condition No 2. The motion Was seconded by Moen and
carried unanimously.
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1981
Page 7
5.4 VARIANCE V 10-81, NATIONAL SAFETY COMPANY NPO #5
A request by National Safety Company for a variance to side
yard set back from 20 feet to 10 feet along S.W. 74th Avenue.
(Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12A Railroad Right-of-way.)
Newton read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATION.
The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by John Skourtes, 1701
SW Weir Road, Beaverton. He asked for clarification of the no additional
material paragraph, given by the President. After establishing the
exact location and setting of the property, Skourtes stated his assump-
tion the staff had no quarrel with the first three qualifications for
a variance on this property, and concentrated his presentation on the
hardship aspect. He felt the setback ordinances are applicable more
particularly to the ordinary rectangular lot, which this is not. He
called attention to the statement in his October 27 letter that mortgage
companies will not lend money on'speck warehouse only 30 feet wide
because it is not functional for ordinary warehouse purposes. He
pointed to the railroad track bordering 74th to the south of this
parcel, and the Mercer Steel yard farther south. He stated ' The
realities of the market place proves the hardship." He declared that
by the time the LID, sewer and water connections had been paid for,
the cost would be such that a 30 foot building would not provide
enough square footage to come out economically. .Tie pointed out this
building would be for investment, and on that basis he felt the unecon-
omic aspects of the possible 30 foot building had been proved by the
actions of mortgage lenders. He described difficulties with shrubs
along steel buildings because of reflection off the wall.
There was no PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Owens got clarification about
Skourtes' building nearby between the two railroad tracks. Tepedino
suggested that while the applicant asserts a less-than-4O foot ware-
house is not economically feasible, he has not demonstrated that
another type of building only 30 feet wide could indeed go in there.
He challenged the meeting of variance qualification No. 1.
speaker questioned staff whether the owner, Burlington Northern
Railroad, had signed this request. (Apparently they did.) Currie
•
pointed out this is not a specific lot, but rather a portion of the
Burlington Northern right-of-way which would require a minor land
partition to make a lot. Upon a question from Bonn about the 40 foot
right-of-way on 74th, Currie explained the thinking behind keeping
74th at that point only 4C feet wide. Tepedino again brought up the
"exceptional or extraordinary conditions". Currie explained these
conditions applied to the property, which is in this case exceptional
and extraordinary in shape, and that Tepedino's line of argument was
better related to the fourth or minimum variance from standards require-
ment.
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 7981
Page 8
There was discussion of number of access points onto 74th. Currie
suggested the Public Works Director had aut otity to grant additional
access points if conditions warranted. Speaker felt that perhaps
mini.-storage space might be a use to which the property could be
put without a variance.iance He then MOVED for denial of Variance V 10-81
based on staff findings, conclusions and the recommendation for denial
based on the finding that the applicant had not shown that a smaller "+
building couleMee built on the site. The motion was seconded by
Kolleas and carried seven to one, with Christen voting no.
OTHER BUSINESS: A memo on NPO changes was considered. Bonn
MOVED acceptance of the three NPO appointments ppointments listed'in the memo
of November 6 prom the Associate Planner. The motion was seconded by
Kolleas and carried unanitously.
It was mentioned.that' a president of the commission should be
elected to take office for the year beginning January 1, and that this
should be part of the order of bus-.xess at the December meeting.
Bob Jean, City Administrator, discussed procedures and time
constraints on the urban renewal agency if advantage is to be taken
of the increment financing mechanism in 1982. After considerable
discussion it was agreed the Planning Commission would attend the
City Council meeting on November 23, which will include a town hall
type of meeting on the urban renewal issue. Jean outlined his concept
of the role of the Planning Commission under the new administrative
procedures, and the advisability of conducting a sort of "crash course"
for the Commission by the League of Oregon City or other educative
organization. The aim is to have the Commission begin work on the
comprehensive plan early in 1982. The object will be to pull together
or blend the seven NPO plans covering seven separate areas into one
integrated plan for the whole city.
Currie mentioned the flood plain issue, which needs action in
December in order to have Council act on it by the deadline, February 1.
The need to consider the draft of administrative procedures was men-
tioned. Jean suggested Speaker and Ken Elliott confer on the latter's
comments on these so a second revised draft could be considered by the
Commission. In order. to take care of these extra items and still hold
the December meeting open for a known heavy agenda, it was agreed a
special meeting of tho Commission should be held Tuesday, December 1.
The President declared the meeting ADJOURNED at 11:!4:0.
.... .0. . - . ,
PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL
MEETING
10 5 1
()ie?
Date /OA 4
Frank Type ino '1./// /.,
Clifford Spe er I/
. / WO
1t13
4291( /V0
Don Moen
Geraldine Kolleas 7 AT 0
____
Mark Christen /6 0
Susan Herron V /'r-0
Richard Helmer_______ -J-------
Lf/41
Bonnie Owens__/
Roy Bonn '7------
61/4/1) 1
i
1
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, '1981 - 7:30 P.M
Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room
10865 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 14-81 Dr. Alva L. Roberts NPO # 7
A request by Dr. Alva Roberts for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from A-12
(Multi-Family Residential) to CP (Commercial-Professional on 1.05 acres,
located at 12520 S.W. Scholls Ferry Rd. Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33AD
Tax Lot 2500.
5.2 Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81, Conditional Use CU 15-81 and
Sensitive Lands Premit M-6-81 Amart Development Comeau NPO # 7
A request by Amart Development Company for a Comprehensive Plan Revision
from R-7 Single Family Residential to A-12 Multi-Family Residential; an
application to address issue of Sensitive lands in Summerlake Phase II
(Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D Tax Lot 100.)
5.3 Conditional Use CU-14-81, Kevin O'Brien NPO #1
A request by Kevin O'Brien for a Conditional Use to permit construction
of a duplex located at 104th and S.W. McDonald. (Washington County Tax
Map 2S1 2CC Tax Lot 3300.
5.4 Variance V 10-81, National Safety Company NPO # 5
A request by National Safety Company for a variance to side yard set back
from 20 feet to 10 feet along S.W. 74th Avenue. (Washington County Tax Map
2S1 12A Railroad Right-of-way).
"PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET"
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND
NOTE TRE'IR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET.
AGENDA ITEM: ; ACTION REFERENCE: (. f R / (� ! . ccQV'CJ Po
7,4 E ADDRESS
' ie saw .
im
AGENDA ITEM: ACTION REFERENCE �P
'' w L
NAME ADDRESS `' r a'. � �r C
i
( K. /jWdw y 6ikrctd�t�- c.uCr��� INN r v$� u7 ti T�od5
.Uri c< /"ter/er /2 7 5 :t
/ / 2s e//v Cam' ST 776. X4'1
/e ,It• ' T• sf/:
11 `] �/ t� 9 'lam Y1�
tk C/l t7�I �� V ri. �/_v �l�Q T(' E, v1
_ / / / 77O S . Ara iiz� /At eU'c-r ,1"\
Or�i.,. _�,�.,,, �,. "` _..._.a t a',,6, y '4.r; ��t'. :r ,; _:<.y,_.,•te\/ J /
AGENDA ITEM: . �� ACTION REFERENCE: / - f `� -"S I Q( f (312 r
NAME ADDRESS
/o / /1 '72,}1,4 fie / Cr' / / /
1Y°V I :I' L"'"- "rd LAI 1+11-1-V
\ 7 d277bC/6 ‹
4
......:✓:tn. ,w+..•.n•,....:,.........•.:. .::..,.i.:,:. ... :..................yw:....w.:.w.....» ,...w.n.um a>'.yu.,u» ...,;. ,,.:me'rY.,9asvk.v, .••,:...:...—.::-Jw.r.. ._.. .»...Sn. .....,u au', .. s. iJ.
"PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN—UP SHEET"
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND
NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET.
AGENDA ITEM: e,' ACTION REFERENCE: GI [
NAME ADDRESS
1
AGENDA ITEM: ACTION REFERENCE:
NAME ADDRESS
•
AGENDA ITEM: ACTION REFERENCE: •
NAME • ADDRESS
•
"PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET"
I NOTICE ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND
NOTE THEIR DRESS ON THIS SHEET.
.
- €5 I
AGENDA ITEM: a ACTION REFERENCE: r V`1t,,e/� -2„9..„ ,
p 1N.ME ADDRESS ` C
I . �/211-44,/211-44,1 I / c / l� S J //�/(/ /24, (-51G'rz/L2/1/
•
AGENDA ITEM: • ACTION REFERENCE:
NAME ADDRESS
AGENDA ITEM: ACTION REFERENCE:
NAME ADDRESS
•
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.1
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1981, 7:30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon
DOCKET: Comprehensive Plan Revision - CPR 14-81 .(Vincent Olson)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Published under Planning Commission agenda in the Tigard Times
October 29, 1981 and November 5, 1981. Notices mailed to
surrounding property owners on October 1981.
APPLICANT: Dr. Alva L. Roberts, Jr.
12805 SW Trigger Drive
Beaverton, Oregon 97005
OWNER: Vincent Olsen
12520 SW Scholls Ferry Road
Tigard, Oregon 97223
REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Revision from A-12 Multi Family Residential to
CP Commercial Professional on 1.05 acres.
APPLICATION DATE: October 16, 1981
SITE LOCATION: 12520 SW Scholls Ferry Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 33A1), Tax Lot 2500)
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The NPO #7 Plan Map and the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan designate the site
as Urban Medium Density.
2. The applicant currently operates a small animal hospital on the property north of
this site. It is the applicant's intention to expand his business to the proposed
site. There is an existing building on the subject site. The applicant does not
intend to remodel either building at this time.
3. Currently the subject parcel is accessed by an unimproved private road from S.W.
Scholls Ferry Road. The applicant does not address any improvement to the access
in this proposal.
4 . The site is not served with sewer at the present time.
5. NPO #7 Policies applicable to this site are as follows:
Policy 17: Development shall coincide with the provision of public streets,
water and sewerage facilities. These facilities shall be (a)
capable of adequately serving all intervening properties as well
as the proposed development and (b) designed to meet City or County
standards.
6. The Commercial Development section of the NPO #7 Plan speaks to two categories
of commercial development all to be located along Scholls Ferry Road.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The parcel seems better suited to the NPO #7 designation of Multi-Family than
to the proposed Commercial Professional designation. The Multi-Family designation
buffers the existing Commercial Professional use on Scholls Ferry from the Single
Family designation to the South.
2. There is no sewer service to the site.
3. The applicant has not addressed the issue of access to the site. The
subject site should be served with a public street.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Planning Commission could de•ry the request as proposed,
2. The Planning Commission could approve the request as proposed within
the following conditions:
A. A traffic, plan showing public street improvements to the existing
unimproved right-of-way presently serving the site shall be
submitted and approved by the City of Tigard Engineering Division,
prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit.
B. The site shall be connected to City sewer prior to the issuance
of Occupancy Permits.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of this request based on findings as follows:
1. The NPO #7 Plan clearly speaks to the development of commercial uses along
Scholls Ferry Road. The existing Multi-Family designation is intended as a
buffer between the commercial development on Scholls Ferry Road and the Urban
Low Density to the South. Further, a traffic plan showing how the property
could be served with a public street South from Scholls Ferry Road should be
a condition of any development on this site.
• w'
� p Approved G�'Frank A C Brie
Prepared by: El' abeth A. ewt n Approved by: Frank A. C rie
Associate Planner Planning Director
/br
Staff Report
Agenda 5.2
Tigard Planning Commission
November 10, ;1981 7:30
Fowler Junior High Lecture Room
10856 SW Walnut, Tigard,
DOCKET: Comprehensive Plan Revision, CPR 15-81 (Summerlake II)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Notice published in Tigard Times October 29, 1981
and November 5, 1981. Notice was mailed to surrounding
property, owners within 300 feet on October 30, 1981.
APPLICANT: AMART Development Company
8925 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway
Portland, Oregon 97225
OWNER: Same
APPLICATION DATE: October 23, 1981
SITE LOCATION: North of SW Katherine between SW 126th and SW 128th
(Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D Tax Lot 100) .
REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Change from R-7 Urban Low Density to
A-l2 PD Urban Medium Density Development and for a preliminary
Plan Review.
PREVIOUS ACTION: Reference ZC 28-77, S8-778, SDR 36-79
FINDINGS:
1. The site is designated Urban Low Density on the City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Map and NPO #7 Plan Map.
2. The applicant proposes a Planned Development District with Single
Family Attached Units, Single Family Cluster Units and Townhouse
Condominiums.
3 The NPO #7 Plan Map designates this site for Urban Low Density,
approximately four single family units per acre.
4. The surrounding land uses include single family homes to the south;
Mary Woodard Elementary School and the Greenway to the east; Summerlake
Park to the north; and single family and proposed multi-family to the
west.
5. Presently, SW 128th dead .ends at the site on the southern boundary and
SW Falcon Rise Drive dead ends on the western boundary. Both of these
streets are designated as local streets on the NPO #7 plan.
6. There is a sewer line running north/south through the property.
7. Although Mary Woodard School is in the Tigard School District and iS
located immediately west of the property, elementary school children
would attend school in the Beaverton School District.
8. Policies from the NPO #7 Plan applicable to this request are:
policy 6. The single family character of the area designated
on the Plan Map as Urban Low Density is viewed as a positive asset
to be retained. Projects proposed for this area must be judged
according to affects upon this character.
Policy 7. Within the Urban Low Density residential area, allow
duplexes on lots less appropriate for single family homes to
include locations at street intersections, adjacent Major thoroughfares,
and as buffers between multi-family and single family areas.
Policy 8. When developments are proposed in the Urban Low density
area for sites which include identified natural features worthy
of preservation, the planned development concept shall be utilized
if the Planning Commission determines it the best method for preservation.
9. Goals from the NPO #7 applicable to this request are as follows:
2. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the established character
of existing neighborhoods and seeks to preserve and enhance existing
neighborhood values. Future development proposals should be sensitive
to the concern of citizens for their own immediate environment as
well as to the well-being of the citizens as a whole.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant proposes an increase in density from 4 single family units
per acre to approximately 12 units per acre. Given the surrounding land
uses and the existing street network, staff feels this increase in
density is inappropriate.
2. In locating multi-family development, NPO Policy identifies appropriate
sites as those which are located in close proximity to schools, shopping,
jobs and recreation. An adequate street network to serve the density
of a multi-family development is also a concern.
3. Although the proposed project is located adjacent to a Tigard School
District elementary school, the children residing in the proposed
development would not attend this school. The residents of this proposal
are in the Beaverton School District. The elementary school serving
this site is 2-3 miles away, north of Scholls Ferry toad.
4. The street pattern for this development is a concern. There are only
two local capacity streets which presently dead end at the south and
west boundaries to serve the site. The construction of 130th as a
manor collector through the site would help alleviate potential traffic
problems. However, the extension of 130th from the north connecting to
SW 128th at the southern boundary is the only through street proposed
for this project.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Planning Commission could deny the request as proposed.
2. The Planning Commission could deny the request as proposed and
approve a lower density.
3. The Planning Commission could approve the request as proposed.
4. The Planning Commission could approve the request as proposed with
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: :
Staff recommends denial of CPR 15-81 and denial of Preliminary Plan Review
based on findings, as follows:
The request violates Policy #6 and Goal #2 of the NPO #7 Plan in that
approval of this proposal would considerably alter the single family
character of the existing neighborhood.
Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission consider a request
for Urban Low Density at R-5 standards upon re-submittal of a proposal
bpi the 'applicant.
Prepared by: . ® ■�7i �i. / 7 Approved by`:
Eliz. •-th A. Newt' Frank A. Currie
As •ciate Planner Planning Director
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 5.28
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1981 7:30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard
No submission of additional material by applicant shall be made at this Public Hearing
unless the applicant is requested to do so. Should this occur, unrequested, the item
will be tabled until the following hearing.
DOCKET: Sensitive Lands Permit, M 6-81
PUBLIC INFORMATION: Published under Planning Commission Agenda in the Tigard Times
October 29, 1981 and November 5, 1981. Notices mailed to surrounding Ii
property owners on October 26, 1981.
APPLICANT: Amart Development Company, 8925 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Highway, Portland,
Oregon 97225
OWNER: Same
APPLICATION DATE: October 26, 1981
LOCATION: North of SW Katherine Street between SW 126th and SW 128th
(Washington County Tax Map 151 33D, Tax Lot 100)
REQUEST: A Sensitive Lands Permit Application
PREVIOUS ACTION: Reference ZC 28-77, S 8-78, SDR 36-79
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Chapter 18.57 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires a Sensitive Lands Permit
application for all development on property where there are sensitive lands areas.
2. A portion of the applicant's site lies within the 100 year floodplain. The
applicant has agreed to dedicate all lands within the 100 year floodplain to the
City of Tigard.
3. The applicant is not proposing any development within the 100 year floodplain.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Since the applicant proposes no development within the 100 year floodplain,
there will be no adverse affect on sensitive lands.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of M 6-81 based on findings as follows:
1. The applicant does not intend to develop any portion of the 100 year floodplain
and has agreed to dedicated all lands within the 100 year floodplain to the City
of Tigard.
Staff recommends the following condition be attached to M 6-81:
•
•
Page 2
Staff Report
Age,6:da 5.2B
11-10-81 `Planning Commission Meeting 1
• 1. Any development proposed on this site should have the Planned Development Designation
so that any changes in the Sensitive Lands Area can be monitored by the Planning
Commission:
A
a .. _ . . g . . ., :, , (44 zce,,,rr,c, , , ,.
Prepa ed by: Elizebathon A proved by: Frank A. Currie
Associate Planner Planning Director
EAN:lw
l
il
'.4
3
•
IIIII""ajillnillinlilliaillnigilliMMIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIMT
Staff Report
Agenda Item 5.3
Tigard Planning Commission
November 10, 1981 - 7:30 PM
Fowler Junior High School
10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard
DOCKET: Conditional Use, CU 14-81 (Kevin O'Brien) NPO #1
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Published under Planning Commission Agenda in the
Tigard Times, October 29 and November 5, 1981.
Notices mailed to surrounding property owners within
100 feet on October 26, 1981.
APPLICANT: Kevin J. and Patricia A. O'Brien OWNER: Same
21559 SW 99th Ave.
Tualatin, Oregon 97062
APPLICATION DATE: October 6, 1981
SITE LOCATION: Northeast corner of SW 104th and SW McDonald '(Washington County
Map 2S1 2CC Tax Lot 3300 Parcel 1) .
REQUEST: For a conditional use in an R-7 "Single Family Residential Zone"
to construct a duplex on a 10,110 square foot lot.
PREVIOUS ACTION: Reference MLP 5-81, TU 4-81
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The site is zoned R-7 and designated as Single Family Residential on the
Comprehensive Plan Map and NPO #1 Plan.
2. The Tigard Municipal Code allows duplexes on 10,000 square foot lots in the
R-7 Zone (Reference Code Section 18.20.020) .
3. Applicable policies from the NPO #1 Plan are as follows:
Policy 7: Within the urban low density residential area, allow
duplexes on lots less appropriate for single family homes to
include locations at street intersections and as buffers between
multi-family and single family areas.
4. Presently, SW 104th Avenue is unimproved in front of the site. SW McDonald
is paved but has no curbs or sidewalks.
5. The site is part of a drainageway and a small stream runs through the
property. Site drainage will have to be addressed prior to the issuance
of building permits.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed duplexes-are allowed as a conditional use in an R-7 zone.
2. Improvements are needed to SW 104th Avenue and SW McDonald to acceptable
city standards.
3. A site drainage plan should be submitted to address the drainage problems
on the site.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Planning Commission could deny the request.
2. The Planning Commission could approve the request as submitted.
3. The Planning Commission could approve the request as submitted with conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: '
Staff recommends approval of CU 14-81 based on findings as follows:
1. The Tigard Municipal Code allows duplexes on 10.000 square foot lots
in an R-7 zone.
2. The R-7 Single Family Residential Designation of the property is in
conformance with the NPO #1 Plan.
Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to approval of CU .14-81:
1. The Conditional Use approval will be valid only if a Site Drainage Plan has
been submitted and approved ny the City of Tigard Engineering Division
within 14 days of the Planning Commission's approval of this request.
2. The applicant shall apply for Site Design Review for the duplex.
3. All applicable conditions of MLP 5-81 must be met prior to the issuance
of building permits as listed below:
a. Half street improvements to local street standards shall be made to
SW 104th Avenue.
b. A bond for half street improvements shall be posted by the property
owner with the City of Tigard for 100% of the cost of the half street
improvements.
c. A non-remonstrance agreement shall be signed and recorded with
Washington County against the future improvement of SW McDonald.
d. An Additional (5') five feet of R.O.W. along SW McDonald shall be
dedicated to the City for the future improvement of the street.
A metes and bounds legal description and map shall accompany the
dedication of the 5' R.O.W. and shall be prepared by a registered
engineer or land surveyor.
Prepared by _ * l mem • Al Approved b
lr;both A. Newt.. y,., 4,./. ,/,4(4.44„:,' '-/Lr.. ....
yank A. Currie
Associate Planner Planning Director •
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 5 .4
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1981 7 :30 pm
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD
No submission of additional material by applicant shall be
made at this Public Hearing unless the applicant is requested
to do so. Should this occur, unrequested, the item will be
tabled until the following Hearing.
DOCKET: Variance, V 10-81 (John Skourtes) NPO# 5
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Notice published under Planning Commission
Agenda in the Tigard Times on October 29,
1981 and November 10, 1981 . Notices
mailed to surrounding property owners
within 100 feet on October 30, 1981 .
APPLICANT: John Skourtes OWNER: Burlington Northern R. R.
17010 SW Weir Road
Beaverton, Oregon 97007
REQUEST: For a variance from the sideyard setback
requirements from 20 feet to 10 feet in an
M-3 light industrial zone.
LOCATION: S.E. corner of S .W. Bonita Road and SW 74th
Avenue (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12A -
Railroad Right of Way) .
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . The applicant is proposing to construct a
6,000 square foot metal warehouse on the site.
2 . The applicant is proposing access to the site
from S.W. 74th Avenue. At present, there is a
Local Improvement District being formed for the
improvement of S. W. 74th Avenue.
3 . The Tigard Municipal Code, Section 18.76.020 states :
"No variance shall be granted by the
Planning Commission unless it can be
shown that all of the following conditions
exist.
a) Exceptional or extraordinary conditions
applying to the property that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same
zone or vicinity, which conditions are a
result of lot size or shape, topography,
or other circumstances over which the
applicant has no control ;
STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.5
Page 2
b) The variance is necessary for the preservation
of a property right of the applicant substan-
tially the same as possessed by owners of
other property in the same zone or vicinity;
c) The authorization of the variance shall not
be materially detrimental to the purposes
of this title, be injurious to property in
the zone or vicinity in which the property
is located, or be otherwise detrimental to
the objectives of any city development plan
or policy;
d) The variance requested is the minimum from
the provisions and standards of this title
which will alleviate the hardship. "
4 . The property in question is actually a portion
of the railroad right of way and not a legal
tax lot.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Improvements are needed to S.W. 74th Avenue.
2 . The applicant does not meet all the criteria
established for granting a variance. Specifically,
the applicant does not meet condition Number 4.
The applicant could construct s smaller building
on the site and therefore, maintain the required
setbacks .
3 . The applicant feels that a smaller building
would not be economically feasible for his
purposes.
ALTERNATIVES: 1 . The Planning Commission could approve the
request as submitted.
2. The Planning Commission could approve the
request as submitted with conditions .
3. The Planning Commission could deny the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Variance V10-81
based on findings as follows :
1. The applicant does not meet the required criteria
established for granting a variance in that a smaller
building could be constructed on the site. The
question is whether a 40 foot building is the smallest
building that is economically feasible on the site."f/� `"''ice . .„ ,„, % 4 -
Prepa ed by Eaizabe h A. Newton' Approved by ank' . Currie
O'DONNELL, RHOADES, GERBER DATE: October 7, 1981
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Elizabeth Ann Newton, Assistant
4727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 Planner
(503) 222-4402 FROM: Corinne C. Sherton
RE: Environmental Standards Provision
to be Added to the City' s
Industrial Zone Districts
The wording proposed for the new environmental stan-
dards subsection of the "Additional Requirements" section of
the City's M2, M3 and M4 (industrial) zone districts, as set
out in your August 20, 1981 letter to Maggie Conley, meets
the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 6. (Air, Water and
Land Resources Quality) I have attached to this memo a copy
of your August 20th letter and attachments, as you requested.
•
-------1
r
, .
_,ice 111,
Ci1Y OF lila-ARID
WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
August 20, 1981
Maggie Conley
Land Use Coordinator
_
Department of Environmental Quality
522 S.W. 5th Ave. Box 1760
Portland, Oregon 97207
Dear Ms. Conley:
Enclosed is proposed wording for the City of Tigard Zoning Code
relative to compliance with DEQ noise standards. This section
will be inserted into the industrial zone sections (N2, M3 and
M4) as an "Additional Requirement". I have attached copies of
the "Additional Requirements" section of each chapter of the code
where this section will appear. The proposed wording for noise
compliance is as follows:
•
"All uses in an (M3) (M4) (M2) zone shall comply with
environmental standards as adopted by the State of
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for air,
land, noise and water. If it is deemed necessary by
the Planning Director or his agent, evidence of compliance
with DEQ standards for air, land noise or water may be
required. Evidence shall be in the form of a letter
or copy of a permit from the regulatory agency."
I would appreciate any comments or concerns you have on this as soon
as possible. The Planning Commission and City Council will be re-
viewing this item in September.
Sincerely,
ei f G4 ` "pAJ v
s
Eliabeth Ann Newton
Assistant Planner
EAN:dmj •
______________i
12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
18.44.050--18.48.010
a rear yard setback of forty feet shall be required;
(4) Setbacks are not required when side or rear prop-
erty lines abut a railroad right-of-way. (Ord. 70-32 5160--4,
1970) . _
18. 44.050 Building height. Except as otherwise provided
in Section 18 .12.110, no building in the M-2 zone shall exceed
a height of three stories or thirty-five feet whichever is
less. (Ord. 70-32 S160-5, 1970) .
18.44.060 Additional requirements. Additional require-
ments applicable to the M-2 zone include but are not limited
to the following:
(1) Off-street parking and loading, see Chapter 18.60;
(2) Access and egress, see Chapter 18.64;
(3) Enclosure and screening required, see Section 18-
.12.080;
(4) Signs, advertising signs and sign structures shall
be subject to the conditions, limitations, prohibitions and
requirements of Title 16, to which particular reference is
made;
(6) Nuisances prohibited, see Section 18.12.070. (Ord.
78-32 (part) , 1978; Ord. 71-4 57 (part) , 1971; Ord. 70-32
§160-6 1970) .
C 7 ) (add e Virarl kwitt P s-f an d s
�
Chapter 18.48
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (M-3) *
Sections:
18.48.010 Permitted uses.
' 18.48.020 Conditional uses .
18. 48.030 Lot requirements.
18.48.040 Setback requirements.
18.48.050 Building height.
18.48.060 . Additional requirements.
18.48.010 Permitted uses. No building structures or
land shall be used, and no building or structure shall here-
after be erected, enlarged or altered in the M-3 zone, except
for the following uses:
( 1) Assembly of electrical appliances, electronic in-
struments and devices, radios , phonographs, television, in-
cluding the manufacture of small parts only;
* For sign regulations, see Chapters 16 . 36 and 16 .40 of
this code.
279 (Tigard 7/15/78)
18.52.090
landscaping plan, waste disposal fields and other construc-
tion features on the property; and all buildings, streets,
alleys , highways, streams and other topographical features
outside of the property for one hundred feet from all prop-
erty lines;
(2) A description of the industrial operations pro-
posed in sufficient detail to indicate the effects of those
operations in producing traffic congestion, noise, toxic or
noxious matter, vibrations , odors, heat, .glare, air pollution,
wastes and other objectionable effects;
(3) Engineering and architectural plans for the
treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes and
any on-site disposal of wastes;
(4) Engineering and architectural plans for handling
of any excess traffic congestion, noise, glare, air pollu
tion, fire hazard or safety hazard;
(5) Designation of the fuel proposed to be used and
any necessary architectural and engineering plans for con-
trolling smoke or particulate matter;
(6) The proposed number of shifts to be worked and
the maximum number of employees on each shift.
(b) If found necessary and upon request of the city,
information sufficient to determine the degree of compliance
with the standards of this title shall be furnished by the
industry. Such request may include a requirement for con-
tinuous records of operations likely to violate the standards,
for periodic checks to assure maintenance of standards, or
for special surveys in the event it appears a violation is
in progress. (Ord. 70-32 S180-8, 1970) .
18. 52.090 Additional requirements. Additional require-
ments applicable to the M-4 zone include but are not limited
to the following:
(1) Off-street parking and loading,, see Chapter 18.60;
(2) Access and egress, see Chapter 18.64;.
(3) Enclosure and screening required, see Section 18-
.12.080;
(4) Signs , . advertising signs and sign structures shall
be subject to the conditions, limitations , prohibitions and
requirements of Title 16, to which particular reference is
made;
(6) Nuisances prohibited, see Section 18. 12.070 . (Ord.
78-32 (part) , 1978; Ord. 71-4 §7 (part) , 1971; Ord. 70-32
§180-9, 1970) .
CT) Ladd Zvif IMe , 4d s 5G r'
•
•
•
285 (Ticiarri 1 c i-tax
•
18 . 48.030--18.48.060
ro �
(7) Railroad right-of-way;
(8) Any business, service, processing, storage or dis-
play essential or incidental to any permitted use in the M-3
zone and not conducted entirely within an enclosed building;
(9) Garden supply store when in conjunction with a
landscape contractor's office. (Ord. 76-46 §4 (part) , 1976;
Ord. 70-32 §170-2, 1970) .
18.48.030 Lot requirements. In the M-3 zone the lot
requirements shall be as follows:
(1) The minimum lot area shall be six thousand square _
feet.
(2) The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet.
(3) No maximum lot coverage shall be required. (Ord.
70-32 §170-3, 1970) .
18.48.040 Setback requirements. Except as may other-
wise be provided in Section 18.12.100, the setbacks for non-
residential uses in the M-3 zone shall be as follows:
(1) The front yard setback shall be thirty feet.
(2) The side yard setback shall be twenty feet, except
when abutting or across the .street from a residential zone
g ,
a side yard of forty feet shall be required.
(3) The rear yard setback shall be twenty feet, except .
when abutting or across the street from a residential zone,
a rear yard setback of forty feet shall be required.
(4) Setbacks are not required when side or rear prop-
erty lines abut a railroad right-of-way. (Ord. 70-32 §170-4,
1970) .
18. 48.050 Building height. Except as otherwise pro-
vided in Section 18.12.110, no building in the M-3 zone shall
exceed a height of three stories or thirty-five feet which-
ever is less. (Ord. 70-32 5170-5, 1970) .
18. 48 .060 Additional requirements. Additional require-
ments applicable to the M--3 zone include but are not limited
to the following:
(1) Off-street parking and loading, see Chapter 18.60;
(2) Access and egress , see Chapter 18.64;
(3) Enclosure and screening required, see Section 18-
.12.080;
(4) Signs, advertising signs and sign structures shall
be subject to the conditions, limitations, prohibitions and
requirements of Title 16 , to which particular reference is
made;
(6) Nuisances prohibited, see Section 18 .12 .070. (ord.
78-32 (part) , 1978; Ord. 71-4 S7 (part) , 1971; Ord. 70-32
§170-6, 1970) .
ca) (MJ e, 't vi wkadaP Atladdfas
281 (Tigard 7/15/78)
11-6-81
MEMORANDUM a'p
To: Planning Commission
From: .Asso6iate Planner
li
Subject: NPO Changes
0 Though, NPO #3 is not active at this time we have received an application
for membership from LuAnne Mortensen.
0 On NPO #4 Chet Larter resigned and Mr. David Brooks has applied for membership.
• NPO #6 wants to add Faith Holmes to their membership roster.
". ,...