The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Packet - 06/22/1982 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. June 11, 1982 TIGARD PLANNING �:OMMISSTON June 22,, 19$2 - 7:30 p.m. Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut,' Tigard, Oregon AGENDA 1, Open Meeting 2. Roll Call 3. Agproval of minutes from previous meeting 4. Pldnning Commissi�n communicaLi.ons 5. PUBLTC H�ARIIaTGS: I' S.7. �ez,�;hbor.h.00d Fla�inin:� Ozga�.izatz.on Nu�.ber 5 (NPO 4�5) Appointments 5�2 PD 1-82 Penterr� Carp�ration NPO ��7 S 3-82 6. Other Busine�s a. Prmposed street name chang�s; S.W. 113th Place S.W. Dawn's Court b. Pc�1ic� 32 �eview � NPQ ��4 c. Housing EAement - Cn'imprehensive Plan do Sign Gpsie Revisions 7. Adjournment � � T I G A R D P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N SPECIAL MEETING/STUDX SESSION - JUNE 22, 1982 1. President Tepedino called the meeting to order at 7;35 P.M. The meeting was heid at Fowl.er Junior High School, 108b5 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, 2. ROLL GALL - Present: President F°rank Tepedino; Commissioners Don Moen, Geraldine Kolleas, Bonnie Owens, Roy Bonn, Susan Herron, Mark Christen and Clifford Speaker {excused arriving at 8:36 P.M.). Absent: Richard Helmer (excused). STAFF - Associate Planner Jeremy Coursolle; and Support Serv3.ces, Fatt Martin� 3. The minutes of thE June 8, I982 Regular Mee�ing were �o�ns3rlerec2. Commissioner Bonn moved and Gommissioner Owens seconded for approval of the min:utes as presented. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Commission present. � Gary Fox, Vice-Direct4r of �he Tigard Civic Genter pro;j�ct gave a short presentati.on on the proposed Civic Center. 4. COMMISSION CClMMUNICATION a Sta£f informed the Commissi�n that i�em 6a was •postp�ned� 5. FU$LIC IiEAR�NGS • Fresident Tepec�inn apened the Puh�lic Hearing by reading the usual statemen� of authority for the pracedure to b� followed in the meeting. 5.1 NETGHBORTiOQD PLANNING ORGANIZATION ��5 (NPO �1�5) APPOINTMENT�S A request by various citizen� within the NPO ��5 area to be appointed as members of NPO ��5. , s tlssoci�.te Flanner Coursolle made the NPO Memt+ershfp Inte�vi�w T�aw's recammendation that the Planning Commission forward the names of these three (3) people listed below t� the City Co�uncil for membership appraval tu NPO �f5. Debra Naubert Shar�n 'Takahashi Chr3s Vanderwood • Commissianer Owens ffi�ved anc� Commissioner Koll:eas secon�ed to forward the thxee (3) peaple liseed above to the Cit3� Council for memberehip appr�val to NPA 4�5. Motion approved by unan�:mous vot� of Commis�ion present. 1 5.2 PLANNED DEVELOPME�T PD 1-82 Penterra Corporation NP0 ��7 SUBDIVISION S-3-82 A request by Penterra Corporation for a prelimir�ary plan review and preliminary plat approval to allow construction of 71 single family detached units on 11.54 acres in an A-12 multi-family zone. The property is located directly west of 130th Avenue and approximately 1,OD0 �eef south of Scholls Ferry Road. (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D, tax lot 200) {a) PUBLIC HEA1tING OPENEI3 • A�sn�.�.a�te Plar�ner CQtxr�e�ll.e made staff's recommendation a.s per the memo �f June 22, 1'982. Penterra Corporation met with staff on June 22, 1982 and asked for a Prelimi.nary Plan Review �nly at thi� tiizue. Staff believes that the proposed Preliminary Plan has merit and should be considered by the Planning Commission at this time. Therefore, based on staff's further analysis, the applicant's addit3:ona1 input and all of the applicable policie�, staff � recc;mmends that the Planning Cammission approve the requeste<1 Preliminary Plan sub�ect to the two (2) conditions stated in the mem� of June 22, 1.982. • NPO R� or� - NP'0 �f7 ia inactive at the present time. P • Ap�3:tcant's Presentation - Nawzad Othman, Otak, Inc., 15110 SW Boones Fexry Road, stated the land they would dedicate plus the park area woulcl be a l.ittle l.ess than 5 acres. The pro�ect would be constructed in phases. Also, SW 130th would be constructed in phases as they go along. Their concerns were for the streets and street configuration. Penterra Corporation will discuss options with. staff to make the 24 foot streets public. (b) PUBLIC TESTIMOI�Y • No one spalte in favor os in oppo�zition. (c) CFtOSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL • ldo comment. PUBLIG HEt1�.tING CL'OSED (d) COIMMISSZON' DISCUSSION AND A:CTION � All the Comnuissionars had concern about SW 13Oth on whet�►er it wo�xld connect with Beaverton's 130th or if i� wou.ld be con�tr�acted to come off Scholls Fea°ry Road at a diffea�ene lUCation. The concern was for the traffic flow from Beaverton into downtown Tigard. They would rath.er not have thi.s. Al.so for the small pri�ate narrow streeCs on whether they wa�xl.d be made public or stay pr�.va��:. • Caro.m�ssioner Owens questic�n�d staff on wlaa was putting in the tennis courta and tlze �ennis court's 1lghts, .�iummerl.ake Development or Penterra Corporation. ' PAGE 2 ° PLANNZNG COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 22, 1982 � Staff stated it would be more cost effeetive to have Pente�cra Corp. ' put in the lights at the ti.me they put in the street lights. Summerlake Development would canstruct tine tennis �ourts. • It was suggested to recommend staff to look at the coneept for 13Oth going North. The Planning Commission daes not want to see Beaverton traffic flow3ng down through Tigard. The s,txeet should be a minor collecto:r. • Commis�ianer Kolleas felt tl�e streets shoenld be maintained as public no�. privat`e. The 'City, Fire- I3istrict and applicant will discu$s the hest method for the street improvements. i Comtnissioner Bonn moved and Gam�missioner Kolleas seconded for approval of the �reli�inary plan LReview Pn 1-82 based on sta��'s ana�ysis and recommendations of the June 22, 1982 m�mo with the two (2) conditians an�i h.ave �taff review and research the NP0 #7 street plan as a thixd re�ndition of approval, Mot�on appr��vPd hy unanimous vot� �f Commission pre�ent. 6. OTHER BUSZNESS I a. Propo�ed street name changes: S'�] ll�th Place & SW Dawn's Cvurt � POSTPONED b. Po13cy 32 Review - PIrO �1�4 • Assaciate Planner Cour.solle stated that �all Planning Commission gackets contained the vatious correspondence ,£rom Nk'0 �f4, the City Attorney and sta�ffe He stated based on the City Attor.ney's interpretation of �olicy #32, the NP0 has requested that the Planning Commi�sian review the correspondnnce and tihe ap�licabla language from the NPO ��4 Plan, and render an interpretation. • Gc�xdan 1�fartin, NPO 4�4 Chairman, 12265 SW 72nd Avenue, T�gard, made NPO �r4°s presentatioa. He stated the plan was to have four (4) �hases. After each of zhese phases there would be no dead end�. Each phase woulsl encd with the �treet �oining intta ano�her stre�t. I'UBLIC TESTIMOt�Y ZI� FAVQR: s Dave Brnoks, 7085 SCd Beveland, stated the most importa�t thing i$ the phasing uf the streets and to have the property owners work together, s I�aBalle Allen, 7540 SW lierneaso Way, stated the street plan entai].s the he�.lth and safety af the xesidents. �he flow of traf�Yc wi11 be routed aro��►d the residential �rea and not c�use problems th�ough the middle oF the areg. � PAGE 3 - �'LANNING COt�iISSIAN MINUTES - JiJNE 22, 1982 Commissioner Speaker arrived at 8c46 p.m. IN OPPOSITION: a Alex Finka, 10b15 SW 64th, stated the street would c�oss in the midd�e of his property. He felt it was a good plan but ob�ected to the expense all at one tima. • John Gibbon, of the Robert Randall property, stated he was not entirely oppased to the long term pa�oposal. In the short run there will be too much expense. He concurred with staff and the City Attorney. CROSS EXAMINATION ANA REBUTTAL A Commi�sioner Owe�s asked for clari£ication of the diffex�ent phases. • Staff was in total concurrence with NPO 4�4 to construct �he entire street all at once, however, sta-ff did not velieve that the language af Policy ��32 required thaz the entire street be constructed at once. • Lengthy discu�ssion follnweci on the different interpretations of the NP0 4�4 street plan. NPO fslt the Planning Commission should look at the plan i:n its entirety. • Com�issioner Moen felt NPO ��'4 has don� a lot of work on the Policy m 4�32 and should be coc�plimented. • President Tepedino st�t�d the Plax�ning Commission could do one n£ the fo�lowing: le Nothing 2. Indicate what the interpretation is and send on to the City Council 3e Send the eomglete �ssue to the Cit� Gouncil • Mr. Finka stated the step5 are interchangable and one would not necessarily have to be done before the other since tlze steps gb from one street to another. CLOSE TE3TIM�NY PORTION OF THIS REVIEW o Commissioner Speaker felt the plan should stand as is unless someone co�es up with a. goc�d reason to change it. • �ommissi.oner Bonn felt the Policy 4�32 was se7.f explanatary. • Commissionexs Kolleag and Herron c.oncurred wfth Gommissioners Bonn and Speaker. • Co�missioner Moen felt the citizens spent a lot of time on P�licy 32 and felt the Commission should answer on one side or the other. Iie felt if the plan was self explanatory the �ssue would not have been brought up t,o the Planning Commission. �'AGE 4 - PLAN1`ING COMMISSION MTNUTES - JUNF 22, 1982 • Commissioner Christen had a concern on the time table. �f a resident wanted to develop their land, they should be allowed to do sa in con�unction with the NPO 4�4 plan. • Commissioner Owens did not see a problem with the wording on Policy ��32; however, the NPO would have to come back if someone challenges it in the future. • President Tepedino felt there was a valid diff��rence in the intent of the NP0 and the interpretation of the recards by staff/city attorney. However, he felt NPO had a good concept, but the intent ' of the concept was not evident in the writing. • Commissionex Speaker moved and Commissioner Bonn seconded indicating the sense �� the Planniiig Commissian is in concurrance with the interpretation as defined by staff and the City Attorney and that if the NPO is c�f a mind they could commence f�r a modification to the NF0 ��4 pian, bu��: the lan�uage shauld b� �ore clea•rly be stated, such as you can't have a dead end stree't. Motion carried by 7-1 vote of Cammission present, Commissioner Moen vating Nay. RECESS - 9s45 P.M. RECONVENE - 9r5d P.Me 6c. Housing Element - Comprehensive Plan a Commissioner Bonn and Or�ens did not have a copq of the Housin� Plan. • Qommissioner Bonn moved and Commissi�r�er He�ron secanded to postpcsne the �tudy session fe�r th� Hou�ing Ele�ent - Compxehensive Plane • Staff stated since thi� was only a study session and NPQ ��3 membe.rs were present, the Planning Commission could hear NPO ��3 testimony. • C�mmissioner Bonn withdrew his motion. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • StafE stated additional input from alI the NPO'g and the Planning Commission is needed before the Hdusing Element is discussed in a public hearing. • Pre�ident Tepedino suggested the Plaim3�g Commissinn listen to the in information and testimonq but pastpane the decision on the Hous g proposal until the staff has completed their review and com� forward with some ten�ative recommendations. I� will give �he Planning Commission time �a review �he Housing Element �nd the NPO ��3 memo. • NP0 ��3 presented a memo to the Planning Commissic�n stating they felt the staff was in err�r in pro3ecting the gopulation increasing in a straight line ef€e�:t. T.hey felt that any population pro�ectian should be shown as an S curve. They recommenc�ed the Planning Commission and staff to r.evi�w the memo thoroughly. PAGE 5 - PT.ANNYNG GOMMISSION MINUTES -� JUNE 22, 1987. � Staff stated the Housing Element was sent to the �ome Builders Association, the Land Conservation Development Commission and the Metropolitan Service District. The Home Builders A�sociation returned a letter sta�3ng they basically agreed with wha:t staff intends to do. • Sta£f requested input from all NPO's. It was suggested the Elanning Commiss3crn send letters to all NPO members requesting input on the Housing Element. The document is for the community so staff wants input fr.om the entire community. 6d. Sign Gode Revisians s S�aff prese�nted to the Planning Commis�ion. the recenY.ly rev#.sed S�gn. Gode� 7'h.e Pub��c Fiering wil� be po�tpaned for approximately another month. • President Tepedino suggested the sign code revision be carried over until the Pl�nning Commission had time to review the new revised edition. More peogle will have a chance to rev3.ew it and �ave some input. Commissioner Owens left at 10:10 P.M. INF0�IATION ONLY • Staff stated the Planning Commission was presented a copy of a letter regarcling the Hearings Officer meeting of June 10, 1982 of the proposal for the Zone Change and Condi�ional Use Permit for the pro�erty located at SW Hall and SW Bonita Road. � Staff stated a decision has not been rende�red by the Hearings Officer at this point for approval. The residents of the area do not want this passed because they don`t want the Plaid Pantry b�iilt i� this area. � President Tepedinn requested of staff to notify the Commissionera of the date th.eir term is up. s Camm3ss�.oner Christen moved and Commissioner Herron seconded to ad�aurn the meeting. Motion approved by unanimous vot� of Commis�ion� present. Meeting Ad�ourned - 10;17 P.M. . ,----r, �� .. � Patt Martin, Secretary AT S '� i F.J Tegedino, Planning Commission President PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSTON MZNUT�S - JUNE 22, 1982 � . _ . . ...,_ _ P�.,AL�3NTNG COMMIS�SICaI�T R�I,L Cfi.LL ' I�ii�;E�'.ING I�+�t� ,�2., ,v��o:2 �r�.nk: �eped.'�n�a__-�- t�J_�_fford S�eaker��'��„',,�u.�� ,c�,�`�' c�,��, i�e�� .Moe n � . C�x�lc��.n� iColl�as L-''i Ma:�3� Ck�iris�ken �r'" - -_� �usan H�x�ron /s __ �.:��hard H lm�r „Q..'yE_..�,c.�-�-�5 � _ —r-... , . r !l :L�C3b2i1�G OV�eS1S �,��____— � �Oy' BOT121 � . _ ; , June 11, 1982 '.rIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2$, 1982 - 7:30 P.m. Fowler Juni;or High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon i PUBLIC HEARINGS; � 5.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION ��5 (NP0 ��5) APPQINTMENTS j ! A request by various cit'izens within the NP0 �1�'S area to be appointed as me�b��s af.-'NPO ��5. 5.2 PLAIJNED DEVELOPMENT PD 1-82 N'P0 4�7 5UBDZV�SION 5-3-82 A requesf by Penterra Corporation €or a pre�:iminary plan review anc3 greliminary plat approval to a11ow construction of 71 single f�mi.ly detached units on 11.54 acres in an A-I2 multi�family zone. Tlze prc,perty is located directly west of T30tlr Avenrae and, approximatel.y 1�n00 fE�t south of Sct�olls �'erry Road. �Washington Cnunty Tax Map 1S1 33D, tax lot 200) 1 ��a�� e��sowa�a ��o'�u�rr� AFFB�AVaT �� PU�LICA�IOw STATE QF 012�GOIV, � CULIN'I'Y OF V6'ASH]NG7('ON, ss. ; ,Tohn W. Marlin� _ _ _ .._.. ....__- _ _ --....._ _ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the publisher .. _....__...._.._.__. _ of The Tigard Times, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by ORS 193A10 and '193.020, published at Tigard, in the afoeeFaid covnty and state; Phat the legal notice, a p:inted copy of which is hereto annexed, was • , < one � gublished !r, thc er.t:re 'r>sue o`. satd newspap�r .or ___. _ successive ar,3 cousecutive weelcs in t.'7c tollowin� is u s _ .IlI.T12 ZQ, 1�.�� .. ______. ___._ ____- . . _ ._. (S�Ignature.) Subscribed and sworn to befote rne his lst�i . . day of __. Jur.�e is.�2 ,�� /1 _ � ��'�.-.�,� _ _�� .'-, , ..� _ ldotary Publdc of Oregon My cammission expires _ _F?h� ��f _ . 19 gb � � , �3.i��'� �� I��` �s"�,, �a��ce �s �o�� €�� ;� � ' � ' ^ �� g�� f�iia��ri�g��as�r��a�r��r��gap;�b�c�� ., � ��, '�'��c��,'�Dr+e�aat�, sa� �un� Zg, l�i��, €st°• : 5�; ' � U x . �� r��i��d�a�axiro tly�Pl��a�aiw��F�is�etor a��? ��$' `�>t: '��a �`T223,��y��5��4��3��»�1 a l: > ��T-�� ?,, , �.l I+iei�ri�bo��ko�ae#�'R�r��4�a�,�A��kt��x9��"�€'��N�3�5?.A��tale��sn� ,E# �'�t�u�a ky'�E€tt�c�8�v�:3E�1t�& nC4fi��s S��? td�i) �'� €At��3 t4s ��t��slfe�II A.� ` r�➢��t��'a(►f I'�1�}�5. ;�,�S�a�i3v�inn�-3��2�C FE��t��d��v�9c�ptagc��t�YA 1�2 A7t�?��#"� ,� r�a�a9�st �ay F'c�u��r�t� �z�r�a�ga38s�� ° �, �ia°�8�at��".Y €��sa ��r��s� ��t ��n�d� ��i�!►I�r�v�& em ��?a��t��t�k��s� �i 71 �$¢�1�Ne�stm�dv�d��c�i�A ' �sait� em b 1�5� �wa�� ia� an� �-��xa�¢��f��5�iB9g� z;��. �'ta��=�ar�g��'t� Rs t��d +��g�s��i�:::��at�$ ��t9� �.ven��•��t3 tag�'��roa�ta�y ➢.��:ita��aa��t� aR�+�hca�f� ;��rr�'��2�i��B'��1a��tt�aa��uudy:c��a��1.�3�,k�t��l� '�"i'�3�I�.-�°�c��A&�la�teeae.l0, 1��; ��,.��, _.._:�:. �, �z�T� �c..�a /9�.� �'I�AKD PL:1�INNIN� COMI��SIUN 5�GN T,TP SFi��'��T -��~ � �` �� 1�C7i:TCEa r3LL PERSnNS DESIRING TO ;a.t"E'AK aIV ANY IT1�.'M MLTST SICtQ '.�'FI��P. SafP.�I� i pnd note �i;t��a_a: addrr��t on ��:.�i:s.s sh�et. �P�.�a�� x'��.�. ��'1x1: :'1�me) TTFM/bFSC:1Z;�PTI'�T�7:__�__—�� _ __�, _._._1J1.�` L1a�S°��.�LL�9!yl..�[!_U" ��Al/.z�l7tia^/�t�1j.�.�J� � �__S J v.�.,_�..,._._._____.r..�...��1.P�..�#�_.��.1�.�._.:..�...__. _.._..._, " �.�ft��?C�t��"i` t�:�`cr�;� .....�._,._.._ .._.._ �...._._._ .....-.–t?��4�iV1z;iV'��' �aga�ri°�•c� ._.�._.,___ ..,.,_.�— �Tai�:��. ,��:c�c:�t�� ,s�r'.� �3.�fi:!_.i.�.•(::r".Qr� �� t�'�.��i�, E�c��:�c?�� 3�;�� .i:'�:��.i.��:i��.7,�.r,.�r�...,.,....��.� �r.A......u,., ,_._.;.._.r..,�...,�.,.�-..�'��l/� ..i __._.�._..� ...._..,._._...�,..�.�.,.._._.e......�....�,..�..,a_..._..._... ..,..r,.�_..�..�. . `� ' ,�'l,1 J 2.�S�Z��.�,_.�.�1.��4..�-�...; � ..�- — - w.___....u.�.._�.. .w�... ��.�. ,_� , , ��;��._'s�w�" �...' -� :L s�...��5 -�.1�..�!l le�.w��.,�.. �� .... _--__..___..�..,�..._.,.w..�..._.._.�_______._.^ , 3 . ��G S'v s W. . �,�� .. ..�&!i(L.L.iJ�.�.d-�f�R R%�IS'�.,�.�.Z�:1� - �o�-�e.. � D . .��?��...�...�..��,.,�_..,�„_...,�� ..�.. �_z� �.,�,�,_.m.�.,��.,�< � ` 1-'1 /y6Gs S ' S3~�- � , F�:�� I' �� /��v�e�.;�,��;-� � ,��:,.9�.�2.�..� _____..�.r.�....��...._.�. _..,�._,.�..�._ ..�._,-0,.�. ,�..._�____._ _.�.��..�_...___.�___-�_.� ,, �� ,�..�,.._..�.._.__..�..._.�.�.,,�_ _,,�. ,�_....�....`...� _.�..,.._.�... �.,_, �,.._.._..�..._.�....`.��.�.. .�..�.,_ ....��._._._.�.._ _.._..._..�.,,w.�..�.�.�.��„�._..,�._ �.,�u�..,.�;�,...� �'t�'I`ICE: A7aL 7?��.SON.r i��,i��2.ING :[.':J �=F''�'",AI�:. QN Ai•TY 1:TEi+I biC3�;T ,�.�"��Cs�� TF�:��? k\TA,MF a,-i� �o�.e •thc,:r aci.dr�s:� az� th3.s sh?et. �p i�as�: �Prir��;. �'�.'��.��• x�.�:m�) ITEN�.�,r�;�ChI r�"�Ui�T�_.._._,��._._..._�-- - - _.._.__��..._.�, _..��...�..._._.0.�'�...� _ f'+e� �e C... �i _._._.._� _ __.�.._.__�.__�.�_�. �.�..�_�% _. __ .� � ._._...�. �..�__.,S�'-�a .__._ _..�-..____ �. ._.__......�.... ..�._....w._.� ;�,�[ ..._._......_...__._.�. ...�.._w,....._W�__._�,__._._......�.T}_._.,:,...:._...�f ____�-__..�.....v....�.�.`..w...,_�.�_�.._..�.Y.._.....__.�. - 27ROPC3NI�N� �_:�x°�� 0�.P(.FNLI�.0 ,:�c. a�.€'.�s�� A . . . . . ... . . . ...��..M ... .y.. w.�......�.�+....�.�.........s.,..... ..........�...�.e......, . '-- b,r.«,.a..��.�..w... . . .. ..s,.r.+,—...�.... .�.�...uos...*^��..,.o�.....�. •.. N�+.me� �+:�dd`res.s anc� A,fF:i,�,ia�i+�n. Nam�� .�c�d•r�s5 �t22r"i A�.�i.lia•1��.�� 1�?� �'��r.�—��. .�...w...__��,._..__.,�__. _ _.__.___�._�..._,..�,.__..�....�....�_�..�,�.,a�.�.....�.._u.�-- - .�.�., �� c.._._....�.... � �..�..��.�,�.�.....�...... ��_ �,�.,,d,,:�.,�,____._:�:�.��,:.,��:,,�,_ �,�.. �,.� ��......�,�.. �.�.�� C1 �� a J��--� ._.-.��,-y ��N .o.�.M..�.r.. -------� �-� --. - �._._ . w..�.........__,....-- _a�. ...�..,...,_ . --�--�---�-�--�-- ._.,._.....�� ..,.,._...,_...�.�.�.�,,..�,,,�.,...:�,�.:.,..�..,.�.�,._...��,,<�..��..T.....w..�,w.. ...,_....�.. ._.... . .�__.._..,.�..........�.._.,�.�...��......_.,...�......._..,..�..�..�...._�...._.�...�.._„ � .. . , . . l, � � �-.- -t- ��..�...,.�„_.�.......��......,....2,. µ�� _ . _ _ __ ''i v� / i 1 MEMORANDUM DAT'E c Jwn� 8, 1982 TO: PLANNING COMMIS�ION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT� • SUBJ'ECT: NPO #5 MEMBERSHTP APPOINTMENT� 'i'he NPO MPZnbership Inter�riew Team reaently interviewed three (3) people for membershi� to NPA #5. �e three (3) �eo,�le are: 1. Debra Naubert 2. Sharon Takahashi 3� Chris Vandenvood ,All of the�p pe�gle live wi�hin the Tigard City Limi�s< Recommencied Action The NB() Memmbership Interview Team recammsnds that the Flanning Commission �orward the names of these three (�) people to the E;ity Goqncil for mem�ership approval to NPQ #5. 'i ,; I I ,_ _ .. � .. . . ZU . . : - �. r . �� • . ' :�( N P O A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NP0's? � ANSNER; The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, pro�ects or ot'her actions affecting the livability of the ne3ghborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoaing, housing, community, facili�ies, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffis and transportation, environ- mental qualitq, open space and parks; to participate in the process of detesmini.ng City prio'rities for capital improvements and development oP specific pro�ect plans; to keep the neighborhood in£armed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent tbe views of the ne3ghborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE CObIPLETE THE QUE�TIONS BELOW Na.�_� . ��...�,.nf avnx�ss�� s- c��'s?tC G'l. � ---� TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) .,?S��• �?�1P La . _(Etes.) (2-2� - ��.�.5' PREBENT OCCUPATION �`�{�'��a ��.��m� FIRM NAME � EiOW' L'O�TG HAVE YOU BEEH EMPLOYED W THIS FIRbf? �� __ ES 'THI� COMPANY LOCATEI? V1IT�3IIJ YOUR NPO AREA7 nO :�.r � � HAVE YOU BEEN INUOL�iED. WI'P,g MUPIICIPAL OPERATION3 Ii�FOA�? �» � IF YES� PLEASr't, EXPLA:24 �:4.T�T.°. INVOLVEMENI': � '�AAT BO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER A9 A MEbIBEF� OF t1N NPO?�_ � , �.rSP�n�,r,.,,.r,�' .ii.l� iI ..:�1 �O/J aGt7�v h,dry�om.ur,�i7ii ��>��j ~ .-L�rz3.� . � ADUITIONAL COb1 NT9: DAYTIrtE TELEPHONE NUMBER �y�- 3��L . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ��.. .:o .. � � � . S<d�' ,. . INVEivTORY OF C'ITIZEi�S Sugaested fnr Gomm�nity Service DATE�Q"if2!t.!� 17�� JA��IE • eJ I ` K[.� RES . PH0�1E ��9-��/ �DDRESS 7�O l� .S� y�L BUS . PHONE Gt��(,�iQ� .��I "�CZ�'r�,G _��'3a�_-►._.;,� :.ENGTEI OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD S SUGGESTED BY � � ERE DID YOTJ �,IV� PREVIOUSLY?` �" � � - .. ._ �i(,g e•h�- ' - �� GE.. T 2'�j �3� MARTTAL STATUS �(/4�� CHLLDREN .Z�� UUCATIOr�AL BACKG�QUND � � . �' , ! . . ., � s,,� :�1 °'" � l/YL Lt-L �i S�L: �Gt� CCUPATIONAL 5TATUS AND �ACKG�tO[JND - �' �/p .t � ��-��..�T h°��'�.f �`' � � ��uc� --� _ . � . .kEVICJ�TS CO�IMUNZTY A�TIVI�'Y ,� � '' � ' ,"� ,..�s � �� • ��.�� e � „ e . RGAl`IZZ�TIO�iS AND �F ES� � /°� � JTHER IIVFOR�,'�IA.T ION (GE:N�R.AL REI�IARKS) at/� � {��1�"�'�� 1��'�� ' �i � [�1.f1 ° - u .,�.:�._ �..Clr�'��.__ ; ' �� : — �j,��/� ,� � . 30ARDS OR CO��IITTEES INTERESTED xr�__��..�.J YJ✓P,� . � . �ate �',e'cezvec� at Ci.ty HaI�. �� Date Inte-rviewed )a te Appo�,nted ' Baard orr Cozrutzi.CC�e ,£NSrD�; CITY OUTSIDE CITY ? l ' i 7' • _ r;, ^_ �> ; 1� P D A P P L I C A T I 0 N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANS�YER: The function of eaeh NPU is to be involved in a11 phases oi , the Comprehensive Planning pr•ocess and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, pro�eats or other actions affecting the livability of the'neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, aommunity, facilities, human resources; social and recreatianal programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process oP determining City prio•rities for capital improvements and development oY specifi.c pro3ect �laas; to keep the' neighborhood informed; to seek aeighborhood opinion on issues bxought before them; to represent the - views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE TEIE QUESTEONS ,BELQ�V . NAME��it�c.��S'�1p� ADDRESS�'�,y��\�l. �-'t�"'�1nc_e yc•° � Q� TELEPHONE NU11�EA {Bus.) (Res.)�9,�,q PR�SENT OCCUP.�TION � E'I RM NAME � HO�Y LONG HAVE YOU BEE1V EMPLOYED 6VITH THIS FIRM? IS TI�IS GOhIPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? ' HAVE YOU BEEN INVQLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? ��(� IF YES, PLEA3E EXPLAIN 'YQUR INVOLVEMEI�T: _ �,.1):S`� 'lO 'C�P\C1� �l..yd+.--"�-^�`"�e'�n� . . . , , . �_� 1 , WHAT ll0 YOU FEEL YOU CAN 0�'FER AS A �SEb�BEFi OF AN NP07��ti��t��, ��-.� ` , �j��S.�1a�13�_�_-S�4 ��}'S�iaCS�C�, C� � � `�`,��._��a��_..______�___ ,�_��__ •-�':�v�.�a�o� �,'� -':��, �. .n��''9e.��'w�c, n,�c[c s1��l . � ADDITI NAL COh1biENTS:��s,�� :�oec�,,_'_\``;,�q,�� ,�„�a�ASv � _��c� - - ._._.. DAYTIbIE TELEPHOVE NUMB�Fi��C� ^3�1�'J� ' . . �. . . . ,v I•n�rn�n � � ' • • . s. �., STAF'F REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 TIGARD PLANN:iNG COMMISSION June 22, 1982 - 7:3D p.m. Fowler Junior High School 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon June 17, 1982 A. FACTS: l. C-,eneral Information Case: PD 1-$2 Prelimin;ary P1an Review NPO #7 Request: For a prelimi.nary plar► review and preliminary plat approval to allaw construction of 71 sinyle family detached units on 11;54 acres in an 1�-12 Mul�ti-family zone. kecotnmendatione Based on staff's ana"lysis and surrounding land uses, staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the preliminary plan review and continue preliminary plat review until additional information is submitteci relative to the use of the floodplain and oth�r concerns as outJ.ined in the staff report. Applican�t: Penterra Corporation 12225 SW 2nd, Suite 201 Beaverton, Oregon 97q05 Ownere Riciaara F. & DolarES G. Galbraith Houte 4 Box 342-A Sherwood, Uregon Location: West of SW 130th, approxirr�tely 1,000 feet south of Scholls F'erry Roacl. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 33D, Tax Lot 200) Lot Area: 11.54 acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium I�ensity Resid.enti.a.l l�resent Zoning Designation: A-1?. (Multi-familyj NPU Comrnent: NPO #7 is ctarxently inactive and was not able to render ,I a decision on �this matter. Fublic Notices Mailed: 41 notices �aere mailed. Na comments had been : reCeived at the wx�itang of this report. 2. F3ackground On August 10, 1981, the Tigard City C�uilcil voted unanimously to approve a plan amendment for this site f.rom R-7 to A-12PD. 3. Vicinity Informa�tion The surrounding land uses are as fo].lows: STAFF REPORT PD 1-82 Page 2 ' The area to the north is vacant and is zoned A-12 Medium Density. The land �to the west is vacant and is zon2d R-7. The property to the east is developed as single farnily residential. The area to tkle souih is vacant and zoned R-5. 4. Site Information Presently, there is a single family home and a garage on the site. ' These buildings will be removed. ' B. APPLICABLE PLANNING GQALS: l. LCDC Statewide Planning Goals a. Citizen Involvement; Goal #1 - The intent of this goa_i is to inswre the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Notices were sent to all property owners of record within 250 feet of the site. A public notice was published in the Tigard Times on June 10, 1982. b, Land Use: Goal #2 - All applicable LCDC Goals and Guidelines, NPO #7 policie� ana Tigard Municipal CodE sections were considered in r_eview of this application. c. Open Spaces, SrPnic ax�d Historic Areas, and Nai�uLa3 Resources: Goal #5 - The intent of this g�al i� to pres�rve and protect natural and scenic resources. TherF is 3024 acr.es of flaxl�lain wha_ch bise�ts this site. The applicant intends to dedicate this land to the public. d. Recreational Needse C-oal #€� - The .intent of this goaY is to. provide for the recreat.iona� needs of the citizens of the commtznitX. The appli- cant is proposing to dedicate 1.48 acres to the ci�ty for use as an e.xtension of Summerlal�e Park which is developing to the east. e. Housing: Goal #1.0 - The intent of this goal is to provicie for the housing ne�ds of the ci•tizens of the state. The type of housing prop�sed on this site is unique in that the units wil7. be f�P'�c1CY12C� units in a multi-€amily zone. The lot sizes proposed will range from ?_,250 sq. ft. to 4,385 sq. ft.. This type of housing will allow in� dividuals to purchase a detached unit on a smaller lot at less cost than a typical detached unit on a larg�ex lot. f. Public Facilities: Goal #11 - The intent of this goal is to insure that public facilities including water and sewer are adequate. There is a 8" sewer line in 5W 1.3Oth. Water is available. g. Transportation: Goal #12 - The intent of this goal is to provide a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The site would be accessible via SW 130th. At the present time, SW 130th is an unim- proved gravel road. The county is currently doing a feasibility study, with assistanCe from the city, to fo�m a local improvement district for street improvements to 130th and 135th, from Scholls Ferry to Walnut. � STAFF REPORT PD 1-II2 Page 3 Staff feels that the developer of this site should be required to make full street improvements to the portion of SW 13Uth adjacent to and servirig this site. If the LID is formed, staff would consider allowing the developer to participate in the LID to make the required improvements. 2• NPO #7 Policies Policy 9. The m�imum overall density of development will be 12 dwelling units or 29 persons per gross acre. This amounts to a standard of 2,500 square feet of land per dwelling un.it allowing for streets and o�ther open space. Some a�eas will ha�e a lc>wer d�rYSity owing to topography or existing dEVelo�ment patt�er_li;�o Policy 10. Urban medium-density residen�L-ial areas will be developed witil pav�d streets, curbs and gutters, and walkdaays, according to city or county standards. R11 utilities will be placed unde.rground. Policy 11. Development will coincide with the provision of public streets, water and sewerage facilities. These facilities shall be (a) capable of adequately serving a11 intervening properties as well as -L-he proposed development, and (b) design�d to meet city nr county standards. Policy 12. PJ.anned unit develo�nt will be encouraged on �tracts large enough to �c�onu��odate ten or more dwellings. P].anned unit development will �rmit a degree of flexibility in design that will enable a higher quality of developmeizt in accordance with zoning standards. The applicant's developme�t will average 9 units per acr_e. The site will be developed to City standards for all �ublic improvements. The A-12PD designation will permit a great amount of fle�ibility in terms of ihe type and mix of. units constructed, and some flexibi].ity in terms of public improvements. 3. Tigard Municipal Code P Section 18.56.020 addresses preliminary pian repc�rt pr�paration and submittal. The appli.cant has not submitt�d a.11 of the information rec�tzired in this section for approval. Speci:fically, the �pplicarit did not address the flaodplain or public improvements in enough. detail to enable staff to adeqtzately review the project. Section 18.57.060 rcquires a Sensitive Lands permit application for any developmcnt in the flc�odplain. As of the writing of this report, the applicant had not fil.ed this application. 4. Staff Analysis Tn reviewing the development proposed tor this site, the staff has seveial concerns. First� rela�tive to street improvemeni:s and parking �the applicai�t has proposed sc�me priva•te streets which are 24' wide and n�t Wide enough to accornmodate off-street parl�:ing. Staff has suggested �the applican,� incarporate parking bays into the design of the project. � , _ _ :_ :_ �, STAFF REPORT PD 1-82 Page 4 Staff is concerned with the impro�ement to SW 130th Street. First of all, �the applicant shows an existing 40' right-of-way. This right-of-�aay is not public and staff is concerned with the disposition o.f this 40' strip. The applicant has ayreed to dedicate an additional 10' and the Stammerlake development dedicated 10' ,, Staff would like to have quit claim deeds filed on the 40' strip in the mid�dle to allow for the im�rovement of the right-of way, No sidewalks are shown on th� development plan and they will be requirec�. In addition, the developm�nt plan shows the setbacks to units measured from the curb lin� rather than the right-of-�aay line. All setbacks must be measured from the right-of way lii�e to the unit foundation. Staff supparts the cottage style units praposed f�r this site. The desi_gn fe�tures shown such as the wood decks, dorrr�ers, broken rcaf lines and greenhouses m�ke this a quality development and these feat�.ares should be retained. However, staff feels that perhaps a m� of the cottage style detached units with some clustered and attached units w�uld be more appropriate. ThP developtn�nt pro�osed breaks up the ' available open space into small pieces tYiat don't create a ��eling of space or furictis�n as areas that can bc utilized foz recreation. Sw�urierlake Park is devPloping to the east of this site. The applicant shows 1.48 acres to be dedicated for park use. The Summerlake Master Plan shows tenr.is courts planned for this location. Staf� would li_ke the applicant to submit a layout for the t�nnis courts includ.ing lighting. Staff would require the developei to install the lights with thE street ligh�ts for th� development» The terinis couri.s installation c�uld be dane with Phase II of �the d�velopment. In the floodplain area, the development propased sho;as buildings e.i�Croaah�ng into the floodplain. The applicant has not submit•tec� a Sensitive I,�nds permit application. The bikepa�th tr_ail syst�m shoulc� be continued through this development in the floodplain area to �onnect to tYie e�Y�.ts.�g trail in Surnmerlake Park. C. CONCLUSION: The applicant has not submitted enough detailed inf�rn�atian to meet the code requirements for approving a preliminary �lan or a preliminazy plat. , � Prepared bY. Q...��• 1 I� C�`�1 A roved b : G� _�.�_ PA Y , � Eliz A. Newton ,�„_�,,� Franiti A. Currie �n,�, Associate Planner �� Dir.�ctor of Planning � .. - __ _._� ---- _ � a , June 18, 1982 : T0: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff � SUB.TECT: Proposed Sheet Name Changes �I Attached is a.�proposal to rename two streets within the City, The City's E;ngineering Divisior� has pr�po5e�i th� chang:es to cJ.eaz up ronfusion in this neighborhood. Staff is asking that the Gommission recommend to the City Council that the a�ame cfianges be instituted. A public hea•ring will be held at the City CounciT level. The ordinance, ORS section �snd a map are attaahed. � i _ _ _ . . : —._.._ CITY OF TTGARD, OREGON . ORDINANCE N0. ' AN OR.DINANCE CHANG'ING THE NAME OF HEREIN SPE�IFIED ROADj�AYS, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, � AND:`DECLARING AN EFFEGTIVE DATE« : THE CTTY OF TIGARD ORVAIN5 AS FOLLOWS: Section ls 1he City Council finds 'that pursuant to � 227.120 O.R.S. the City Planning Commission has submitted a recommendation to the Council. to rename existing dedicated roadways, within the City '�f Tigazd, .as specified in th� attached Exhibit "A", sain raadways not berng co�nty� r�acis ar state higl�ways. , Sectian 2: The City Council finds that changing names of said roadways wil.I br.in�, the existing names into confarmance with City utreet name policy and will alleviate conflict 'in existing documentation of saf,d roadway names. Seetion 3: The Council further find's that a hearing on said proposa], to rename said public �a�ys was held an , 198 , at P.M. aaxd tha� tlze notice of said hearing was given by pvbiication ir� tlz�Tigard Times, � news�a�er af general -circul.ation within �he Ci.ty of Tigard within the week prior to the week of said hearing, and that said liearin� was duiy and regularly izeld by th.e Council at the time and place as publiciied, whereat alZ persons paxticu�.arly interest�d and the � general public wer.e afforcl�d an 6ppartunity to be heard �s�i��► r�speet to said �ropo�a�.; II and the Cauncil further f.ind.s that it :i.s in tl�e publi.c intarest and in the best interest nf tt�e CiCy'�and �he six mile area adjac�nt th�reto. Sectian 4: That the dedicated public wa}rs deseribed i.n the attached Exhibit 10A" be, � an:d the 5ame are, hereby re�xamed as sgecified. Seetinn 5: That the Ci.ty Recorder sha11 f�rthwith filp a certified copy o£ thi.s lJrdinance � with the Department of Records and Elections o£ Washington County, and a 1i�Ce copy with the Department of Revenue and Taxationy and thE Depar�ment of Public works (County Surveyor). Section 6; lhat this or,dinance shal.l be effective on and after the 31st day after its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. �ASSED: By vote of all CouneiX meznbers present, after being read two times by number and titile anly, th�.s day of , i9s�.. KecQr�ieic - City of Tigard � APPROVEDr This day of , 19£31, by the Mayar. Mayor - City of Ti.gaxd. ORDINANCE NO. �. - ` _ � ,. EXHTBIT '''A" ].. S.W. 113th FLAGE (original namej - S.W. INLET COUR'� (new name) - being .a ,, portion of S.W. 113th Place �.ocated in Section 34, Town,ship 1. South, Range ''� 1 West, Will•amette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, to wit: � That �ortion af 4Q foat wide pub3.ic ri�ht-of-way whi�h ].ie� Westexly of I 50 foo2. wide S,W. 113th Place and, more particularlp, lies between LOT 8 i a;nd I,(3T 9 as i.�.lustxated on the plat MUT.TLE�'S ADDITION as recorded in � nl.a.t '�Sook. �'7 on Page �� zn �aid County°s s�'��ivisic�n p:la� recardse 2o S.W. DAWN`S COURT (Uriginal name) - S'.W. II�LET COURT (new name) �- being a11 of S.W. �auin's C��rt located, in Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County,. Oregon, to wit: A11 of that particular public right-ofaway illustrated on� the piat D:AWN°S INLET as recoxded in plat Beolc 53 on Page 34 in said County's subdivxsi.an plat r,ecards� III i �� ; . . .._ ._. .. _ .._. . rw..�_. �. __ _.. ;-, ��- , t r � �,. ,. � _��' � Z27.095 CI'i`IES T�-' F+'Jhi$ki'�.. ' . .. .ti�� K �..;jjt � . - . . (h) I)o ancl perform all othex acts and jurisdiction of the cities oth.er than the line � � , things necessazy or proper to cazxy out tkie equidistant between the cities and file t}le �': xs, � provisions of ORS 227.010 to 227.170, 227.175 agreement with the recording officez� of th9,- �. and 227.1$0. county containing such boundary line, the �:. .�r (i) Study and propose such measures as �'�dary line mutually agreed upon sha11 ;' ;- are advisable for promotion of the public be�Ine the limit of the jurisdiction of each 4_ interest, healt�, morals, safety, comfort, oan- city until superss�ded by a new agreemenC�. "� � venience and welfare of the city and of the be�'�n the cities or untYl one of the cities..� . , ; . srea within six miles thereof. files with such recording o#ficer a written.r. notification stating that tkie agreement �-< , � (2) F'or the puirposes of this section, "inci- � -�- a� dent solar radia�ion" means solar energy nA louger apply. (�en�ied by 1s55 c.75e,f27, .^� ��. �� t falling upon�given surface area, [Amended by ?27.12U Procedure and a . `' s ; pprmvafl for -. F : 1975 c.153 43y A975 a.767 44;is�r9�.s�i§a] re�m�ng streets. V�'ithin si�c mi:de� of Che I s ` �ru�,.4 of anY cit3': tih� comn,;�Qioa, if tkxere�s :. 227o0!3�i Y�e€ipta`tions for �DRS �:.�77.�� one, or if no such coznncbi:ssian legally exists, +�� ' a.insi �^2`7.11QID� �s u�d i� C1R.� 2�7.1t�{� r�xxd then the caty engineer,shall reoaava�.�nd to Ch;e .::- �` 277.110 "aubdivisioa" nn;d "plat" have the �, � of an� exist' �. ' ci oouwncil the ` , meaninga �v�n those terms,in ORS 92:01m. � street, highway or road, other �haa a coun �- [1955 c.75S 428] a �' :�. mad or state highway, if in t2�e judgment of ;�-' � � 22'7.101D ��b�ssion of plate for subd'a- �e comanissaon, or i�' na suc� e�ar�riissio� _ �i� v9sio�s and glans for street alt�ration� �egally exists,then irx the judgment nf the.city =; � � and public b�ild�mmgs �► com�isaion; �. engin�er,such renaaning is in the best interest '` :� ' port. All subdivisinn�plats locat,�d vvitthin, the of ttxe city and the�six�I�ar�ea.Upon rec�iv- -'� "� city limits, and all plaias ar plats for vac�tin� � suc.l�a xemommend�tion th� vourlcil shall ; ,_ or laying out, widenira�;, eactenr3ia�g, Pax'king aff4xd persons�icularly ia�terestex�,and the � � � � and locatix� streets or plans for public buiic�� eneral publica an a�part,i.inity to b�heard,at :. '�` ings shall first be submitted to t�e eomr�i� a time �snd place�to be speci£ied iaa a notice o� ' � sion by the ciCy engiiaeer or other proper xnu- h�earing publ�shed in a newspaper c�f general. , ; nicipal officer, a�nd a report fikiereon from the �'��$�pn with� the mixxxicipali�y and the , commission s�ured in.writing befoz�approval sfx mile a�ea not less tlaa.a� oxxve within the .- '�4'. is g'tv�n by the proper municigal official. week prior to the�vveek within which tlse hear- _ � (Amended by 1955�T56 4261 ir�g Es ta be held. t�fter such opportunity far 2 hearing has�een affQrded, the city council by ,.- �: a $ �2?�110 City appr!oval a�equired prior ordinanoe shall rename the str��or highway ,;, � t�recording o,f e�ubdivi�ion plats and piats in accordance with the recurn�endatian or by , or d�ecis dedicating la�ad to public use TesoYution shall reject�e re�cammendation.A F withiu �ix mileS of city. (1) All sukxlivision cert�fiec�copy of each such oxdinance sk�a11 be j ; plats and all plats or deeds dedica.ting land to £iled for record with the county clerk or ;� �' � �' public use in that portioaa of a county within r�e�corder, axid a like copy �hall be filed w-ith � _` • six znales outside t4�ie �imits Uf any city shall th� couuty assessor�d county �urveyor. Ttse - �irst be submitted to the city planning com- coua�ty surveyor shall enter t`he new namss af , � mission or, if no such c�mmission exists, ta such streets ,and roads in red ixak on.�ny filed - ��< the city er�giaeer of the city and approved by plat and tracina tl7ereof whxah may be affect- �° � � the commission or en�ineer before they sha11 ed, toget�er with appropriate notati�ns con- _ a. � be r�carded, eerning 4,t�e same. , ::�. v " (2)It s�ia11 be ux�awful to receive ar record �,�3QJ[Repeated by 1975 c.767§16] " ' such plan,plat or replat or deed in any public ,� . affice unles� the samie �ears thereon the ap- 2rt.aao t�n��ea by i�n5�.�s7§isa _ pmval,b�xndoraem+ent,of sucl�coxnmisszon or �7.y�[rt��ea by is�s�.�s7§is] �� "` �ity engin.�r. However, the indorsement nf '`�`y ��,1 'i the c:omxnission or �ity �ngineer af the city ,� ' � with boundaries neaze�t the land euch dacu- �'I'AN�VG AND ZaNINU - � ` � ment affects shall satisfy t,�xe requirements of ��INGS AND R�VIEW : ; � ' � thie sectioh in case the boundaries of anore 7.27.160 IDefiiution�for ORS 227.160 to",—:: �; ? ; ! thaxa one city�re within auc iniles of the pro- 227_xgp. As used an Ogg 227.16�J ta 227.180: • ' �� ; PertY sa raaap�ed or described.If tha governing (1) "Hearings officer"��means a pianning -_-.. ; � bodies �f mxxclx cities mutually agsee upon a . ' � and zoning he�rings officer appointed or des- � � � t boundary line establashing the limits of the .... ,�, ; ; .i � ' 4 n.. � � j ` sis _. - - . _.,.�- ._. s. ,,�;;_� . " _��; . . � ... .� :.. � . � ... .. . . l � � I M � i . sI ----�-- �• F � x� � ••t� '.� � ' ' � . , i � .� "f � t� __�._._ � � " 3t � �..._:_::.:.�.. _... --- � �nN�nv : t�xaf •N; � �p � � --� --- � S ° ' a ...Nf ! ' ' . ' «` N �.� r m�� \ .A.... �. _ . .. . .. � ' f y . . .. 8. y .� . . ' . � "I . :A .� VI il \,'. K � _. . . , . .: ., � . .,� . .. _o � ` 1 ' .� .... �� .�..A . . . i � '�� . � a 'w fll . • '. . ' y_ . ' �. � . .� m. �p � 0.YC. y - � . • � < _ � `} � � ——r-----�. . � I 91� M C `\, ., _ ��_— '�' 3I1 3h - i II .6 .! (^. _.__.1 � L ` / . ' � ( � Y ' � � �� z�_�� .. ' T�d 4NII� I�� i � i � i f ^ � q —�--- ._.._u_ - j / ��._. . i —_-_—� . . f _ / _— ' / .. _ _ . - __--_— _..__ � � _ / Ti. .._, — nne�nr v�su Mc _ .— — --�. � � �7 • { � ' ` - - — `� `\` / �_. �- r,. V�. �_ .,t y - y--- �; --- _ -. � �I po � _.�' �y ` \ p� � - _ _ --- � � � � � � � � �--� �, � � � ---- g -i i R -- - - � 1 / + I N I � — . ,. t� . PDrIiGER05 � I I S..I 8 . � . ��.. .. P � t . ..l�_ �ry � � A �--�-��.__ � ` _ r � , � _ , , �� .�''"`----- , � , �� _ , b"' � �° � l y\ `� ,ti � " - �� a YE. '' . � ... � y � �' �\ ./^f/ ' �:--. �;�� . ' \� . . . .. - .W .� . �:N ... 7 � � � .. ..�. � . .._ . .�/ ' . � ' N :A� . ,� .�� 'k,.,�: " ` � � I i� " _ � ��: i � ___. . � r'�, ` ` ,, ��,�n r = \l �� ` . �,� - • . .�,�,.� ''�"� . � .-�--�� ~ � _�� :• �� .� �y• _�.'�f,� � �� <� . �__ � j- � ...�._.___.. � � M5 � � . � Y , ,. -. . _' � . . . � . � _ � i I I �,� ,�,� rb ,, ! i � � � `,y� 1 .4 i � 1 ,,+ � �, _ � � � j�__...J.___-- , .. ti...->., � � . __ � �`.� � � , , + ,/ �i1� � . �" .. ; ._._�.._._.�.--- � , '`� � „ i �_/ �`\ ` * 1 � � � 2 � , ,5 � ,-� � '^ �Z-=j �.-_. � � � NIEMORANDUM : June 18, 19f�2 T0: Planning Commission � FROM: ` Planning Department SU&TN7CT: Request by NP0 #4 to Yi:ave the Planning Commission review Policy # 32 of the NPO #4 Plan. Attached to this memorandum are all of i-he written carresponc:�nce that have occurred between the NFO, staff and the City Attorney's offfiee con.cerning Palicy #32. &�sec� of the City Att.or_ney's i.nterpretation of Pol.icy #32, the NPO has requested t�at �th�' Plannirzg Commission rt:view the correapondence and the agplicakk�le language f_rom the NPO #4 Plan, and render an interpret�tion. Included in tlze packet to assi�t you in workinc� �khraugl� this pr�bl�rn is a o t ro sal for a ropeL~ry v�ithin the N� #4 ar'��o devel �men p Po F Y� +�b 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 June 16, 1982 Mr. �rank Tepedino Plannin� Commission Chairman City of Tigard . P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Interpretaticx� of the NPIJ �1�4 portion of the City of Tigard's Comprehens'tve Plan. Dear Mr. Tepedin�: There are several important issues relatec! to the NPO ��4 plan which remain unresolved. Also, it is the opinion of the NPO that some of the issues listed in Mr. Sullivan'S May 5, 1982, mernarandum misstate the iss�es raisec� by the NFO. Therefore, conclusions to such misstated issues have confused the issu�s raised by the Nr�_ Perhaps Mr. Sullivan's unfamiliarity with the NPO �,�4 plar� and the failure of the NPO members to more explicitly express the issues they wanted resolved cau5ed these misstatemen�ts. 5gecifically, the city s�kaff interprets the NP4 ��4 plan to allow the elen�ents of the plan's street system to �e built in ��gments �vhich are less than a f�sll ele�nent and therefore can b� of a dead-end nature. "fhe NPO unanimously interprets the plan to require that each element b� com�lPted before it can be considered to 5atisfy the road requiremerits for �, parCel. serv�d by it. Stated differently, the staff � I a in of se ments in an elemenfi vahile the NI O believes b e l i e v e s t h e l a n a l l a w s h s P P � � the plan only allaws the phasing of comp lete e lements, s tree ts w hic h co»n�c t t�s other streets at both ends. This NPC) position is supported by the plan's text on page �i,. The staff interprets the plan to allaw the dead-ending nf segments of th� elem�nt� of the Dartmouth to Pfaffle connec$ion. Fearthermore, the staf# seems nat ta place limits on the length of such dead-end segments. This street is designa�ed as a collector. The dead-ending is justifi�ed by Mr. Sullivan through the subdivision ordinance (TMC 17.08} which relates ta in�rernal access pcovicied by foc�l streets that are by ordinance allov✓ed to �l�ad-end (TMC 17.08.�70)e However, this ordinance appears to limit the length of dead-end streets ta 400 feefi (TMC 17.O�.Q4c� ac 17.08.110). Incidently, this ordinance was passed in 1979 which was approxima$ely two years after the NFO #�4 I'lan's adoptian. Obviously, allowing more than a few acres to develop on a dead-end stre�t will resuit in traffic hazards during emergency situations. Especialiy so, when its int�rsection is at an already conjested highway such as Pacific Highway. °fhe city°s staff through using th� above said segrr�ental interpretation has exceeded its authority by apparently agreeing to ailc�w two property owners to unilaterally change the street system of the NPO ��4 plan�s map by the relacation of p�rt of the Da.rtr:�ou�F to Pfaffle connec�tion. Even if their s�gmental interpretation is upheld, the city staff does not have the authority to approve road developm�er�t plans which require a change in the plan's map. l _ _ __ D 9 Mr. Frank T'epedino ��ne 15, 19Y2 Page 2 Mr. Sullivan states in his May 5th memorandum that: "It must be recognized that after the plan was drafted by the group, the draft plan was distributed to ali interested persons having a range of interests in the area." Many people in the area have relied on and made decisions based on tY�e existing plan's text and map. Mr. 5uliivan explains that the plan is a statement of City policy which cannot be changed without going through the plan amendment Process. If the relo�ation of the Dartrr�outh to Pfaffle connection is allowed as presently advocated by the �ity's staff, the street system of the NPO �� 4 portion of Tigard's Compr�her�sive Plan will be signi#icantly chang�d from what is now on the plan's ma�. I� order to provid� for the loop road shown on the map and referred to in the text as a most natable feature, sa;id relocation wil.l probably require two "T" intersections instead of one full intersection and will probably require fih� combining of two c�llectors in several hundred feet of common roae7way in place of fhe two separate collectors shown on the map. The relocafiion will also affect the street service to pr�perties other than the two mentianed above. The travel distance between Pacific Highway and I-5 via the Dartmouth to Pfaffle connection will also be increased. As indicated abover the N�O insists that the plan's intent is that each of the stre�t elernents east and west of 72nd Avenue is to be constructed in a street tn street manner, thereby not allowing any dead-end collector streets except for the singie exception stated in the plan. Additionally, the NPO is asking that a traffic judgernent deeision be mad� by the planning commission and city council on the basis of traffic projection findings. This decision wauid require that b�th of the elements of the Dartmouth tn Pfaffle connection be constructed at the same time to prevent commercia! type traffic from inundating 72nd Avenus and/or Pfaffle. The city staff and administrator seerr► willing �o support an NPU ��4 pl.an amendment to clairify the plan. Howev�r, the NPO rnembers are c�ncerned that existing law may render the amenumert effectiveiess unless the citp councii agreed v�ith the NFO"s intent when the council adopted the p1an. It would seem reasonable to assume �hat the city cauncil so agreed unless contrary testimany exists. Ho�v�ever, staff'� interpretation has �reated a questian as ta whether the city council agreed or not> The [`+1P0 aske� �e. S�llivan to give hiS legal opinion as to the effectiveness of such an amendment under the existing condi�ions, but he faiied to address this important issue in his memorandu�n. The NPO is concerned with the case which states in its trial b;�ief '�r�at the trial , cour�t, °t. . .rev�rsed the order of th� commissioners because the �omr�issioners had ! not shnwn any change in the character of the r�eigh�orhood which would justify the rezoning.01 Fasano v. Washin ton County Commissioners of Washingion County, Vol. 96, I�lo. 12 197� . Althc�ugh this is not a zoning rnatter as of yet, the same logic can be used tu argue against the enforcibilifiy of the prapnsed amendment if it ca� also be argued that there has been a reversal oi policy rather than a clairification of original policy. �ince Mr. Sullivan argued for the defendents in said case, he should be knowlec3geable cancerning the N1?O's question. $' .. ��i � � � � � � . . �.� Mr. Frank Tepedino �une 16, 1982 Page 3 The NPO has developed a clairification of the existing plan's language which does �ot change ti�e plan's stated policy or delete any of the Pxisting plan's language. It specifically sets the street developrnent requirements for the NPO ��4's planning area through giving full meaning to all,language of the existing plan as Mr. Sullivan states is importan�. The clairi#ication is in the form of an "Explanatory Statement" on page two of the Bob �ean lett�r dated April 5, I982. However, city staff and Mr. Suilivan seem to believe th,at it is a reversal: of policy � i ' rather that a clairification of original policy. The problern is that the city staff simply will not revise their interpretation to that of the NPO's intent expressed by •the existing plan's language which provides for street to street com�letion for coliectar streets. The city staff will not accept any arguements, na matt�r haw irre�utable, tha� tend to reverse their position. This unwiilingness to unbiasedly consider the 'NPO's reasons f�r its interpretation �eems to be the result of priar street development requiremsnts having been set by the staff as ir�dicated above fc�r certain pruMerties. Re�ardless o� w�ether or not segment phasing ra�ther than elemer�t phasing is held to be the val;rd interpretatian, fihe NPO will in�ist that any proposed eelacatians of street elemen�5 must go �hrougt7 tf�e plan a��ner�dment �rocess before being adopted. If �he staf# is allowed t� arbitrarily change the plan's street system anci/or alluw segmented collectoc developenent, the developmen� of the Triangle will continue to be adversely affectied, The disrupting �ff�ct on the liveabiiity of the neighborhood will aiso di5�appo.int the resicients of the area and decrease their respect for the City of Tigard's planning process. Very truly yaurs, Gordon S. Mactin, Jr. � NPO �f4 Chairman �nclosurec N1P0 #4 comprehensive plan fi�ure 4. � cc: Planning Commission Mr. Bob Jean Mr. Frank Currie ' Mr. Edward J. Sulli;van Mr. �ererny Coursolle LVPO �f4 members �r t�� .- v � \ ��..�.�-I'��r� 1—}?--i�tl 'r� �1 f1 r►`I \� `y�'�� ' ' � I� � �J 1:-.-. � j� .. e yV.. .� � I •�� Yr . . .:�` �t �::✓� � ,�rt(1'11c-��'��t 1 1�.;' 'i l'�'r° y� `!�, � / �� • � > . l. T i } <<"1nT'� 1't�..sm r�i.rcpc, nni f�,:.,...x:�i�ssrr.4 rrr�:it�Q �i ,v,� �i � t , � , ��r� ,. :;��.,.. �,�� w:�, ,�.y4: �1 � _.i � ,�,;,,;..� . . �,t I :i �� :S a� � : I'1 rr °'�` 1 "f fY'e�\t- t•� n"4�r°' ��A""��. l ' • r'�_ t�. •� �C3�;'. �1"1�'�Ll'S�f�a"1�If��b�GW�'.1.. �1� (}�" ) -- � i.•r ' • . ` . � . , � ____� , � . r.t ;ii b c + c. . k J y?P e}t. '' c • . . _ . • �';• `�� M�� ~� w..Y M A�� Cy �•�!��...1 � � . . . 1 il I � � . `�• � .. ',� ?�' . J��. � �,�` �` ��; �� f�.f � ' . .. � . � . }� (� L � �^ L>�F� `1�.11�.:.��i ..�.�iW�t �'� ��• �L �♦ �1,�� , , , [ . ( � , ►^t' - . °� '��t' . . �; 4�� . � 4 _ , � �.� . - �J �� '";� i �� . .. . . .., . . . i � t {� N S J �� /� ..� . ., • --r� �� „ c«r4.�C'r�'r7 S"T I {"'"� RP .ti�rrv-r ,,1�YY�y�,..� `tr'h^5.- i � \, __r,,;,�K :�;�,� : �� : •<�`��! . t`tt �--,------w- ��.�,��_�:�,,� ;<<- ��,.�.►,��_---�-�-.�� .� _ _ ,.` �I..� i j�l +{ a • ;¢�f: „ W� � t5�.t1 �_ .� �___;-':.. �.. `_ .�_ ` '`�) } . . . f� �` � . � :�'` \\ .�:+' � . wf �Y!'t �,5, � �r�C'�_.�'r'� . ` ��. , , 1'. � � ;; i �l='1 1� �i ��r'.`13.:Tu�+�[..�� . � _'��1 ! �,r J 1��.i�;`�— 1 • .f. l.,/ ' j� .�° , .�. , <,�'� �i :a �_ : � ;; '�� • � t �;, —• �� :, l t -, =T. �, �i• � ; �� ,. � , ,�jr,�na � r �_ �► � . , � .�.S�f� ,.7i'�• .� �, � � �, <. �,:, �.,.: !` -:I ��•��,t •._.�-� 1�'�.�� u'�'�\ ��,;�. , �' . � � ��•-��ll�i'RYl 1GTlt' .kVi' �� „'r� -NCr �. { < •t . . � . ��'� �7n` '! "µ aV .�� /t�y��•�' ,� ,��1'f�� ,�6 'r�rr��4"i•� ,'�r.NS..�.�:.�:C'��i.(7l'f��w 1 Y� � + f� . � �I. � � �� 1,y� �l� �t �}fi�J� . , ^ .�et �t :� � ��i' (�xnr � j'�•.ii �1'^i:.t'CiS�lr..x- w�. �� y_ 'i •t rni 4��t '�,•c— ,T�1 C�.'?�-._ 1,,:'t'•��= C� �J`',' '� 1% t� � .. � n � I'r. �x � r n� 1'� '�''.�._,___��•��. � � , �t. �, ^�.Tt Y J+7��tt x2tt^f �tA,..-�zl•i�f��'2:•'Xs''•i�`��°i,:1� �i�j++ ` � .:� � i . ,.� , 1 . y, . . � � �� 1.• }n �+�� '�:�/ �"Y��tl� �� •�. �,�.l`�'li �,�;�YGr�`t'i(„4,'T0. • � \�� '�,�� :�� w.^ � �v4 -- � ..� �7�V ��I f./ffAi�// w� . . . . . '.� .�� .. f� ��. . �� ..`�� ht1 '�,. � I •�'�7.�� Z �(.':'�� /f . .. . 1 tr' �y �r . � �n�T .F.. ��I.�L S . _ '� •�i w�t • •S'•• � r 1 � A "� �:L� ..�ii �S�`.T+7�'� J .. . r:��i '�n� k �u,lq t' �. °;T � _l�� S.,_,yi F� sni`itl. �' i.�i ;f �� ::4�a.:�4b.�,�+��v�J Cy �. r� � �� ' �}��il.°"�V. . . . � �: t•Q/.�i� e/ i�j1�' '1 � � n J � � . � � �. �� et� � 1 i�. �� . . � .� �.i • \( � . g� r�� .�f � . v . � �I..r �.t �� .� .r) w j f �1.f•. •� .�i�f � . . - . ./ r� l�J '��. ��i- < . . . �1 :i r� �� w. e� _ n . I� J . a. �1 _. ; r 1 h,, �� = -� �� ,� _�: � ��c �► 1 - ' � - I - � � l � f e/ T �;, �.t;- „r . : ' . `k E sr"'' r • •!i .�{ ;la� ..��,,,;�'�'aC \ •�. � r� + �'�'�� _ � . �_....,--- ,�� ,. � { i i �s . ... A � , .. I � , � � �j . �^�� ,.,��--r----:�-l. .i. � � � • IM��J��...�.__��..\... N�IiiMf� l� V�. �t ��. t`�'{�� "�v, � �. :..c...4y� �� 7=2'� �+� I � I• , t: �A:i�sc�,�� N. ' . � �. . . � :�I C - � . � ��\. �� (�' +I �'i � :� �'� �. �: ,�� ,, �� . I °; . i' � ', ♦� . ��' � �r' :' '.� 4 .. �.�' _ , ��►. _, ,: ,- — •,; �• J� �� •�r . � � . . L � � ��` � 1 �� t li : •+ tti � . .n� i . C�- . . . ..r . o- . 1' �� • c• .}� / C:•' . .i'. . � � . k. C� i� � � � �` � .� �� nt �t��•� .,�h . y .�. _... a r $�+ � . . : •• . . i �+• . '•i � � ' �. �� ^ '�� . . . .. ,I �:: .� �I,, � l t?_�. .� �� -�-�r"��`` . �. �'�, { r'7nt.ca�a '.�,�{ . '.1�� r._._ � y. ��,:►' L...(. k� � , ��f�� ;, . �i 1.13 �1 i i i �,, r � ! ,Ji ., . ._. I . . . : � . � - � �pro� �� /�� .. .t.. ��+ w ° 1 ,�� t . � ' � ��• ;� —� „� � " ' �i - .ir •�•ti+: �� ;�� . � . . � � '1.?� f��.G� . � . . . � . .a��I ' 1.7 .+�. �.�.1«:� � . . . � � � . . . i . �<l. �� . ��... � . . . . � . . . � �, � � . . . . � .��I� . :�l« � � . . '. . � • �� .�, f�`�S;�l�-� . . - � -,., t�� o� • - ' ,� , �, t,pf�� .:�l_.,� ,_,_ �._..� ��, �,;r . . _ '• . t�, . -�� . . — � ' ��? �/"___-_. �� {�1 , � {t ��.'.Ait �"; �(� '� •i � 's `' � —' � i ` a"�+ . •. ,{`.•�'I . • ,_�`� "J��,�.��i,Tl?+��i .�f'�d.'ei,��►�'^;;` �? ��,*.�` T�� . ' . . �� :1� � � . .�.. .. . �� .,I �.-� r rt` �� , � a�. � :� _ r`�,+4 �^ ' ';i! � .� i o '; �' � . . . ._ ','/` . _. . . . � . � .� . � � .�� ''s� �� =1(t "c�'�<w ��1't�� `'� .�_,�,!�, . . _ . . . . ' . .. 1 `� ' �''� . . —�1. ./e •:��_.��—.-..�.---�.SA. . . � � . . . . . . .. . . . �� e � 1:1 � � . � . � . . � . . . . � .1� �j f '�� ...-�F! � � ��(:7� " �.e• ~ _ .. .. � � .� � . . � , �. ' � . � ..�� ¢ ��LJ� � l . . . . . � . . � � � � � . . . � �I�.' .i j '�.�� .. � t' ��r�i � �,J � . . : � .. .. . � . .. . . . . � f� ��i�� t ef�;� , 6:.�� . . � . � � � � . u 1 0 � 7' . . . . ,•,} ` '1 `��° <a('+•� � - ; �ri1 , , I t�`. �; �i�, t ,�t� � ; ai. • . . a - IP .�'�� °'�� ' ' , •' ,_ �' � � �� '��f� � , �s � � •` fP•,�t� �l � - •�.-�s�;'�� . . . � �'�� . . '. . � 1 . 4 �, •�,�. �.:;� _: . . � � � ' . . 1 i ..�. . , ... ... .. . .. � .. . . . _ . .... .. . . . .... . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. ... . . . .. .. . .. ... . .. . I �"5uggested Clarification Language to the NPO #4 Comprehensive P1an and Related Comments (^,v�,.. f�. 1��Nc�-� � Z�3��Z The following is the suggested lnnguage: Further property deveiopment west of 72nd Avenue, south of Pacific . Highway, and east of Highway 217 shall not be allowed until the Pfaffle to Dartmouth road section is completely ennstructed between Pacific Highway and I-5. The reason for this clarification of the plan is to insure thnt this rond seetion and its requisite right:-of-way be given the priority by and cooperation from property owners necessury to insure that it is completely'construeted et the time any development begins so as: (1) to prevent purtial development of the arect in conjunetion with . purtial construction of the rc�adway which will aggravafe 72nd Avenue and/or Paaif'rc. Highway traffic problems. (2) to insure that the construction costs of the road section nnd its necessnry right-of-way a�ai�ation �s equitably distcibuted and hence more likely to be economically feasible throughout its length to help � insure complete construction within a forseeable time period. Tn regard to land use economics and construction of the Dartmouth to Pfaffle connection the �roposed land uses shauld be further reviewed and made more ile�ible to accomtno�ate a� larger variety of.�ses in order to create economic conditions which wili expedite the road �onstruction und p�omote the economic possibility of conve�ting the residential units. The NPO #4 members recognize thut the llartmouth to Pfaffle connection is the bnsis of the road circulation pattern in the Tigard Trian�le area and desire to insure complete construction of this road as soon as possible. Periodic adjust.ments will need Yo be made co the NPO #4 Camprehensive Plan to promotie this vital connection to pro.tect the existing road system from the • over-bu�dening effects of high volumes of traffic if it is not com�leted before more develo�ment in the NPO �k4 plunning areu takes place. � One adjustment to the plan necessary to insure right-of-way dedication is to � I remove irom conversions units 3 and 4 the Pollock �roperty consisting of approximately 4 acres which l.ies directiy east of 72nd r�venue. Rezoning of this property to its designnted use shauld be eontingent on the granting of the necessary right�-of-way to make tf�e Dartmouth to Pfaffle connection. Developrnent of this property should be contingent on construction af the eoad. " , A, PORTION bF .^ � NPO i� COM'PR�f-iENSTVF �'LF WI'I`H AN EXPLANA'rORY STA�,EMENT TNSERTED AND LABELL•'D ACCORDINGLY , , � . (The following � is taken from �aragraph one of page one:) ' . .Thes�e policies , the acc�mpanying text, and the plan map are to be consulted jointly when evalua�ing develo�men't ' proposals,. . . . (Emphasis added. ) . (The following is the first pazagraph of the �ection--�PIT�'�SED DEVELOPMENT O� TH'E STREET PLAN. ) Construction of the proposed stree'c system represents the most substantial public �acilities costs which further c7evelo�ment � of the neighborhood will r�quirea The most efficient method oE � constructing this sys:tern is in phases as c�evelogment accurso Ti�ere�ore, development will be permittec3 in �hos_�or�ion� a� the tleighborhood wYiere the street sys�em has been improv�d to meet �.he increased traffic demands. (En�ph�sis added'.y Thi.s • nt o oincide �azti�` the ' rovisi.on of hasin of d�vela me t c P 9 P p � :adequate streets �will assure that �he tra�fic d�maz�c7s resul�it�g from turth�� c�evelopment wil]. nat exceed th� carryir�g capacity of the street syst�m. (The following is the Explanator�. ��.atemer�t. ) The NPO �� Campretierisive Plan requires that rezoning of prop�rty in a particu]�ar portiozx of the n�ighborhoad (NPD #� Plan Area) shall b� contin.gemt on compliance tivitki �Y�e �hased cievelapment Qf ths street plan for tha� portion af tlze ne�g�ibonc��od. An , "el�ment" of the street circula.tic�n syste� a.s e�.ch black �nked, stree�t sec`�_on sho�vn i:n St�p � of �'igure � of tlze p1ar�---�vhi�h. connec�� two other existin , str�et� tYz�.t ar� b�acic in�ed �vhiah are i�tended by the Plan tc� be f�zl].y im�rov�d or ar� already so . improv�ct. (The particular full impravemex�t �c�c�uir�ments af eacY� street a.re 'set forth in this �lan u�adcx� the heading, Stre�t 't Classificatior� . ) Ths term urban standards here.in refers to a. non-�iead end stre�t tvhich caiz accomodate �,utomo.hi�e traffic in 'a reas�nable manner but �vhich is not necessa�ly �u�ly improved � as def.,ined abov�.. To e��al:ify f�r rezona..ng or de�ign a.p�rova.l in terms of �he phasin� af street c�evelo�ment, a parcel must :be: ' („1) In a poxt�.on of th� NPn �� plan �,rea tvhere ttae street �ysten� ha.s been developed to rneet the increased traf�ic demands o� tk�e p�.rcel ' � rezoning . �;Z) Sex°ved by access to an "element" of t�� street circulation system t31at i� at l�ast dev�loped to urban �tandards. ,.i . �3) Served by a�a "element" �vhick� is �'u11y improved f rom the . parce�.s ' access po%nt �o the n�arest '��eway interchange or Pacif ic Hi�h�va.y connectionR in�terms of distance to the parcel. ' s access po�nt, or effectively so cannect�d 'vi:a an adc.i�i.onal "element" o�"elernents" , ' .' ; (cant%r�ued) z��GE 1 af 2 . p ' The°� reason for thc jtzst stated ( 3'rd) r�quirement is to insure a47�,inst ��cessive tra�f ic l�einb d.ivert�ci to on� �.r�exvay �ni;erchan�e o.r Paci�ic �fi�h�vay conn�ction . (Notice that �ach ele►nei�t o� the street s,ystem i� of a s�Lreet t� stre�t nature anci not of a clead �nd nature except in the case stlocvn in Step 3 of the loop road �vest of 72nd llvenue. The reason for this exception is explained in the plan text . ) Policy 3� is the ena.blin� policy for implementing the developrnent of tla� �has�d street system, rather than a �t�.te'ment that rezoning wy11 be approved under certain access conditions . The ter.m fully improved as us�d in P�licy 32 refers to a street �vhich is improved to its required standards all of the �vay from one point to �.nother. � (The fallowing is the continuation of the section,, PHASED DEVELQPMENT OF Ti-iE STRE�:T PLAN, beginning with paragraph twa. ) � ; "`Policy 32. The rezaning af property to morP intensive uses (or City design approval nf �rojects on previously re�oa�td properti�s) wzll only be permitted ori parce�.0 s�rved by a street imprvved to urban standards. The street must be fully improved from the subject parcel to the neares� - e ' nterch�n e or Pacific Hi hwa connectinn. Lr ewa i g 9 Y Y The primary implic�tion of Palicy 32 is tha�c the separate �ro�erty owners will have to wark coo eratively toward . . upgr�dinq the streets servinq their properti.ess (Emptaasis added. ) This can be accomplished by t�e Zoca�. improvement district process which qualifi.es the property owners for low ir�terest , long-L-erm �inancing. In addition, retir,ement of the • • bonds s�l.d t� finance the street improvements could come fram the proceeds of the �ax incrernent financing me�ti��d discussed on the following paye. . • � The phasing sequence is displayed on figures 3 and 4. While the � intent i.s to match development to a stre�t improvemen#: seq��en�:e it does not fo�estall the development accurring out of. sequence prova.di�ng that �he necessary street i.mprovements are made. (Emphasis ac7ded.) Far znstance, one or more property owners may choose to bear �k�e cost� of those stre�t . improvements which wnul.d qualify their property for immediate development. However , the phas�ng sequence will be used as the basis for program capital improvements which �sre publicly �unded . . . . � (This is the last paragraph of the NPQ �4 Comprehensive P�an. ) The deve].opm�nt ot' the Tiga,rd Triangle �hould occur in phases as each e.l�ment of �he s4:reet circulatiot� system is const��acted. (Emphasis add�d .) The street section of �he • plan, figures 3 and A , recommends a sequence for street � improvements which should be used as a basis for guiding the development o� the Tri�ngle. PAGE 2 of 2 . .._ . .. :. � _-"-� v�.ci �--- --^_- __:.. .. .... - ��`t i , ,f`'1� if' '=.t':,�. =,�t,�—z�;�s ! ,.'M_.�— �==— _—-—��;'� _ __ � �� 1� 4 3!\_--� J �! t.u.!1 �.�� •1 � � . .(� `:._` {�..�' � � ?4�,,�„, l�� 3 t.y 1 :_:.�r.r. � • i�� /I�P • '�� 't+� � 'L�'\~.i�mzT �;ka7c�n°,r.:�� '1,�; a[�z�•tM`�.il �ti --_J l�l�`�-��; ,t. t` «S h�,."' :I L .; � , �v� �: I� '( tii : ��',�!t� r • . . , -i�� t r=::i �r r+ i9 ar {'_"t t ;�•� �•�' t::;°' ^�,��' � � I :�� '.`?, �5��, �:. - ��-`r�'.Z'[Z b��liYtP t^��i�� ,- •' ' `�.•rr � • ' . ' � '� •r ` _.. `F1 '1 , �'• ..�. .I �:w,i. i7'' � • • CC M � ;+c � -�� 4 '� M t • . L 0� . �� • �� J � � I . .I l.� ~��F'` r .,��. ' J��. � �� p �1� ;�� '-��~ • . � J..��' +� e `�J : I ti ''� �ri � 1 p� C v � y�� .4c, • . • . . rn I� ' `� w �.� � � �. . e � � ' _ tlu � .i � w' � � �!a, • . � � \\\ �--- ��:i-'�� `�I;�{�� . . �d(� .�.• s9 . .. � ...._��.•,.,. ,'':rF`�^�^..�1:,.";.'fi�+�S;*i+"n' i'�Tifj�.�"�?C��., •i.-�i r.rvw�'*;'�'C-�� r,':t�S , �. . � � . \.. ��:.(� . . , \� a� , � • �, . .�M.1" .r�� . '�'�� /i`� �:f i^ i�Z.);1�..�!��l�l�t _t..r. �.�._.lYC 1.4«r:i.l ::...t.iuu.t.i��..�'��. � � . f . � 5\�?4 � • ,�. �� - ". t� � � �v�.`-S __' � . —'�� 3! L..�... �/5�_ - -'�T�' � •1.' "Y � .J� �� -�, �� , , � � �i,` : -�r'i j.,, ,�,' � — !1 — '►�i 4, _ l ,�• �� '� .� � � �_J J :7 ' : . • .- . �.1 .f� �� i� � :�'.y . �r`�1 a � •� , �� (i't1��'1xS��• t 1`. ...�. -1� r� .� . � : � ? r•;c. _�_✓. 'I� '�: � l t' S . � �• .. . .*.j: s 1;1Jp�^Y i 1�.'r1r �a 7"�r.--��. T-;-�r,.:�;cr �t?�:.� `�., `.: t - �� :nr �'u •t Y'�� V� /�'�� ` �'i•i3 � �` .i r �r' � i !i • � •�„ , . . .�� .�a. � _r. L�. .�°:': a-.p;,�, . ' � I �� — �, �� . . � :s � � � ��.'47s�m�'.z o ,��`-r I . � ��.��.'•`` � • r •ler` � ('��.� �,- •[ ' � .s� ,f 'i � _�:.�11 R� `�� r v�t� •.•t r�r',_;L,_ ,4`�5r � e� � �_ . �i r ' I i, �i . '��. �`.(' ;t"`' �``. . � E * �ti '� '�.�nr.�r.tt,�z�!� ~u-.. -s-,,�, �,-1 � I �::'' ' 1 i�^ ��✓'f 11 JP � ,..1 � ,� �I�� • �I ��' J�; w , w i. t�l' e '1 '�:Z' ,♦ • I;iM � �• � . � � . ' I Y ��r ; .-. . �; n;�� ai ��h � a� , � i ..J i ' ,, -�� L �� '� \ ' ' "' �� ':-� � ' � " ��.,_ _�� _�ini%) ,.tr ��.:. �'�t ...7 `� iYS� �1t.: :1'.�.�I^ V .Sc1"1'Y'��y.�t h� f t�.7��q � '�i {,� Ef� y ,� ' ... �u'�r � ,. �.. �S�f , • � ..�� -�,�, � rt•. '� •.I�� ,� i V�.� ��:i�� . • . � 1.;.C: e5 ��. . � i � � ' 1'y � . i�J L.�`- pi• ; '�'• ` . . � � " � 1 �� J i. •t � �y, '�� ° �. �' � I t � D � , . j � ..�� 4 I�`1� ( � r��f- .:��• ,�5� . � ��r w�' � �' � � ".I I , __+�___� s�' -c-��'�'{ �' � - L��i .•\ (�'l�1 :•`.i. .a. . � .:a•. �. .� .� . . ` l"�' '�� , -wi__�l�•ll��'�". ...at1�� Y � '. � � �� O��ZY.ZY7� � •��i��' t�� . , � •j .` � t 1_ �� l � ��9� �r.,y" °'", � ,� 1 e' 1 .., i. ' i� A.� � ..Jrl� i � �YiY , . •— — �,,, . `��,yD�� -.,� � ,�0 � ...._ t .„ , .�I. �—�"� Ly, ` '� J � . . : i� . , , i~ _ �� .._..... • �.' .i�' LV i. �7nv�`"u''t� �.•'.1�. �L �� . �y ,. . . � . 7 f t,4� `��:� . . �� .11��. y �`1.�� . . . `� '"' �- . . . �I� ":nr��tal ��'i � � �, . !i 1 t:'' i JJ�.,7t �,�• i 1 ` � `f'�"`-�- � , i � � � � ��'`f�r �� ;� r �' � �,��:' c- Q� . :d za . z �,�' �,••r , _j; •;:'t -�' -�--� � .. �. ..�1 �: "',,��: t . . 1 ` '� ` � �� S J r �.l . • - ' , •rh:) �c��w�r �• �' +;� . � i .1' . � . . � � . n ` 1 +�.� yl.tr P • . �� .,, �, �,j�'�o .�;- C!� �`.�; � .,. -��- `` . . ,;''r��`�`. ° . —_ �----i'j � '` �xy``p,� ,, ., � . �, �Y,� 1; ,�.; �,_�" ' ; �� , E d � �,f/�?��`°'' � ,� �-f � . „ ( � . `�I`�{C�"C-''a�.77'7L.�-*?.,�'T7T �'t�I.,��'. �( �l� f�.�11 . . L� �lJ ,_'� . . .. . . �•��,�>f'.Y�f `A ff:— ij� 1��.6't,j�p��. � . r(Y�:`'C( +i.�. � � � . . . . v n' t, � �� . � � � . . . �. �� I r �� r f l: • ,�� ' � .i�Si�� ii f � �{I r :,'f� ' , • _ • � . �•' . . . . . . � . . �1� e�y . i� wi r.a p n� 1!� a, , . . . , . �1� ' .° , i'f � � ., � . . . � • . . , .. �. �� v.� : e'� w'1.J�71�• i+A�• " ... ` . . . . _ . � r- .: .� ,�, 64�' i�p„ �' �I _ i �� '� : y � o �)-f'. � .. . � � °,�'/ : ��j�t 9 � •� � �� ♦ I4' , i ��ly , , s � �� ;-'�__ `�� °4 • ' . . . •�' �' �+ �! ' �� • • ` - . �.1; � '� �7 ��`.;��' 7 z ' '�� .r� . . : r;� ,t � �� . �, . � . . � .j , ,t � � . , . , , - . . . � / � •s� �a � . '�./ 1 , �. April 5, 1982 , ,, .R , , , , Mr. Bob Jean � City Administrator ` City of Tigard ' Tigard, Oregon 97223 • �2E: The Tnterpretation of the NPO #4 Cornprehensive Plan particularly as it relates to the Dartmouth to Pacific Hi�hway Connection, Dear Bob: ' � Thank yc�u for the meeting we hac3 on March 11, 1982, concecnin� the above stated ' � subject of thiS letter. • . . . NPO #4''memb�rs, past and pCe�ent, diew the Txgaz d Trian�l� �s a valu�ble �ubl..ie . � ress�y�G� c��ted thxt��a�rt th� �u�?�F�� f�a�dQd ec��►��uctia�a of F3fghw�.y ��7t Pa�ifie Higt�way, �nd In�ers�ate 5. Tt►e Triangle Is e�ntrally located in ternas; of travel. ti►n� to Oregon`s p��i�ulatior� and it will also have high valume a�css�abilat�r:when;its - � ingress �nd egress points'are 'fuTly. developec�. ' Many of the NPO #4 members have experieneed the resul�s of inadequate pl�nning. Frorn fiheir e��riences they have learned what is necessary to �nsure Qroper development �f their area. They feel thst strict enfurcement of � require�enty rel:at�� t� ra�d �mprovements is essential. � �Jntil eaeh xndividual project has satisfied Ats road requiremen� as set f�rth in the x�PO #4 Plan, the merrtbers will not recommend a project's property fur rezonin� or , design �pproval� � Tt�e �ity@s p�re�ent planning staff, which elid not participate in the development �f • the NPO . #4 Plan, seemingly s�oes n�t agree v�rith th� NPO #4 members' , iriterpretation of Poliey 32 c�f the plan prarticularly as it applies td the Dartmouth to Pacific Highway Connection. Policy 32 is the enablfng paliay for implementing the development of the " hp ased • street system,1° rather �thar� a statement that rezoning will be approved under � certain•aecess conditions, tt reads as follows: . 'Policy 32. 'I'he r�zoning of property to more intensive uses (or City � • � design approval of projects on previousl,y rezoned properties) will only be I, permitted Qn pareels serv�d by a str�et i►taproved to urbRn standards. , �he street must be fully impraved from the subject parcel to the nearest � freeway interchange or Pacific Highway corrnection. Because of the disagreement with the plannir�g staff, the NFO #4 mernbers recognize the need far a prec�se explanatory statement that will wxthout allowir►g for misinterpr,etatior� give the exact road develapment requiremer►ts for each piece of property in the Triangle. ' � Therefore, at th� Febru�ry 3, 1982, AIPO #4 meeting, the City's planning representative and I as chairmen were asked by the NPO to independ�ntly draft ex�planatory �an�uage ta be presented at the nexk nneeting that couid be , incorporated into the NPO #4 Plan. ` Bob Jean � � � � Apri1 5, 1982 Pa�e 2 On Ma�reh 3, 1982, I presented, the follo�nring Explanatory Statement as .requested. Nothing was presented by the city's staff representative. It is my opinion based on : periodic meeti.ngs with members of the city's planning staff, that the:y are resisting the elarification the NPO #4 mernbers feel is needed. The followin� is the last paragraph of the NPO #4 Cqmprehensive Planz The; development of the Tigard Triangle should occur in phases' as each element of the st�reet ri�reulation system is caristructed. (Emphasis � add'ed . The street section of the plan,: figures 3 a�►d 4, ,recomtn.ends a 'sequence for street irnprovements which should be �.�sed as a basis for guidin� thc'develdprnent of the Tri�ngle: �� °Che fallowing is the Explanatory Statement: - . ` The NPO #4 Comprehensive°Plan re,quirQS that rexoning af property i� a particular Portion o�� the neighborhaad (NPO #4 1'lan� Area) shall be coe�tingent on com�,��arice with the ph�..sed d�velopa�ent of the street plan for khat p�rtion of the neighborhaod. A,n "element" of the straet c4reulatian syst�m is Pach black inked, street �ectivn shown in S�ep 4 of Figure 4 of the plan--winich coranects two other existing streets that a�e black i�nked tivhich are int�nded by the plan to:be fully improved or a,re aYready sa im�roved. (The particulac full improvernent requiremerrts• of each-street Are �et forth in this plan unrler � , the heading, 5treet Classification.) 'The t�rm "urban s�andard5" herein ' � refers to a non-de�d end street which ean aecomodate automobils tr�ffic , in a reasanable m�nr�er, but which is r�ot necess:arily fully irr►proved as , . defin�d in the plan text under the heading "Street Classification:' . . To qualify for�rezc��in� or desigr� apprava�. in terms of the phasing of street development, a parcel mus� be; (1) . In a portior� of the NPO #4 plan �rea where the street sy,�stem has , � - been develaped to meet the in�remsed traffic demands af the parcel's r�zoning. � . (2} 5erved by access to an "elem�nt" of the street circulation system � that is at 1�ast dP�reloped to urban star�dards. �� (3) � Served by an "el�ment" which is fully impro�ed from the parcel's access point to the nearest freeway interchange or Pacific • Highway connection in terms of distance to the parcel's a�cess point, o� effe�tiv�ly so connected via an addition�l "el�ernent" or "�lements:' FA . � F3oh Je�n . .� . Apr.il 5, '1982 Pfl�e 3 Notice that euch el�ment of Step 4, in Fi�ure 4 of the street systern is•o£:a stre�t to street nature and not af a de€�d end natui•e except in the case shown in te� 3� the loop road west of 72nd Avenue. The r�ason for this exception is explained-i.n , the plan text. , ' • No forma? action has been tak�n concerning the Explanatory Statement pending , further review by the rnembers. However, it i� the general consensus of the NPO ' #4 members that they wil:l approve the Explanator,y Statement or lan�uage based . on it at our next meeting (Apri1 7, 1982). To understand the NPO #4's intent canc'erning Policy 32 when the plan wras drafted, , it is nece�.sary to recognize that :the policy makes reference to two distinct street � conditions: (I) "irnproved to urban standards," and (2) "fully improved." The term � � "urban sta�ed�r�s" is specifically defined in �fie above Explanatory Statement, and the term:"fu11�►improved" is defined in the`�lan text'under the heading,. "Street • classification." The origint�l �PO #4 rn�mb�rs in formulatin� the comprehen�iv� �lan gave mcach att�ntion to ensuring that the plan had strict roac� devel�pment requirements. Tk�� obvious implication was that dead end streets would be strictly forbidden. The possYbility nev�er occurred �o the "forrnul�ting" NPO members that future �ity �taff personreel could consider a dead end porti�n of a 5treet "element" �s a �trPet � developed to "urban standards:' This is the rsason tYie pl�n is not explfcit an this . P oint. � � Tt �s abvious from �the preceding tvuo paragraphs that for a proFerty west of 72nd � •AVP.PIUL' to qualify for develapment in th� NPO #4 portiorr of �the City of Ti�ard's Comprehensive Plan as now written requires �hat� (l) the Pacific Highw�y to ?2nd Avenue element of the Dartmouth to Pacific �-Iighway (:onnection be at the minimun developed in a manner that will move traffic b�tween Pacific Hi�hway ' anr� 72nd Avenue in a reasonable manner, (2) that said eiernent m�ust be full; improved from the pro�erty's access pr,int to Pacifia Highway (or I-5)�b�f�re the � property qualifies for development. � It is equally obvious thc�t the ?2nd Av�enue to 68Lh tiventae elemer�t of the said connection must �� com�sl�ted in a similar �anner ��r properties east of 72nd Avenue to qualify far devela�ment vuhach are dependent on said �lement f�r �c�ess. � Tn addition to these r�quirement,� whict� �ce presently s�elf-evident upon �roper � interpretation of the plan, th�e concensus af NI'O #9: is that both of the above said �� elements should be completed at the same time so that rasidents of 7�nc� Avenue will not�be inunc3ated with traffic from either of th�se elements �s a r�suTt of ane being developed befo►•e the other. Being forced to• make turns to and from a � ' narrow street such as 72nd Avenue and it's reside�tial driveways during heavy � traffic periods is excessively hazerdous �nd frustrating for drivers, pedestrian5, and bicyclist. Bon Jean ' r » . Apri1 5, 1982 • P�ge � Therefore, they wis'h to specifically r�quire that both elements be.completeel at the same time before a property dependent on either can qualify for developm'ent. '�`tiey justify this p�sition through the plan's present requirement that development • w.i11 onl:y "be permitted :in those p�rtions' of the nei�hborhood where the street system hms been irn�roved to rneet the incr�ased traffi�c demands" (page 14.). They : believe` that this condition will not be mef unless both' elements are cornpleted at the same time. , The NPO �4 Plan refers to causing property owners to cooperate in the , establishrnent of roadways, ete. Cooperation comes as the result of nped on the part, of those who are to. do the cooperati:ng. Thus, unless the City of Ti�arc� irr ' conjunetion ,with the NPO #4 clearly establishes tt�e precise requirements to be` m,et before rezonin� and/�r design apprnval is to be �1lovered, c�op�ra�tion ca,nn�ot be ' expe�ted ta tiake place be�ause prop�rty av+rners will nox vol�znta.ril�r . ;ir�ms� their profits by incurring costs they, fe�l can be avaic��s�. In essenee, n�bulous _ develr�pm�nt , requirernents ,result in constarat 'cor�tro�rersy and th� stifling af .' coo�°dinated develnpment. . V�ery truly yours, Gordon S. Martin, Jr. NPO #4 Chairrr►an , Enclosure: carnprehensi�✓e plan's step 4 of figure 4 , ec: NPO #� m�mber5 . Frank Currie � _ • . . .. . ... .-:. .� _.. .. A �. . ,.. . . . � � � _�_.: � � � . . i � . . . .i � � : � - ' . . .. . � .. �.� . . . . . . � .. ; ��..- . ��:� � . . . . . . �t'_......'--��" !,'"�_ ___- --��;� � . � � .. • � � � . � , }-.,,� �= �'--nz. --�-�----� .•r` �`"��1��, �'r r ,�_`f.� �� ` �, � 1 , t . � � �'�� . `1� i t.�,.J nt�"� ,.��i .,� �,,.�.Mr...�� :�� :`t� � " . , ' ' . . �l� . i . . . . .. �-R . 1 . . . . ... . . . . J+. .. . �- ` �tu t .l�- . �t` t . .. . � �7ila�' . � � � ! �yf j,1 I�1� �S �r.9!R= 7r+�1S� ,.� �� ,/{,`'' , I ;�� i• G,�'.G� • � s ��'„' E._ �^ • � + . .• ''� 1�6 +]��1,"' ,.!l• ,; 1l�.. �I �{•` Ye��t' '� i � t �\• �—c rl[��t �+4 ��^ 1. �'• ._�'�.^�. � �i y.) ,� 1 l.{1,ry� �.��i�1S1c1�g�•nbr"�y� • • �r �w 1' �;i:, ` . � ' . � - . . . I ,�.. � ', C.�1�! �� t o 1 S_ �.. Y Y � 9 y�' .�►..� . . � � . rI . � .� E .`��I R.�� f,'. F � (� � . � . . . . � . . . �.�� •\• � 1�J ..M'� � �' a . . - . . . '. �` i �t�� ..�.-� � . . - � � . ,•• " ', . -r� .�.��. ..S � .. �S� ? , � � 1•►�. ri � hL' . . . • � ... � ... i�F�� iyrLas 'u �il �� -�t f..�T'�.S=rS1�+- 1 : ` � e� 1�, j��'� ��. . .. ......., � .�;i+-•� 4PCS�T C��`,9,�:��_�+ "" �� ` �' y w a `e- 't°ti'C��-r�'t-7} ,�� ;'�4it i t�r__--°--"''- �J/ 4 . ►� 7 -• .• .:.....�-�.-"" '°�T°"u...i �.+P,l:n� '.l f _-- - - 1.�►.1' t:Y �t �. ---7t . v � . 7 .. � � : . . . . ti�. � . ,�( .. �, . . . . . . . . . . . . �..� . �� l ( �ti'll1 j t e Q �:"'��tt. i.�� t �•i~ t r � •\.♦�� `•�11� i � ! .f�r�'�• Y .M t ► �...T�7.1t .�� .... �� ,�.. � ;! i �� ;. � , �;�. � { t�.' � � .:i c•,� .��a- .��:. � .4 . . . �\ :..�� t �.�o�i�� . . �. . � �. 1 � :.�lt'lA •• r �.:tfiFl�'t'•�';�f� �:L:::` ' 'ki.� \ 1 �S t'. �F:ya �� \. y . ` ►- � � r'�, ;7��T}�":i�'1'1:iT], �:.�w � . �� ...a. �(�, . .� 1 1 �'1SL:r• � r q �'i.. i` � �. y i�l."i+.R'Cf��'t-„".'.�1.Q( �e ��1 i � �.- �i +ti �� ; ��19� � .�, �i, �,r .lj .'.�L"�.��., :P:aG:+'' ,� � .�/ j .,l� tl- '��' � f � '- �� .� � ��= '' -� �' ��-.�° �:i� ' �' �; • "� j � • ° � �-•.`�1 r .�;�-r--� f , � `i. �1j�F . •�� a�C •t •i fJ 1r ��:��yT:( SCL�•jGt ' �`R . li r._I '`r'1�i .�., �i1`�� •�b�'�A,,�r . ' � F �� V s :b� �; ` i ; Gti ` ��, ^ ��• �� v'� l'��--� .�•�•'�v'''�` '—=�..�'•-•t ;!�-� . 1;i 5 '• � . � � � � I � �; . ��' ,C�!_,�; . 1� �. . .� ,. : �:..� � :�� `f �� , ,I 1,` - . - " � ., �,�'� - t� --• �r� u�► •.t �1' �fit� � ,�a t '� {�it �l' � �� •� � �� .. S�:te 'rv� 4e:S�,?�.l..t--. `�r . . . . -��4� 1� r i 1�n �,� • j �i . ,� � �?� 2Y:3S'�' : :..�..� ^ .. � � .g � J fff;; a�• �_ � .y,�.��5"r c c�' �� '^'� � � � , :f� �i i„� yyy... ' �-':/ :' """'i R� �,n, . v � ,t � .�t � . . { � [��•'41� .��; t � �: �.►•((1 �,�'. ) * �j:� ` � / . �� l •i I � t r. . - -� .� i �• II .....� ..'� -�„� y �.4�1�� .�.,, ' . -: , .,,. f.�� . . .,., t� �� ;-+ � ", '. ' ' ,..� .o � �f:� r . l ,� � a � " ,,,� DQ { ' ;� . i r;:` � �;, z�° �;i� ` • ;, Y . ,��a�:t � � �' " ` �� i' �., .,�y 1._._ �/ � : `'h. ��J�r;� . . . . � � t i . �.L�� ,i I.i � t_../�. ��.. �L. ;t.t � '1+ '� ' ... . . . ;,. :� :�.L__�4�i.{��,_�" dJ`w�� .1� . � . .J �� , ��y�♦ �� . �� _,: �_�- .. . ./ . " ..� � i fi'?..� . ;�t t' ..�-- - \'V . . W.- ::t'y 1��. . ��t�i. . �, \. ' � � . . � `r �� r �� + . . .�.� � ` �i� .Yi. •'lAG�/i'� al -..�b`�'� __� � .• ,4'�� `�`• "�1�.1 � . bT { I . � .! � p-.-��... � C w �� tf� O � �' ; ��ii :1�� 1�... ��". • ("' ' •--... •- � ' ��r��• •�'a ,i — , , ( �, \ , . I . " . � �� . � .. • Y 1� , � �•` �y } � �� ,.` ; L�`.,1 [� j� ,.. . , I . �i (�- � �':,'� ��a , t �f� �� s , J ' ... _ ^ . � �r� .��: b'E .�� p' � }` �1 t l'J)� C {'�� ..� .U, '#'� . ' a e i' ;(�.y I `�� , :�{s i 'tnv i '.'lJ�. ,,�!�• � :,_ �_� � �� ..��Fr'l 1 : n . , 1 ,y�'�. ^ < t �� .. , ' , . .;� ' . r" '�?',^ ��1- . '. .. � . e \.. „ar R�1•. . 1 � � �' '�' "'�1� a i r� ° _ " ��y�� i,. �� i7' � �: '„ •: -r�� , '1.A��: �x'�,13k.�'�'�'1�1 A��,, . " •, , -�t'Ci'' r �� j �' � ��1� ;� �1� ` : • - . � �: t � �,�f� �� ,-�,:,�� , t �, ►.� ,, . „ ,,, ,� . ` � 'A ' .� � � . ,�,��! �� iI ' _ � , ,'� . • r-''� ' ? t, �` : �i � .,,- � , .►' a ;' „� .a� •�" �� ,�� ;t t J3� �, �, �-�+ • I{ 1 p� �fr�i v • ' ;� i •1 S. +��' '�""'� � _ ^ v; ° ' ' ,�,,�`j f M ��I ►°► U� . '-- , ; j � ��" < ,`� � ��.,, `!s7 °I % °��~ . - �, . m • �, --__ ' '—�`' ,��' �� i -.� ,� . . $ - �i .' -r �� (.7 ,. , . ,)� � _ ' ,`�, , a�`�1 '� , _ . ' , �� ` j � r i� � $ ,'�/� ,,,, ,.. ,_ '.{:.. . _ . . . . ( . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . � . . 11pri1 20, 1982 � . ; MEMORANDUM ;' � T0: Ed Sulliv'an; City Attorney . ' ' . FROM: Jeremy Coursolle, Associate Planner ` ` SUBJECT: Clarificabion of iv.^ !`4 Pol.icy It32� and Its Related Narrati,�e ' • ' t . Over��the�.past few months, the NPO #4 memb;ers and sta.ff have di,scus�ed the intent ' � of t•he existing language related to Policy �d32 of the NP0 ��4 plan. {Attachmen:t ' � "A" includes Policy 4�32 and its related narrative and map. ) Brief2y,• it is staff's interpretation that a property awner may develap his pro- .perty ,within� the Trian�3.e area provided tt�a.t�he :.installs the, necessary improv.ements,. e.g.; str�ets, on his property, `and provided that property within th;ose street' , . . . , improvemen�� cannect to "the nearest freeway interchange at-I'aci£ic Highway." Earlier in the discussion, the IdPO �d4 members presented tw� dacuments which sug- �estpd tiheir interpretation of Pc�licy ��32 and its related language (se� Attachmu�ats ' B & C) . Ai ter r�eviewing these dac�aments, sta:ff felt that the NP0's znterp�retation ' was a departure frnm the exi�ting language,� and that this language would not be ' considered a clarifi�ation t� the exa.sting langua�e. �taff informed �he NPO that a text amendmer�t to the existin� plan would be necessary iza order to incorporate � thQ praposed lar�guage �.nto th� �lan text. ° Adda.tionally, staff b�lieves that the proposed language would :fur�her °iconfuse" . Policy 4132 and its relatad narrative if the p:roposed NPO language wet�e �dded to the existing text. Rather, it would henefit the NPU plann�:ng eff�rts if that seGtiot� . � �^elated to Policy �d32 was rewritten tio please the NPO and adolted by tlh� City� Counc�l. :.In researching this process, staff referenced the revisian of Policy ��28, NPO #1 plan text which was required to be reviewed and approved by tlae City Council 0�^- I • dinance 82�-�1, February 6, 1982. , � Therefore, s�aff and NPO ��4 members are requesting: (1) Your interpretating the fac�s given the exista.n$ language and the propos�d language, and (2) your assistance in impleinenting any revised text. � . A meetic�g�wili be held at 1':30 g.rr�. , Friday, AFr�I 23, 1982, at the Tigard City E��11. to finali.ze the "interpretation" discussion. cc:'°'Gordon Martin, NPO �14 Chairman. , � � � S' ( Figure 1 indicates the circulation system and Che expected average weekday traffa.c volumes when the Neighborhood is fully developed according to the land uses designated on the plan map. The f�ture estimated t-raff'ic assi$nment for A1tErnative 1 is shown on figure 2. The existing street system 1 is inadequate to serve the €uture traffic needs to the neighborhood. The primary de�iciencies occur in the Triangle where the proposed bu'siness development creates the need for a continuous s>treet system with high capacity connections to the adjacent f�eeway� and Pacific Highway. Alternative 2 The second alternative proposes a street system designed to caxry projected future traffir volumes and to prav�:de arlequate vehicular access to all. properties located withzn the a�eighbc�rtaaacl. �he most notable features are a connection of Pfaf£1� and Dartmouth to fvrm a -m�jor east-west link between Pacific iiighway and I-5 and a ]:o�� :�tzeet which worxld pra�isl�; aceess to the land west of�.72nd._ . � PHASED �EVELOi�ri::NT OF THE ST1ZE�`?' IPLATT Gonstruction of the propossd street system zepresents the most suhstantial public facil�.ties casts which further development of the neighborhood wi11 require. The most effi.ci�nt mefihod of constructing this system is in phases as developm�nt oc- I curs. Ther�fore; deve�opment wi11 be �ermitted in �hose porti�ns pf the,neigh- I � borhaod wh�re the s�reet system has bee�n improved to weet L•he increased traffic demands. This phasing of devs].opc�ent to coincide with the Provisio� of adequate streets�will assure that the traffic demands resulCing from furth�r development. i � will not exceed the carrying capacsty of the street systezu.� ' Policy 32. The rezoning of property to mare intensive uses (or City desigr_ ! . t�e er- appruval oi projects on pra��iously sezoned prapertzes) will �nly r �a.tted on parcels served by a street improved to urban standards. The ; treet mt�st be fu11 i.m roved from the subject parcel to the nearest fxeeway s Y P i interchange �r Pacific Highway connection. � The rimax im 1ica�ion o� Polic 32 is that the aeparate property owners will P Y P Y . I . ro �rties have Co work coopera�ively toward upgrading the stireets serving their p p s which ualifies rovement district roces q ed b tb,e local im P This c�n be accom lish p P Y -term £inancin . Tn addition, retirement , rs for 1ow interest lAn S the ro erty owne , g , P P of the bonds sold to finance the street impravements could come from the proceeds i of the tax incremen� financing method discussed on the foYlowing page. �I The phaszng sequence �s displayed on figures 3 and 4. While the intent is to match I develop�ent to a street improvement sequence, it dnes not L-orestall the develop- , ment occurring out of sec�uence providing that the necessary street improvements � ase made. �or instancey ane or more property owners may choase to bear the costs of thos� street improvemerits whiciY would qualify their property for immediate development. iiowever, the phasing sequence will be used as the basis for prngram capi,tal impxovements which are publicly funded. � — �' The phrase "existi.� srreet sys�em" re£eru rn the presenC street atP tern and not the physica�. condition of thase stxeets. M i� �4 �►'P�M�aaT a , , . �� p . � v . � : � . . � . , ""Suggested Cluci[icution Languuge to the NPO N4 Comprehensive Plan and Related`Comments �,v:�.-. /�. I'�'�,c�.-� � 2/�/ �'z ( The toUowing is the suggested lan�uuge: Further property development wesi of 72nd Avenue, south af :Pacific � High�vay, and esst of Kighway 217 shall not be allowed untii the Ptatfle to Dsrtmo�th road section is completely constructed between ,Pacitic Highway und i-5. Thc reason for this clarification of the plan is io insure that this roud section und its 'requisite right-of-way be given the priority by und cooperation from property owner5 necessnry to insure that it is complefely�constructed at the time nny developm ent begins so as; (1) to prevent pactiel developrnent of the area .in aanjunetion with pertisl eqns[cuction of the roadway which will aggravate 72nd Avenue and/orPacific Highway traffic problems. (2) to insuxe that the canstruction costs of the road section and it� necessary righ2-of-way dedication is equitably distributed and hence mort, likely to be economically feasible throughout its length to help • insure complete construetian within a forseeable tim�period. in regard to lAnd use economics and construetion nf the UartmoutF to P£affls conne�tian the proposed land uses should be further reviewed and made more ilexiate ta accominauate d• larger variety of.uses in nrder to areate ec�nom'tc conditions whieh will expedite the road construction nnd promote the economic possibility oi converting the residentialunits. 'I'he NPO #4 members recognize thnt the Dartmouth to Pfaffle eonnection is the basLs of the road circulation pattern in the Tigard Triangle area and desire to insure complete construct9on of this road as soon as possib):e. Periodic adjustments will need to be made to the NPO #4 Comprehensive Plan to promote this vital connectian to pro.tect the existing r�nd systern from the • � over-burdening etfects of htgh volumes of traf�ic if it is not completed befoce more development in the NPO 1�4 piunning area tnkes place. ' One adjustment to the plan necessary to insure right-of-way dedication is to � � remove from conversions units 3 and 4 the Pollnck property consisting of opproximately 4 acres which lies directly east oY 72nd avenue. Rezoning of this property to its designAted us� should be contingent on the granting of the necessary right-of-wmy ta make the Dartmouth t� Ptaf[le conneetion. Development of this �roperty should be contingent a�construction of the road. /��!��'�N�� 4 ' ' ' April 5, 19$2 n (5 .� ...� � (l� (� i L� l� D Mr. Bob Jean �1PR i:; i98� Cit,y' Aaministr�tor . CITY OF TI..(�-.,ARD City of Tigard 'Tigard, Oregon 97223 R�F: The Interpretation of the NPO #4 Comprehensive Plan particularly . � as it relates to the Dartmouth�to Pacific Highwuy Conn�etion. � Dear Bob: Thank �rau for the meeting we had on March 11, 1982, conce�ning the above stated subject of this letter. NPO #4 mernbers, past and �rPSent, wiew the Tigard Triangle as a valuable pubiic resource created thr�u�h the publicly funded construction of Hi�hway 217x �'a�ific, Highway, �nd Interstate 5. The Triangle is centrally located in terms of travel time to Ore�on's population and it will also have high volume accessability when its ingress and'egress po:ints are fully developed. Many of the Nt�O ;�4 members have experie�:ced the results of ?nadequate planning. Frnm their exp�eriences they have learned what is necessary to ensure proper developrrtent of their area. They feel that � strict enforcement of . requirements related t� road imprnvements is essential. Until each individual project has satisfied its rdad requiremen.ts as set forth in the NPQ #4 Plan, the rnembers dnrill not recommend a proj��t's praperty for rezonin�g or design �pproval. • • � 'I'he �cit,y's �present planning staff, which did not parti�ipat� in the development of the NPO #4 P1an, seemingly does not agree with the i,1P0 #4 members' interpretation of Policy 32 of the plan particularly as it applies to the Dartmouth ' to Pt�cific Highw�y C•,�nection. Folicy 32 is the enabling policy for implementing the development of thc� " hp ased stre,et system," rather than a statement that rezoning will be approved under certa�in access conditions. It reads a� follows: i Policy 32. The rezoning of property ta more intensive uses (or City '�, • design aQproval of projects on previously rezoned properties) will only be permittc�d �n parcels served by a street improved to urban standarr.!��, The street must be fully improved frorra the subje�t parcel to th� nearest freeway interchange or Pacific Highway connection. �3ec�t�se of the r�isa�reement with the planning staf�, the NPO #4 members reco�nize the ne�d for a precise explanAtory statement that will withaut allowing f'or misir,terpretation give the exact raad c��evelopment requicements foc each piece of property in the Triangled . Therefore� �t the February 3, 1982� I�PQ #9 meeting, the Cit,y's planning representative and I as chair�nan w�re asked by the NPCl to indeperadently dt�aft �xplanatory language. to be presented at the nex� m�eting that could be incorp�rated into the N1�0 #4 Plan, � . /'��1�� - � __ - ti , � � F3oh Jean April 5, 1982 Pa�e 2' On March 3, 1982, I presented the following Explanatoc,y Statement as requested. Nothin� wr�s presented tay the city's staff representative. It is rny opi�i�n based on perindic meetings with rnembers of the city's planning staff, that the,y are resisting . the claz�ification the'NPO #4 members feel is nseded, The fo�lowing is the,last paragraph of the NPO #4 Comprehensive T'l.an: The development of the Ti�ard Trit�ngle should occur in phases as each element of the street circulation s stem- i� constructed. (Emphasis adcle�l . The street sectic�n of the plan, igures 3 anc3 4, recomm.etrcis a ,� sequ�nce f.or,.street irnprovernents which should be used as a basis for guid.in� the development of the Triangle. , 'The follo�ving is the Explanatory Statement: The �tPQ #4� Lamprehee�sive Plan requires that rezoning �of praperty in $ . parCicular portion of the neighborhood (NPO #4 Plan Area) shall be �ontingent on compliance with the phased development of the street plan for that portion of the neighborhnod. . An 'Yelement" of tine str��t czcculation system is e�ch bl:aek inked, street seetion sf�owt7 in Step � c�f F►gure � �f the �+I:an--whzch connects two ather existi:n�.�treets that are black i�ked which �r� imtendec� �iy the plan , to be fully improved or are already so improved. (The particular fu�l , . improvement reqtiir�ments of each stre�t are set fortii in this plan under the headin�, Stre�t Cis'ssification.) The t�rm "iarban standards" herein refers to � iion-dead end street which can acca�odate-automobile traffic in a reasan�hle mannet�, �ut which is nc�t necessarily f�ally irnproved as defined in ti�e pl.�n t�xt und�r the headin� °tStreet C�:assificatic�n:' To qu�lify for rezoning� or design approval in terms of the phasin� of street development, a parcel must bes {1) �In a portion of the NFO #4 pien area where the street system has ' been developecl ta meet the inCreased traffi� demands of the • parce�'s rezonin�. (2) Served by acce�s to an "element" af the street circulatiara sy�te�r t�at is at least dc�veloped to urban standarcis. (3) Served by an "�leme�t" which is Full.y imgroved from the parcel's � aceess point t,o the nearest Preeway interchange or Pacific �ii�hwa� aannection in terms of distance ta the pareel's ac�ces�� 'p�int, or �ffective�y so eonnected via an additional "elemer�t" os "ele rn en ks.", , • , ■ U ' �' h . � � . . .. F3ob Jenn April 5, 1'98? Pahe 3 Notice th�t euch element of Step 4, in Figure 4 of the street system is of a stre�t to street nature and not of'a dead end nature except in th� c�se shown i p 3 0�` the loop road west o ?2;nd Avenue. 1'he reason for this exception is explained in ' the plan text. ` No formal ection� has been taken cancernin� the Explanatory Statement pending further review by the members. However, it is the general:consensus of the NPO �4 members that they will app:rove the Explanatory Statement or language based on it at our next meeting (April 7, 1982}. To understand the NPO #4's intent concerning Policy 32 when the plan 'was drafted, 'rt is necessar� to recognize that the polic,y makes reference to two distinet street c�nditionse (i) "improved to urban standards," mnd (2) "�'ully improved." The term , "urbr�n standards" i� speeifncally defined in the above Explanatory Statem�nt, an,d , the term "fully imProved" is defined in the plan text under the heading, Y'Street Classifleatlom.t1 Tha ari�inal NPO #�4 members ir� formulating the comprehensive plan �ave much �ttention to ensuring that the plan had strict road developrnent requirements. The ot�vi�us implication �as that deacl end streets �NOUIa ne strictly fc�rbidcien. � 'i'he , possibility never occurred to the "formulatin�" NPO mern�ers the.t future city staff personnei coulcl consit�er a dead �nd portion of. a street "eleanent" as a street �� " This �.s the reason the lan is not explicit on this develop�d to urban stan�ards. P P oint. ' . It is obvious frorr► the precedin� two paragraphs that £or a property vaest of 72nd �,venue to ualify for r]evelopment in the I��O #�4 portion of the City of Tigard's 9 Comprehensive Pl�n as r�ow written.c^eguires that: (1) the Pacific Highway to 72nd , Avenue element of ti�e D�rtrnouth to Pacific I-iighway Connection be at tk►e minimun developed in a manner that will move traffac between Pacific �Iighway And �Znd Avenue in a reasonable manner, (2) that said element must �e fully � improved from the property's access paint to Pacific Highway (or I-5) befara the property gualifies for deuelopment.. , Tt is eq�allv obvious that the 72nd t�.venue to 68th AvenuE element of the said connection must be completed in a simila.r manner for properties east of 72nd • Avenue to qualify for development which are dependent an said element for access. In addition to these requirements which are Presently self-evident upon proper interpr�tation of the plan, the concensus of NPO #4 is that both of the abave said elements �should be completed at the same time so that residents of 72nd Avenue will not be inundated with traffic frorn either �f these elements as a result of one being developed before the other. IIeing forced to make turns to and from a narrow street such as 72nd Avenue and it's residenkial driveways during heavy traffic periods is excessively hazardous and frustratin� for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclist. • �+ -' � " �•' E3ol-� J'cun . , April 5, 1982 Page 4 Ther�;f�re, they wish ta specificull;vi ceqttire th�t both elem�nt:s be complPtec] �t the same. time bef�re a �roperty dependent on either c�n c�ualify for developrnent. They justify this position throu�;h Yhe p1��'� �r��,�nt' requirement that, c1QV��prnant • wil� on�y !'be pdrmttted !'n thc�se pot•tlons of the .nel�hborhood where the street s,ystem has bee� improvecl to meet the increased traffic demands°' (page�l4). They ` believe that this condition will not be met unless both elements are cornpleted at ` the same time. � , The NPa #4 :Plan '�cefers to causing property; owners to coo�QratQ i�n the estRblishment of roadways,• et�. iCcx�p�r�'.gon comes as the result of need on the pact o�f thase who are to do the cooperating. Thus, unless the City of Ti�erd in conjunetion writh the 'N'PC� #4 clearly.establishes the precase requxrement:� ta� 'be rnet befor� rezani�g and/or d��ign. approval is tQ be allowed, eno�eration c�nn�it t�e expected to tal�e Qlac� because propert� �w►ners will not yoluntarilq d�crease their profits by incur,ing ` costs they feeY c�n Y�e avoided. In essence, neb�alctas devel�pm�ent requirements result ifi �on�teint contr�uers�r ar►d the stiflin� of � emardinated developnnent. i��ry �r.uly your�, ' , . � .�iZ�� . : ./`J�r� . �, � lUardon S. Martin, Jr. _ , � N�(� #'4 Chairraran < . EncTosure. comprehensrue planrs step 4 of fi�ure"4 • _ ec: NP(� #9 memt�ers ' . Trank Currie . , .. � ___ . ^ f,� �.y � .+l 4 .. . �. `a�.JtYI• �{,'� . • . . .. �� . _. .. .y t�( / j� w{\�� L1��\ �. ,'�� "��,i� • , � � . . . . � . . t' � "� �. �� tr^Y �'V �'�-�.�' �.. � ..-��f-^-� n�`� y �` j1 q'1 . � '. � . . i� - ' :�_;.� ;�> : ; +� �.r�' __ .._ �� - ' . `, . . ` �� t 3'+� 'll:c'��. � . . . . .(� �,, �� . h� i��.asR '�zv� -z.�, ,.,,�;��E��:t il� ��ti: . - . . ' � .�` 3,�� 1i. �.4��'��{ .� ��w �: �t ...� . .7�• �.f _ l —�� ;- � � lfi . A�t ,..��.(7� t�_ ..( C ve , Y! �+� • � ' . . . ci c� 1 � ) � � h / �. � �� . �i• � \ i,L3.'. �°tr � ��13�rA:t ,i;�u '� w'Z. '��, •. . . - . � , �a , ,� , ,. . �. .�, . � ., _ ,,, �''•�'.� __._.� ~� ~ '�, n Y.i�L7`• r A� � .l �� ' . � � • - ! I,� �� • r , �� ' . - 6 L7 �� . cz.y i -.,.... , y` r � G , tL _. . , .r�- ! � �� ' ^ 1 a e � �',_'/ �rr �Y'r� ,�a.1' : (w, 4, , � � � �' 1 �' / ...... . ... ...., ' „�yr+�n��qn �� i _ c�-r'^1�'?_ !�'�'a��.r .a J,:. L u\ �'� � I � •, ��Ct j � h� - .t� "`�a,t��1T`�"'C� �•� �� t...s�iii�� _� . ----�\ � �.� y � � r �� `( .....e.r-�.. �� 1 ��.i. S 1 , . . ' r�r t �'.�I?- � � • r v + t1• i� �"'" v t�� -'�I'�"Ti6"_ "�;�� t,��'�e :'�/ .�I e :i"l�� '+`�.17 � � ♦ ��w '�; 'r �•,. � C.T��.�t .� :r� .. � �e. ...- � ; Y I � � � , � , , . . � . ;; . . . �i '.I"'a..ti� ...� . •� .4� . .�.J . . • , � 1 i'17. . ! 1� +,�ar" l)r;. � s� ` . •.{ + �, �'y C �a �$''"'y' ''4 � � � � � . �.�� i�' � c i �� .� �� . . ��' �e �;, T�: �l7�JJ�`i d�'' r�.rw� �i , • . I • .i .. �1�� t� g �, °i% '� i"' "3'�t�'�• ;P'�t.i��'��^�+.hT:!Ilk�"'.. � '� r._ ;r; 1 � . _�, � � r ,e, r � ''�a .°�t"� - ; �J ��i �.^�r �1�� .�� .ul •t -�� r�f lnt�.} Il' " : . �{.5�2 c S1 �' ��k� . ; '1 �_�r ^tt • ,� ,w�= �I �_�;i t � � � ••'�._, o� ��.. '! � F:tt�l��.4i e 1 {� �CZ° .L 4� d 4,�''{,•f"° �,°t . . F �'�Je • 5 �b. "'� "�' 3�' ��: ` ` ".�. . �' ��. .J.M i10[��•�1 � J��j�,� .� �. -. / J j r► A� � � . , i �, � o`,�': t � / ~• ♦ y� 1 . . . l7 �.A t.w �`i . �.. I� ��f'`1� �Jd.� . .` 'fai' �litt. `j+ . �,��I :.,' �7 v(� j �:;.,� � �� f` ..I 4 � . ` Ln ' ��; � <�� (� �� . ��.� p� �y,�� IL•c:i�`.' ..► i �) . �.t.� . �'��Ct�.:.i�.l:Y-.ac�t'�.� ��i �. � � . � - 1 �. J I � � .1��...:�.� .!.:� �t\°�•. � ��. � ,=1 - l . •_^�.\' q. � e r� s ��1 y�. . . � � �,,i 'inT� . �1Sa. ��.n�a . . 1��21 �wi y�. . �� r '�'� .i ��j D+ � ��I �� } ¢y-'�;��s. . D •,. ;,,y a � �� ., ` -�� , _ ,; J � _ �, , ` .j �� {� x+ ti - � '�►' • ,r. 3 , �� . . . �/ ;� e��/ "� ��l' � • " s � 4 . f r�b . . � . , .�( ti �� . . . . f.1 ti `. � � r' .bQ. . � � � r � �w :Ct� uu� �( . , . + � II+�l'7 �� . . . �'�Il . `'�° �.•.'� � .�. ��1�. .�X . .l` �1''• 'p ' ...,� . � .. � � . •{�. . ., i , . ' t'-`"''`"`" "' :•' � �,,;; ,�s �� ,� �U i� � •�„ �; ��. . . _. . . . _._ ,, . , _ ' —1 , � , � ► ..' - • ,` � (''� 'i. �`�-;., � .._ ', ;h , ' ..�w � • ��•,. .it., • ,. ,�� x�.�� .7nt !ai�� ` ,',-'`��. � - �.r '+ . .: �. - ...- . � v :i � s � ' . . . � .♦ . ._ ._ . .. . . � w.) . .. � � �: � -L_ �r` ... ` � . � • . 't ' . ► �� f� 'SA\':�llYi 'A'O. �� - �rt``,N/ :��. .+... . . . wr � � � �I , �. �i l'J7.� .�� ` is �i� t� ,� '��..y ` Ji - � � .� . . . � ^� fp»r-� �i. � lj�� .. . � � � . � `� `'�S' :� . . � � � � . � �. , . . ;� , C�3 .. � . .h .��,' .�, .�-� . , , �� .r_'J ':i� � `e '4 �,�i•i 1 ,r y�..`,f .�t.� / "� j4 �!�j�, • • ;• �� . r� . . . . . � . S . . . .. . . .1�i�� . . . .. . . . . . �( !�./�� 01 l� � �� . � � �I p �e. ��,tP. � 'n�. . � . . . . . . •,,. ` .:r/ : � pi' . - J/ "(��,, Q��?��`. . . � :•/�--� . . - . 6b.�. � E . � . ��L�-}�.+�}�.�� . . � . ��. t �. , � 1 \ t ��,,�� . � .. . � �� !7.� . -� .�� . . . � � ' � ��.��'Trl ..�.�.•.�t':f,��C.�.1�'-1t1:�Fle _ � � � � .. . . .. ... �� . ' . ' �.�+ . ♦'E . � � � � . . � . l � 1 C ,.� � ��1 !1 *� � � r ,P�. ::,)� . _ . ... . �/�'� �,.. • :�� . 1� '�� w'.'.� `.l! ' �11. vl� �1. � .� . .. � . �'� � �� • ''. .� ` r�.�� , � . ; . , � , o . �, _ . t; ; . . ,� � ....,.� - •- 1' t .i i �� '��e '�v .�� ` � e�� ps L'J3� �„ n� 1� �''� ,� 1 rr�s tVJ � fis.• `: �• •� • L� a, �• �� ) �i�•' r /� . . . . . 9 1 / .� ��/ j - . . . . . : � ' � � ... : . . � �� .j .,J q��/a i G�.l., V /.� � . � � .. � � � . . . . .� �. � � � � . � � . i�. '�.r � ��i. .e�� . � .. � 1� ��." � ' .' ° �� . .. � � . . � . . . . . if' '� i�i�J .� . , • . � �(� � �. � �.. � Y . . . . . . . . . �f l ' • "'-` -e` ;��j 1 G� ' . ,j� r /5� i��j�� - : , . � . . �.- . .. �`J�. .. . . . ...: . � � , .- . y�.r �� _ � � . . . . . � �i'�� ; � k...1 - .. . R. . � ' .. . .• ' . r , '' . , r.• ��,�. :'�:• April 19, 1982 . 1VIr..Edward J. Sullivan O'Donnell, Sullivan,�ac Ramis � • Attorneys at Law � Z'727 N:W. Hoyt , �. � Portland, Qregon 97�09 , Re: Addendum ta NPO #4's portion of the City of Tigard's Cocnprehensive Plan � Uear Mr. Sulliv�n: • '`, .;. .. As chairman of N�O .#4, I have been inforr�ed by the City o� '�ig�rd that the meeting between yciu and a NPO #4 Cnmmittee is t� be helck on April 23rd in Mr. . , , Je�n's offic:e at 1:30 P.M. i am writing thi� l�tt�r beeause yau have requested tha� ' '` � available information be forwarded to you �n advance of the m�eting. � . A,s� you are probably aware, Mr. Jean with the concurrea�ce of the NP(� #4 . members suggested this rneeting for the purpose of having you c3raft language to be .. ��,: . , added to Tigard's Comprehe�;sive Plan. . - � ' The NPd wants the language to: . (A) Cause '�he pran to ,rriore explicitly express the. IdPO's intent regarding , . P�licy 32. ' ' . • (B) Add th� spe�ific requirement that both the Pacific to 72nd Avenue a�ad � the 72nd Avenu� to G�th Avenue "elementg" of the street referred to in � � .� , . the plan � the "D�tmouth tca �aeific Connection" be �onsxructed � simultaneously. ' �� am en�losin� ��copy of rr�y� letter to kVi�. �e�n of Apral 5, 19�2, which was . . • discussed•thorou�hly at the .�lprii 7, 1982, NP'(a #4 meeting wxth NSr. Jean present. ., � The le4ter repres�nts the conc�nsus of the NI�O #4 members �nd should help you � • , 'understarad why the NPO wishes.to add to th� plan. � . , � In additic5n to the.mr�tters discussed in the Aprifl 5th lett�r, I am concerned with: . , (1) The �ZOSSibility �h�.t 4he I�iPO may be consid�red to be su�esting that " �hanp,�s be made to the comprehensive plan witha�at a chan�;e having . � been made in tl�e charaeter o.f the naighborhaad. t2) The passibiliky that property owners have certein a�ights to use (d�velop) ' th�ir pmpert,y without f.ulfilling the plan's road requireme�ts which could , � � void the �workability of the plan. � In regard to (1� abave, it is� the NPC7's position that no chang� in the plan is bei.ng . suggested. Rattaei°, (a) elarifieation lan�uage'regarding Policy 32 is being suggested � . to be added to prevent misi�n4erpretation, and (b) on the basis af an existing traffic � probl�m, a judge��ent decision presently allowed by th�: plan ts being asked to be ' made and incorporated �nto the plan. , ' � , � - _ ._ _ --- __ .. � , . � � i � "' Mr. Edward Suilivan , . • April 19, 1982 Page 2 In cegard to (2) above, the practicality: of creating the pkan's fully developed street system exists bect�use�of higher land values bein�generated as the street system is :'� : � � developed. That is, allowin� F�igher intensities of use` is conditioned on- specific ' , ; � , ' road improvements first being made through the coopecative initiative of property . owners. : However, it seems�some property owners believe they harre the right to use their t ��.• � � property at the hiqh'er intensikies witriaut first meeting the road requirements. I would appreeiate °y.our ,camments �oncerning any case law or 4.ft.S. Statutes ; , �� , which eould.impede enforcing road requirer►aents of the plan: �.� ' . .. . . , .. -, , . . . .. . . , _ Very trulyr �ours, , _ . . I . . � ,: • � � Goc�don S. Martin Jr. . . . ., t NFO �4 �hairrr,e�n �, . . . �., , . , . � ' ' EncYosures: A,pril 5, 1382, Letter to Mre �Ob JP.AIIy City .Admanistr�tor. , . � �. cc: •Mr. Bob �e�n � . . • ' Mr: Fr,�rek Gurrie � � .. � � � .NP(7 #4 Mernbers ' . . ' April 22, 19$2 N(r. Edward �. Sullivan ' a'Donnell, Sullivan, bc R�mis ' Attorneys at Law I727 N.W. Hoyt � Portland, Oregon 97209 Re: Mr. Jeremy Coursolle's April 20, 1982, Memorandum Uear Mr. Sullivan: I wish to correct the implicatian given by the subject memocandurn that its "attachrnent B" represents clarification languag� suggested by the NPU. It was in fact only a draft�docum�nt for i�IPO discussion purposes. 'i'he cl�rification language agc�ed r�pon �y the NE'�J is that set off by centered Iin�s . I. . � • above and belaw on page two of my April S, i982, tetter to Mr. Bob ��ano If the staff is re�ding �oiicy 32 as i�correctly as Mr. Coursolle has quatzd a phrase � of it in his second paragraph, it is abvious why the staff is misinterpa-eting policy 32 and is confused with the �IPO's su��ested ctarification l�anguage. � Ir� or�er to cnrrectly interpret Poli;cy 32, ane heeds only to uncierstand t�at the ' word street in the phrase�, "stree# impraved tn �rban standards;' excludes cui-de�sacs (dead end streets). Wh�n this is understood, the tvnrd fully in the � phras�, "the stre�t must be fully impraved," logically means improved to tk�e . � • pavement and right-of-way widths sp�cifled or� pages 16 and i7 of �he plan u:�cie�- � � th� headirag Street Classification. ' . � 'Cherefore= a property to qualify for dev�lopment must be served by a street whiGh � � is not of a dead end nature, �lus the street must have the right of way and � pavernent widths required by the plan "frorn the subject parcel to the nearest freeway intercharrge or Pacific Nighway connection." The NPO's suggested clarification language merely states the abov� in more detaileti terms. As �far as T can dexermine, the NPO°s interpretation is the only one which gives logical meaning t� all of Policy 32!s language. In contrast, Mr. Courso•11e's summacy a# the staff's interpretation as state� in his second paragraph �,, is to me ambiguaus, do�s not correlate with the lan�uage of P�licy 32, and is also , . obviously incorrect because he has misquoted the policy. I da not believe that anyane interpreting objectively can reasonably conclude that �the N�'O's sug�ested claci#ication language or som� modified form of it v�rould , "#urther confuse" Policy 32�as Mr. Coursnlie indicates it wocald, i-Iowever, If the ' � interpreter has become subjective through attempting to de�end a pce�iously made, incorrect interpretation, then th�e elarifacation language may be disconc�rting. • Very truly yours, �nrdor� S. Martin 3r� � NiPCJ �i�4 Chairman cc: Mr. Sob Jean; Mr, Jeremy Coursolle � Mr. Irv �.arsen; Mr. LaVaLle Allen ' _� � _ • , r ,, , Y � „ " 12265 S.W. 72n� Aven�e � Tigard, Oregon 97223 May 3, 1982 Mr. ,Edward J. Sullivan . O'Donnell, Sullivan, dc Ramis . Attorneys at Law 1727 N.W. Hoyt �ortland, Oregon 97209 Re: rhe�meaning of the phrase, "street improved to urban standards." Dear Mr. Sullivan: During our meeting Qf �"�pril 26, 19$2, you indicated that althaugh yo� understan� � . the clarificaticin language being pr�pos�d by PV�'O ��t, a city staff inember, Mr. Cotarsolie, has sfiated that cul-de-sacs are included in the de#inition of th� word � stceet in the City of Tigard's ardinancese Therefore,: you believe tt��re may be a definitia�al conflict with the definition assigned by the NE'O to the term "urban standards" in the phrase "street improved to urban standards:' The NPO's Explanatory Statement being oriented to service provided, defines the � term 01urbar► standarc�s" as referingt°to a nan-dead end street which c�an accomodate a�tc�mobile �rafific ir� a r�asonable man��r, but which is not necessarily fully . improved as defined in the plan text under the heading 'Street Classification."' � The�city ordinance being jurisdictianally inctusive oriented states: 18.080510 Street. 1°Street" m�ans the entire width between the boundary lines of evecy way which �rovides far publiC use for the I � purpose of vehicular and pedestriae� traffic and the placement of I n n n n n �� ri n n n utilities anci includes road, highway, lane, place, avenue� �I . 0 . �► o� 0-32 Gh. 280 ( art) 197 ) Ord. 7 alley or other similar designations. ( P , . I . , ?he unabridged Webster's Third New International Dictianary defines the word way '' at la as: "a thoroughfare used or designed for traveling or transport�t�on from place�to place. . . ." . It defines the word thoroughfare at lb(1) as: "a street that gc�es through from one street to another. : . ." . • As is shown by the abave de#initions, th� worcf street is defined in terrms of the � . word way by the ordlnance. The word way is defined as a thoraughfare v✓hich in turn is defined as a street that goes thrc��gh frorn one street to another. The city's ordinance dciesn't state that a street i� terms of service provided is a highway, lane, place, avenue, alley or simili�r des�gnation, or that the terms are interchangeabae. Instead, it states thae a stt•e�`t "mearys the entire width between the b�undary lines of �'very way." �'his ordinanc� is similiar in purpase to C�«R,S. 36G.010 which defines "road" or "highwa�" as used in the s�ecified Act to include necessary bridges and culverts, , and city streets. TP��s statute o� co�rs� daesn't mean that the ward highway includes and is ir�terchan�eable with the word culvsrt in terms of service provided. :� � • � ', _- .___ -- --- - —- , Y� � � '� ° ti � • . _2_ r Mr. Edward 7. Sullivan � May 3, 1982 Aside from the above, it can be seen by the city's definition of. the term vehicular access that the words "improved roadway" are used instead of the word street to distinquish between a s�reet and that whicfi may or may not be a cul-de-sac. � 18.08.020 Access, vehicular. "Vehicular access" means an improved , roaciway, either public or private prov.�ding automobile entrance and/or exit from a public street approved and �ccepted for public maintenance inta private property and continuing to within fifty feet of the ground floor entrances of all buildings. The above definition plus that of 18o08.1S0 demonstrates tha�t the city's ordinances � do not u'se the word street to �pply to all ways. T'h�t is, the interchan�eabillty of . the word street in regard to service provided would seem to be limited by the city's � own ordinances. , Merri�m-Webster's unabridged dictionary defAnes the word street ase Street lb(I) a public thorou hf�re esp. in a city, town, or village Including ali �rea within the right of way (as sidewaiks and tre� belts) and sometimes further distinquished as Uein� wider than an alley or lane but narrower than an avenue or boulevard and as separating blocks rather than penetrating them. . . . (Emphasis added). � , �xCept pc�ssibly for the s�mewhdt °"hybrid" word alley which is defined as serving the.back or side af �roperty otherwis� abutting on anot�her street, the word street � wh�n star�dir�� alone �nd the words describing other types af ways ifi terms of service provided dd not leave open the meaning that they rrzay be closed on one end. Wh�n the intsnd��i rneaning is that a street is closed, the phrase closed at one �nd, or the word dead-end or closed is attached ta it. (�therwise, the word is replaced �' ' by the word C�1-de--sac; or the con'text in which it is used makes clear that it may . . be clas�d on one end. • , Fc°ar°n the definitions and ordinary usage of the word street, T believe thafi the city's deflnition even when the� word is standing alon� and has its broadest meanin�--excludes a cul-de-sac in terms af service provided. ' As th� w�rd street xs �sed in the context of policy 32 and its supporting text, it is . not eeasanable ta interpret the phrase "served by a stree�" to interchangeably mean served by a culdde-sac� � . The phrase, "improved to urban standards" as used to �cidify the word street in � � policy 32 places an addition�l limitatinr� to those indicated �bove on the latifiude of meaning of the word street. It Andicates something better in terms of service provided than that whi�h wouId �e provided by just any street. �'or examp�e, that a street with a gravel sur#ace mu$t be oited to prevent dust. Even a further restricfiion is placr:d on the v✓ord street by the #act that if its meaning as used in p�licy 32 was meant to include cul-de�sacs, why didn't the policy simply leave out the words, "improved to urban standards, The street must , be"? Then the policy would state: ". . . rezoning . . . wilt onty be permitted an • parcels served by a street fully improved from tfie subject parcel to . . . ." . :� F �` r ' _3_ • Mr. Edward �. Sullivan MaY 3, 1982 Even after making the above deletion, the wc�rd street is still restri�cted by the resulting sentence. It sfill connotaties that the street �oes farther than the portion ';J that is fu14y improved: � The NPO when focmulating the comprehensive plan was discussin� rnajor industriat • and comrnercial develo�ment and' the system of streets necessary to serve such development. The type of service intended to-be provided by the street referred to - by policy 32 would not b;e consistent with that provided by a cul-de-sac. The NP0 would certainly h�ve added the words "�r cul-de-sac"' to the v✓ord Street when • formulating Policy 32 if that was the meaning intended. Notice, that in the policy followin� policy 32 that the word dead-�nd is used to`mo�ify the word street: See policy 33. 7'he NPO ��4's comp��eh�enslve plan text in dc�s�rlbing the phasing af tt�� stree� systern does not state that indivi�ival str�ets are to be<phased. It states the 'street system is to`6e phased. Anyone h�aring or rea�i.ng the word street cons►ders the street to be open unless the� fa�t it is closed is s�ecifACally stated. ; • '. ' . C�NCLUSTON To include cul-de-sa�s in the meanin� of�th� dvord stre�t as used in policy 32 and its s��ppor�ing text�requires an uncommon and unreasonable interpretatican. Alsa, it . is necessary to overiook the testimony of inembers of the NPO who farmulat�� Policy 3� that cul-de-sacs were nat included in the meaning they assigned to the . , word stceet in said p�IiCy� . The preponderar�ce of Pviclence �oints to the fact �hat the meaning of the phrase "street imprdved fio urban .standards" as used in the context of policy 32 and its . supparting t�xt excludes cul-de-sa�s. � After consideratios� of all facts avaitat�le to me, I can discover no reasonable basis • to believ� that there is a definition�l confiict between tfie city nrdinances' definition of the word street arid its meaning in the phrase "stre�t improved to I urban standards" as used in polica+ 32 and as clarified in the NPO's Explanatory I STatement. . , Ver firul ours I Y YY r Gardon S. Martin NPO ��4 Chairman cc: NNr. LaValle Allen Mr. Jeremy Coursolle , Mr. Bob �'�an Mr. trv Larsen � � ' . _ ' -_ _ - --°-- 1 �''/� O'DQNNELL. DA7E Mc�}� S� I9H2 �.-°., ,. • SULL�iVAN & l4APv115 ��'��v�D � ATTORNEYS AT LAW To Frank Curr.ie, Planning Direct j727 ►.�,W, HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 Gordon Martin, NPO 4 C�'131Y'p2P�$Q� ,? 1(1i�� 15031 222'4d02 FROM EJS � ti� '� �J ' RE NPO #4 Plan Interpretation �'4�X QF T�GARQ You have asked me for my interpretation of the lang�aage in NPrJ #4 Plan with regard to "Policy 32. In addition, some citizens of that area have raised a nuznber of additior�al questions related to the implementation of the stree� system proposed in that plan. The following is my interpretation of Policy 32 and answers to questions raised by the citizens in that ar�a, In addition, I have reviewed Mr. r�artin' s letter af May 3rd and find that it does nat change my interpretation as fol.lows. You will note that I have at�ached the xules of statutory construction set forth in the Qr�c�on I2evised Stattxtes. Your attention is dire�tec� ta ORS 174 .0�.0 which seta out the rules of canstruction for such an interpretation. I ttzrned to the statute sinc� the Tigard Municipal Gode does rr�t include general rules of construction. Though the statut.P does no� govern the Tigard Municipal Cade, there ar� helpful �uiu�s �o interpretation. With respect to rules of construction, the plain, clear wordinc� of the ordinance wi.11 control aver «ny consideration of what was �neant even by the legislative body. If the words are ambiguousr it is the l�gislat,ive intent that controls; nat the drafter ' s intent. Thez�fUre, in this situation, it is tha City Counci3.' s intent, not the intent of NPO #4, that controls. We understand there may have been a miscammuni.cation during th� plan preparation process, whi.ch exacerbates the problen�s presented to us. The plan xnight have been written differ�ntly �.han the r.i�izens thought �r demanded it to be written, but without amending the plan the sitl:xation �annot naw be corr�-±ed. The following is my arialysis of the issues. ISSUE 1 Does NPO #4 Plan, Policy 32 require a proposed deve�opment to be connected to both Pacific Highway and to the z�earsst fr.eeway interchange? POLICY LANGUAGE Polir.y 32 provi.des: The rezoning af property to more intensive uses (or City design approval of projects previous]_y rezoned pr�perties) w�ll only be permitted on parcel� served by a street improved to urban standards. The street must be fully iznproved f�ozn the subject garcel t� the nearest freeway interchange or Pacific Highway connection. APPLIGABLE PLAN TEXT LANGUAGE The plan, �at page 14 , provides the following direction: 1J The plan states th�.� the primary d�fa.ciencies occur in the "Tigard Trianc�le" where th� proposed business development creates the need for a continuous street systezn with high capacity connections to th� adjacent freeways and Pacific H�.ghway; ' SULLtVAN & RAMIS y�� l � � ' ATTOR�:EYS AT LAW To: Frank Currie, Plannii�g Director 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET Gordon Martin NPO 4 Chair erson ' PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 � P 15031 222-4402 FROM: EJS RE: NPO #4 Plan Interpretation 2 2) The plan adopts a phased street developrnent program and a goal of the plan appears to be that the entire length af the streets wil_l be constructed at one time; 3) The plan, hawever, includes the following language which provides for out of sequence development, by stating that: "Whi�e the ixiten.t is to match development to a street improve- ment sequence, it does ncit forestall the develo ment occur- ing_ out_of sequence prov.idi'ng t'Yiat the neeessary s�reet impro�r�meri�t� are made. . . .However, the phasing sequence will be used as tk�e bas�.s for programming capital impra�rements ' cahich are publically funded. �o; and 4} ��'hile it is clear that the p]_an contemplated the apprU��al of "c�ut of sequence" develapment, the question bec�mes c�hat are "necessary street improvements" . To confuse th� situation, the plan at page 19 states: "Tlze majority �f rezoning will occur at t.he rea,u�s�k of ane c�r more property owners, pr.imaril�� wh.en it can be demons�trated that adeqizate public facilities are in place to serve the proposed use and that a commun�ty need is present. {See Policy 32) " e The probtem, however, is that Policy 32 daes not address n�ad. CONCLUSION The narrati�re plan text speaks to street connections to th� ne«rest freeway and to Pacific Higlzcaay while Policy 32 states that develop- ment must be c�nnected to Pacific Highway or th.e nearest freeway. There is a se�ming con�lict in the language. Nevertheless, it can be ar.gued that the text language is+ merely an overall observation of the situation and the palic�� wras adopted a.fter considering many factors and the policy controls, This would� in my judgment, be th� prevaili.ng argument. It is not cZear what"nec�ssary street improv�ment" means, but there is no way tkLat 9.t c�.n b� argued that "n:ecessary" requires the de- veloper to improve fully a stree�t to both Pacific Highway and the neare�t freeway int�rc:hange ux�l�ss it inval.ved a very �.arge �evelopn�tent gez�erating hurida�ecls �f vehi.cle trips per day and there is a reasonable r�l.ati�nship b�tween impact and the requirem�nt. Xt is my opini�n t��at '�necessary s�treet improvement" is synonymous with t�he requiremen�t that stre�ts be developed tn urban standards. Tl�e term urban standards embodies two standards: �ULLIVAN & RAMiS ' ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW , 1727 N.W�HOYT STR'EET To: Frank Gurrie, Planning Director pORTLAND, oRecaN s�zos Gordon Martin, NPO 4 Chairperson 15031 222-4402 FROM: E�TS RE: NPO #4 Plan Interpretation ', 3 1) The plan stanc�ards at page 17-18; and 2) The street standards set forth in the Tigard Municipal oa C e. Ha��ing examined Policy 32 within the context of the plan languac�e I find the pa�.icy does not carry out the overall goal of cornplete street improvements simultaneous with development, but that the i policy, �s worded, cannot be construed to mean anything different than i_t states. This int�rpretation is also consistent with Policires 3, 12, 19, 24 an.d 28. ISSUE 2 Does the plan reqtzire that a1]_ develogment propasals front ° on a through street'? � , As stated al�ove, the plan i,n:tent is to develop whole stree�s as a � gart of. a �hasing pror_ess, but the Zanguage also recognizes that devel.opment will take place out of sequence. Nevertl�eless, the plan 1i r3oes appear to requ.ir_e img�rovemen.t of a street to either Pacific Highway or an I-5 interchange. Thex� is no dz.scussion in the plan showi.ng an intent t�o requi�e develapznent on through streets, whieh are fully impraved �o thE nearest arterial. • I Tigard Municipal Coc9.e � 17 . 08 .070 recognize� that �treets may nc�t be continuo�zs, an3 provides �hat �treets "shall ext�nd to th� b�un- da.ry of the subdivisian ar�c� the resulting dea.d-end streats may be agproved withcu� a turnaround. " I do not find any autharity which specifically requires r�evelopment to abut such a through street. If tl��re is clearly a public safety issue, a proposal can always be a ' a arent in the d�.nied, kaut the safet issue mu.st l�e made clEarly pp Y findAngs t�a just�fy suah a denial. ISSUE 3 Could a devel�pment proposal be c�.enied on the basis of _�;� tim�ng. Dur_ing our discussions with representatives of NPO #4 and staff, I stat�d the d�v�elopment proposals could be denied o�n the basis of timing a� related �:o the inadequacy of impravements. Again, this will reguire findings to justify such a denial. ISSI7E 4 C�n the plan text language be wr.itten to carry out the intent af NPO #4 without going throuc�h the glan amendment 'process? • Th� az�swer to �his question is: no. The plan is a statement of Gity i policy, not NPU #4 policy despite the fact that it addresses NPO #4 area. Tt mus� be recagnized th�t aft�r th.e p�an was drafi�ed 1ay the graup, th� draf t plan was distrik�utPd to all int�rested persons having ± � r�nge of int,erests in the area: The question is: �QW did they interpret �he plan, and if �he language had b�en as idPC� #4 is now proposing, would thEy have objected at the publ.ic hearing. - _., I _ _ _ _ � �...�.�......�. DA7E, Mdy 5� I.y�Z , SULL6VAN & RAMIS ATTORNIEYS AT LAW ro: Fran'k Currie, Planning U�.rector 17?7 N.W. HOYT STRE£T PdRT�AND, OREGON '97209 GQrC�0I1 Martin, NPO 4 Chairperson 1503f 222-4402 FROrn: EJS RE: Np0 #4 Plan Interpretation 4 Further, th� issue is whether the, plan policy is ambiguous and, if so, what did the Planning Comrnission and City Council intend? If this issue was the focus of public debate and th� record is clear as to what was intended, the client plan could be so interpreted, but to my knowledge this is not the situation. The plan language ' is c1Ear and no resort need be made to intent. It is my opinion� that any� change in the language to represent what NPO #4 meant would in.volv� a policy change. This will require a formal plan aznendment or revisi,on. ISSUE 5 Gi.ve� tk�e pla:n language can the City require streets to be dedicated and construct�d on the subject pr�aperty as a part of the lan�. use decision makingf pracess? � The arzswer to this question is clearly; yes. A1�. land us� decisions c:an b� condi:tic�ned �.nd street dedi cation,s and img�rovements can be re�uired, '1'he authority for this is: ' 1. TMC § 17 .08 .030 (2) which requi.res su�divisic�ns to cr�nform to the applicable neighborha�c3 plan and, therefare, where proposed streets are shown on the plan, that caz� be requirec� as a condition o� apprQVal; anc� 2 . Tigard Municipal Code (TM; � 18 .84 .1OQ (e) ) which provides that deve]opment propasals can be conditioned to carry- out the applicabl� pl.an. Therefore, where streets ar.e shown ancl classifiecl, as is the case with NPO #4 Plan, ap�r.ovals can be conditioned and the conditions can require ri,ght�of-way dedzcation and street construction �within the conf ines af the subj ect� praper�y. ISSUE 6 If there is a c�ap in the road system, can the City complete the road system using the car�demnation power, and can the Ca.ty require the landowner to make �he street improvement at the landowner's cost. The Gity, may, under T.MC Chapter 13 relating to local impr�vements and its power to condemn, acguire and improve land for public righ•t- of-way purposes. Under l.ocal improvement district law, the City may charge the cost� of such acquisition (wheth�r by agreeznent or condemna- tion) and improvement to the Local Ympravement District and apportion the costs of the same to landowners in the LID according to the benefit received. Tt is unlikely that such apportionment would be overturned by a court. t�Iestern l�musement Co. v. Cit of � rin.qfield► �74 Or 37 , 545 P2d 592 (�976 . , _ __- _ � SULLIVAN & R,4MIS t��cty �, l`jiSL : � ' ° AT70RNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W, t�fC1XT 57REET TQ� Frc31'1]C Currie, Planning Director PORTLAND, oRecoN s�2os Gordan Martin, NPO 4� Chairperson 15031 222-4402 FROM,: E.75 '�: RF: 'NBO #4 P].an tnterpretation 5 ISSUE' 7 Assurning a dev�la�er fulZy develops a- street from property l.�ne to property line, can the deve3.oper be forced to sign a no remonst.ranee agreement related 'to the farmation of axi LID and b� forced to make "additional monetary cor�trihutions towards the construction of the improvements? ' The answer is proba-bly yes. Under Associated' Homebuild'ers 'of Greater East �a� v. Cit�y of Wa'l�nu't' Cre'ek, 94 Cal.Reptr. 6 , 4�4 P2d 60 (�.971) �ppeal di n sse�i and` cert den 404 US 878 (1971) , t,k�.e�e n�ed be anly a reas.�nab1� rela�ion�hip between the .bu�den plac�d on the conununi.�.y and �he cos� Gharg�d to the developer. Tt is my judgment that Oregon wouZd 'adopt such a standard. I h�ope the ab�►ve is of a�sistance to y�u:. , I _ � � cc: Bob Jean EJS:rl n 5J5/82 COIVSTRUCTION OF S'I'ATUTES; GENEIZAL DEFIMTIDNS Y7�t.105 a. . � �x . . . . . . . _ . . , k- �` 174.010 General ruile for construction ment to, or statute enacted in lieu Af, the , of statutes. In the cons�ruction of a statute, stntute refez-z-ed to is suhstantially different in � the office of the judge i� simply to ascertain the nature of its essential provisions frorn � and declare what is, in terms or in substance, what the statute to which referencxe was made } cQntained therein, not to insert what hxs been was when th� statute anaking the reference �': omitted, or to omit wha� has been inserted; was enacted. �_, and where there are aeveral provisions or : partieulars such construction is, if po�ible. to 174.U70 Effect of repeal of yalidutin� , be adopted as will'give effect to all, or curative Act.The repegl of a validating or curativ�e Act ahall not affect any validation or � 174.020 Legislative nntent; �eneral cure theretofore accomplished. � and p$rticular provisions and intents. In the construction of a sCa�ute the intention of 174.08A Effect of repeal of repealing , the legislature is to be pursued if possible; and ��t• �enever a statute which repealed a � wher� a general and particular provision are former statute, either expressly or by implica- inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the tion, is repealed, the former statute shall not :�ormer. Sc» a particular intent shall cantrol a thereby be revfved u�l�:ss it is expressly sa ; general one that is ia�con5istent with it. px�vid�eci. t:� �..- i . 174.030 Construckian favQmiaig xiatu� 1�4•� Eff�ct of repeal of repealing ��' ral right to pa�evail.W}xere a statu�e is equal- constitution�l provision.Wh�never a consti- �6� ly susceptible of LwQ interpretations, c�nP in tutional provisian which repeals or suspends favor of natiural right and the oth�r against it, �ri �'�''hole or in part a former constitutional the f�armer is to prevail. provision, either expressly or by xmplication, �; is repealed, the former oonestitutional provi- 174.Q40 Severabflity. It shali be consid- sian so repealE:d ar suspended thereby shall �� , ered that it is the legislative intent, in the not be revived unless it expressly is s4 provid•- ��= enactnnent of any statute, that if any part of ed. t� the statute is held uncorYStitutional, the re- �` mainin 174.100 Definitions. As used in� the g parts shall remai�in force unle�s: � (1)The statute provides otherwise; statute laws of this state,unle�.s the context or � (2) The remainin a specially applicable definition requiz•es k: g Pa� �'e so essentially otherwise; �; and inseparably connected with and dep�n- „ „ dent u�on the unconstitutima�al part that it is (1) Aany other stat� includes any �tate apparent that the remainzng parts would not and the District of Colrxmbia. have been enact.eci wathout the unconstitution- �2� "�ity" includes any inrnrporated vil- r: �al part;or lag�or town. ;" (3) �"he remaining parts, standing alone, «> "�'��n" includes individua�s, corpors- h �; ' are incomplete and incapable of being execut- tions, associations, firms, partnerships snd �•.� . ed in accor3ance with the legislative intent. lmint stock cornpanies. _' 1?�.050 Effect of conflicNng amend- �4) '�'o" means "to �nd including" when II ments. If at any sessiora of the Legislative �d in � reference to a seri�s of statute sec- , � Assembly there are enactec� two or more Acts tions,subsections or paragraphs. ' � • amencling the same section of the statutes, (5) "UniEed States" i,icludes territories, . ;, each of the Acts shall be given effect to the outlying possessions andl the District of C�- !_;��;; extent that the amendmer�ts do not conflict in lumbia. j "'� • P�rpose. Otherwise, the Act last filed in the (6) "Violate" include3 failure to cox�iply. ¢� �.; office of the Secretary of State shall control. (Am�nded by ��53 c.1�5�2; 1957 c.3Fi0 41, 1ss3 e.2ia 41; F�x,`., 174.06t) Effect of amerycimernt of stelt- 1�c.518�I; lss7 c.4os 41) 4�r►�:', �te adopted by r�fereric�. Wt�er�one sEa,tute i7�1.105 "War veteran" defia�seci. A.s '% -�r-�y refers f.o another either b y -;��°. , y generaZ ar b useci xn the statute laws of this stat�, unless �� `�" •� 8�eezfic a-eference os designatio�, the refexen�ce the cnntext or a specially appiicable definitiorx �r` ' s�all extend to a�nd inclu�de, en addition to the requir.�ca othetw�ise, "war v�teran" incdudes `', �` , statute to whY,�}1 referenc� was rraade, amenc�- any citizen of the United States who has been �`� , ��?�- menta thereta and st�tutes enact�d expreasly a rnerraber of and discharged or released uncier : � lieu thereo4' unles� e� contrary intent is hoz�orable conditian�s from the l�rmed Forces ' ••- exFres.ged specifically�or unless the arr�end- of the United St�tes ot America, r�nd: . � r. �_.,,.. ' F�.. .,� � ,•, +". �,... . � �• Jt1:9�Wt/q Jt(:lIUfY Jb I IJ KIW W.M. 1'm i _.., . jNa .,.:�.� �,�m�� 'wASNiNG70it:,GC1N4T(jHEGVk SCfL{ `�,IU�i .I . - t a.... . .< �:.... SfE �Mnt.�.`. .if,ln � �f. . . ..,.. S,w.. ......, ' _;:;PFdFFLE �.., . . .-.., ' _ .... ;,00•, !sno� ��, ;qp�..,. •�o�� ,.. STREET • � . . An applicant is desiriaus ta deve2op "� �� " 3 ` ';;��:'• �'�� ,,.., . . . , '. •- the property shown within tl�e hold � . l: I� _� aoo ;;� lizes. The proger�y wauld be developed j ' ': 2�'$� ` - . � _ .o � • -a�a '` - r.t -tiso. for indust�isl park uses. The applicant = ; . � �-- . ''` "'"`~,,:' =� � .,, � .o; �, .� -; :,{,;. � � , j , � �\G� �;.. is proposing �o construct a rc�ad from � � :, � .-'�• �: - Pacific Highway, aligned with the neta l . ' � ,� I�%�,_ ` -:v j�; `/ � '�: `1600 �' I ''� `.Jy section of SW 7$th Avenue, to the :, 'r20�o.= ��_�� • :, _�.. ' ' � ' �.'.�, southerly portion af the�.r property. ''- "��`.-... „ � � ` � , % ' ` ,� ;000" u�o '!- `` �':,°... ^ - It is anticipated t�'�at s�absequent � � "X . (��•. � `� ,.7� , . � �;��: ';�"�,5„ � ; '' � ua ,� �i• �,.� \ I developments to the south of the site ' ' ,e� -�� ; will continue the construction of the - 1' I �=� . � `•'r '•� i' � r0o�.aK� � � !'�, � ��.' . �' �� '�: � road adjacent to their property until ',°"°°' = - , ; , '�1, .fi4. •; � '\� `1 t�:e road is c�mgleted to I-5. '�4 c�F� •,.�. : r _ , ;° QA z:a� .. , .. ,.�. �\7 <,.. . ..� : ='�t.a�°� .�x.s.... zioY ::^�' :.:.. �"• �'».-. --�j . �, �,. Ky } " '�• `•i�0� 2WZ � 't 1• • I� c�'N4' � i � . Sf[MAP � �Y •fi : � . 13136CC ��'��` '2300 ' •i: ' � � '�. . 5� • /T• ,t %U� -.�. `� J . �.r..c. " � ' � �� ( ,"�roo: szaoo ` -----_ .. _�' _ ,/ �"_--- - ,Y -•�is �• '� _�- —� - - � , ey zsoo 1L1 . .,�,. 00` ' . �' . Ll . �( . f � .,. 2�. Q :17 � l� � . � , .�5900� : Y�t600�.a �) . ^ � �. ; �� 8 1� ilI[!.� ` 3E00 :2T00 ,_ � � r=:yY�:,��•,�: - —__�_ —_._ _ _� _ , , .. �s � , ' ; ��oo � zeoo ��—�� • �' � � � _ IY —n ,s+ ^ i,_a.,, �. = i •3600 „ :2909( �� : �e� `-\ �\ S• l� - ��'3i001•� a��13e.� .a • /. , I �� f�23000�� .I LL� 3 � . - ' i .e..y�� r.�2 .'� • /, .• v�� i b��09 �y,j� ! / . �� e ;LtIN� �.�.. I _� . -;::�,� ...•;; �r ; '' "��oc e; . 1amo� t' azooio: � !� � ' . �. , f•I• • �� /�' ��.�� 1� •v •� $�YAM 1 � � ]� I 4A '� •• s�� . 1� ��w• ! ' � I��-�• • , e _ _ __ _ __ _ ' � � � I 3une 18, 1982 � ,, NIENIORANDUNI' _ ; � T0: ' �lanning Co�nission i FROMa Planning Department SUBJECT: Housing Element - Comprehensive P1ai1 PLEASE BRING YOUR COPY OF Tf� HOUSING ELEMQVT WITH YOU TO TE-iE MEETING, ALSO, BRING .ANY :4UESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING IT. THANK YOU . . ` I , � j I i � ' � ��; �� TITLE 16 SIGN ORDIN.4DTCE 16.04.0:10 Purpose 16.04,-020 Aefinitions 16.04.030 General Provisions 16.04.0 1 General Requirements 16.04.032 Ztaintenance ° General Standards 16.04.033 Abatement of substandard a:nd dangerous signs 16.04�034 Penalties ' 16.04.035 Signs in setback areas 16.04,040 Permits 16.04.043� Permit A:ppl,icat3on Information 16.04��042 F�es ]:6.Q4�043 Expiration of gerffiits 16.04�,050 Ins ections � P 16.U4.060 Exempted signs 1(� 04.a70 k�rohibited signs 16 04.030 Outdoor advertising signs 15.04e090 Sign districts 16.04,D91 Single :Eamily res3.dential zoning districts 1b.04.092 Muitiple family resic�entiaZ zoni�g district 16,04.093 I�esidential commerci,al zoni.ng district 16.A4.094 General and highway commercial :1b.0 v0'95 Ln�ustrial zon�:ng district 16.C14.I00 NQnconforming signs x6.04.1D1 Confarmance 16.0�+.1.02 E�ceptions 16.04.11Q Variance granting 16.04.120 Right of appeal 16.04.130 Right of further review by thp city cpunc3l 16.04.010 Purpose. The general purpose of this title i� to classify and regulate the locatinn, size, type and number of signs; to ensure the continuec� aesthetic improvement to the City's enviironment; and to mini- mize adverse vist�al safety, 16.04.020 Definitions. For the purpose of this title, words used in the present tense include the future, the ain�ular number incl.udes the plurai, °°sha11" is mandatory and not directory and "building" includes "structures" except "sign stxuctures". As u�ed in this tit�e, unless the context requires otherwise, the following word� and phrases ahall have the. meanings set forth in this sectiot�. i _ _ __ ___-_ i (a) Area. "Area" or "area of a sign" means the entire area within any type of perimeter which encloses the auter limits of any writing, representation, emblem, figure or character. The area of a sign �aving no such perimeter or border shall be computed by enc7.asing the entire surface area within a parallelogram or triangle, then computing the area thereof. The area o� all signs in existence ,�anuary 11, 1971, whether conforming or no�conforming, shall be counted in establishing a permitted s�.gn area o£ all new signs to be allowed for an individual business on a premises. Where a sign is of a three-dimensional or round or irregu7Lar salid shape, the largest cross-s�ction shall be used in a flat pro3ection for the purPose of determining sign area. (b) Beneh Sign. Refers to a bench designed to seat people which carx�ies a written or ra hic messa e. � S P g I , �c) �illboarde For "billboard,." see °'outdoor advertising sign,' Section 1b.08.240. (ci) �usiness. Refe�s to all of the activities carried on by the same legal �ntity on the same premises and includes eleemosynary, frater- nal, relig�otis, edueatiora or social organizations. "Legal entity" includes individual propriekorships, partnerships, corporations, non- profit corporation�, associations, or �c�int stock compan:ies. (e) �usiness of outdaor acivertising. Refers to the business of con- structing, erecting, operating, u�ing, � maintaining, or leasing outdoor advertising signso (f) Construct. Refers to build, erect, attach, hangr place, suspend or affix.� (g) Cutout. Refers to every type of display in the form of letters, filgures, characters, representations o� others in cutout or irregular form attached to or superimposed upon a sign or advertising sign. (h} Display surfaee. Refers to the area made available by the sign struc.ture fcar the purpose of displaying the adverti.sing or identification messagee (i) E�eetrical sign. Ref�rs to any sign containing electrical wiring. � , (j) ExternaZly illuminated sign. Refers to a sign illuminated from II an extern�l l�ght sourc,e. (k) Face of � hu3lding» Refers to all wtn.dow and wall axea of a I building in one plane. (1) Free-atanding s3.gn. Refers td a aign erected and mounted on a freeMstan ng rame, mast or pole and not attached to any building� 2 � _ -,, - =-- -=- -=-- O1ME`QA REGZ(�NAL MEETING JUNE 18, 1982 la Capital Improvements Pro�ects - Discussion 2. Workmen's Cnmpensation = State In.dustrial Accident Insurance. Renewal & Rates = Update, ' 3. Li�n Docket - Prcrcess: How Done? What Infoxmat3on Necessary? Record In C�ounty? Are Billings Mailed?. 4. �us�.ness Lir_ense En.forcement - Frocess ,5. �nsurance & Audits - Cities �.equire�f To Go To Bid? 6. Investi�g Can�traints For Public Fntities? 7. Se11:Cng LID �Tarrants Through Underwritex Vs Bank (Comments From ,Anyone Involved) � 8. Ad3our�ent f ,I� 'I , • I � � � (m) Freeway-oriented sign. Refers to a sign primarily designed to be read by a motari`st traveling on a highway de�ignated by the Oregon State Highway Department as a freeway or expressway; specifically, these shall be Interstate 5, and Oregon State Highway ��217, and shall not include U.S,. Aighway 99W. (n) Flashing s,ign. Refers to any sign which is illuminated by an intermittent or fla'shing light source or which is fn any other way animated so- as to cre�te t�e illusion of movement without actual physical mavement or the ill.usion of a flashing or intermittent light o.r light source. {o) Frontage. Refess to the length of the �roperty line of ar�y one premises along a public roadway. {p) Ine.idental sign. Refers to a sign advertising or ident3fying associated goods, products, serv3ces or facilit3es ava�Zable on the premises, including, but not limited to, trading stamps, cxedit cards accepted or brand na��s, (c�) Incombustible material. Refers to any material which will not ignite at, ar below, a temperature of t�ael.ve hundred. �iegrees Fahrenheit during an expos�re of five �ainutes and whie.h w311 not continue to burn or glow at that temperatur� then tested in �ccordance with standards established in the Uniform Building C�de. (r) Industrxal p�rk. Refers to faur or more conti�uous land parcels arranged sn kt�at v�tiicular aceess to saiel parcels :is by ra�y of a centrally located street ar other appraved traffic cir- r.ulati�n system. (s) Internally 311uminated sign. Refers to a si��t that has an internal saurce of illumination where th� light saurce is not visi.ble from the exter3or nf the sign. (t) Maintain. Reters to to g�rmit a s3�n, sign structure or part thereaf to cnntinue or to rapa�r �r �efurbish a sign, sign structure or part the�.reof. (u) Nam�plate. ltefers to a sign identifying only the name and r,ce- upation or protession of th� occupant of the premises an which th� s�.gn � is lacated. (v) Noitstructural trim. Refers to the moldings, battene, caps, nailin� strips and latticin�;, letters aud walk�aays which �re �ttached to a sign structure. (w) pff-gremises sign. Refers to any sign including, but nat limited to, a paitYted �ign, temgoraxy sign, permanent aign or outdoor advertisiag sign, which sign advertises gcnods, products or services which 3 -- __ � _ _ _ -- =_ _ , _ J are not sol�, manufactured or distributed on or from the pxemises or a sign which advertises a business ox facilities not loc d ate on the premires on which the sign is located. (x) Outdoor advertising sign. Refers to a sign constructed, erected and maintained by a person licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising and w�ich sign is an a:ff-premises sign supported by a sub- stantial permanent sign structure with a display surface or display surfaces primarily designed for the purpose of painting ox posting ad- vertising message therean at periodic intervals, and where customarilq, although not exclusively, the use of the display surface is leased to other persons. �y) Person. Ref�rs to indi.viduals, corporatians, associations, firms, partnerships and �oint stock companies but does n�t ilzclude gove.ctunenta�. agencies. �z) Plaiining Directore Refers to tlne pexson ar the designee charged with the adim.inistration and enforcement of this t:ttle. (aa) Plastic materiaA. Refers to those materials m�de wholly or par��ally froffi stan ardized plastics listed and described in th� Uniform �uilding Cade or approved plastics which hay� been approved by the Underwriter�s Za�oratory for use in construction of ele�trical signs, (bb) Frem3ses. Refers to a lot or two or more lots on which �re constructed or on which arQ to be �anstruc�ed �. building or a group of building� designed as a unit. (cc) Pro ectin si n. Refers to a si n other than a wall si n 3 g � which g g proje�ts from a building. (dd} Pro�ection. Reters to the distance by r�hich a projecting sign extends from a building. (�e) Roc�f sign. Ref�rs to a sign erected upon ax directly above a roof or parzipet of a building or structure. (ff) R.otating or revolving �ign. Refers to any sign, or partion of a sign, which mo�aes in an� anannerv (gg) Sign. Refers to an advert�.sing sign, ou�door advertising sign, ) on�Freffiis�s sign, d3�splay, temparary sign, temporar.y s3.gn display, mes- sage, light (other than a c3e•trice used primari].y to i11um3nate a building or prem�ises), embl�a�, device, figure or mannequin, �ainting, drawing, placard, poster or attter thing that is des3gnated, used or intended for � advertising purpos�es, or to inform ar ta attract th� atterction of the ' publ,ic, aind inc�:udes, wher.e applicab�.e, the sign structure, display sur- , fac�s and all other component parts of the si�n. 4 l --_ -- _--- — _ - --- - _ _- _ I {hh) 3ign structure. Refera to any structure which supports or is capable of supporting any sign as described in the Uniform Building Code. A sign structure may �e a single po1Q and may or may not be an ' integr.al parr of a building. (ii) Tempor.ary sign. Refers to any sign, banner, pennant, a-frame, valance or advertising dislay constructed of cloth, cnnvas, light fabric, cardboard, plywood, wood, �aallboard, plas,tic, metal or other similar materials, with or 'without frames, which is not permanently erected or permanently affixed to any sign structure, stgn tower, or building and , which is not ati electricaS sign or an internally illuminated sign. (,j�) Uniform Building Code. Refers to the Uniform Building Code as adc�pted t�y the City of Ti�ard, Ore�on, a copy of which is on file in the office of the eity recorder and which Unif�icn� Building Coda, by this ' reference, is ineorporatecl in this title t� the extent of specif:fc cita- tions �hereof �:n this title. (kk,) Wall sig�z. Refers t� any sign attached to, painted oi1, or erected against th�e wall of a building or structure, with the exposed face of �the si�n in a place para11e1 to the plane of the wall. 1�.0/+0036 �General PrUVisions. 16.04.03y: General Requtrements. Each sign for which a sign permit . is required shall have affixed to the bign the name of the sign erec�tor, the flat� of erection, electrical ower consum tion in am eres and an P P P Unde�rwrit�rs' Laboratory labl:e, if applicable. Sueh infor.mation shall be �n sufficient size and contrast to be readable upon in5pection, 16.U4.032 Maintenance - Gene�°a1 Standards. ta) All signs, together with �11 of. their supports, braces, �uys and anch.ors sha1Z be kept in good repair and shall be maj.ntained in a safe condition. All signs and the site upon which they are located shail be maintained in a neat, clean and attractive condition. Signs shall be kept free from �xceseive rust, corr�sion, p�eling paint or other surface dPterioratione 'The display surf�ces of a�.l signs shall be kept �e�tiy psinted or posted. b An erson� wha own� or �.eases a si n shall remove such si rt and � ) Y P g & sign �tructure when eittaer Xhe businss that it advertises taas di�° continued bus3.ness in the cit� nr the busi.ness tha� it advertises is no longer cax�duczed in or upon the premfses upon wht�h such sigtY is located. I£ tile persan who owns or leases such sign fa�ls �to remove it as provided in this asction, t3�e Planning Director sha11 give the dwner of Ghe butldin�, stxucture or premis�s upon which suctx sign is l.oeated sixty (60) days writt�n nn�ice ta remove it. If the sign t�ias not been remaved at tlae expir.att�n af th�e sixty +iay� notice, th.e Planning Director 5 , _ _ :,_ _ _ - or the designee, may remove �uch sign at cost ta the owner of the build- ing, structure or premises. Signs which the successor to a .person's business or business location agrees to maintain as provided 3n this title need not be reffioved in a�cordanc� with this section. Cost incurr.ed by the Planning Director, or the designee, may be a lien against the land or premises on which such sign is located and may bP collected or fore- clo�ed in the same manner as liens otherwise entered in the lien docket of the City. 16.04.Q33 Abatement of substandard and dangerous signs. Every sign found by the Planning Director as be�ng an abamdoned and/or non-complying i sign, are substandard and sub�ec� to abatement proceedings before the cifi� council. Signs found by the Planning Director to be unsafe shall be sub�ec� to immedfate civil action by the Citq. 1:6004.034 PPnalties. Upon convietion, any person who violates any of th� provisions uf this tit1� �tiall be guil.ty of a violation. A person viola��n$ a pr�eisions o� this title shall be de�med guilty of a separate offense for eac� day during which the violat3.an coti�3�ues. X6.d4.035 Signs in setback areas. Wliere the supporting member af any sign (optional-flandlight standard) is to be permanently erected or is affixed to the ground within a specific setback axea established pursuant to T�tle I8, no permit shall �e issued for such sign (�ptional- floodlight stan�ard) until the gerson wrio will own the sig� and the nwner of the premises upon whic� the s�gn will be e�ected, enter into a written �greement with the city praviding for removal of such supporting me�ber° �f nece�sary. The ag�eement shall prpvide �hat the si n ow 0 g ner and the wner of the premises, their administratnrs, executors, heirs, successors I and assigns shall �e �ointly and severall liable for Y removal of th e si n after � g si�ty (60) days written n.okice f ro m the Planning Directore Such notice sk�all. be given onl� when public improvement ia to l�e made within th� setback are . a The agreement ahall further provide that tf the per��ns responsible f�r the removal Qf the supporting meffiber do not remave it, the city may do so at expense of suclz person and the cost ur expense may be a lien against such land or premises and may be collected or foreclosed in the same manner as Ziens are entered in the docket of the c3.ty. The agreement shall also provide thati the owner �f fihe affected premises and the ��wner of the sign sha11 not be entitled to any damages or compensation on account of moving ar r�mcaving of the support- ing member or standard �,r portion. thereof. The agreement shall be in a farm prescribed by the city attorney and shall be acknowledged before an officer authorized to take acicnowledg�nents arid deeds �nd who is t� authorize the same to be of record. The city recUrder shall cause such agreement to be recorded at the c�ffice of the county cfficer having custody of the deed records for the county in which the affected premises are located. This �ection sha11 not be construed as denying th� c�wner af sueh proper.ty the right to compensatian for any land taken for widening of any street. 6 16.04.040 Permits. The execution �f all signs within the City of Tigard shall �e sub,ject t� the issuance of a sign permit, establist�ing compliance with tlzis title. 1b.04.041 Permit Applieation Informationo Application for ;�sign permits shall be made in writing on forms furnished by the Planning Director. The following information sha].1 accompany the completed appli- cation form: (a) A minimum of two copies nf g�lot plans, dratan to scale. The plot plan shall indicate: (1) The location of the sign; t2) Property lines, streets, driveways and Qverhearl power lines an the premises; (3) Ttie approx3:mate location of the neighboring signs; (4) �uildings with3n one humdred feet on either side of the sub;�ect premise�: (b) �.'kie scale drawing of the sigm showi�g s3gn dirnensions, height abov� ground, snurce and intensity of any illun�ination and th� c�nstruc- tion ��owing size of fonitings, anehorages, wel�s, etc. xhe Planning IDirecto� �ay r�quire engineers' calculations for sigr. constructian, anchora�e a�d fo��i�g requirements, to meet wind re�istence and se�smic f�rces, all i� couformance with the requirements af the adopted City Uaiform Building coa�g. Al1 si�n struetures on or near a bui�:ding sha11 confor.� to �he S�ate Fire Li�� Safety re�qui�am�nts of ttne building, �tructure or area where it is �erected. (c) All electrical illuminated signs shall bear the Unde.rwxiters' Laboxatory label. (d) The pxoposal for s3gn permit� sha11 be submitted to �he City Planning Airectc►r for his review of the foll�awi�g item�: (1) Location of sign ox signs on the prem3ses. (2) 5ize, height and c,onfiguration. (�) Type of signe The Plannimg Director shall review the aign pexwnit proposal to deter•- mtne whether khe sign as proposed is aeceptable given its impact on Puhlic safety, and its compatibility with other signs in the immediate area. 16.04.042 F'ees. Each appl�cant �or a sign permit with respect to proposed ce�nstruction, alteration or relocation of a sign sha11 be sub- �ect to the following £ees: 7 � SI�N AREA FEE 0-25 square feet �25 2'6-100 square £eet $50 For ea�h additional 100 sGuare feet or fraction thereof* �25 Minimum permit $Z5 Reinspection $15 * Maximum charge for any permit shall not exceed $100. 16.04•043 Expiration of permits. All per�its shall expire within ninety (9a) days of issuance when it has been determined by th� Planning Director that no work has been done as authorized by the permit. Such permit �ay be renewed for up �o an additional ninety (90) day period with�ut additional charge when requ�st�d �n writing by the agplicant t� the Planning Director. This renewal option doe� not apply �o any ac.tion take�n by the City an non-conformin� signs ar signs rahich have been deter- znined by the City to- be a public hazard. 16.04.050 Inspections. �a) A11 construction work for which a permit is required sha11 be sub�3ect to an i�spec:tion by the Planning Direct�r. A surv�y of a lot Q•r propased loca��an for sign erecY:ion may be ��quired by tihe Planning Director to ver3.fy comp�iance of �h� struc�.urc with approved plans. 11 e liable far Neither the Planning Director nar i:h� �urisdict�on sha b expense entailed �:n the removal or rep�.�cement af any material required to allaw insPectian. (b) It shall be the duty o€ the person doing �he work authorized bV a permit to r�otify the Pl.an�ing Directar that such work ig ready for in- spection. The Planning Director may require that Pvery request for inspection be filed at least one working day bef�re such inspection is desired. (c) Requix�d �nspertions. Reinforcing steel or strixctural framework of �ny part of the proposed �tructure �hall not be covered or �oncealed withou� first obt�ining approval of the Planning Director. (1) Foundation Inspect�.ox�s: To be made after all required ex-- cavations, form worl�, bolt setting� are comgleted and ready to r.eceivP concrete. (2) AJ_1 an.�horages left exposed for inspection» (3) Electrical inspecti.ons to be made by age�►cy is�uing el�ctrical germits, (4) �ina1 �nspecttons. Final inspeation shall b� ca�led for by the applicant when all work �s comgleted. This inspectinn shall cover 8 all items required by the Planning Department such as th� locations, landscapimg if required and general compliance with the approved plans and requirements of this tftle. 16.04.Q60 Exempted signs. The following signs shalx not require a sign permit but shall conform to all other applicable pr�visions of this title and sh311 be perm3tted in all districts in which the use identi£ied or advert3.sed is permitted, but not within rights-of-way. (a) National, state and institutional flags properly displayed. {b) Signs not exceeding one (1) square foot in area and bearing aniy property numbers, post box numbers, names of occupants or premises, ar othex 3�entiification of premises no� having commercial connotations. (c) Professional na:ne plates not exceeding two {2) square feet in , area. (d) Si�ns dixecting ant� guiding traffie and parking on �Srivate property, but bearing no advertising matter, not to exceed three (31 square f�et in� area. (�) Trat�ic or other mutnicipal signs, directional si�n� for hospital or eu�ergency services, ].e�al notices, r�ilroad crossing signs, danger signals, and public utility signs. (f) Memor-ial signs or tabl�ets, names of. buildingsa and daee of erection when cut i.nto any masonry surface or rainen constructed of hresnze or other non-combustible material not to exceed eight (f3) square feet in aren. (g) Real estate 5igns not exceeding twelve (12) square feet �.n a�ea which advertise the saZe, rental or �ease of the premises upon which said s3.gns aie located. (h) Signs fgr the purpose af directing the public to "ogen house�" evex�ts providing for sa1e, rental or le�se o.f premises other than ��ion �rhic�h the sign is located provided said �igns shall be erected onl.y dur° ing the daylight haurs and sha11 be remnved ttle same d�y. 5aid sign shall not be located in such a manner �s to cause a public safety hazard or nuisance, and further said signs may not exceed an area of six (6) sc7uare �eet per display surface. ' (�.) Christmas �iecoration� in seasona (,j) Or�e temporary, non-illuminated sign on work under construction, not ex�eedin� t2iirty-�wo (32) square feet in area; messa.ge limited to id�nti�ication of archite�.ts, engineers, con�ractorsg and attner ind3vi- duals or firms invoZved. with the construction and the name of building, 9 _ ------- --- --� purpose fo� �rhich intended, and expected completion dateo Tha sign shall i h ru �n i�.� and shall be removed within fourteen ' be limited to t e const cti s {14j days after the bui�ding is ready for occupancy, (k) Temporary political signs, not exceeding twelve (12) square feet I advertising candidates or issues, may be erected during the campaign for a period nf forty-five (45) days prior to the election in which such can- li didates or issues are to be voted upon. 5uch signs shall be removed nc�t later than the fifteenth (15th) day following such ele�:tion. '', {1) Temporary s.igns, not exceeding thirty-two (32) sqixaxP feet in area; message limited to public notice. (m) Temporary signs which ar2 intended for use at grand openings of ' neW b�asinessea only and limited to a maximum period of fourteen (14) cal�n�iar days. (n� 4ne temporary sign per subdivisic�n, not exeeeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area; message limited to identificatiun of the sub- divisian 5ales agent. Twce (2) such signs are pex-�itted if the subdivision 3s fivs (5) acres or larger or i� �he sub�ivfsion h�� more than one (i) street frontage. Suah sign or signs may e�mai.n the life of the active deveYopment and saZe or until the develup�ent is 90� s�1d, wtiiehever occurs first, tsut in no i�stance far longer tha�z two (2) years. (o) Garage sale type signs loca�ed on the �remises of the aale or w�.th the pex°uai�sion of �ine occupant of the premises upon wh3ch the si�n is located. 5uch �i�ns, not tn exce�d a total area of fr�ur (4) square feet, sha11 be removed within five (5) c�a.ys after erec.tin�, not to be located in such a manner a� to cause a public safety kxaz�rd or nuisance. 16.04.070 Prohibited signs. It shall be unla�f�xl for any person to erect, display �r maintain, any sign or adverti�ing structure falling within any af the :fallowing descriptions: (a) Moving signs or flashing signs or any aign or �dvertising struc.- ture which has any visible moving part or vi�3ble mechanical movement of any description or other apparent visible mo�rement achieved by any means, including intermitt•ent electrical puZsations or by actipn of normal wind curre�.ts, excepting clocks, barberpoles, publlc service information signs, and ttme or temperature signss (b) Sigt�s which are erected at the intersection of any �treet or driveway in such a manner as to substantially obstruct free and clearvisian o£ the trav�lin:g ptsblic; csr at any location where, by xeason of the pasitionr shape, color, or animation, it may interfere with, obstruct or be confused with any authorized traffic s3gn or highway identificati�n s�gn; nr which makes use of the words "STOP", "LOOK", ' 1Q ' I i � . _ _ _ � "DANGER", or any other word, phrase, symbol, chaxacter, or anim�tion in such manner as is reasonably Iikely tn interfere with, mislead, or confuse vehicle operators, (c) Such advertising clevices as strings of ligh�s, banners, �nd pennants, except as defined elsewhere. (d) Temporary signs, exc.ept as defined els�where. (e) Fin signs. (f) No sign shall be erected or maintained which by use of lights, illumination, sequential illumination or other form of total or partial illuminat3:on creates an unduly distraeting or hazardous condition to a motorist or pede�trian. (g) Except for time and temperature signs, no ref�ective t�pe bulb or par spat bu�b shall be used for, on or in a sign except as herein oth�rwise provided. AJ11 �amps or bul�is exposad to direct view shall be limited to twenty-five (25) watts or less capacity. On ti�e and tempera- ture signs, s�xch bul.b is limited to forty (40) watts ca�sacity. (h) 6�Then neon tubing is employed an the exterior or interior of a sign, the Gapac3ty of auch tubing shall not exceed three hundred. (300) mil3amperes rating for �wh3.te or blu� tubin.g nar ane hundred twenty �120) millamperes rating for ai� otlier C�sbing. �ij Keaderboards except: (1) Readerboard sigtis are pe�mitred in all but the residential zoning dis�ricts, and only one read�rboard sign on the premises of each person, £irm or corporation. The readerboard sign shall be permanetly attached to the sign structures or incorporated wit'hin a wa11 signe The total' area of the readerboard sign sha1�1 not exceed one half the sign area square footage permftted in each co�mercial. or industrial znnin� district. (2) Under-school identification sign$ except that: (a) Such si,gr►s may only be used in connection with � school, such advertising copy sha11 be restricted to attractions offered by the schaal. In residential zon.es such readerboard signs shall not , exceecl twenty-four (24) square feet. � (3� Under-marquee signs exGept that: (a� Such sign may be used in connection with a theater, euch adverti.sing cop� reskricted to attractiox�s which the theater is curr�nkly offexin�. 11 � _ ____ _ --= (b) No marquee sign shall be used for general advertising purposes, and no wooden, paper, cloth, or other temporary sign shall be hung or attached to'a marquee, (3) When ,florescent tubes are used for interior illumination c�f a sign, such illuminarion shall not exceed illumination equivalent to eight hundred (800) milliamperes rating tubes behind a plexiglass face with tubes spaced at least nine {9) inches, center to center. (k) Off-premise signs. (1) Billboards, except as defined elsewhere. {m) No sign or portion thereof shall be placed so that th�re is an abstruction of a fire escape, stairway vr standpipe; interferes with human exit through any window or any room located above th.e first floor of any building'; abstructs any door or. required exit from any 'building; or obstructs any requi�ed light ar ventilatfon. (n) A-board or gandwich signso (m) Roaf signs; except th�ae businesses rhat are located betwe�n i Paci.�i� Highway and Main Street. (p) B�nch signa. (q) No sign shall bear �r �ont�in st�tements, words or pictures af an Qbsc�ne, indec�nt or immoral character, such as is like3.y to offend p�blic mor�7.s or dece�tcy. (r) I�o sign shall be constructed, exec�ed ar maintained unless ttie � sign and sign structure is in compli�nce with the Uniforoa Building Co�ie and a11 �'ire Life Safety requirements. 16.04.080 Oufidoor adverti�ing signs. QutdoAr advertising sign reg- ul.ations shall be as followsc (a) Zones per�itte�i. Outdoor advertising signs sha11 be permitted only in a C-5 commercial zone or an M-2 or M-3 industrial zone. (b) Iieight. fihe maximum height of an outdoor advertising sign shall �I� not exceed thirty-f3ve (35) feet from the ground level at its base. (c) s3.ze. ,� (1) 'rhe maximum size dimer►sions of an outdQOr advertising sign shaTl be twelve (12) feet in height and twe�ty-f�.ve (25) feet in length (excluding suppports and foundations) ox a total maximum sign area of three 'hundred (300) square feet per face. :1:2 � _ _ _ — -- ,___ --- -= (2) Outdoor advertising signs may be increasd in area to �'our- teen (14) feet in height and forty-eight (48) feet in lea�gth �r a total max'.Cmum sign area of six hundred seventy-five (675) squaxe feet per face - where permitted as freeway-oriented signs. (3) On freeway-oriented signs, cutouts may pro�ect beyond the dis�lay surface and may add up to one-third additional area of permitted display surface and fuxther may extend five and one half (5 1/2) fee� abov�, four {4) feet below or two (2) feet to either side of the display surface, provided that the thirty-five (35) foot max3mum height limit is not exceeded by such cutouts. (d) Locations permitted. (1) Outdoor advertising signs shall only be permitted to lacate on and orient to U.S. Highway 99W (Southwest Pacific High�vay), Oregon State Expreasway NQ. 21Z, and Interstate Highway No. S and in accordance with all State requirements. (2} Outdoor advertising signs shall nat have more than one display surface facing in the same traffic direction on any one premises. For the purpose of fhis provision and for the purposes of applying the spacing 13mitations or density limitations which follow, a single outdoor advertisin� strueture on which two display surfaces are attaciaed back-to-back shall be considered as one outdoor advertising sign with nne display surface facing one traffic direction, (e) Ou�door advertising signs sha11 not be located withir� three hrxn- 3red {300) feet of. anot�t�r outdoor adv�ertisin� sign on the opFosite side of the st-reet or hi.ghway ar within five hundred (500) feet �f another outdoor advertising sign on the same side of' the stz�eet or highway. For purpases of app]Lying this limitation, distances shall be measured ag a radius from a sign. i1here two or more signs are in violation of these spacing provisionsr the first lawf�lly constructed, ereeted and main- tained shall be perm3t+ted to rem�in. (f) Outdoor advert�.�in� signs shall have aIl m�tal structur�s; pro- vided, however, t�at the display surface mr display surfaces and the stringers �sed far the suppart o� the display surfaces together with cutouts may be made of othe�r materia�.s. (g) Outdoor advertising signs are not permitted as �oof signs. 16.04.090 Sign districts, Signs pe�cmitted - No sign sha11 be � erected ar maintained in any mul.tiple famiy zoning district except under I � "�xempCions" ar as r�therwise nated in these sections. ' 16.04.091 Singl� �amily residential zoning dis�trict�. Z3 (a) Perimanent subdivisian signs. Message limited to name of sub- d�vision onZy. (1) Area. Permanent subdivision sigxas may have a maximum area of two square feet per dwelling unit ta a m�ximum af thirty-two (32) square feet for each sign and sixteen (16) square feet per display. ' (2) Total surfaces shali be no more tha�n thirty-two (32) square feet. ' (3:) Maximum hei:ght of a per.manent subdivisican sign shall be four (4) feet if not in conflict with the clear vision areas. Prior to issuance of the sign perunit, the Planning Diiector sk�all have on file a copy of an acceptable findingy and agreemen� describing the m�intsn�r�ce responsibtlities for the sign. (4) One ground sign, �t each entry point to the subdiv�.s�on f�ro� the public right-of-way, with the site properl.y land�caped, denoting �t�p �le�elopment name and not exceeding thirty-twa (32) square feet in aare�. �b) Illumination. Signs in any si.n�Ie fam�.'ly residential zoning �i : district may have ext�rnal illumination ar reflective type b�lbs and I shall be �xsed for indirect illuminaition of the display surface if �I properly shielded from direct glare onto streets anci ad�acent �ro- perties. Sign illumination sha11 be direc�ed away from and n�at be li reflected upon ad�acent preffiises. No sign in such districts shall b� ', illuminated betwe�n the hours o£ 12:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 16.-04.09'l I�uYtf,ple family residential zoning disL•rict. (a) Permanent stgns. Messag� 1.imit�d to name of the comple�, Either one 1 ree-stan�iing or one (1) wa11 sign. (b) Fre�-standing sign (1) Ar�a. A free�standin�; per.man�nt multi-dwell,ing sign is ].imited to two {2) square feet per dwelling unit to a maximum �rea of thirty-two (32� square f��t, ei.xteen (lb) square feet per diaplay surface. (2j He3,ght and/or clearance. A free-standing mul.ti-dwelling structure sign is limir�d ro maximur� heig'ht of eight (�) feet. (c) Wall sign (17 Area. A permanen� mu�.ti-dwel�.t�g strucutre Wgii xign is limited ta two square feet per dwelling unit to a maxim�im o� thirty-two (32) square feet. 14 (2) Height an�/or cleara�re. No wall sign shall extend above the roof line at the wall or t�►� top of a parapet wall, whichever is higher. {d) Illumination. Signs in an�+ multiple famtl�,� residential zon3ng district may have external illumination or reflectfve type bulba and shall be used for ind'irect illumination of the display eurfaee if pro�erly shielded from direct glare onto streete and ad�acent pro- perties. Sign illuminatio� sha11 be directed away from and not be reflected upon' ad�acent premises. No sign in such districts shall be illuminated between the hnurs of 12:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. � 16.04.-093 :Residential commercial zoning distr�ct. (a) Free-standing signs (�� Area. The maximum permitted area of a free-stan�ing sign shall be thirty-twa (32) square feet per sign face. ('2) Height. The maximum hetght o� any sign or sign structure shall not exc�ed eight (g;) feet in height. (3� docation. Any free-standing �ign �t�al� be located totally witt�i� the premises site and outside of any public right-of-way. (4) Number. One (1) multip�e-faced free-staridin� sign identifyirig ttte' �usines�, designating ehe principle goods, pru�rac�s, �fa�ilities Qr s�rvi��es Rvaiable on the premisea shall be permitted. (b) Wall S1gn (1) Areao The maximum permitted area of a wall eign sha11 not exceed 10% of the 'wall area upon �hich the sign is ldcated. This includes signs gainted directly on the building surface. �2) Height, No wall sign sha11 extend above the roof line at the wa11 or the �top of a parapet wall, whichever is hi�he�. I (3) Number. No limit, dictated by area requiremen�ts. Wall signs are permi�ted in addition to free-stan3ing signso 1h.04.094 General an� �ighway commerc�al. (a) Fxee-standing sign {1) Area. Th.e m��imum permitted area of a free-standing sign sha11 be thirty-two (32) squ�re feet per sign face. 1S � 6 �j -=----_ (2) Height and/or clearance. The maximum height of any port3_on ' of a sign or sign structure shall be twenty-five (25) feet. The mini�mum clearance below the lowest partion of a free-standing sign and the ground below shall be fourteen (14) feet in any driveway or parking az�ea. (3) Location. No free-standing sign, or any portion of any free-standing sign, shall be located on �r be ' pro�ected over any poxtion of a street, sidewalk or other public right-of-way or property except that those currently existing may pro�ect over such r3ghtrof-•way for a I distance -not to exceed two (2) feet. I (4) Number. dne (1) multi-faced free-standing sign identif,ying the busin.ess, designating the principal goods, products, facilities or services available on the premises shall be permitted. (5) No free-standing sign shall be permitted on the same premises where .there is a pra�eeting sign. (b) 41a11 sign (1) Are�. The max3.mum. perm3tted area of a wall sign sha1.1 not , exceed lOX of the wall area upon which the sign is located. This in- I cludes si ns ainted directl on the b�uildin sur�ace. �� g P Y � (2) Heigk�t and/or clearance. No wall sign shall exten:d abave I�I t1Y� xoof line a� tYxe wa�.� or the tog of a parapet wall, whichever is 'i high�xv Nor slaal� said wall sign Le attached ta � wall at a height � greater than that permitted for a free-standing sigxx, measured from its I i hi hesL- art to the sidewalk or xQ�na ��v�i ad acent thereto. 8 P � � �II I (3) Number. No limit, dictated by area requirements. Wall II signs are permitted in a.aait�an to f.ree-standing sign�, (c) Pro3ecting Signs (1) A.rea. Pro3ecting si.gn.s shall not exceed eighteen (18) square feet of display surface. (2) Heigh� and/or clearance. No pro�erting sign shall extend above the roof line at the wall or the tap of a parapet wall, whichever I is higher; nor shall said pro�ec�ing sign pro�ect into public rightrof�way. 1�6.04.095 zndustrial yoning district. (a.) Free-standing sign (1) Area. The maximum permitted area of a free-standing sign sha11 he thirty-two (32) square feet per sign face. 16 i {i (2) Height and/or clearanc�e. �.'he maximum height of any portion of a sign or sign structure shall be. twenty-five (25) feet. Tlhe minimum clear.ance below the lowest portion of a free-standing sign and the ground below shall be fourteen (14) feet in any driveway or parking area. (3) Location. No free-standing sign, or any :portion of any free-standing sign, sk�all be located on or be pro�ect�d over any portion of a streef, sidew�lk or other public right-of-way or property. (b) Wall sign (1) Area. The maximum permitted area of a wall sign sha�.1 be 10� of the wa11 area upon which the si.gn is lacated. This includes signs paint�d diYectly on �he building surface. ' (2') �iei.ght and/or cl�a�ance. No wa11 sign sha11 ext�nd above , wa1T or the to of a arapet wall, whichever is the roof Iine at the P P h�tgher. Nor shall said wall sign be attached to a wall at a height greater than that pexmitted for a free-standing sign, measurecl from its highes� part to the sidewalk or ground level ad�acent thereto. (3) Numtser. No limit, dictated by area requirements. �FTall s�gns are permitted in addition to free-standing signse (c) Pr.o�ecting signs (17 Ar�a. Pro,jecting signs �ha].1 not Pxceed eighteen (18� square feet of display surface. (2) �te�.ght and/or clear�nce. Nc� projecti.ng �ign sha11 extend above the roof �.ine ar the wall or the top of a parapet wall, whichever is higher; nor shall sa�id pro�ecti�xg sign pro�ect into �ublic right-of-raays. 16.04.100 N'onconfc�rmtng signs. 36�04.101 Conformanca. All signs, created 3.n conformance with prior sign regulations shall conform �aith this ritle within the time period prescribed herein. (a� A11 signs erected prior to January 11, 1971 shall be brou�ttt inCa eonformance by D�cember 31, 1983. , (b) S3gns ereeXed after January 11, 1971 and construeted pursuant to previous other titles shall ve brought into conformance by Decemb�r 31, 19$5« (c) Signs 1oc.ated on p�emises annexec� into the City sha11. be brought into conformance within three (3) years from the date such premises are az�nexed a i� � (d) All non-conforming si��s to this title shall be removed upon a sixty (60) day written notice by Certified Mai2 to the ota-ner of the sign or if the owner of the sign cannot be notified, ta the owner of the structure or premises on which such sign is located. Tf the owners fail to remove the specified signs within the time allowance of notice, the � Planning Director may issue citations to responsible parties to appear in � court to show cause for non-compliance with tk�is title, all in accordance with city ordinances and state statutes. 1b.04.102 Exceptions. Signs which have an approved variance from the provi�ions of this title or previous titles shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 1b.04.100. 16.04.110 Variance granting. The Hearings Author�ty may grant a variance front the requirements of this title based on findings that are due to practical difficulties, undue hardships and land characteristics. Th� granting of a varia�ce sha11 also f3.nd that su�ch variance shall not be detrimental to public safety and welfaxe or cause undue hardship upon abutting properties. 16.04.120 Ri�ht of appeal. (a) Any person Frho has been oraered by the Planning D3rector t� r.emove a sign, whose application for a permit or license pursuant �o this titl.e has b�en refused, or whose permit has beera revoked, may request a appeal to �he Hearings Authority4 Such ,appeal shall not stay any a�tion dir�cted by he Planning Director in any case whPre the Pl.anning Di;.ector. determines that immediate action is necessary due to an unsafe condition of a sign creating an immediate hazard or danger to the publ3.c. (b) Anp appeal zo the Hearings Authority shall be filed �aithin fif° teen 15 da s aft ( ) er Y:h final determi Y n a t i a n �f t h e P l a i q n i n D i r e c t o r �� g rom wllich the appeal is taken. The Hearin�gs Au�hority shall hear the appeal and make its determination within thirty (30) days after filin� of the a eal re uest. Al1 deci PP q sions of the Hearings Authority with res�ect to matter� under this title sha11 be reported to the city council. �c) Any person wlzo has applied to the Planning Director far a s�.grc pexmi� pursuant to the provisions nf tchis title may reqL�est a appeal nf zhe Planning Direc�or's decision to the Hearitigs Autharity. 16.04.130 Right of frarther review by_the city council� ;An.y decision c.f the Hearings Authority pursuant �to hhis title may be further reviewed i,y the city council. 5uch review ta the council shall be in �,�riting and shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after the final deter�ination of the Hearings Authority from which the review is tatcen. The council may determ3ne the mat*_er 'de novo' on the record or may set the matter for hearing at a council meeting, and in either instance may accept, re�ect or modify any action taken by the Hearings Author�.ty with respect to the matter under review. 18 '� = _ ---- _ _ . - �.,,�� i�'��` n , � , • T0: Tigard Plannir� Commissian anci NF'0�s � �1TE: Juna 1�, 19�2 �xori: rrno 3 _ SUFSJ�CT: �1n A�.tern�t+� to the Housing Plan l�e believe the purpose of Tigard�s Comprehensive Plan should iae to preserve and +�nhance the quality of our neighborhoods, business centers� and industr,ial parks. It is toward these objectives that future growth shoul.d be direc�ted, However, the Housin�; Comprehensive Plan �te��ort, prepared by Jeremy Coursoll�, has as its philosonhy and purpose the perv�ading th�me of i2zcreasir�g hotising de�nsity. This goal is ba.sed on his straight-line method of prajectirag Tigard�s population and t'.he perceiveci need to provide housing in Tigarci for that �rz�jected population. We believe his prem�s is erroneous and we wj11 address that shortly. But most important is that Tigard r,onsists maix�.y of already dsveloped neighborhoods with a character ancl qur�li.ty preferred by its residents, rir. Courso21e9 s re�port barely touches an the preservai,�on anci enhar�cement of nur commualit�r, whereas we believe � this sha�l.d be tk�� pximaxy g�al �n plannir� ��ir Ti�ard. C�nsequently, we have prepared an alterrbate �lan which we su�xnit for your cansider- ation, Unf'ortun�..t�Iy we k��ve not had near�y the amount of tizne that Mt°. Coursdlle had, sa we k�ave only addressed the intraductian, pol.iaies, anci Zoning Ordinance secti�n, �ti'e believo the ontire report should be re-writt�n fr�m tho perspective Gite�i �bove, l�ut we wer� unable tc� do so in the shart time we had. 1VP0-3 and its members w�.1 be av�ilab�e for £urther discussion on th.is arac� at,her aspects of Tigard�s eomprehensiws p3an, Tk1.e Housing C�amp�ek��nsi�r� P1an Report, prapared by Jer�my Coursoll�, is ba.sed on the StraightdZine method of project� population growth. Z�1e beli�ve this method i.a 3nvalaid £ar �ev�ral x�easons. First o� a11, fox� pra��ically a�,1 populatiora. the rats of g�rawth does not £ollaw a straight line, but mor4 Af an �� S �� curve, as �1.lustrated. Only the mic3dla pcartion of � �• � /s, `,r o� . � this curve approxima�es a straight line. The early �ate is slow while basic organization is being ac�xi�ved; the later rates r�fl.ect saturation and�or increased competition for th� bas3c el�ments needed for growth. It shauld ba obvious, to � one srho is �bs�rviz�g ottr economy and the pres�nt level o£ developmsnt, that we are i entering the later stages af this grow'th c��ve. 'I`he fallowir,g observations are just �� some nf the evidence; �oth land costs and construction costs have been �.ncreasix� faste.r than i.nflation, T�ere is a struggle over the designated use af 7.and between farming �nd urbanizat3:on. A much larger por'tion af hnusehald 12acoma is sr,ent on housing than in the recent past. Withixi the Tigard Urban Planning Area� the percentag� of land already developed is 60� of 70�, rather than 30�, In addition ta t�o general observations above, there are sevaral specific reas�ns why the strai�ht-line mothod of population projection is in error, IJurir�g the base period used fbr the projection, the rate of growth in this region was tk�e highest in the nation; since then tho rate o:f gxowth has not only dro�ped, but reversed. Growth wi11 probably revive, but not at former levels� �nployment in Oregon�s ma�or induatry, timber products, has declined dramatieally with mar�yr mill closures - indications are that this is not just an effect . of the reeession, but a shift o£ produrtion to t,tie aouth where labor costs ara lower and tree growth more ra�id� , � Page 2 June 12, 19£32 Anothex item to conaider is that our area is not attract,ive to manut'acturers; in indeed severa�, have chosen to rel+�cate across the river in Vancouver, due to our restricti�ve policias and high tax rates. Durin� the base p�riod the econamy grea�,ly encouraged investment in housi.ng; �n particitl.ar where tha restrictive banking rules and a long period of continuing inflation which was considered tolerable. These conditio-ns no longer exist and are not likely to return. The conclusion we have from th�:s observation is that the ftiiture rate of growth in TiBarcl w311 be much less than the past ten years. Consequently� the ne�d is not primarily to` squeeze in as much hnusing as possible, but to direct housing growth in Tigard sa as to enhance the qual�t�► of tYre ne3.�hborhaods. , NP0 - 3 � I.�M . . _ � _ _ _ , INTFtODUCTION This plan replaces Ti�ard Hous3.ng Plan of 1977. Since that initial report� this revised plan updates the comprhensive data information �bout Tigard�s housing � supply and establishes policies to ensure o�!derly and harmoni�xous growth af Tigard housing stock, Thi.s plan re7.fects the direction and inten� of LCllC Goal �10; Housing. It a3l..so pro�ects Tigard Housing needs from 1982 �0 2000. This housing report becomas part of the comprQhensive planning process for the C�t,y of Tigard. �t describes and analyzes all existing housing characteristics in Tigarcl and f'orcasts ftiiture needs. This report co:�tains a �Orabl�m seetion. a policy sect3.c�n� and addresses the sixpply, demando ho�tsing costs and pxo3�eted nQed for hou�ing in fi,h.g Ti�ard plaru�ing area. The repcart also takes inta consideration�the over�l:L r�gional housing rxe�d of the Portla�nd metr�po].i.t,�.a� axea. 7:'h� f3..na1 chaptar o� this report contains zmplementing strategies and a�tions necsssar,y to carry out t�ese pca�.icies. B�fore proceeding to the dats ar�alysis at' this study, it is usefltl to clarify the basic housing issues,in the Tigard area. A1.I� levels of government with some authority i.n the Tigard ax�a identify hou�in� policy as a necessary element which must be addressed in ef�ective ways. At the state level, the housing �oa1 mearly � formal,izes goa1� and ob�ectives already recognized in the 1971 Tigard Community plan and NPO (Neighborhood P].anning Organization) plans. In the Community Plan �'�r i.nstan�ce� the uery fi.rst Community Goal refers to a range of residen�ial densities ��intez�ded to provide a variety of 1lving environments that xill accomodst� the hous�.r�g needs of difF'erent family size and income.�� - 1 - Y � � . .. . .. . . . . ... . . .... . ... ... . .. .. . ... ... . .. . ..... , '�he underlying go�l of this housing plan is to provide hous3ng for the middle and lower income households regardl.ess of at�y state ar regional planning goals� Tigaxd naeds tc► es�tablish a 1oca1 planning goal. The primary priority of Tigard is to preserve the quality, 1.iveabil.ity and economic stability of the cammunity. The housing policies should clearly refl.ect this. Gooc. growth should be encouraged, expected and facilitated. Detrimental growth �hould be continously �esis�ted. The housing plan is•s.n essentia�. fx�amwork for directing, influncing ar�d c�ntrolli.ng growth. Th� T�,gard housing plan �Y�ould strive �a rrAa,intain the quality of the environtnant and impx°ave it through th� hnus:ing plan. The emphasis should not be tc� provide hou>i.ng for sAme arbitrari.ly d�rived nunrber mf peopla, . Upper a.nenm�e and �apAPr middle income households �ene�al:L� have little difficulty finding the kind o� dweZ'ing they can affox�d, but ma.ddle incnme and �o�wer income households ha.ve a, serio�xs prob�.em in locati� t:'�e type o� dwe3ling which they need and can afford. i The quest3on of how to encourage su:ffioient supply of r�iverese housing at i reasanable prices, while maintaining and improving the �hax�acter and the quality I �f the comm,un3.ty t is also relevant to residents who may have no hoiasir,g problem ' of their own at the moment. In the absence of appropriate plans for housing, for exaniple, middle-aged enu�le� today may finc'. it difficult to continue to live in the community wher� they become senior citizerrs� and the3r housing neRds and financial capabilities may be very difforent. _ Z _ ' ' � —- , _ �" ' � I . , � PRQ$L3�IS AND R�COMM�fi11)FD POLICI�I',5 . t a review of the roblems relat�d to housirig and z°e�ommends � This sec�ian presen s P � pQlic3es to aX13.viate thee�e housing pro}�l.�m�, 1. Findin�s: Housing Needs ' . ne over the last several ears is causing a d mo Y The rapid incraase oP land cost n y an inereasing demand fox a ek�ange-in the housing mak'lcet, More households are purchasing townhouses, condominiiuns and othear altgrnate residence. As we shift ;: more to the non-conventianal housing for Tigard, care must l� taken to �void ; � nsed].e�sly and. arti.fic�a�.l.y 3.ncrease housing cost through ou�ciatdd codes and ' s�a,ndards or cumi�ez°som� perm3.t pracesses. PBLICIES ...�.....�.._ 6,1.1 'TfiE CiTY' SHAT,S, ;�TRNE TO ACHIEVE AND I�3AI�1T�lII�I AN 1�1'PROPRTATE &AZAI�IC� t7F' HOUSING DEN'SITI�+S' RF;STDENTTi�►Ta TiW�:LI,�"i TYPESs ANl) PRICES. " 6,1.2 2HE CiT�' SHEILZ ENCOUR;AGE RUAZI'�Y 17E�STGPI.� C�?NS�UCT�ON �NN17 MAINTENANCE OF ALL IJWL�LING tJNT�S l�IJD SEEK T(3 PROVII3� CITY ' SII�4'ICES AT �N ERUITA�.� COST TO ALL. ° ; . � • i 6,1,� 2"FiE C`IZ'Y SH�ILL ENCOUR.AGE HOUSII� DF.VELOPi�IENT ON DESIGNATF.� ! BiJILAA�E LA�dDS IN AR�AS WIi.ERE PUE�IC FACILIT�S AND ��VTC�S CAN B� RFADILY �}CTENDr'�. . + 3 � , . . . 6.1..� THE CITY SH�LL ENCOCTREIG� DL+'V�LC�PIRS OF RLSIDLNTIAL I.J1ND TO DEVII,O�' t�JITHIN TfiE DENSITY RANGE DESIGNE1T�ll IN TFiE COMPRFH�NSTVE PL�IIJ �►ND IN HEIRMOI�Y WITH THE 7��'�EDIEITE N;EIGHBORHOOD, 6,1..� THE CITY SHEILL .EIVCOUft�IGE A ND SUPPORT PROCzRE1MS THA T IIdCREA SE TH� L.L"�/r3, OF OWNER OCCUPA?�TCY. 6.10 6 TI-IE CITY� SHALL ENCOURAGE DL'VELOPM�NT OF A P�CEIJTAGL OF SPECIALTZED HOUSII�'G FOR THE AFtEA'S �LDII�LY AND H.FiPIDICl1PI'ED. E�.1.7 TfiE CITY SHALL COORDTNNTE WITH OTfi�,'R GQVE'�.1VM�NmAL �CrI'NC:L�S ANl� ENC�3iT�l1GE PRNATE SECTOR PARTICIP.ATION T(} F,,NSUR� TH� OaTECTIV�3 OF TIiE '�ZGARI� HOII52NG PLAN ARE CONTINOU"aLY S�'RNF� k�R. 6a1,8 �'�i� GITY SHALL CAFt�FUI.�LY COO�DIDTATE AND MONITOR ALL SUASTDIZED FIp�1aTNCa .�lSSISTI�NCE PROGI2AMS TO uNSUURE THEIIt SUCCI�;S3 AND `I'0 , . MIPJ�MSZE ANY N��1TNE II�'A�TS TO TFi� COMrNNTTX' AND THE REC?P�A1�S. i �� , 2, Fir�din�s; Housi Co��s � nK i Th.� factors that ha�re contributed to the increasing housing costs are permi,� ca�t�, I builci3.n� construction cost, land co�ts, financisir� co�ts and regula�ion casts. Lax�ei and regulatinn costs have dxamati�ally inrrea�ed the cost of developm�snt. I,and cos�s can be reduced by all�win,g higher densities. k�ccessive regu7.ation costs ' can be x•educed by simplifyin� the a�aplica�3on process and elimiriati�g ranriACessary • detnelopment standards. Construction cost ma.y be reduced by �ncou�°ag�.ng a�.ternativ� construction techniques and public improvement costs emn be� �educer3 by usirrg publ�.c bonds rather th.an specific fees imposed c�n developmen�, NQ�'E; Fublic Bonds shifts the costs� not reduce them. - 4� - I�� . " �� ,��.:..:_.._ _ _ ; �azzc��: 6.2.7. TFi� CITY SH�LL FtEVILW �1ND R�VISE TfiE �UBDNISION AND ZON'II�1G CODES TO ELS�IIN�ITE THE PRESENCE OF ANY UNNI�CESS�IRY P�tOVISIONS ti�iICH COULD SIGIJIFIGANTLY INCR�ASE HOUSING C�STS WHTLE T'ROVZDING I��EGLTGTBLE BENEFITS. . b,2.2 Tf€E c2TY SHALL 2t+�ff'LII�IENT cLEAR AND cONe2sE PROCESSES FoR THE k�EVILw ANI7 APF'ROV�1L OF D�VZ'LOPMEIvT PROPOSALS, PROVTDED TFiE QUALITY pF TH� � REVIEHT TS NOT AAVII�SEGY A�'FECTED. � 6.2.3 TH� CITY SHALL MODIFY .AND MAIIVTAIN ZOTIING ORDINANCF� AND DL'1III.OF��fENT STANDARDS TO EE��IISURE THAT ALL FORI�iS OF HOUSING ARE QLi�►LITY AND IN Hl1Rhi0NY WITfi SCTRR.OUr1DING LAND USES. 6.2.4 (Delet�g • • 3. Find�s: Estab�tished Residential Area� A ma jor concern o£ the commuria.t�y is wY�a� the impact growth w�,l.l ha�te on the quality of fihe est�blished xes:iden�3.� areas, Most of the City�s res3.dential areas are of high quali�y and ar�e expec�ted to remain largely in their existing uses. However, thera are ma.ny ex.isting xasid�ntial areas �hat borc�er large trac�s +s£ vacant lande In som� ins�ances� due to d�velo�ment �ec�nom3.es and supply anci demand, these vacant areas m�.y not �e developed in the �ame manner as the esta°blished residential araas. . - 5 - , . � In orde� to ra�,air� the character of these esta.h].ished resa.dent3.�1 areas, the City should work with the Ne�.ghUorhoorl F1ann3n� Organiza,�ions (NPO) and a7.1 nther citizen groups to oatablish adequate standards fvr tl�ese rasidential i developments that may differ from tlxe establ.ished ar�ea. ' POLICIE3 _._._-- . 6,3.1 THE CITY SHALL GIVE PFtIM�1RY CONSIDERATTON TOWARD TIiE MAINTFTJ�INCE AND ZMp�tpV�iT OF ESTA HI.ISHED RFSIDENTIAL AREAB. 6.302 MORE INTENSI�lE LAPID USES g'ftePQSED FOR ESTASGISHID RESIDENTIAL AREAS ,�AI,L RE�lUIRE SPEC�L SITE DEVELOFNIENT STAIJ�RDS �"0 MI�TIMIZE Tf�E 1VDG�lTIV� IlKPAGT ON ABUT�ING PROP�' �'IESa 6.3.3 Tf�E CITY WIL�. RF]GZUIk�E ALL D�tTEL�PP�iENT TO � COMPATZ�L�.AND IN HIIRMQNY WI2'� SURFtOUNDING �STAffi,TSHED R�STDENTTAT� AA�AS. . . t�, Findings:-- Housi� Candition - A ma3ority of° the City's ex3.s��ing dwe1J-�.ng u.r�3.ts have b�en built �ince 1964� and in general� �hese w13.ts are 3.n good condition. Most nf t,he upkeep on these structures imro?ves minor meGhan3.�a�. prob�.erns, weatherization and painting. The City curremtl,y II does not have any rehabilitation prog�ams for those residential structures that need tna�or repairs, The Washington County Comtnunity Action Organizatidn (WCCAO) do�s arlmi-nister a weatherization progr.am ftindad bY the federal government to �assist ].nw incom�9 resid�nts. Other xesidents of Tigard may r�7,}� on �ederal a.nd sta.te tax _ 6 .. _ _: � -- � _ incentives for t,n>atkieriza`ti.on, as thos� incenti.ves are available. As rna.r�y of the existin� 20 year old homa age� more r�;pair and x•ehabilitatior� work may b e neecied in order to mai.nt�ln the high qual�ty of residontia], structures that now exist. POI,ICIES 6.4.1 T'RESERVATION QF HOUSIATG RFSOURCES SHEILL �E ENCOUFtAGED THR,OUGIi CODE ENFORCII+3EI�T, FtENOVATTON 1�ND RE'H:ARII.ITATIOP7 OF TFiE �ISTING HOUSING STOCK. 6.�F.2 THE CTTX SIiAT,�, nL'VEf,OP SUITA�[,E ORD�NANCES TO RE�LTIRE LANDLORAS TO REPA� A ND RF,HE1 B1Z ITA T1; RE:NTAL tTIJ�ITS T�iA T A.RE D�TF.�I�I��t.A TZNG �R THA T MA Y BE H�ZARDOUS TO THE HEALTH o SE1 FETY A rID WEL�'A�.E OF THE IN�iE1�ITANTS QF THOSE S'PFtUCTURES. Added 5,'�.3 �'HE �ITY SIiALI, SEND �i'TTER.3 OF ADMONISHMENT TO THOSE OWNERS AND PI�AC�S OF BUSINESS WHQ VOZITI�TTARILY ZET 3.'H�IR DTaIII�LINGS OR �'ROPII�.ITIFS F�ILL IAITO UNSIGHTLY DISREPAIR. 5. �'indings: iJxban Expansion � Ta.gard has expe�ienced rapid growth since 1970 and the C�.ty is e�cpected to continue to gror� throughout the planning period 1980 �. 2000. In order to maintain a livable and haalthy City it 3.s important that al1 of tl�e fac3.1.i�3.es necessar� to ser�te the community are planned far prior to, or conaurrent with development, Alth.ought the City has begun to develop facility system plans, in �ooperati.an with other agencies, tha City stil]. needs to establish comprghensi�re facilities management polic�.es, proceduress and monitoriz�g prA�cessaa. Thereby the City will ens�ure that all ne�ded sex�v�,ces for growth will be provided in a coordinated� eff�eient and cost effective mannor. • _ � _ , ��, _ POLICIES 6.5.1 FUTURE RE52DENTIAZ GROWTH IN �IiE URF.�N i'T,ANNING AR�A WII,L AE ENGQURAGED T0, USE THE AVA1�ABi,E LE1ND WITH E�CISTING SERVICE,S. b.5,2 HIGIi DE2�5ITY RESIDENTIAL USES AND OTHII�, NORE INTENSIVE USES WITHIN THE URPAN PLAIJ�ING AREA SHALL BE ZOC�ITED CLOSE T0 I�CISTTNG QR. PROl'OSED TEtANSPORTATIOI�' ROt7TP�S� FACILITZFS, AND SF�tVI�ES. � . � Adeled 6.�.3 DEtJSITY INC�2EAS� Rl;QtTI+.;sTS SkiOUI,I� BE DISCOURAC��D IF OTHIIt LANA I� SITES ARE AV'.�II�1RL� W�i2CTi AlrIai�WS FOR IiIGTiFft DEI�S,x77C. .. 8 .. . , CHA�'TI� I ZRTTRODUC�IOnT APdD SIT1��1�1RY . This chapter dascribes the existi.z� aondi'�3ons of tlae Tigarc� housYng s#:ock, It also notes the trends and for�es affecting Tigard�s local housing market. The focus of the analysis `is on the iin�ortant variables that affeet housing supply; the housi;ng type, qu�a.nity, �ge, condition, and••longev3ty. This information w�i1,1. be ase�d later in this report ta for�cast fut.ure housing demands and needs i�a:sc�d on trand anal;�sis and oconomy growth assumption, . le Th�ra are 6112 existing dwelling units in T�gard; �5:,6� are single family urai.ts; 42.7� are mLtltiple famil.y un3ts, and 1.7� ara mQbile homes. , 2. During the p�x�a.s�d betweex� 1q75 ana i97�, there �wa.s a �on�istont trend tow-ards higher percenta�es af mu7.t�.ple �aznzly ►aaz3.tse Due to �the lack of fix�a.n�ing for non-ownez� occupied mu].�',ip].e fam3ly units, fi,his trend has beer� significant�.yr reversed since 1979. , . 3, In Tigard 5d.�� of the dwel.ling unj.t� are owner occupied, �k3�0� are renter occupied, and th� remaining units ar� considered vacanl:. 4, Va��ncy ra�es for th� Tigard area are sirnilai to ot.her metro�olitan c�mmun�.tiss: 4,1� for sin�l,e family. 5.96�d for m�ltipl� family, and 4.0� for mabile homes in 1q80. Curr��tly� f:h.here are no vacancies in at�y o� tha mobile home pa"rks within Z'igard. 5. The Ci,ty�s housin� sto:ck is �°elatively new; 79,� aP t.he dwellin� units in '�igaxd have been constructed since 1�6�� and onl.y �� of the �w-elling uhi.ts Were constructed prior to 1944, Gc�rierally, th� City�s housing s�td�k is in good ;; condition, _ 9 _ �3UI2,1��LE I�A ND� IAN�N�TORY In mid•-198�. �he City conducted a vacant land survey for �and within the Urban Planning '' Area and within th� Tigaxd C�ty Limits, Since that ti►ne the C�'ty has updated tha`t '; ; data as development occurs; The City is currently in tht� process af estahlishing i I , a mechanism by whi�h ta annuall.y r�cord the status of vacant land that is availa'bl.e ; for development within the Tigard Urban Planning Ar�ea. According to the da�ta that ' wra,s available in January 1.9$2 available v�cant uncieveloped residential land comprises. 20,7 percent of the tot�l area with3.n the City+s Urbari Planning Ar�a. � Table N �- � i.nd3.cates the v�acant undeve3oped land with the ,cist3�ng Tigard Urban Planning Area while �able It7 - 3 �.nai��.tes the tata2 numb�r of vacant acres writhin each Nei,gkaborhoocl I'lanni.ng Organization (�FPO). �a'tal.e �V - 2 " Buil.dabl� Vacant Land - Tigard TJrba.n Planning Area Total Vacant, �2esidentia�. �cres -. 1�07�,6'� With�.ra Wit,hin Urba.n Fl�nning Zone C:Lty �3m;l�ts Area Tota� ' R�5 a.31.zz z5.39 �.56a bz. ge7 310,os 149 e z6 459.3�. * R�lo/20/30 8g.1s. ��?.2u 3�6.35 * . A-.12 5�.62 �Fs.27 10�.e 87 II !�. A-.24 17�2f3 - � _ 17.20 ' A-4A 5.5� •y6 6•�1 A-74/80 �� ` � ' 4•8n 614.55 (57.3�) u58,1z (42.7�) 1072.67 (loo.�) * Change on Pg. 6Q . , 59 _ . , � _ . . NP4 � 3 Total - 2�F8.09 acres � , Withir� Witt�in Urba.n Planning I Zone City Limits Area __ To�,a.1, _.�__ - � �_� 7.8 ( 3.12�) �- o .. * 7.8 ( 3.12� � R-�lo/zo/3o zz.56 � 9.1�) 21.d.?g (8?.�) * z39.3�+ �9�.5 •�) A-12 .75 ( .38;�) _a-._ .75 ( .3g�) � 31.1�. (1z.6�) z�.6.7� ($7.�) zw7.$9 (�.00.�) * Ch�.nged due to Tigard Housing P7.an Ordinance No. 77-22 pg$. 50 & �.1 Ir�.formation and NPO -� Comprehensive P1a�a p��. '12 & l� Suburban Lozr Density & SuburlDan I3�nsity. _ 60 _ �in3.�s for wT�ich their incomes Vri7.1 not suppoxt adeq�ua`te m�in�enance. 7'he resul.t is that the un�ta W7.,�.�, C�I8�9x°'J.02'8o�i9y WI1�.C�2 aft3cts the maintenance anci any re�nv^estmont decisiorzs of surrouncl3�ng pr.operty owners and ult3xrlatel;l, neighborhood de�eri.oration, Thez°efore, the housing has moved from a simple issue of adequate housing to one which 3.nvolves the total eoonomic viability of' the City. Iia order to mai.n:�ain the quality of housing stock and allow for ade�uate and �fgordable housing �or a�l. of Tagarcits residents, the City wi11 cooperate w3.th the Washington County Hous3ng Authority, tha S#.a.te Housis�g Division, HUD� and o�her reg�.r�na7., state and federal agencies to provide low and moderate ix�come hous�:ng within t.he Ci.ty, T1ae City wi11 also work with alI affected a��ncie� to maintaiaz and rehab3litate a11 dw�eLl.ing units w3.thin the•City that n.eed r�paix, (I� is in�eresti�g to n+ote tha�: per a �adio program on KEK June �.3, 1982 �.t 7:00 �o t�t4;� AM i�terview wit�a Samue�. Pierce, JR., Seeretary of HUD by Comman Wealth Club at� Sh�raton Hotsl in San �°rancisco, , Mr, F'iexce Jr„ st�ted that '�Section 8 for new c�nstruct�.on housing was d�ad, aecep� for Sub-s�etion 202 Pi•ogram, assistance for the II.derl.y and xandicap,�� He added f.hat President Regan�s request to p]�ace government programs at �.ocal government level 3s bein� encouraged in W�.shi.ngton and that HUD be a Policy Maker. He further mentioned t1�a'� t,hey (HUD} recommend that ��den�ands on Zar�� arxi � i , housing cades could be relaxed to stimul.ate hausing, how�rvex, safr�ty is sti.11 a �' recoganizad main concern. That the relaacin� o� zonir� and code dema.nds are being tried in some experimental �.reas, By Lou An�) - 7S , zo�l�� o�DZrr�rlc� Th� City of Tigard presently re�ulates land development and land use through tkie various sections of th� Tigard Mun:icipal Code, �the Bu3lding Code, the po].icies within �a�h Nei.ghborhood Plann3.ng Or�anization Flan po'licies and City Gounc�.l polic3.es, Zon3.ng Ordinances, 'the prix�cipal means of regttl.ating land use, ha.�ve be�n us�d by 1oca1 governmen�s ,�or over 60..years in the United States, and sincQ 1963 � ��ard. Al�horxgh zoni.n� has k�een w3dely accepted, i� h�.5 also been w3.dely crit,i2ed in recent years as being inflexihle. T;hese �' crit�cisms of zoni.n� �tem primarily from the facfi that the form and content og today�s zoning ordirlar�ces have changed very little from those of 'the 1920�s. A� �art af its planning program� to �pdate de�velopment regul.ations with the City, the City of Tig�atd wi1.1. be re�rl-sing its presont land use regulat3.ons. To date„ work on the ord�nce rev3.sion pra;je�c�t has a.neZtt�led �re13m3.r�ry analy�is and snme r�searah and some initial ord�.nance ds°afting: condition�l use st�.ndar�s, uss types and use alassifi.cations. It should a�.so ba noted that it wi11 be necossary to xedr�:ft �the. �resent zpning ordinance so t,�at , `Tigardt s planni.ng effopts comply with sta'�ewide plaaireing g°als� ' 7'he following more flexible development �ta.nciards should be incorporated into 'I the rc��visiora of Ti�ardt s Zoning Qrdinance, '! 1. DELETE _ allavrit� deviations fro�n �the .e�tablished zoni:ng .shouZd only be done by an orderly review proc�ass. ' 2. Wl.#hin �he Residential Cotmr►ercial and General Retail zones, mixed uses shall be pe�anitted w�ithin �hQ same development s3te. In this instance, �aixed use refers to residential and commeraial uses, (RECOI��ND RE,.WRITING) 3� DH3,ETE_ f't�an preaent Code. - Allo�,ring deviat�.on from osfiablished zoning shoul.d only be done by an ox°de:c�.y roview process. - 76 _ . , �. DELETE - vi�lates owr►er ocou�r�cy.g`oa�,. 5. DELTTE � concerned tYiis coulei get away in f�ture years. Should be ' conditinnaZ use°wher�by the: surxoundii7g residence coul.d have '�-pu�. b. A' specific Zone for manufacture f mob3�l.e homes � be' established to � al.lrnw fax mob�].e home parks or subdivisions outr3ght. ?. DELETE - Ganditiana:l Use, • 8. Withiri R-5 and R�7 zanns max��actuz°ed/mobile homes m�y be �ermited outx°ight on: sirogle lof,s in acc�rdance �r.�i�,h specif3.c arch3.teetural �r3.�er�a �Ycat shall. be 3.��corpax�r��e� �.n�n t,he zonirig o�dir�nce. �1GCET�IE�,E - Upon findis�gs of h3.ghest elassi�ications and thus antered into the Code, �:xact c1�,ss�:fias�t�.ons �hou.tc� � speci�a.�d,, 9: D�F,�TE �- �C3T��TIi�►L Use. . � - 77 - ' �,, , , I - _ --- - _ -_- i ZONING MAP REVISION Along with �t.ho re►vi.si�n �f '�i�ard�s Zoning Ordinance, the present coning map ma� need to be revis�d to accomadate adequatel.y sized_ areas for single family and mul.�iple..famil.y resident3.a1 areas, . Ar�y areas tha� �re proposerl for higher densities i,ri11 be reviewed for availa- bility of adequate public facil.it3.es and services, transportation routes, surrolanding lancl uses9 and compatibility of the surrounding area, DII.,E'PE - 1as� para�raph . This paragragh woula set the goal of the zoning , map revision �o �e �o up zone as much as possible. �'he goa�. oi� the zoning anap revision shauld be to guide and direct future gxowth so as to p�ese'rve and enha�ce the quality of' the n:eighborhoods, business communi.ti�s,, anci indusf.x3a�. areas, Zowre� density use wi'Ll be encourag�d where in harmon,y wi.th ��rounding neigh3�o�hood. ` � - ?$ - !, Y COMII�'TS T'he housing trend shows an increasing dero�n,d for SFA - snouldn�t th1� be reflected �n the polici�s somewhere7 SEE TI�ffi,,E I-1. Also, the�eates't age group demand comes frora the mid 30�a and up.. NO Mention of this in the policies. Urider ?1�SPLEMEiJTATION MECY�iANISMS AND STRAT�IFS The objecti�e should 'oe to reduce the cast nf' servic�s, stream�ine p�rmit process, requir� ene��,y ef�icen�y through codes. The implementing s�trategy seern� to call �'or more density and more bureaucracy (Growth Manage�8n�t �ystems). The City shaul.d pass ordinance�s d��.ing with property mante�nance � fines for un� si�htl.y ,�ards of housi.rsg . QUF,STION: Haw mar�Y man hottrs required for the devElopmer�t of this P].a.n� Wh�n will it be updateck agaira? , What haxm has come without having an updated plan since 197'77 The Comprehensive strategies are not stratagies but instead are action,�cammitments to increase densities pro�,ctivel.y instead o�f r�acti�vely. 'I'he dex�si.ty changes �hould fallow the warket trend; Tt should not try to out azr�aaxt it. It appears all strate��e� and revisions l�ad Tigard towa.rd bacom�ng an uri�an city with urban densities rather ttian pr�aerviz�g its quali�y eubur'6an c�iazza and suburt�s►n densi.ties, j : , ( Page 2 CC?N',�F'..IvTS The housing plan daesn't address '�he � mix of SFD to MFD: Daesn�t asses � mix of land. uso target in term oP land use type. Inspeetions t'or qual.ity housing and code <�Ampliance should be paid for by the permit process. Lacks statements at to what r.lakes T�.gard uni.que. ,� . I,acks goal and ob,jective to maintain Tig�rds existiz�g subu�°ban character. _„�_ Needs a st�t�ment to �z°svent Tigard f�rom becoming another Beaverton ox �ualitan Ne�dS a statement explaining the natuz'al and logica'1 growtkY li�nits te� Tzg�r� I bound�rzes; ie. Washir�ton S�ua.r�, Btxll Mt. , I°5. Tu�latin Kiver, Old Saholls. The housing plan doesn°t mention sch� ools oa' school need and impacts. I The Plan ass�rts tnat �'Tigard must establish a local plaruling effart which I adequately meets the diuerse �eeds of �11. hrsus�h��lds w3.shing to ��esicle �n Tigard��. Since �rhen is 'Ti�ard abligat�d tn meet tl�e ri9�ds �f those wishing to :t.iv'e here? Why isr.t t it stated s4mewhere - ar�yxhere that the pur;�ose of the plan is to preserv�. maint.ain, promote, the q,uality af housin� e�tc.. .� General Conunentt The hausing plan sounds maxe lik� a plan to encoura�e and �'ac3litate the lovrering oS the Quality uf housir�g stock whil.e at tkie saunc� tims �ncreas�ng density. �hera seems tn be too �nuch e�phaa�s on reduoiz�g hou.sing cost and no�t enough empha.�is on imprmring the qua►Iity of T�.gard housing stock. .��--N 1`c� �!1!� June 17, 1982 - ' Mr. John Piacen�ini President P1aid Pantry Markets, Inc. 2540 NE Riverside Way . Portland, Oregon 97211 � Dear Mr. Piacentini , T6tiis is a letter of appeal , seeking yowr firm`s recognition of citizen concern a��d community b�nefit. I am specifically addressing the issue wherein Plaid Pantry Markets, Inc. has applied for a zone change and a Conditional Use Permit i'or property lacated at SW Hall Blvd. and SW Bonita Rd. , Tigard, Oregon. While I do not claim lead�rship of an arganiz�d opposition,, my position is refl�ective of a growing num�er of nearby resid�nts' f�elings. A hearing on June 10, 1982 found Mr. Ro�er Staver, representing Plaid Par�try Marketsy Inc. , explaining how market studies indicate this loca- tion to be beneficiai to a commercia7 en�erpv�ize. Also presented were numerous reasons (by nearby neighbors to this propert,y) in abjection to this potential develapment; to name a few, th� effect an public safety, traffic cong�stion, neighborhood integrity and atm�sphere, property values, etc. The bottom l�ne is a question of corrmunity benefit versus cammercial enterprize benefit.' Mr. Staver was unable to present any evidence of con�unity b�nefit by placement of a Plaid Pantry Market at this lncation. I am requestir�g� �rour firm's withdrawal of applications for zone change and a Conditianal Use Permit of this property, reflecting a Corporate Policy of commt�nity interest, public safety, and �ood neighbor relations. There are numerous other sites where a Plaid Pantry Market wouid be as viat�1e, and in much grea�ter harmony with the surrounding area, not to mention the lesser�ed challenges .to it's establ�shment. A timely resp�rse to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thankyou for your time and considerations. Res ctfully ours, . �i�' �i,'�� . Michael M�rr 14445 SW 87th Ct. Tigard, Oregon 97223 • II � . . r . June 17, 1982 . Attachment: tetter to Mr. John Piacentini � Fresident plaid 'Pantry Markets, Inc. cc: Phillip Pasteris, Chairman, NPO # 6 Frank Currie , Planning Director, City of Tigard Frank Tepedino , Chairman, Tigard Planning Commission ' Beth Blourrt , Hearings Officer; �ity of Tigard , � _ � _ _ _ -� 7 i� ♦ ' � � I � I , , .� June 11, 1982 TIG��tD E'ZANNING CO�ISSION . .�une 27., �.98� - 7;30 p.m. I Fowler Junio��c Higt� - Lecture Roon; I 1Q865 SW Walnut, Ti.gard, Ore�aa I I �GE�3DA i 1.o Op�n Meeti.ng i 2. Rall Ca].Z 3. Approval of minu�e� f�om pr�v�.�us meeting � 4. �'lanning Commissi.on cammun�ca�inns �m FUELTC REARINGSs � i�l Neighborhood P'lax�ning Or�anizatio� h��ber 5 (NPO #5? A�pointments � S.2 P'D 1-82 Penterra� Corpora�ion NP6 �7 S 3--82 - ` � � Fi. ather Busines5 a. �roposed street name changesa S.W. 113th Place ` S.W. Dawn`s Coux�t . � b. Policy �32 �teviaw - NPO 4P4 � �c. Hlousi.ng Element - Cotuprehensiv. Plan II � , �I d. Sign Code Revisions 7. Adjournment i � � � �, � , ''� T IGARD � LAN �iING � O �iM I S S I'(D �J I � _ � ._ _ ._.. � ._.. _. � _ � � _ e _ SPECIAL M�ETIIVG/S�UD�' SES5�N -- JUN� �2, 19$2 ° I 1. Pr�sident Tep�d'ins� c�lled the meeting t� arder at 7:35 P.M. Th� me�ting I � wa� hel� at Fcswler Junior Higt� Schoo2., 1(�665 S.�T. W�]�nut Stre�t, Tiga�d. I I 2. RO�L CALL - Presenk: President Frank Tepedino; Commi.s�io�ters Dan Moen� I� � Ge.a�.dine Kolle�.s, Bonnie Owr�ns� Roy �entx, Sus�n Eler�on, Mark Chri�tea? and Cli�iord Speaker (excasse�' a�a°�ving �t �:36 I P.M.}. Absent: Richard Idel�er (�xcused)e I I STAFF - Associate Planner J�remy Coursolle; and Suppart S�rvices, �att I I�Sar�tn.a 3. The minutes of the June 8, 3382 Itegulsr �leeting w��e coxssider�d. Commi�sioner Bonn moved and �c�mmis�ianer Ocaens se��n,ded for apgrovsl of the mfnutes as present�d. Motion appro�red by ux�animous trote �� om�ni��ion prese��t d � • Gaxy Fox� Vice-Airec�a� of tt�Q 7.'�gmrd Ci�ric Centex pro��ct gave a short px�es�ntatfon on the propos�d �ivi� G�ntex°a 4. COMMISSI(D�T G�M�'dUNICt1TI0N e �taff ir�farmed �h� Com�is�io� that item 6� ws� pot�tgoa��c�. i 5. PUBL'SC �I��RING� I e Pres3dent '��pedino opened t�he Fublic ideari�g by �esding �h� usual. ��at�ment �f auChAri�y fpr th� pza��dux�e to be f�Ilawc�d iaa the meetin�. S.1 NEIC�H�OELHO�D PLAL�TN�NG ORGA�iI�A'�Ic?N 115 (P1Pf� 41S) AF��OINTM�NTS A r�quest by variou� ci�izen$ �a�thin Gh� IdPE� /15 ar�� o be appoint�d as membe�� of NPO P�S. � a 1s��ociaCe Planr�er CouraolXe �aade tt�e Pl�'A M�cnbex°�hip Interaiew ?'eaffi's r�commendation eh�t the Plannin� Com�aisaion forwaxd the names of these thr�� (3) peopl� 13st�d below tc� rhe �i�y Council for me�nberehip �pproval ta NPO 1�5. �ebra N�ubert aharor, Taknhash�. Ghria V�nderwac�d � Commfesioner 0wena mov�d and Co�►m�asian�r Kalleas sec:onded to �orward the thx�e (3} people listsd �bave Co the City CounciL for m�mb�re4tip app�s�vaJ. to NPO IPS. Mntion azppraved by unae�ima�ss voC� o� Gcammisaion present. � r 5.2 FLANNEll DEVELOFhIE�IT PD 1�82 PenC�rra CarporaCion NPa l�7 SUBDI�IISI(?N S�°3��2 .� r�qu�st by Penterrs Co�por�tiar� fo� a p��limfna�� plan r�view and' pr�limin��y p�.at appra�ral to a�low' canskreacCi�n nf 71 ai�igle family detact►�d units ox► 1r.54 acre� in an A-i2 �aulti°°family �oa�e. The ' �rop�s�y is locgt�d di�ce�tly we�t of 130th Awen�ue an�d �ppr�x�m�t�l.y 1,OOQ €�et south of�Scholl� Ferry Road. (Wask�ington County Tax Map 1S1 33A, t�x ?�t 240) , (a) PU�LIC HEAFt�[�G 0�'EtdED � As�ociat� ��a�ner Cou�sa�.le �ade staff'� recom��ndation a� �er �'the mearo of Jun� 22, 19��. Pent�sr� �orpc��a�ion met with si:aff on June 22, Z982 �nd asked for a Pxe13m3nary Plan Revi�w only �t tk�i� time. S�aff taelieves that the propos�d �'r�liminary Plan has merit �nrl should be co��iderad t►y the Pla�ning �om�ission �t ttt�.� tiraee Th�r�fore, ba�ed on stsff's fu�Ch�x an�,lyssi�, the appl.ieant's �riditional. inpu� and all of tYte a�plieaY�le poliaies, sta�€ r�comcr�ends that the Planning Co�ami�sion a�rprave the �cequested � Pre�iminary I'lan. �ub,�eet to the twn (2) conditions stated in �he imemo c�� ,�ux�� 22, 1982. �: • N�'� �teport �- IdPU ��7 is inact��e at the �r�sent time. � :�,.pplfcant's Pre�entation - I�aw�za.d (Dthman, Oc�k, Incm , 151t0 SW Boonas �'eiry Road, stated �he land they wpu1� dedicate plus the �ark area woisld be a littJ.e less than 5 acre�. The pro��ct would be constxucted in p�ases. Also, SW 130th w�c+uld be cen$trucCed in phas�s as th�y go alongo Their concerns �re�e f4r tt�e str��t� and street configuration. Penterra CorFor€stfott �w'atll dis�cuss options with staff �o mak.e th� Z� foot street� public. (b) �UBLIC T�STxMONY � No one spoke in £avor or in oppositissn. , (C} CROSS EX.Ah1fI�IAxIQN �1ND RE�TJTTAL � No eomment. PUBLIC HFARIN� CLQSED (d) CC3T4MISSiON A�SCU�SIdN ANn r�CTTt�N • 4ll.1 the Commis�foners t�ad �oz�c�rn at�aut S� 1.�Oth �n whetih�r i� �aould connect �ith Be�vertoct's 130t'� or. if it wnuld t�e con�truc�ed to come � off Scholls Ferry Road at a differ�nt lc�catio�. The con�er�n was �ar the tr�ff�.c flow from BeaverCan i�to dcawnxown Ttgarde 7.'ta�� r�u�.d rather no� hav� this. Alsa Eo�c the small p�iva�� nasrow ��re�t� on whether t�ey would be made p�xblic or stay privake. • Commissioner �wens que��ioned e�aff on wt�a wa�s putting in Che tenni� eourts and the �ennis courC`s li�hta' Sa�mmer�.ak� I}evelc�pcnent ox� Penterxa t�orpora�iano I I �AGE 2 � �'I,ANNxNG COMM��SION MZNUxES -- .7UNE 22� 1982 , __- — t � , � Staf£ ��a�ed it would be more cost �Pfective to tiav� 1Penterz�� Cc��p. put in the ].fghks aC the time they put in the street lights. Sum�erlal�e �e�velapm�nt saauld cor�struct the Cernnis courts. e It was sugges�ed to �eeommend staff to 2ook 3t tl�� concept for 130th ' going hoc�th. The Planning .^,ommis�sian does nnt want ko see Beavex�an , tY��f�.r„ flowing dawn Ct►rough Tigardo The �street sF�ould be a minor I col3�ctors I I � Gommissioner Kolle�s fslt. the streets should be mr�intained as public no� private. The �ity, Fire District and applicant wi11 discuss the best me�hod li for the st�reet im�ravements, • Comrn3.ssione� Bonn moved and �ommi�sioner Koll�as s�randed for approval of the E'xelimins�y Plan Review PD 1-�2 based on staff°s an�.l_�sis and �ecomrne�►dations of th� .dun� 22, 19g2 memo with the two (2) condi�ion� and @►ave staff review and re�earc8a the NPO #7 street plan a� a third condition of �pproval. Piotfon approved by unanimous vot� of C��missior. pre�extt. 6. OTHER BUSl°NFSS a« ProposEd street nam� changesa SW 113th PJ_aGe & SW Dawn's Cour� P�STPONEv b. Policy 37. R�view - NPO #4 � Associate Plannex Coursolle stated that all plan:�ing Com�nis�ion packets canta3ned the various correspondence from NPO 1�4, the City Attorney and staff. He stated l�ased on th� City Attorn�y's ir►terpx°etatio� of Policy ��32, the NPQ has requested that ti�e Flanning Commission re�rfew the correspociden�e and the ap�i�cable 1an�uage fram the t�YO �P/+ Plan, and rende� an interpretation. � g o �ordon 1�4artina P1P0 �14 Cnairma�, 12265 SW 72r�d Aven�e, �i�arci� made II�1P0 ��4°s p�resentatione I�e s�ated the plan was to have four (4) phasese After �ach of t�ese pk�aaas ther� would be �o dead endsa Each phase would end with the street �oining in�o anoth�r street. PUBLIC TESTIMOI�Y IN FAVOP.: e Dave Brooks, 70$5 SW Bevelaz�d, stated the most imparrant thing i� the phasing of the streets and to have the pro�erty owners work �ogether. • T.aValla Allen} 7540 SW Iiermoso Way, stated the street �lan entails the healCh and �afety of �ha resi�ler�te. The flosv Qf traffic will tae routed around the r�si.dential area and not cau�e pro'bl�ems throu�h the Middle of the area. P�.GE 3 -- PLANNING COt�MZSSION MINUTES - JUNE 22, 19$2 a .� � Cbmmissioner apexl�er �rr��d at 8.46 p.m. 7�T QFFC?SLTIOIds � Alex F�,nke, 1f36�5 +W ti4th, st�ted �fie stre�t caould crosa in the middle� a� h;.a prca�e�ey. H� Ee]lk it wras a goad plan �uti ob,jece�c� to Ci�e e�c�r�nse a1� at one time. • John Gfbbc�n� of the Ro�ex°t Randall p�ogerty, stated he was ° not entirely opp��d to the lang term �rop�salm Ix� the �hort run ther� wi11 be too mu�h exp�ns�eo �e co�.curred uristh ss�gff and the City Attorney. CROSS EZ{AMINA`�I�N �D R�H�J�TA�, � �e Coaamt��it�na�� Ow�ns ask�d for clari�ication of the d3�fP�rent pfiases. � StaFf wse in toC�l cancurren�e wi�h IdPO ��4 to co�a�truct the �nt�re et�°eet �11 �.t oa��, however, staff raid no[ believe that the 2an�u�g� �f 9Do�i�y Ob32 r�quired +that th� en*_ire �tseet be r.ot�s�ructed a2 c�nc�u . s L�r�gthy dis�ussien followe� on the different i�t�rpzetaki.ons of the NP4 l�4 street plan. NPO felt rhe Planniiig Coinm�ssion should lool� 4t I the plan in it� en�ir�ty. � m Commissioner F(oen felt t�PO Il4 ha� d�� a Iot of wor�C on ti�e Palicy 4�32 and �hs��ld be comgli�nent�d. • President �ep�din@ �t��esi the Planxxing Cammissio� �aulri do onw of the followin�: 1. Nothing 2. I�dica�e what ttde in�erpretation. is and send o� ta th� City Couz�cil 3. Se�d the compi�te issue to th� Cfty Counc�.l � Mro �in�a stat�d th� �te�s are interchac�gable and one wnuld nfl t nece�s�ril�► hsv� tc� be done be�ore ��ae other si.nce the et�ps gQ from one street to r�nothex�. CLOSE TE�TIMOI3Y �OR'�'IQ�I QF THIS TtF�IE�f � o Commissior�er Spe�lcex felt �ta� ��.an �tto�ld sst�nsi as is unless �nmecs�te comes uF w�.th a gaad. ��:asan to changc� it, �I � Commission�r Bacsn fel� th,� Pulic� 4�3� w�s sel� �x��ana�ory. li � Com�lssfoners Ko11�as and �ie�ra�7 �.ona��r�d with Coranttssfcs�.c�rs Bonn rsn,d S�eal:er, a Commi.�siarter Moen f�Zt the citizena ap�nt a lot of tf.me an Po�.i+cy 32 and f��.t th� Commias�on shauld an.sw�� o❑ ari� ei.c�e ar the other. H� fel� if the pYan was seXf expXanaCox�y �:h� iesue would not h�ve bee� brough� up Co Gh� Plannin� Ccs�►m�.r��.or:= PAGE �+ - PT,A.I�NxIJG CpMl�t�SSxON t��t3l!'I'E� ^ J41Z�1� 2x, �.�$2 9 e � � Com�issioner Chris�en h�d a eoncegn on the time [abl�. If a reside�t wanted to develop their land, they $hould be �llowed to do so in can�unction with the �PO ��4 plan. • Camm�ssi�ner �we�s di� n�t see � prable� �ith �he wording an pmlicy 0�`32s how�ver, the NFO wouid have to come back 3f som�one cinalleiig�s it in tl�� futu�°e. , . s r n e in ttee intent P�esident T� edino felt th�re was a va].id diffe e c P a:� the NPO and �he interpret�tioa of ttA� r�cords �y s:taff/city attorney. However, he felt NPO had a gaod co�,cept, but th� i�atent of [he coazcept �ras nct �videnr_ in the wrriting. e Com�issioner S�,�aker mov�.¢i and Cc�mmissiomer Bonn secanded ind:tca�S.ng the sexase of khe Planning C:ommission i� in eoncurrance �afth the inte�pra�ation as defined by staf€ a�d the City Attorney and that if the IdPO is of a raind they could cornmenee for a madificatian t� the NPO ��4 plan, but the l�nguage should be mare clearly be stated, such as you can't have a dead end streeti. B Motion carrieei �y 7�1 vot-e of Commission �present, C�mmission�er M�sen VOt�tlg I�Jay. Ft�C�SS - 9:�+5 P.M. RECONVENE - 9:5a I'.M. 6e. Ho�asing Eleu►�ent - Co�prehensive Pl.an • Gamruissi.oner Bon.n anci Owens did not have a capy o€ tl�e Housing Plano � Commissioner Bonn moved and Commissi¢�rrer Flerro� seconded ta postpon� �he study s�ssion for the Housing Elemen*� - Compr�hensive Plan. � • 3zaff stated since this was only a study �ession and NPO #3 �em�aebs �aere presenty the Planning �ommission cauld hQar NPO l�3 testimonyA � �ommi�sianer �onn withdresa his motiun. , PUBLIC TESTIMtONY s Staff stated additional inpuC from �11 the l�P�'s and the Planning Com�ission is needed before the Housing Element is d�scuss�sl in a public he�ring. • Presid�x�e Tep�dino sug�ested the Plaa�ning Coffimission 1ist�n tr� the testimony b�t }�ostpone the decision an the H�using information and pro�osal untiZ the staff h�s campl�ted their review and caute forward wiCt� some tentarive x°ecommendations. It w3.11 give �he Plan*aing Cammissian time to r�vie�a the H�using Element anc3 �h� NPO ��3 memo. • i�TP� #3 presen�ed a mema� to the Planning Commission stating they felt the staff �aas in er•ror in pra�ecting the populati.on ictcr�asing in a � strai�ht �ine effect4 They �elt that any pcpuXation pro;jection shaulrl be shawr� as an S cu�ve. They recamnaended th�e �lann�ng Commissian and sraf.f �o �aview Che memo thorou�:�ly. FAGE 5 °� PY,A.NN2N� Ct�MMXSSIO�T MTNUT�S - J'U�'� 22, �.982 � �, , � Staf£ �ta�eu t�e Ha�xsing Eieffien� was ;sent to the Iiorae Builders Association= ths Land Conservation Dev�lopment Com�ais�icsn and �he Me�ropoli�an Service Districf• The i�ome Build�rs A��aaf�eic�n re�urn�d a letter ,&btating they b�s�call�► a��ed wi.th wtist ataff intexads to do. , • Staff r�q�esCed input irom a1� N1'Gl's. It wa� suggesr�d tC�� Planning Commissinn send leGters tn all NPO m�mber� xequesting ixxput on the Iiausi.ng �Y�meat. The doc.rament is for the community so staff wanCs input from the entire community. 6d. Sign Code �evfsions s Staff presented Lo the Plan:�in� Conm�ssion �he recently �°evis�d S�.�n Coae. The Pr�blic Hering will be postpan�ed for appYOxirua�el� anQther month. � Pr�s:ident Tepedino s+uggested th� sigxx code r.evision b� ca�ri�d ove� until th� Piax�nin� �omm�.s�ton h�d time to x�view t�re new re�ri�ed editicsn. More pe€�ple wi�� ita�� a ckance �a revi�w it and have �offie iz��ut. II Commissionex Jwens left at ].0:10 I'.M. I[a��R�tATL�N ONLY . � � Staff sta��d the Planning Com�n3.s�i.an wa� pr�r�ented a co�y c�f a letter r�gardir�� tfie Tieaa°ing5 �Jfficer meeting af June 1.0, 1��2 af t�e p�oposa3. for the Zane C1�ange and Conditi�nal Use P�rmit far �he praper�y locateci at SW Hall and SW �onita Raad. � • Sta�f st�.ted a decision has not b�en rende�r�d by th� I€earixxg� Officer at ttrts point for apgroeal. The resi�ents of the arc�a do not want th.is p�ssed beeause th�y dan't want th� Plaid �'antxy t�uilt in thi� areao e President Teped�no �requested of s�af� to notify th� Co�issia�ers af �he date their ternd is up. I • Comraissioner Christen nnoved and Co�rniss�one� H�rron secande� ta� � ad��urn fh� meet�ng. ' Mation appravec� by unanimaus vote of Commission presen�e Meeting Ad�ourned — 1G:17 P.M. \ �� ' � ��"y`"' ' \ Patt Martin, SecreLar� � ` AT �S °� � ' �'.J �epedino, Pl�nn.ing CQm�missiori Presici�n� gAGE 6 ^ �'L�,NNING COMMISSION MINUTES -- JUN� 22, 1982