Loading...
Planning Commission Packet - 07/24/1984 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. _ il II AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1984 7:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL 12755 SW ASH AVE. (CORNER OF ASH AND BURNHAM) TIGARD, OREGON 1 . Call to Order 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVE MINUTES FROM JULY 10, 1984 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION 5. ' . PUBLIC HEARINGS , 1~ REVIEW FINAL ORDER FOR HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 4-84 FERD MORENO 14430 SW MCFARLAND (No public testimony) 5....2 SUBDIVISION S 8-84 and VARIANCE 11-84 SANDLEWOOD PARK NPO # 2 5.3 ZONE ORDIANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 5-84 CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP . 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - JULY 24, 1984 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was held at Tigard City Hall - Conference Room - 12755 SW Ash, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Fyre, Owens, Peterson, Butler, Bergmann and Vanderwood . ABSENT: Commissioner Leverett. STAFF: Director of Planning & Development William A. Monahan; Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JULY 10, 1984. o Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION - None SUBDIVISION S 8-84 and VARIANCE V 11-84 SANDLEWOOD PARK NPO # 2 Request to subdivide a 1.66 arce parcel into 13 lots, 5000 sq. ft. in size in a R-12 zone (Residential, 12 units/acre) and a subdivision variance to reduce flag lot side yards from 25 ft. to 15 ft. Commissioner Bergmann arrived at 7:45 P.M. Associate Planner Liden made the staff recommendation for approval with 15 conditions. He also read a letter into the record from NPO # 2. NPO COMMENTS - Mark Padgett, Chairman for NPO # 2 supported the single family subdivision, however, he was concerned about traffic on 95th and North Dakota. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Ryan O'Brien, 1134 SE 23rd Ave., Hillsboro, supported staff's recommendation and conditions, except for condition j number four where he would like to add, "tapering into the existing pavement". PUBLIC TESTIMONY : o No one appeared to speak. is CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL tw o Discussion occurred on a four way stop at SW 95th and North Dakota, surrounding zoning, the private street, widing the street at Lots 2100 and 2200, sewer service, fire district service, sidewalks, setback variances and underground utilities. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 24, 1984 Page 1 E�. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION ACTION o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to approve Subdivision S 8-84 and Variance V 11-84 based on staff's findings with the following conditions. 1. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements, shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after said Division has issued approved public improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond), the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit and also, the execution of a construction compliance agreement just prior to issuance of approved public improvement plans. 3. Half-street improvements shall be required along the 95th Avenue and North Dakota Street frontage to City standards including 25-foot right-of-way from centerline as shown on the preliminary plat, 34-foot pavement width, 5-foot sidewalks, concrete driveway apron for the private street and street lights. 4. The addition of base and asphalt pavement to provide a 24-foot roadway width fronting Tax Lots 2100 and 2200 shall be provided, tapering into the existing pavement. 5. All driveways shall be consistent with Chapter 18.108 of the Code. 6. The method of storm water disposal, including roof and footing drains shall be approved by the Engineering Division. 7. Proper driveway curb-cut clearance from the right-of-way intersection of 95th Avenue and North Dakota Street shall be maintained for Lot 4. 8. The existing public sanitary sewerage main line in SW 95th I, Avenue shall be extended to the southern end of the plat boundary. } 9. Joint use/maintenance agreements shall be recorded for the lots which are proposed to utilize the common driveway. Said agreement(s) shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to recording with Washington County. 10. Each lot shall be connected separately to the public sanitary sewer line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 24, 1984 Page 2 11. A demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Inspection Office before the existing structures are removed. 12. The subdivision plat shall meet the following standards: a. Vertical Datum shall be City of Tigard (N.G.S. 1929). All exis=ting and established (temporary) bench marks in the vicinity of the project shall be shown on the construction drawing. b. Compliance of 18.160.160 (all) with the following exceptions: 18.160.160 A.2 Capped 5/8" X 30" Iron Rods on surface of final lift will be acceptable. c. Compliance of 18.160.190 (B) d. All storm and sanitary lines shall be placed in positions that DO NOT interfere with centerline monumentation. 13. Lots 8, 9, and 11 shall have a minimum frontage of 15 feet on the private street. 14. Lot 11 shall maintain a 10-foot sideyard setback on the south side of the lot. 15. This approval shall be exercised within a period of one year or the approval shall expire. 16. A sidewalk shall be installed on the north side of the street. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.2 APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION HOP 4-84 FERD MORENO NPO # 3 An appeal by Michael Smith of the Planning Director's approval to operate a residential home for the handicapped on property zoned R-2 located at 14430 SW McFarland (WCTM 2S1 10BA lot 3800). Director of Planning and Development Monahan explained why a fifth Commissioner was needed to vote on the final order and that Commissioner Owens had listened to the tape and reviewed the record to become familiar with the record. Associate Planner Newton reviewed the final order. Discussion followed. o APPLICANT - Michael Smith, 11645 SW Cloud Ct. stated that they felt the findings were not findings but conclusions; also that the applicant has the burdon of proof not the appellant and if there is a disagreement then it is up to the Commission to determine who is correct. He did not feel this was reflected correctly in the ,staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 24, 1984 Page 3 o Discussion followed on who was responsible for the burdon of proof. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioners Owens, Butler, and Peterson supported the findings and had no changes. o President Moen made corrections to the wording of the final order. o President Moen moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to accept the final order as corrected. Motion carried 4 - 0. Commissioners Fyre and Bergmann abstaining. 5.3 Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 5-84 CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Associate Planner Liden reviewed changes proposed by staff. Discussion followed regarding changes on Page I11-310 c, 1I1-245, I11-246, and III-185. Staff requested adding to the change on page 11I-224 that the conditional use permit must be a "valid" conditional use permit. Commissioner Vanderwood Arrived. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to forward to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Motion carried by a majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Vanderwood abstaining. 6. OTHER BUSINESS o Discussion of final order for Tigard West. o Commissioner Fyre was selected as second Vice-President in case President Moen and Vice President Owens were unable to attend a meeting. 7. Adjournment - Commission continued wit, a workshop. �� ../1 /' '. . Dirne M. elderks, re ary ATTTEEiST: f� A. Donald Moen, President 0555P PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 24, 1984 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE CALL: IbLt Donald Moen Bonnie Owens' efl .pixj John Butler Milton Eyre Deane Leverett Dave Peterson feil. Chris Vanderwood AP 36 . _______7__R-(76.: .___. .... .. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAM% and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) J ITEM/bESCRIPTION: ��/ J • " • ' V 1- 0 2j2iartf2sartrtzi_____03 .________Alpo -14:z. PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation • Name, Address and Affiliation _ NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME: and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) 5 ITEM/bESCRIPTION: //OP `fir 8 ,7"------- . .‘j-e.-f-d. (' , 111 . ' 0 II. • I IN-• ►I'A co ■ ill PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation ge-(-1‘4i c /4.V,5-- "ii of C /11/ /eealidGL�C-/ U` 6 a41,do'S/ , ',,A I I • tj -�,.. y ',1 ■ S • 1 1 } NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME. and note their adc •ess on this sheet. (Please Print your name) / ITEM/OESCRIPTION: r 1 , ./L 41/4 .//L' PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation • Name, Address and Affiliation .! Ii • • STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.1 July 24, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT - BOARD ROOM 13137 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY TIGARD, OR 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision S 8-84, Variance 11-84 REQUEST: To subdivide a 1.66 are parcel into 13 lots 5000 sq. ft. in size to the R-12 zone (Residential, 12 units/acre) and subdivision variances to reduce flag lot side yards from 10 ft. to 5 ft. and the street frontage width from 25 ft. to 15 ft. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) APPLICANT: Dave Emmett OWNER: Brookman, Brocon, Dunn 800 SW Murray Blvd. 3126 SE Gladstone Beaverton, OR 97005 Portland, OR 97202 LOCATION: Southwest corner of 95th Ave. and North Dakota St. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35CA, Tax Lot 2000) 2. Background No previous development proposals have been reviewed by the City. 3. Vicinity Information Single family residential uses surround the subject property. The R-12 zone lies on the north side of North Dakota Street, to the west and southwest. The R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) zone is to the south on the east side of 95th Avenue. 4. Site Information The property is located on the southwest corner of North Dakota Street and 95th Avenue. One house and several accessory structures are situated in the southern portion of the property and the remainder is covered by an old filbert orchard. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and establish a 13-lot subdivision for single family residences. The preliminary plat features eight lots with frontage of North Dakota and 95th. Avenue and STAFF REPORT - S 8-84 & V 11-84 - PAGE 1 five internal lots with frontage on a private street. This street is shown as a separate parcel that will be jointly owned and maintained by the lot owners who will use it for access. An "L" shaped turn-around will be provided on this street. The applicant is also requesting the following variances: a. Fifteen feet of street frontage for Lots 8 and 9 instead of 25 feet. b. Twenty feet of street frontage for Lot 11 instead of 25 feet. c. Five-foot side yards for Lot 11 instead of 10 feet for a flag lot. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Half-street improvements shall be required along the 95th Avenue and North Dakota Street frontage to city standard including 25-foot right-of-way from centerline as shown on the preliminary plat, 34-foot pavement width, 5-foot sidewalks, and street lights. b. The addition of base and asphalt pavement to provide a 24-foot roadway width fronting on Tax Lots 2100 and 2200 is recommended. The disposal of stormwater runoff should be addressed, particularly from Lots 9, 10, and 13. The developer needs to provide a means to tie roof drains to public storm system. All roof drains/footing drains should be tied to a public stormwater line or shall be connected to curb weep holes as is appropriate. c. Proper driveway curb-cut clearance from the right-of-way intersection of 95th Avenue and North Dakota Street should be maintained for Lot 4. t' d. The existing public sanitary sewerage main line, in SW 95th Avenue, needs to be extended south to the plat boundary. }' ■ e. Joint use/maintenance agreements need to be recorded for the °' lots which are proposed to be created with common driveways. 1', f. Each lot should be connected separately to the public sanitary sewer line. g. Sanitary sewer service to Lots 7 through 10 may be difficult [; especially if structures will have basements. h. The private street should exit onto 95th Avenue via a concrete driveway apron. The Building Inspection Office has no objection to the proposal, but notes that a demolition permits will be necessary before the existing structures can be removed. STAFF REPORT - S 8-84 & V 11-84 - PAGE 2 The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District requests that a fire hydrant be installed at the intersection of the private street and 95th Avenue. A School Impact Statement has been submitted by School District 23J indicating no objection to the request. The Chairman for NPO #2 submitted a letter which is attached. On behalf of NPO #2, he indicated no objection to the subdivision but mentioned concern over the narrow width of 95th Avenue and hazardous nature of the 95th krenue-North Dakota Street intersection. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The subdivision meets the requirements of the R-12 zone and the housing type and density will be consistent with the character of the area. The revised plan represents a desirable subdivision plan which removes the need for most of the variances required by the original plan. The first two variances requested as part of the revised plan related to the minimum street frontage requirement of 25 feet for subdivision lots (Section 18.164.060 B.). The following approval criteria from Section 18.160.120 apply: 1. There are special circumstances affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; 2. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this ordinance. The property is relatively small for a subdivision and because of its configuration, the creation of a public street or cul-de-sac is not desirable or particularly feasible. The private street has created the need for reduced frontage on Lots 8, 9, and 11. The variances will not have a detrimental effect. The frontage reduction is minimal and proper access to the lots as defined in Chapter 18.108 of the Code will be maintained. Strict compliance with the Code could be achieved, but it would result in awkward property boundaries and would also cause an unnecessary waste of space in the case of Lot 11. The proposed 20-wide access strip to Lot 11 is more than adequate to accommodate the required 10-foot wide driveway. STAFF REPORT - S 8-A4 V 11-84 - PAGE 3 is The variance to the required side yard setback for flag lots (Section 18.96.090) is evaluated by the following criteria: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; 2. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties In the same zoning district; 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and 5. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The purpose of the setback provision is to reduce the potential conflict between established residences and new development on flag lots. The 10-foot side yard setback is intended to provide some additional space between new residences and adjoining properties. The setback reduction along the southern boundary of Lot 11 could adversely affect the development potential of the property to the south by establishing a residence that is 5 feet away. A similar reduction on the north side will be internal and the developer would be able to adjust the location of other buildings to mitigate any problems created by the 5-foot setback. Lot 11 is 55 feet wide and appears to be of sufficient width to accommodate a single family home without setback variances on both sides. The hardship is somewhat self-imposed because the applicant could redesign the lot or the house. However, the Planning staff does acknowledge that small parcels such as this are difficult to develop while meeting all City standards. The requested variance to allow 5-foot side yards only appears to be appropriate on the north side of Lot 11. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Director recommends approval of S 8-84 and V 11-84 subject to the following conditions: STAFF REPORT - S 8-84 & V 11-84 - PAGE 4 1. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after said Division has issued approved public improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit and also, the execution of a construction compliance agreement just prior to issuance of tt approved public improvement plans. 3. Half-street improvements shall be required along the 95th Avenue and North Dakota Street frontage to City standard including 25-foot right-of-way from centerline as shown on the preliminary plat, 34-foot pavement width, 5-foot sidewalks, concrete driveway apron for the private street, and street lights. `. 4. The addition of base and asphalt pavement to provide a 24-foot roadway width fronting the Tax Lots 2100 and 2200 shall be provided. 5. All driveways shall be consistent with Chapter 18.108 of the Code. 6. The method of storm water disposal, including roof and footing drains shall be approved by the Engineering Division. 7. Proper driveway curb-cut clearance from the right-of-way intersection of 95th Avenue and North Dakota Street shall be maintained for Lot 4. 8. The existing public sanitary sewerage main line, in SW 95th Avenue, shall be extended to the southern end of plat boundary. 9. Joint use/maintenance agreements shall be recorded for the lots which are proposed to utilize the common driveway. Said agreement(s) shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to f' recordting with Washington County. t'' v. 10. Each lot shall be connected separately to the public sanitary ','z' sewer line. `' 11. A demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Inspection t'. Office before the existing structures are removed. t; Ff 12. The subdivision plat shall meet the following standards: i b STAFF REPORT - S 8-84 & V 11-84 - PAGE 5 p. a. Vertical Datum shall be City of Tigard (N.G.S. 1929). All existing and established (temporary) bench marks in the vicinity of the project shall be shown on the construction drawing. b. Compliance of 18.160.160 (all) with the following, exceptions: 18.160.160 A.2 Capped 5/8" X 30" Iron Rods on surface of final lift will be acceptable. c. Compliance of 18.160.190 (B) d. All storm and sanitary lines shall be placed in positions that DO NOT interfere with centerline monumentation. 13. Lots 8, 9, and 11 shall have a minimum frontage of 15 feet on the private street. 14. Lot 11 shall maintain a 10-foot sideyard setback on the north side of the lot. 15. This approval shall be exercised within a period of one year or the approval shall expire. - . /1# / . . -f, ' . ..01/ „., . -,.., T . Al / 1 PREP. ` i :Y: Keith lien APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning & Development 1 i (KSL:pm/0536p) 1. A `f' i i i k h. fl A h {f1 h, n STAFF REPORT - S' 8-84 & V 11-84 - PAGE 6 RYAN O'BRIEN Planning Consultant 1134 S.E. 23rd Ave. • Hillsboro,Oregon 97123 • (503) 648-40ó1 TO: City of Tigard Planning Commission July 9, 1984 FROM: Ryan O'Brien SUBJECT: Sandalwood Park - S-8-84, and Variance 11-84. Attached please find a copy of a revised plat for the above project. At the request of staff, we have prepared this revised plan to eliminate or reduce the variances requested. This specific plan eliminates all the flag lots onto 95th Avenue and Dakota Street by the use of a private street with 30 feet of right-of-way and 24 feet of pavement. This street will have a sidewalk along the -full—length' of :the'northi side of the street and 6" curbs along all pavement. This'design is not only more attractive than the previous proposal, it is more functional. This street provides an adequate turn around for passenger and emergency vehicles. Potential housing units have been shown on each lot to show parking spaces, and vehicle turn around or backup facilities. The variances proposed with this application are as follows: 1 . 15' street frontage for lots 8 and 9, instead of 25' . —2. 20' street- f ron-ta-ge--fo-r—let-1-1-,--1-ne-te a•a o f 2 5' -- 3. 5' side yard for lot 11, instead of 10' for a flag lot. Sincerely, Ryan O'Brien AmmemmilimillIMMMINIMMMOW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON FINAL ORDER 84-02 PC A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MICHAEL SMITH, FILE NO. HOP 4-84, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, ENTERING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND A FINAL ORDER. The Director of Planning and Development issued the decision on April 20, 1984. The Director's decision was appealed on April 30, 1984, by Michael Smith. The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above-entitled appeal at a special meeting on June 12, 1984. The appellant, surrounding property owners and legal counsel representing the petitioner spoke in opposition of the Director's decision. Mr. Moreno and neighboring residents spoke in support of the Director's decision. The Commission finds the following facts in this matter: 1. The appellant for this matter, Michael Smith, requested that the building permit issued to the applicant on November 29, 1983, should be cancelled and an occupancy permit should be denied. 2. The appellant's justification is presented in the minutes for the June 12, 1984, Planning Commission meeting and in the appellant's notice of appeal. The appellant spoke at the June 12, 1984, hearing on how the Home Occupation permit violated the Community Development Code. The appellants attorney, Frank Josselson spoke at the June 12, 1984, Planning Commission meeting where he contended that Mr. Moreno had lied to the City, misrepresented the use of the facility and violated almost every City ordinance dealing with single family residential uses. 3. The relevant approval criteria in this matter are contained in Section 18.142.050 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The appellant has the burden of proof to show how these criteria were not met in the original application. The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. Approval criteria number A. under Section 18.142 reads: "The use shall be a lawful use which shall be carried on by occupants of the dwelling." The applicant's use as a residential home is a lawful use of the property under Chapter 18.46 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The appellant has not provided testimony to the contrary. 2. Approval criteria number B. under Section 18.142.050 and reads: "The Home Occupation shall be operated entirely within: 1. The dwellwing unit and the use and the storage of material and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the gross floor area." The applicant provided the City with documentation that less than 25Z of the house would be used for the residential home and associated storage. The appellant has not provided any verification or testimony that the applicant exceeds this requirement. FINAL ORDER HOP 4-84 Page 1 } 3. Approval crater number C. under Section 18.142.050 reads: "The use shall be a secondary use to the primary use of the house as a dwelling:" The applicant has stated that the residential home is a secondary use to the dwelling. The appellant has not provided evidence to the Commission that the residential home is the primary use. 4. Approval criteria number D. under Section 18.142.050 reads: "There shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation; no exterior signs shall be used; no other on-site advertising visible from the exterior shall be used which informs the public of the use except of the address of the home occupation may be displayed." Slides presented at the Planning Commission hearing on June 12, 1984, by the appellant of the Moreno home showed no exterior indication of the home occupation such as signs or advertising. 5. Approval criteria number E. under Section 18.142.050 reads: "There shall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products on the premises. Indoor storage of material or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire, Health and Housing Codes." Slides entered into the record by the appellant at the June 12, 1984, Planning Commission hearing show no evidence of outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products on the premises. 6. Approval criteria number F. in Section 18.142.050 reads: "The use shall not include any retail sales other than telephone sales." The residential home use does not involve retail sales. 7. Approval criteria number G. in Section 18.142.050 reads: "The use does not involve direct sales or sevice from the property necessitating customer traffic to the residence." The residential home use does not involve direct sales or service from the property. 8. Approval criteria number H. in section 18.142.050 reads: "The Home Occupation shall not produce any noise or obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, fumes, or electrical interference detectable to normal sensory perception outside the structure." The appellant did not provide any written or oral testimony as to what, if any, noise, obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, fumes, or electrical interference were evident to normal sensory perception outside the structure. 9. Approval criteria number I. in Section 18.142.050 reads" "There shall be no other employees on the premises other than those who are permanent residents of the dwelling." FINAL ORDER HOP 4-84 Page 2 As a condition of approval of the Home Occupation Permit, no people may be employed at the home who are not residents of the home. The appellant did not present any testimony to document that there are or will be employees who are not residents of the home. 10. Approval criteria number J. in Section 18.142.050 reads: "The use shall not require any additional parking other than that which is required for the residence." The appellant did not provide any documentation or testimony that the use would require parking other than that rewired for the residence. The Tigard Community Development Code requires two spaces for each single family dwelling unit, one of which shall be covered. The development Code deos not require additional parking for the residential home. 11. The burden of proof is on the appellant to show how the Directors decision violates a procedural process or that the appliant's Home Occupation violates the approval criteria set forth in Section 18.142.050 of the Community Development Code. The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Based on Findings numbers 1 - 10, the Commission has determined that the applicant's proposal for a Home Occupation permit meets the criteria set forth in Section 18.142.050 of the Tigard Community Development Code. 2. Based on Findings numbers 1 - 11, the Commission has determined that the appellant has not shown how the applicant's Home Occupation violates Section 18.142.050 of the Tigard Community Development Code. It is Therefore, ORDERED that, based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the appeal of HOP 4-84 Ferd Moreno be denied and the Director's decision for approval of the Home Occupation Permit be upheld. It is further order that the appellant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED:SSED: This day of , 1984, by Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. "{ President - Planning Commission City of Tigard fi 0535P r�l ti FINAL ORDER HOP 4-84 Page 3 t' COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forward recommendation to City Council for appointment of Russell Krueger and Lee Cunningham to NPO # 7. Motion carried unanimously. 5.2 APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 4-84, FERD MORENO NPO # 3 An appeal of of the Planning Director's approval to operate a residential home for the handicapped on property zoned R-2 located at 14430 SW McFarland (WCTM 2S1 10BA lot 3800). Director of Planning and Development Monahan reviewed the packet of information distributed to the Commissioners. He then reviewed the criteria needed to approve a home occupation permit and how they had been applied to this application for it to be approved. o Frank Josselson, Attorney, objected to the way the proceedings were being conducted. o President Moen stated that the staff's report and applicant's presentation should be allowed to be heard again. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Ferd, Moreno, 14430 SW McFarland referred to Senate Bill 478 which allowed this type of use. He then reviewed the criteria which he had met for approval of the Home Occupation Permit. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Frank Josselson, 838 SW First Ave., representing the petitioners, stated he would speak after the other public testimony had been given. o Michael Smith, 11645 SW Cloud Court, showed slide of the area. (Discussion followed on what issues needed to be addressed.) Mr. Smith continued how angry he was that approval had been granted for the Home Occupation Permit. He felt it violated the Community Development Code. His main concern was that he felt the applicant had mislead the City and neighbors with the actual use of the home occupation. He requested the Commission to deny the Home Occupation Permit. o Harry Backeberg, 11750 SW Wildwood, supported the appeal. He felt the home had been increased in such a size to make it a commercial use and it did not fit into the single family neighborhood. Requested the Commission to deny the application and have the facility torn down. o Rob Walsh, 11545 SW Cloud Court, felt a degree of antagonism with Mr. Moreno. He felt there was a possibilty of 12 to 15 bedrooms. He did �' ,a not feel it was a single family use Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 2 • o Cathie Sorensen, 11515 SW 1 C oud Ct. ; Penn Stohr, 15575 SW Cloud Ct; and Ronald Grant, 11865 SW Wildwood, all supported the appeal to have the Home Occupation Permit denied. o Charles A. Gutweniger, 14355 SW McFarland Blvd., requested the Planning Commission deny the Home Occupation Permit. He felt a motel had been added in a single family residential area. He felt the applicant was circumventing :.`le law. o Frank Josselson, Attorney; reviewed the history of the application, beginning with the building permit. He stated the construction is not for a single family residence, rather a group residential facility or boarding house. He contended that Mr. Moreno lied to the City, misrepresented the use of the facility and has violated almost every City ordinance dealing with single family residential use. He was concerned how the facility would be regulated and enforced. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Mr. Harold Carlson, Bull Mountain Road, stated he had visited Mr. Moreno's home and was impressed with the interior and exterior looks of the facility o Julene, Carlson, 14615 SW Hazeltree, commented that the house is big, but it was also immaculate. o Ferd Moreno, explained why the lower portion of the house was the way it was and that it could not be used for additional bedrooms. o Mr. Walsh added that the heat pump was not a problem. Also, the vacant lot adjoining this property had not been built on because Mr. Moreno's home had ruined the lot. o Commissioner Butler asked several questions regarding the use of the facility and how calculations were done to determine the use for the Home Occupation area. o Associate Planner Newton reviewed the floor plans which had been submitted by the applicant. Discussion followed between Commissioners, staff, applicant, and neighbors regarding the number of individuals living in the facility, square footage and how it is being used. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Butler commented that all of his questions had been answered and that the criteria had been met by the applicant. o Commissioner Peterson felt all the criteria had been met. Planning Commission Minutes June 12,1984 Page 3 o Commissioner Fyre had some concerns that the primary use is residential. He felt, maybe, this matter should be taken to LUBA. He was of the opinion that the Home Occupation Permit should be denied. o President Moen was concerned about the square footage being within the 25%, however, he had recalculated and it was within the 25%. He then reviewed each of the criteria and felt the applicant had met all of them. o Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to deny the appeal to deny the Home Occupation Permit HOP 4-84. Discussion followed regarding the findings. Frank Josselson objected tk the proceedings of the hearings. Further Discussion. Motio;l approved by majority of Commissioners present, Commissioner Fyre voting no. o Further Discussion regarding written findings. o Commissioner Fyre moved and President Moen seconded to reconsider the approved motion. Motion carried unanimously. o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Butler seconded for tentative denial of the appeal of HOP 4-84 until written findings could be furnished by City staff. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present with Commissioner Fyre voting no. 5.3 a. GOAL # 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES Associate Planner Newton reviewed the Goal 5 In Order to Comply statements and how the City might amend the plan to bring it into compliance. NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak PUBLIC TESTIMONY o J B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 303, objected to adding paragraph number two without having additional public input from the NPOs and CCI. On Item # 4 he was confused where the conclusion above was. Discussion with staff followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION i= o President Moen felt this is a clean up item and he had no problem with the additions. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 4 1 Agenda Item 5.3 File: ZOA 5-84 Planning Commission Mtg. July 10, 1984 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission July 6, 1984 FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Changes to the Community Development Code In administering the Community Development code it has become apparent that some sections are in need of revision and clarification. The changes recommended are as follows : Page Number Section Number Change 111-310 18.164.03 c. On first line change "Commission" to "Approval Authority". 111-310 18.164.030 c. Change last line to . . ."method by which a lot large enough to be divided can develop". 111-245 18.130.090 add "8. The location of mailboxes 9. The location of all structures and their orientation. 10. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques." 11I-245 18.130.100 Replace the existing language in Section 18. 130.100 :with the following: "Grading Plan A. The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: 1. Requirements in Sections 18.130.080 and 18.130.090 of this Chapter. �/A ,R . 2. The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating general contour lines, slope ratios and slope stabilization proposals. 3. A statement from a registered engineer supported by factual data substantiating: a. The validity of the slope stabilization proposals ; and b. That all problems will be mitigated and how they will g Y be mitigated." III-246 18.130.120 Add "4. Location of underground sprinkler heads where applicable. B. The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses: 1. Soil conditions ; and 2. Erosion control measure that will be used." III-224 18.120.020 Add "4. Any proposed development which has been approved through the Conditional use Permit application process." III-278 18.144.020 12th line insert "Accessory building which are less than 120 square feet in area and do not exceed 10 feet at their highest point are excluded from the requirements of this chapter." 111-185 18.106.050 k. Add . ."The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt, or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area can not be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements." 0509P dmj CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 84-01 PG A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT, JB BISHOP, GI JOES, AND ALICE TREFFINGER, FILE NO. CPA 11-84 AND ZC 8-84, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at its regular meeting of July 10, 1984. The applicants appeared along with their attorney and architect. Appearing for the opposition were a number of interested property owners, represented by legal counsel and the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO # 3). The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicants for this matter, Tigard West Development, JB Bishop, GI Joes and Alice Treffinger, requested a reclassification from R 3.5 zoning and low density designation, which would allow for single family residential units to a (C-G), General Commercial designation on a parcel of land designated as Washington County Tax Map 2S1 3DA Tax Lots 4700, 4800, 6100 and 6200 and Washington County Tax Map 2S1 3DD lot 200. The information supporting the request is found in File No. CPA 11-84. 2. The applicant's justification is presented in the minutes for the July 10, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. The applicants at that time, represented by Attorney Stephen Janik, spoke to issues relating to squaring off a parcel that is 80% committed to commercial, potential negligible traffic impact on neighboring streets, a change to a commercial designation which would be better for the existing residences, the conformance of the application to the plan policies, whether the residential zoning on the 5 residential lots in question was a mistake, and the increase in jobs for local residents and the conformance of the application to locational criteria. 3. The relevant approval criteria in this case are the State-wide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14. Goals 3, 4, and 15 - 19 do not apply. In addition, the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.3.3 and 12.2.1. The Commission make the following FINDINGS in this matter: 1. State-wide Planning Goal # 1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition all public notice requirements were met. 2. State-wide Planning Goal # 2 is met because the City applied all applicable State-wide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. State-wide Planning Goal # 5 does not apply because no open space would be created or removed by this application proposal. 4. State-wide Planning Goal # 6 does not apply because water, air and land resources quality would not be affected by this application proposal. 5. State-wide Planning Goal # 7 does not apply because there are no natural hazard areas on the property. does not apply 6. State-wide Planning Goal # 8 pp y because there would be no recreational facilities being constructed or removed as a result of this proposal. 7. State-wide Planning Goal # 9 does not apply because the portion of land being proposed for the change from residential to commercial is too small to impact the City's employment picture. 8. State-wide Planning Goal # 10 does not apply because the removal of 5 homes from the City's housing stock would not have a great impact City-wide. 9. State-wide Planning Goal # 11 is met because public facilities are available to the site. 10. State-wide Planning Goal #12 is not satisfied because SW Watkins Street is not improved to City standards and is inadequate to carry heavier volumes of traffic at the present time. 11. State-wide Planning Goal # 13 does not apply because there are no great energy savings to be gained by changing the five residential properties to commercial. 12. State-wide Planning Goal # 14 does not apply because the proposed change does not affect rural land. 13. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicants proposal. 14. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.4 is not satisfied because approval of the applicants' request would allow commercial development to encroach into a residential area that has not been designated for commercial use. 15. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.3.3 is not satisfied because approval of the applicants' request will not preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established area. 16. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.2.1 is satisified in that all of the appropriate locational criteria have been applied to the 1` project, however, not all of the locational criteria can be met by the applicants' proposal. lI 4' The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Based on Finding No. 10, the Commission has determined that SW Watkins is not improved to standards adequate to carry increased traffic loads. 2. Based on Finding No. 14, the Commission has determined that the applicants' request to redesignate 5 single family residential lots to commercial would allow commercial development to encroach into a residential area that has not been designated for commercial use. 3. Based on Finding No. 15, the Commission has determined that the granting of the applicants' request will not preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established area. 4. Based on Finding No. 16, the Commission has determined that the applicants' request does not meet all of the locational l criteria setforth in Policy 12.2.1. Specifically, locational criteria (1) (a) is not met. "The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." It is, therefore, ORDERED that, based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is this matter be, and the same hereby is, denied. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of the this order. PASSED: This day of 1984, by Planning Commission of the - City of Tigard. President - Planning Commission City of Tigard 0529P dmj • • / 0 1 / ' V • • 30 5 303 ...,=-....— __. _ � ��,^ ,,. ..0;', r `+:,,4 :ti:• — , - ,,,ot.ora t aoo ydoca` " y i :o i h . n ri • - '"ttn ''A r 7a• v)Met ;.`• .•..-;+-!.....' ' f.t;.'�` - Q t a 0:4;7 y dp fl t �S>iti ! o u . Ml* L r :4'.61A,74 P•,o !* i ' C �f �•• • \N S$W Y SW c)/�aG s1 - -- N _ - �.��W .. lam+ i �. wYji . ) : --- -4- ,0 VE-Ot C-..A. 1C...)44 f-H. t — . :-• . --1 .1: ,....4 — . • • ..•''' !R r :'TT .p , 1:TX! 4� ,. it4: . , , I I I `� �� ��.,�! 2 3 4 a 1;. �4-OO C�Soo 6600 6700 VICINITY MAP SCALE:, I" _ '80©' f 1 .. -140 J 1..- L---- f • :I Wes .e Bra.okman PI�OPC�SED .>�SES.' Singe e fain OWNER:. so ' 50 65 1 3126 SE ' 94 _ __ so 60. 1� Gladstone I '3 , - 14Z 2720r ti al house . -k:- _- Fortlar.d, Or. 2 5 h a R16 •... , I• ; : •G�`x' 6 APPLICANT: pave. Emmet t REQUIRED STANDARDS• L '^ c 7 N i ry4 800 SW Murray Blvd d. --.._.�__ - . . ' I :,�_-._' �- Beaverton, Or. 97005 20'. .-• f:�or.t yarn' : Ivc 641 -0943 1Qe .1 _ ,4e 5' - side yard , 900 - —6• .... It I --`" 2o6o�c' 6 o ENGINEEtt j StTR'v'F'YCR• 10' - street side �rarri f.� .• • _ �I R.E. Ban rc;t_ and s sr.c, 5' rear yard • - — — --- ---_ _ ' r r y .. .., �� --- - — •— -_1.4,0_NE- r •�'v r .. _ _._ . --• ---- - - - - 00 i - 1 a r• Zo ___:.2oz - Hillsboro , Or. 2', :, 2L 3-05`Q S1 ft. - min. Iof�si ,� _ i. 648-41 G" 60% - max. lot coverage o o\ , •�tio 'Fir fi ,-?,ob :)LAI'':IVTNG CONST,r _ "^,^': 3. -. max. building hei. r:� n .D' 7 - street . widw for one - -1 . # . l- Ryan B.r . �,r, �,- n -- zo 113 3 10' - av meiwtis4dwi width h f r I I- i - p 13 — ' ;�1+� z rr Ave:. �, - -- q 10 • ® vo H. oro. C'r. '9712 3 `- ' - - a 1 648-4061 25' - s�reet. th for two '�l?%::- , 1 s �}. 20' - pavemet .width. for t 5o a I ��ZIZ SEWER : .Ciyt-of Tigard 30' P�ioAT �F wtcr }oo F. •e __ . , 4, — �- 'r� `r ., rr F t o *� ♦ Z pA1/F.MF..1 ' W i tiT'1-� —PQ zo$ �► I1 . �'" I _ ►.A R. ��t,zt;r r Wtitet �:�. .‘ " II t2 s 1 * • • 2.14. . . Pog 3p -�'.- 1 -! CONTOURS: City y o f 1':L ga r,i 4 �4'c"/ � 2/O—''----- "------- IZ-5 ,� ' 40 . J _2 (' ` - ZONING: R-12, Re idor: * . 3 i 6a GOIIG. G4RE r 1'` -� �� I 240.77_._ _-.. _... — 1 . 2 un i ',s �e r a r�� 212- I / — —'. .- ., Lott. SIVfw/K w ,s -,r I NoRT}r5tD b �A I. �I I L18 z G f 1 `"•■...... LZo • , „ .__ I ,' 2300 - ZS' 2.5'.I 2/4' ;7_. 24•-84 AGENDA #5. 1.1. j 21 do 1 D 50 /GAO -v.,r :-:-.$(...,:-.N...:-..-,. ✓G c,/ ■ i b.t k;#. r } ,� . :t,fitke3;r!-F ,}.,1 4,.,Sr dF� 4 l vy"Y.:�hl dyl r�Ir.,t h,e; r i i ! 2 ._..-_ .. ':.'.:V. :(A yal .A}�,i8 b :r. <<Ct<.t. aY.kcak.!rs v",.r�ekct. i,f,- 4.�,t,,.a u di rnF fr, Sri ,fA. ,.'..s if ;:`� P.irr �qr .� - �'' t . -ab:'�>i+��,?rrv...�.+x.'k..�' ..�„ ” n.. -v ,o-e„,,a.t k�;f+ns .,�L ,....- --.. ,... � .. ,... . A•., .i t+.+� �i .5.,,-5,t.,.,r..!.; }"?�M•;:�.�"iLS.�r,< A,r. ...-`� '7�!'.°.., r,"rli'tidk,a.,y ::rr ...._._.- _ _. .,. ..- ..._....,....:. :_.. s w.,_.- a, : . :. t ~.'� ,� . ,c�,:,,.�„�,wt3+at87i,do.;,a�x+ , ,. ,;,r• .. yy . ..-_.., .. _. ,.,,�f+6,p.WLi.=wx%3u, 1., .'3 iN ,xx Y ''. ',&': - ,�..'!Mk l..'?, ,.�.: � .� �9eX♦�h i�.s4kl'a�Ri+V:-. �' � 1; �� 7 e e d. ..ass AaJls�1Y,$k..M1 ...:.:iw.F,.'.5 t'Fdw w.l.. , .. .r.,,. 4�V q,„:. „t.t.::=rr: 1 Yf c:- i .. ., if;' .+:. r. . : :4'il;',#14.11# . . , .:.........:. '�,h.v r sa a�,.v� r rF {. k Sr' A ` ,:k: :10111-4 , 11#11 4 , 1 , t } ,. , 1 ...:... . .....i i.... _. , �>,. ... . y. i � .I.k k; �:rr. I � i:...,ar.�' `}v3w�k,.tz_� :4.:41',0,441,•'',',4s...,..;„ . � , : #411###114#14# x. v_, ..a: .. �, .:' �. .�, .,,,, € r -'!�• � �� �. .�, '# ; f , v ,. r+ v ,ryu-x rvs - i. �i: ...,a 1,.... r- .? t 5.. .,. '%'-',.; . . ' , , :� : :.:k , 1 1 .. r--.._.. ..... M+.•4a ,+wr.�>.r '..,„r. 4n S L ,. .:,v wt ' .6 ,,. ( ..,...:r. :,-... , ,. � :'''.'..-1 i.., �' .. ,. .� � � r� .,. }� ..J'��-:..;w rr .r��+Ya ;��-,a,<ca{A, r ,5 .. .+M::•.' mr,,..- J.�s+.:,,.. i (i s., , r , ...: , � r r!�t a •'1 '� , , r ha,� • Mh, NOTE IC ,M' I _ . .. _ ..,::. ', c -.AM.nay DRAWING :LaS CLE' !lei! ._ . r�1R,, 7MlIt}i _., - 4k. wta. 5 ... .: _ ._. ... - .. ,,,,,;,7' � _. ... _: . - (. • .a<.,e„4,...,k_.�°"•'-�;k d.,....`,. �, _, :ry-.H:,? ;,,.;t.y ,„.�.,�.�:.,,+ p 1 ., ..., _ :,..,.l" t1'o\a•n.•, ....�. s::') ,.,m!•.•O^a .'t- .A'e b c v t -A. s Y OF TFE r� , ,,.,• ..=t / _ k• r t .M4 ,da• l,i•,(•, . Wr k/ C < . j,._kw {- .21„4',,,, ,,,,. ra : , } r! y . _ r,.++'' ,:tE. , e d p ; a{ "," r M .o w . `` y\ r Y • . - .. • ,, r t ` • • l ►04«� Irts$Oo. .•• I X02 I • , , • • • • (.C.St,1.'. ' er ��n L. .yt„5t •`A 1 ,r. • 1 �h Y ti'fi l : J F �. F 4 Y C �y/J . • - � .i. � vdt; L r1?.1i :,,.., �� r . . r1h4z • y YS.. 4 �.-��--• ,.i►r'� d : �. y.5, rat :t d4. fifr ;)!, J# x4.'. e. • t Y .j .a. ivy a," jt S ' '"` ' 34!' � a' l_:y, i • • � .S r 5•04 a T 30 3 J. , :7# F,_d z: qtr ., u ✓ � 0 5 3 0.3 �-�•�.-.�sue-. .�. �.. +"'�+.•.*.:..�.+ ..+.J 1 1 f���A'i 'f 7 �<ta+% ix f � � k •C• i t. )t•. r x.•. .�1 x,•:' • • I,. _'�T- ,�, _ _ '�• }'�'rk xM ..`�, sr �u r d#^.. - '°'* .1;. ti ,s f.. r x''r y,S•t j ,, r• .� r<' F w- r s,a .4 �; ''kje •iWlid ISt ,rs., r i: a+ 1• �'-- {'C�1 l OdO ' v f �.. s ` 7•'•dt9Gsc. X f,,) ;.r ,, t r r rr €ro �'"' � is _,._lam 5 d `� itli YY • / .-.r-____ - 1 a e 4. ay,' , ,',1.,,,.. u.1E Lr ° �:t t 7,;,71*i.t „P rJI m +� _ ipies• • •"^.-may` yi 1Gfil , v' 5 .1.4 i••' � , f 1 t r J�'-r til SW f .' t• /^� -rte -rte ✓ : µ rr �- B•' �s►APl•:"ia�W 7w 1.�f.t r�l ., 1 �., N /t ''. a ,' 1 . o 0 1�:E�. t a l gg 'f �" FII • • •►q01 { ' s 7 41 2 9 4 • c Ii. C›<4-�0 600Q,fO { "� i� t VICINITY MAF SCALE: 1" '- 800'• ,OWNER: Wes1ey.8roo,kman'•'. PRQPQS ,°D .- USES:' Single family resider:- �q4 _� 6o go ��s -. '. 3126 SE Gl dstorie ' , . � _ 3 t}ia1 houses. -_ --- 14z 1'ortlard;: Or:. 97202 , - : a. ci ••/96 1 6 68cz� APPLICANT: Dave mmett :: REQUIRED-. STANDARDS:.- i 1 t a ° N Ernimi ( � QO SW "M'urra l yd.' • t • ' _ . �, $ea•vertt�n, ': :i . ' 97005 0? and 2 fror:t. y I Qe' 111111 ® _• MI 'q' 61+1 0943 . .3 _ . ,ea 5 side yard • • 1'90o co ' _ 62...oto 6 • ENGINEER/ 10:1_,,-, N v°�'� 200 9eoo y reet side yard • �� 1 R.E: ''13a,�,e,roft ..n,cj Asso."e. : , . 1 5' • r.e•a,r, yard . ., ' : • _I '1_- M � = �-�, oo i�O .ids 3rd tv c � o >� w Z 0'.$0 sq'.. YtI min. lot size N __- ze Ii 11sboro 0 ?12/+ 3 _ - ,,.e. \s ,. r � 20• �` 6'l, -4101.,. �?9. ' .- max. lot coverage • • 00 L . ° c\�,.I _ , f;2o6 7000 � ,AttT LTG CQNSI T nm r 35 mad bui.lding,. height t_ o I .riI1T, •- - --1 � Ji cyan ( '�r? en 1 '�. stroet wid�iz • for o i� flag lab'• N l � • I. 9i----- 113'4 • E 23rd •Ave.. 1 Q I - pavement width. .ror one flag lot .. �!�' 3: Ha I1 s;bo-ro Qr 9'T1�� L_ _ ___1•1-°---t----- ti`'� 10 ° Sr.4p�1 .:, 25.1; street width for two flag 10s• • • k �� I sso4 ' - pavement' width for two flag lot's . zo,�.-. o ..�./ :-,� i� t , -Zrz SEWER: Ci t cad' T� garb 16.00 ,I 23001; P ��a. �.. ss :a : �i�srv►'. 2400 . : PAi/2.M, vlty v tog •r---=-``-� - 11 . ='�* E� r, �'�r - .t WAT Me•tzge �Ja Dint•. •- �2. $ 214 , - pall, 30,'. PUE. ,+'.�. • I CONT;OURS: City y of f .Ti`.gard rr '`" 4,;4% �L 4'• " N f-- r _ 21� 2 Resi den ti al at [,o�IC: - u .,„smog 240:77' 2..-is ' • • . • 21Z.--------r--7 .�� per -acre. a Zl1I'NG R • (- 1units : slot,, /� ` ~` / J+IoRTi�StUE 6,r ... ouT?}•t� E' 2300 j f ( 2zo • 2/4'� / Z{oo I Zs' 2 ! O . T_ . T • • • � ^ � Z .. .. i . . , . . fl �3oz •;1- - ,::: Z_ ....t • . .0 I '.0 , :. . . . I- I h` ! 0 117 - - L I Cr �tJttc17 T A -g4 ! -1 L j. V ? .E U 1.x.1 Al Y F'la�'C' . F-t�F;" . 7_Zo • • ,� I �cwtit 'tai_feb' 'Z'", ' �1,0't-' I - -- � ZOoct� oluww 3r Z 3©4 ,� 'S GO3 „tit: ..5•._ $4- AilaF' ;�S1 " 3:GA �iwla[h: •'rx� �' L_ I; � `',�- Z,g ;1:66 /4r-if-S.- P-- A+V� oI.� of t.or 2 w. ' �' • i 1r{.t�l.i fir. L... - ;